Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Baldur's Gate 3 vs Solasta comparison

I wished to have loved Kingmaker so much, though when I ended my only playthrough the sentiment was overall of confusion. Though the implementation was spot on, the kingdom management made the game a slog. Many times during the campaign I had no maps to explore and only kingdom management stuff to open the next chapter.

They kinda screwed up with RNG in my opinion. Many kingdom events didn't trigger and I barely got the legendary crafted items, even though I always play these games as a completionist.

Also, stat bloat. Even on normal enemies are far stronger than in the PnP. The game became a joke on Hard after a certain level beause I powerplay, but I imagine someone creating a flavor character on normal and not being able to beat chapter 1.

I agree, especially when again emphasizing that Owlcat, when they first pitched Kingmaker, had fewer than 20 employees, and even now remain a very small indie developer. As such, the fact that their sales of P:Km now almost match D:OS2 sales is truly astounding. I have no doubt P:WotR will give BG3 a solid run for its money. WotR is going to be awesome, the best successor to the IE games by a wide margin.

You really believe so?

So far, I've seen little-to-nothing in EA, that lends me to believe that Larian's version of BG3 is going to be much more than a faux-choices-matter experience trying to hide a pedestrian story on rails that takes no real consideration as to how the protagonist actually 'roleplays' their character.

Wizards and Larian had a chance her to move the genre forward, and do more with a story than has previously been done, and we just have more set-piece combats interspersed with some tedious dialogue that is supposed to serve as character exposition, but has no significant effect on story events.

Their hellbent focus on multiplayer has ultimately gimped any real roleplay or sense of player agency through choice affecting the story.

I do think so. I don't really see the hell bent focus on multiplayer that you mentioned. It was def there with DOS and DOS 2, but I think this is a more single player rpg experience. For me, honestly the game gives such a powerful Dragon Age Origins vibes that I find it hard not to love it. I love the story so far, and I found myself caring about the npcs (loving or hating them). And EA already has a huge fanbase so I am hoping for a commercial success as well for Larian.

About the story choices, I think it is really hard to make that kind of judgement based on the strippet of the first story arc.

What I am a bit bothered by and hope Larian will remedy, is the issue of custom made heroes and origin heroes. I think Larian did make progress on that front, but I think they need to work on it a bit more. Like, maybe a background related quest line available only to custom heroes, to better place them in the world.

But I am curious to hear your issue as well, what was that story moment that was in your opinion so lackluster? Did you play Solasta? Because there I was deeply disappointed by the strength of the writing...

From what I have understood not only does not food anymore heal Larian have made companions slightly more friendly.

I have only one complaint myself regarding (not story that is ok) the companions in BG3 that right now there are not what I would call GOOD alignment companions. Shadowhearth? Well are you kidding me she is Evil God follower and wants you to murder Lazael.

Lazael on the other hand I get where she is coming from and I spared her life. Lazael is like a Viking does look down upon weak characters shows no mercy towads weakness in fact Gityanki can plunder those races that are weak. That said Githyanki are sworn enemies to Mindflyers that they hate as ex slaves to Mindflayers. Lazael is strong fighter and she admires strongness and Action.

Will? Almost suicidal and comes best as Neutral...

The only thing I feel BG3 lacks in companions is a real good alignment companion, but that is easy to fix could be fixed in Act 2 for example.

Solasta? That is ultra linear. It does not matter how you try to play it there is no way you can change the mainstory.In Solasta there is no deeper commitment then the so called factions in Solasta that only provide items, crafting recipes and so on. Well and those factions are not in open war and try to kill each other on sight.

BG3 story is so far fine from what I have seen of course whole plot is early to tell since we have only seen Early Access and Act 1.
What do you mean there are no roleplaying choices in BG3? There are lots of choices you can join with Goblins or with Thieflings for example.

You can basically go lets kill the Goblins or the opposite no Goblins are great lets kill the Thieflings in BG3 and that is one example of roleplaying. I can not confirm this from Act 1, but I susperct that you could go hardcore even on no I want to become a Mindflayer. The absolute and Mindflayers are correct that is the solution!

I was not sayng I would choose that last route specially, but I told what I believe will be possible in BG3.

Well do not worry, Larian has explicitly said that they gave us the more evil characters first on purpose, since they wanted people to experiment with evil options. There are definitely good aligned characters planned, and we possibly could meet them in act 1 still. However I'll also say that I do think Wyll actually falls pretty close to the good alignment. Like, I think if he didn't have to worry about his devil's bargain, he'd be chaotic good most likely.

Regarding Solasta's story, I'm not sure that its linearity is a fair metric to judge it on. It was never trying to be anything other than linear, and branching paths aren't automatically better than a linear story. Which isn't to say that Solasta's story was great. I found it satisfying enough, but in the end it's pretty clear that the story is there to give you a reason to go adventuring, not to be a selling point of the game. Though I actually find the setting to be quite interesting and would genuinely enjoy seeing it explored more with a better-told story.

Thank you for this comment. I was just typeing out mine, but yeah The Good Guys are coming. Larian just wanted to test out their evil and neutral heroes first.
From this current set of characters, I would say Astarion is Chaotic Evil, Laezel is Lawful Evil, Shadowheart is Neutral Evil (maybe True Neutral), and Gale is True Neutral (almost Neutral Good, I reckon he is the only one with a level of basic human decency that the others lack, though he is def power hungry).

Wyll is funny alignment-wise. He is pretending to be Chaotic Good, but I would rather call him Chaotic Neutral. He is not a particularly bad person (like Astarion for example) but there is a fundamental falsehood about his personality.

I agree with you on the Solasta setting. I do enjoyed it and would definitely play in a Tabletop campaign placed there.

Gale is definitely not Neutral Good, he's far too self-absorbed for that classification. I peg him closer to True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral really.


I think another part of this extends to the BG3 companions too. The thing that's bothering me the most about the BG3 companions so far is that they are super laser focused on what is happening in the present and not much else beyond that, though this is understandable given how the plot and the entirety of act 1 is framed. But this is the same sort of thing that made the D:OS2 companions feel super one-dimensional, they never really interacted with each other and the character arcs aside from Fane were varying flavors of 'kill this dude here'. Fane was the most well received character for a reason, and we all know Fane was written by a guest writer who doesn't appear to be involved in BG3.

But even the plot framing reasoning only goes so far. Wrath of the Righteous is arguably much further along on the high stakes end of the world scale, but its cast of party members show a capacity to actually care about each other and interact with the world that they are a part of while they're adventuring with you, even if they don't necessarily like each other either. One gameplay example is that if you fail certain skill checks, some party members with the relevant background may jump in to resolve the situation on their own, instead of standing there watching you get into a potential trainwreck. Many of them do give off the impression that they care for you on a personal level too, instead of simply just being the party leader.

Early game WotR spoilers:


A lot of their writing really follows the 'show, don't tell' style of presentation. There is still plenty of telling, but they actually back it up through their actions and party interactions.

There is hope in that maybe the later acts will flesh the BG3 companions out more and that there will be opportunities to expand them beyond 'I have my own issues to deal with and I can't care about much else', but this uncertainty is going to persist all the way until full release with how Larian plans to structure the EA thus far. But there's not that much faith in this category either, as the impending ideas of them being origin characters + the possibility of most of them dying if they're not in the active party at the end of act 1 indirectly works against that. Plus, as you've said, the multiplayer focus removes a lot of the incentive to really put much more effort into this too.

Everything also being voice acted means that any alterations will turn out to be much more expensive too. It's a major indirect reason Pillars of Eternity 2's companions fell flat in the end, I remember there was an article interview saying that the dev team there didn't really work on the companion quests very much because those were very expensive. All this put together has made me accept that the BG3 companions will likely remain as they are, outside of Shadowheart as it's pretty obvious by now that she's the most plot-relevant out of all of them from the disproportionate focus on her this entire time.

I think this is a bit overly pessimistic. With every patch, we have seen remarkable improvements. Look at Patch 5 and Shadowheart's evolution. At first, I admit I didnt care for her at all, now I cannot imagine not bringing her along. There is still a long EA to go through. Companions will be improved upon.

I admit I was always lukewarm about Pathfinder companions. They don't elicit the same emotional respond that BG3 companions do. And I do think BG3 heroes have more layers than the immediate issue of the tadpole, all of them. I mean there is no real comparison in my opinion with any other recent crpg release, but I am glad that you enjoyed the Owlcat games.

On the point of them dying early, yeah it was the same structure with DOS2 and it didnt stop them to have a fully realized stories for all of their origin characters. It wont stop them now either.


I said almost.

There are some improvements, but I guess what I am trying to convey is that the BG3 companions can elicit a sort of emotional response, but they sort of come off as flashy while mistaking the idea of depth for the idea of mystery. The D:OS2 companions had a slightly different problem. With about half of them, you don't really learn anything new about them later on that you didn't already know from talking to them towards the beginning of the game (Beast in particular was so forgettable that he had to be re-written in the Definitive Edition).

There's a reason why we get a lot of fanart about the BG3 characters, but with the exception of Shadowheart, hardly anyone talks about their actual characterization beyond 'we don't know enough to judge them and/or they're hiding something from us'. So whatever depth they have now is largely limited to whatever they're keeping from us, and Larian putting all of their eggs into this basket could be a big mistake if the reality doesn't come close to matching the insane theories people are coming up for them. There's also a reason why Halsin is apparently more popular than some of our actual companions, though his appearance is a big part of it too.

I should probably break down my thoughts on each of the characters.

- Lae'zel: Member of a strong warrior race. I think she could be interesting as she clearly hasn't had the opportunity to see the world on her own just yet, so I won't pass judgement on her at this stage of the game.

- Shadowheart: The obvious favorite. I see her as someone who is basically a mix of Morrigan and Solas, the two most popular characters in the Dragon Age franchise. Unlike Morrigan though, the rest of the BG3 cast isn't yet strong enough to bring her to that same iconic level. Morrigan's interactions with the rest of the DA:O party helped her steal the show there - and that dynamic doesn't exist in BG3's party yet, if it is ever meant to.

- Wyll: Interesting enough that everyone isn't quite sure if he's supposed to be a Neutral or Good aligned character. But everyone's final opinions on him likely hinge entirely on exactly what his actual relationship between himself and the demon is.

- Gale: Not going to lie, I see way more people talking about what he might be, rather than anything he does as a current member of the party. Some of the theories I've seen go as far as to call him a reincarnation of someone that fought with Mystara in the past. He's the biggest question mark in the party, and also with the highest potential for disappointment here.

- Astarion: Seemingly has the most fanart of every character. Rather flamboyant and very self-serving, but other than that, we don't know much about him as an actual person beyond his vampiric traits. He's currently the odd one out in the party, really. He'll probably be less of an awkward character once we get the rest of the cast in - I imagine he might get along pretty well with the apparent werewolf bard character.

The major thing that makes me favor the Pathfinder companions more is that they are simple at first glance, but the more you travel with them and look at them more closely, it's apparent that they have layers of depth beneath it all that you can analyze by their behavior throughout the game, either witnessed or implied. They are also framed as characters that are a part of the world they are traveling in, instead of characters with stories that are so out there that the rest of the world is seemingly a blur in comparison, if that makes any sense.

I think a very direct comparison would be the dialogue you get in both games when selecting a party member and moving them around. In BG3, you get simple quotes either talking to themselves or responding to the party leader, such as how they're ready for combat or a neutral quip about their current predicament. In WotR, you get comments that are obviously directed to the rest of the party instead. It can still include quips about why the party is still standing around or that there are things to be done, but occasionally you get something that really reinforces a party member's personality and background, like someone questioning the gods, a self-deprecating joke, and so on.

That said, the above is a relatively new feature to BG3, so we'll probably get more variety later.

I don't think BG3's writing is bad by any means. I and I imagine many others just prefer the Pathfinder style by far.

I see your points.

I perfectly agree with your point on in-party dialogue and banter in BG3. There needs to be more bickering and commenting between the companions in dialogue, they shouldn't only react to the main character, but to each other as well. Though, I do think this is coming just yet in development.

When it comes to the companions:

Shadowheart: yes, 100% agreed on the Morrigan vibes, it is very intense for me as well. On the other hand, imo, she is a bit hard to pin down alignment wise because she has been brainwashed so much. . I am really curious about her story involvement going further into the story.

Laezel: Laezel is tricky. I dont like her personally, her being a huge bully and all, but her role in the narrative should be fascinating. .

Astarion: He is for me, is your standard serial killer. Everything about him, screams sociopath for me. Though I am not trying to shit on his fans, I love the thirst train that is going for him, good for them. For me, though, he is a walking talking red flag. Like, I wouldn't trust him with a dead gold fish, let alone with my pc's life. He just seems like the perfect backstabber, no pun intended.

Gale: Gale is interesting. I would place him True Neutral, but he is the only person so far in the party with at least a basic human decency. But also, he is a bit too smart for himself, so I could see him turning on us, if he concludes that is the rational path.

Wyll: Wyll is tricky. As I said, he pretends to be a really good guy, and maybe this is the most disturbing thing about him. Because his mask slips so often and so spectacularly. I am really curious to see his actual relationship revealed with his patron, cause I doubt he is being straight with that.

Halsin: I am not gonna lie, I am a stan for Daddy Halsin, but yeah he is a fricking thirst trap, of course people love him.

I found Pathfinder and their companions rather dull. Both Amiri and Valerie, for instance, are fundamentally stunning and brave (TM) feminist tropes subverting the oppressive norms of the patriarchy. The blatant forced ideology was unimmersive and made me less receptive for their actual personality. The Pathfinder companions generally felt like stereotypical caricatures, whereas Baldur's Gate 3's companions are diametrical opposites; edgelords tryharding to be unique all at once, all too soon. The individual uniqueness may feel a bit lost in a forest of uniqueness, and I suspect the Origin-system is partly to blame.

The BG3 companion roster would likely be better balanced with the inclusion of companions that are more straightforward - without making them boring. But the companions that we know are yet to be implemented; a "devil holy warrior" and a "howling bard", sounds like more of the same I must admit. Overly complex super special edgelords, that leaves me believe Larian isn't really considering how well the companions can contrast - yet still harmonize.

I generally liked the Pathfinder companions and I think you're doing Valerie in particular a disservice in your descriptions, and are letting surface level judgements blind you to the rest of their story. Amiri is the closest to being what you describe, I grant you, but I don't see how it's forced ideology in the slightest. If anything I would say it's the opposite and she's dealing with expectations that make perfect sense as existing within the setting. But with Valerie specifically, sure the idea of patriarchy is definitely a thing in the background, but it's very much not the main point of it. I would say that it's jut an inevetable reading that comes across as a result of her plot talking about beauty and expectations placed upon her as a result.

For starters with Valerie, her story is more the "chosen one rejecting their calling" trope. It's heavily implied that she is actually either chosen or at least actively touched by the goddess in question. She rejects the expectations put on her, but she's frankly a dick about it a lot of the time, and a little hypocritical. And that is explicitly a character flaw she has to get over throughout the story. And the attention from men she has to deal with is somewhat exagerated, but even in-universe it's noted as being over the top from what a normal woman could expect. And it's an exagerated version of interactions that are present and totally logical within the universe.

Amiri and Valerie aren't my favorite companions from Kingmaker (I find her story very interesting but I actually don't really like Valerie as a person) but I think they have a meaningful amount of depth and neither of them are bland. In my opinion anyway. You're not required to like them and I'm not gonna try any harder to convince you, but I wanted to give my perspective on them and on your reasononing.

Yeah, the other thing is that you are allowed to dislike some of the Pathfinder characters based on their ideology. In Kingmaker, you have Valerie as described. in WotR, you have Sosiel, a cleric of Shelyn that is probably the kind of person that drove Valerie away from the order to begin with, though he'd probably only do it indirectly at best as he tends to like to paint beautiful things in both a physical and spiritual sense. I imagine that if the two of them were to ever meet, I don't think it would end well.

On a different note, I already know some of the party members in WotR can be pretty irredeemable. They have reasons, but you obviously don't have to agree with them, and I'd think you're gonna catch side eyes from most well adjusted people for trying to take it any further than acknowledging that said reasons exist. Good thing there's such a large and varied cast that if you hate them enough to not include them in your party, there's like 10+ other characters to choose from.

But saying that they don't have depth is a real hot take. You don't really get analysis like the above post from most other cRPG companions. That style of writing doesn't really beat you over the head with every single detail, they just assume most people are smart enough to pick up on everything themselves.

It's funny, i wonder if the character of Ellen Ripley (from the movie series 'Alien' to anyone who doesn't know) was written in modern times would people think she's a "woke" character meant to subvert norms? I think you do a disservice to strong female characters to automatically assume they're supposed to represent the fight against the patriarchy. Maybe they are, i don't know, but to me they just seemed like strong, slightly abrasive characters. I didn't even particularly like either one of them.

I do completely agree with your assessment of the BG3 characters. I mean, it's like they took Harry Potter and Twilight with a dash of Game of Thrones to make these characters. Werewolf, Vampire, deal with the devil, exploding corpse guy, lost memories tsundere girl, etc...and Tav.

What sorry I do not understand? Do not talk about feminist thank you! I am ANTI feminst and I hate feminst! True feminst today hate today white men. This is why I will get woman from Asia. I have 2 friends that have marrige a woman from Asia and they are very happy that the women are not feminst.

I have not seen that BG3 or Solasta is any why specially feminist. I have not played Pathfinder 2.

Ellen Ripley goes so far beyond anything like that she makes woke seem as superficial as it actually is.

-She was written as a man.
-She saves male characters from being raped
-She is choregraphed during the final fight scene (which uses pornographic lighting and imagery) as penetrating the alien with a phallus.

All of this is intentional. Nobody has taken subversion to this extreme since that movie. Its one of the reasons Alien is explored in Film Classes.

This is what happens when you take something and create Art for the sake of Art and not worry about metrics.

This goes miles offtopic. I am a true ANTI FEMINIST to the core.

I dont think Ripley comes off as special feminist or shit woke movies Alien 1 or Alien 2 movies.
I have nothing against strong women IF they deserve it example my countrys best Karate Women a Champion that is the only FINN that has managed to get GOLD in Karate Premierleague (you can compare that to get gold in football Champions League). She also fight among BIG women heavy weight no maximum weight Karate Women!

Ripley is strong willed and brave yes to a reasonable amount. She uses modern weapons or equipment to defeat Aliens.
In Alien one she is hiding in the Escape ship and starts panting sexually sounds when in fear noticing there is the Alien in her escape ship and one can she her bare hips and legs when she is only underwear. While not a model far from it found her attractive in that scene.
Feminists hate truly any kind of adult content and would have never approved that scene with Ripley.

Alien 1 and Alien 2 are both great movies and as ANTI feminist I have nothing against them. I have nothing against Lazael as strong woman Fighter in BG3.

I think this isn't a great way of making your point (and it isn't really the right venue either) as it tends to generate more heat than light; let's get back on track, please.