Solasta - Review @ PC Gamer

JFarrell71 said:

Careful, Wolfgrimdark, you'll be marked as a fake RPG enthusiast and an imposter on the site by the grand arbiter of pretension himself with a post like that.

Click to expand...

Personal insults, huh?

And to think, you're so big on 'well constructed narratives'. Oh, the irony.

I'm guessing this discussion goes back to the old discussion: What is an CRPG (or maybe what type of RPG one prefers)? Some people only think it's about battle roles, others about playing a role in other ways. We've had this discussion endlessly before.


I'm going to start another discussion:

I've never liked the battle system in DnD. It's always been about depleting HP and a character is as capable near death as fresh. What it has going for it, in my opinion, is that it's reasonably easy to understand and it's fast, the last point being important in tabletop RPG campaigns heavy in combat.

I've always liked systems more with in depth injury simulation, depending on what type of damage a weapon does, and damage to limbs. Where HP is more of a pain or bleeding threshold.

I thought Fallout had a good lite version of limb damage, and enjoyed the battles all the more because of that. It not only made certain sense and added choice, it also made skill progression more meaningful since aiming also decreased to-hit chance. It felt awesome to have 95% hit chance on the eye when the skills were high enough.

wolfgrimdark said:

I like games to escape, make my own characters, explore, do quests, have companions, and do many things besides combat.

Click to expand...

Sure, who doesn't?

Solasta has all those things. As do lots of games.

I think that whenever I play any game I 'escape' into it. You can escape into pong or tetras. The whole concept of escaping into a game will always be entirely unique to each individual, but each individual escapes into every game they like. You'd have to define this in more detail if it is to have any sense as a communication point.

Yes, RPGs are good for making our own characters. I'd say the best ones really shine at this point. In this department Solasta is leagues 'better' than, say, Witcher 3. Or many others.

Exploration is a funny one, as, again, it's about definition. Any new content is explorable content. To explore = to see something new. AFAICT, the whole point of Solasta is that you play as a group of explorers. So, again, a more useful definition would be required here.

Yes, it has quests. Quests are quite common in a lot of games. Usually more associated with RPGs, but not exclusive to them. You could even argue beating a high score in Tetras is a 'quest' if one was so determined.

Companions are a funny one. Again, often associated with RPGs, but are common in all kinds of games. There's a fine line between a companion and an escort mission, for example. Elder Scrolls, for example, doesn't really 'do' companions, but I believe you're always quick to play those ones.

The whole "doing things besides combat" is an interesting one, as, for sure, I've played Solasta for 12.5 hours now and have only had about 2 or 3 hours of that in combat, so I assume I've been doing 'things beside combat'. The devil's in the detail really. What do you mean by 'other things'?

SveNitoR said:

I'm guessing this discussion goes back to the old discussion: What is an CRPG (or maybe what type of RPG one prefers)?

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. None of my posts or the replies relate to that question.

SveNitoR said:

I'm going to start another discussion:

I've never liked the battle system in DnD. It's always been about depleting HP and a character is as capable near death as fresh. What it has going for it, in my opinion, is that it's reasonably easy to understand and it's fast, the last point being important in tabletop RPG campaigns heavy in combat.

I've always liked systems more with in depth injury simulation, depending on what type of damage a weapon does, and damage to limbs. Where HP is more of a pain or bleeding threshold.

I thought Fallout had a good lite version of limb damage, and enjoyed the battles all the more because of that. It not only made certain sense and added choice, it also made skill progression more meaningful since aiming also decreased to-hit chance. It felt awesome to have 95% hit chance on the eye when the skills were high enough.

Click to expand...

Now this post makes sense. You prefer Game A's method of combat over Game B's. Can't argue with that. But then if you don't like D&D combat, what motivates you peruse all the D&D threads?

I tend to ignore all the Bethesda threads, for example & only join them if a general debate emerges from them that relates to the wider topic of RPGs. But you seem to not be enjoying that particular debate here either & instead just want to state you don't like D&D mechanics & seemingly start a conversation about that, which is fine, but you don't need to premise such a point by inferring you're doing it to 'get away' from someone else's conversation, you can just make that point in abstract.

lackblogger said:

Now this post makes sense. You prefer Game A's method of combat over Game B's. Can't argue with that. But then if you don't like D&D combat, what motivates you peruse all the D&D threads?



I tend to ignore all the Bethesda threads, for example & only join them if a general debate emerges from them that relates to the wider topic of RPGs. But you seem to not be enjoying that particular debate here either & instead just want to state you don't like D&D mechanics & seemingly start a conversation about that, which is fine, but you don't need to premise such a point by inferring you're doing it to 'get away' from someone else's conversation, you can just make that point in abstract.

Click to expand...

I like the combat system enough to find games with it interesting if other parts of the game are to my taste. I wouldn't however play a completely combat focused game with DnD combat.

Why do you think I want to get away from the discussion? You seem to interpret my post in a way which I did not intend.

SveNitoR said:

Why do you think I want to get away from the discussion? You seem to interpret my post in a way which I did not intend.

Click to expand...

Because you wrote a false interpretation of the debate and then said "I'm going to start another discussion:"

I'm not sure how else one could interpret that. No matter the verbal gymnastics.

SveNitoR said:

I like the combat system enough to find games with it interesting if other parts of the game are to my taste. I wouldn't however play a completely combat focused game with DnD combat.

Click to expand...

What D&D games have ever not been entirely combat focused that were also to your taste to your wider sense?

SveNitoR said:

I've never liked the battle system in DnD. It's always been about depleting HP and a character is as capable near death as fresh.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was something I never cared for either. If your 50 hp fighter has taken 49 points of damage he's still raring to go. One more scrape and he's out. IIRC Gygax explained this by saying that hit points represented all sorts of things, not just bodily integrity: luck, blows dodged or blocked, etc, etc. It still didn't seem very interesting to me. I always preferred Runequest.

Now, you could go too far in the other direction. (Looking at you, Rolemaster)

JFarrell71 said:

Yeah, that was something I never cared for either. If your 50 hp fighter has taken 49 points of damage he's still raring to go. One more scrape and he's out. IIRC Gygax explained this by saying that hit points represented all sorts of things, not just bodily integrity: luck, blows dodged or blocked, etc, etc. It still didn't seem very interesting to me. I always preferred Runequest.

Now, you could go too far in the other direction. (Looking at you, Rolemaster)

Click to expand...

Why does any combat system interest you if you're not interested in combat?

lackblogger said:

Because you wrote a false interpretation of the debate and then said "I'm going to start another discussion:"



I'm not sure how else one could interpret that. No matter the verbal gymnastics.

Click to expand...

My comment was on the review and how different people have replied here. Most people enjoy it despite the mediocre story, visual representation of characters and voice acting. Some people don't or doubt they would since one or more of those things are important to them.

My second part was more to explain what I'd like to see in a game and to see if there are others who want to discuss the combat system in itself.

As to games I like with DnD-like combat: The most prominent ones are BG2 (to some degree BG1, but the story wasn't as good), NWN 2 (especially the lat expansion), Pathfinder Kingmaker (though it got too long and the story wasn't good enough for me to enjoy it all the way through). They are mostly RTWP, though I've enjoyed TB combat sometimes. I can't think of any at the moment,though.

I do enjoy turn based combat in general and love many turn based strategy games. Maybe I'll like this one, though more focus on story would probably increase the chance.

JFarrell71 said:

Yeah, that was something I never cared for either. If your 50 hp fighter has taken 49 points of damage he's still raring to go. One more scrape and he's out. IIRC Gygax explained this by saying that hit points represented all sorts of things, not just bodily integrity: luck, blows dodged or blocked, etc, etc. It still didn't seem very interesting to me. I always preferred Runequest.



Now, you could go too far in the other direction. (Looking at you, Rolemaster)

Click to expand...

Lol, I loved Rolemaster's combat system, but man is it slow (and a bit too random).

I like when computer RPGs implement things like that, since all the heavy calculations are done quickly then.

SveNitoR said:

The most prominent ones are BG2 (to some degree BG1, but the story wasn't as good), NWN 2 (especially the lat expansion), Pathfinder Kingmaker (though it got too long and the story wasn't good enough for me to enjoy it all the way through).

Click to expand...

BG2 didn't have a very strong or engaging story. You spend very little of the game involved in the main plot. People found that game narratively interesting because of all the constant companion chatter and, probably more importantly, the opportunity to romance companions. This isn't story. BG2's story is as equally bare bones as any other cRPG, something you occasionally engage with as a means to progress.

BG2 was also a very combat focused game, in that pretty much every avenue you chose led to combat of some sort or other in order to progress or complete a stage. I honestly couldn't imagine someone who disliked D&D combat making it through BG2.

lackblogger said:

BG2 didn't have a very strong or engaging story. You spend very little of the game involved in the main plot. People found that game narratively interesting because of all the constant companion chatter and, probably more importantly, the opportunity to romance companions. This isn't story. BG2's story is as equally bare bones as any other cRPG, something you occasionally engage with as a means to progress.

BG2 was also a very combat focused game, in that pretty much every avenue you chose led to combat of some sort or other in order to progress or complete a stage. I honestly couldn't imagine someone who disliked D&D combat making it through BG2.

Click to expand...

In my opinion it had an engaging main plot, being both epic and personal, though as you say a lot of the game isn't focused specifically at it. I haven't played it in a long time (though I plan to play it again before BG3 comes out), so I don't know how I'll like it this time. The presentation was good and the villain was very well done in my opinion. And yes, the banter between companions was great for the time and the romance possibility made me experience it as more "alive".

Indeed it was combat focused, but the story was good enough to make me want to know what would happen next and slog through the parts I didn't enjoy.

Edit: I don't dislike the combat as much as not find it very engaging after a while. I misspoke (miswrote?) earlier about disliking it. I just find some other systems a lot more engaging. However I haven't played any game with the latest iteration of DnD, so maybe I'll like it more.

SveNitoR said:

Edit: I don't dislike the combat as much as not find it very engaging after a while. I misspoke (miswrote?) earlier about disliking it. I just find some other systems a lot more engaging. However I haven't played any game with the latest iteration of DnD, so maybe I'll like it more.

Click to expand...

The version of D&D may have an impact. I'm used to more recent ones, and playing 2nd Edition felt very bare. There's this THAC0 feature, and also tiny QoL things in BG like having to give up spell slots to cast Identify, my party was always carrying a bunch of unidentified gear because I was always out of slots. Or the small inventories, which isn't really a D&D version issue but still something that makes combat and loot more tedious.

I liked it, but I prefer a richer and more coherent 5th Edition (or even 3rd), its ritual option for spells like Identify, Detect Magic, … , and all the niceties of a modern interface. That makes the combats and the out-of-story gameplay more engaging, so even if the story is lighter, it more easily goes unnoticed.

That's my preference, I know it's the other way round for others, just saying the edition may have an influence on how we perceive the overall experience.

SveNitoR said:

Lol, I loved Rolemaster's combat system, but man is it slow (and a bit too random).

I like when computer RPGs implement things like that, since all the heavy calculations are done quickly then.

Click to expand...

I was fascinated by all of that as a younger man. All those intricate critical/wound tables. Spell Law. All of the character creation options in the various companions. It's one of the few RPGs that I ever used to just make characters for fun. But I can't imagine actually playing/running the thing. I don't know about you, but I've been in a lot of gaming groups where even D&D fights took forever.

Redglyph said:

The version of D&D may have an impact. I'm used to more recent ones, and playing 2nd Edition felt very bare. There's this THAC0 feature, and also tiny QoL things in BG like having to give up spell slots to cast Identify, my party was always carrying a bunch of unidentified gear because I was always out of slots. Or the small inventories, which isn't really a D&D version issue but still something that makes combat and loot more tedious.

I liked it, but I prefer a richer and more coherent 5th Edition (or even 3rd), its ritual option for spells like Identify, Detect Magic, … , and all the niceties of a modern interface. That makes the combats and the out-of-story gameplay more engaging, so even if the story is lighter, it more easily goes unnoticed.

That's my preference, I know it's the other way round for others, just saying the edition may have an influence on how we perceive the overall experience.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. Sounds like they make good changes from my point of view. I'm looking forward to learning more when I eventually play this (and other DnD 5th edition games).

JFarrell71 said:

I was fascinated by all of that as a younger man. All those intricate critical/wound tables. Spell Law. All of the character creation options in the various companions. It's one of the few RPGs that I ever used to just make characters for fun. But I can't imagine actually playing/running the thing. I don't know about you, but I've been in a lot of gaming groups where even D&D fights took forever.

Click to expand...

I actually used to run a few different campaigns in Rolemaster during my teenage years, and it was really fun, but one big fight could take an entire day. Like you say, the sheer immensity of choice made making characters really fun. I used to make full fledged characters 2ven for some non-important NPCs just because it was so fun.

Don't think I could play it again, due to time constraints of adult life, but I'm still reading about it now and then.

wolfgrimdark said:

I suspect I will get it at some point if nothing else is on my radar but I am far more excited about WotR and BG3 final releases coming out. Those two games are a blast to play in all areas and have very nice visuals and mechanics, great story, and really satisfy my gaming itch.

I am glad Solasta is doing well - if they sell a lot then maybe the next game will be a bit richer in features and visuals. Plus more variety is good - gives more options for people to find a game they really enjoy.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I do enjoy Solasta, a lot. For me it came out of the left field. The first time I heard of it was on release day. Checked it out because I could (XBox Gamepass was still active this month). Got intrigued by the character creation, researched the 5E rules, started playing, and now I get the "just one more area" feeling late at night.

Comparing it to Pathfinder: Kingmaker or maybe D:OS 2, which were the last party based RPGs I played - Well, I'm not sure they can be compared, really. They are different beasts.

Solasta feels a lot like a Blobber, at least that's the vibe I'm getting. Full custom party, dungeon-romping, relatively linear in terms of progression, fairly "authentic", every so slightly dreadful atmosphere. Of course, it can't really be compared to Blobbers either, because of it's focus on tactical gameplay as well as character and story presentation. But still.

I love the unique way the story is told, through my characters. I get to see them interact as a group of adventurers, in full view, all the time. They each have different, fitting voices. Sure, objectively speaking it's not an AAA presentation, but it doesn't need to be. For what it is, it's just fine.

Last, but not least, the pretty faithful D&D rules implementation. This is another strength in this case. I have actually never played P&P - nor did I every play a CRPG that adhered to the original rules to this degree. Seeing it in action, including how the different pieces go together, I can say that it does work even in a video game and I'm having fun with it. It seems as if Solasta was made with this in mind from the get-go, which makes it, as a game, a unique Dungeons & Dragons experience.

Take resting for instance. In Baldur's Gate 1/2 having to rest to recharge wizard spells always felt like a clutch to me. That was probably because the game itself was paced and played differently, with RTwP and all. In Solasta, it feels natural. Baldur's Gate 3 has some fundamental rule changes for now, from what I've seen, which is a pity, because in their essence the rules themselves are there for a reason. Change one thing and all the other pieces don't fit that well anymore. On the other hand, Larian have a different gameplay focus, for various other reasons, so some homebrew rules are undoubtedly necessary to make the whole experience coherent. Looking forward to how it all plays out.

D&D rules aren't perfect all the time either, so there's that. Off the top of my head, Clerics can normally only wear medium armor in 5E; Life Clerics are allowed to wear Heavy Armor. Thematically that makes no sense to me, I'd have thought heavy armor would fit more with a combat oriented Cleric. I would have preferred the other direction, like the Ecclesitheurge from Pathfinder who wear neither shield nor armor. Anyway, this was done apparently because during playtesting it was found that Life Clerics died too often. Fair enough. Still I don't like the theme, which is why I ultimately switched my Cleric from Life to Sun. That, and the fact that I like armor diversity in my party.

Well, seems like I digressed a bit.

In summary, yeah, different strokes for different moods.

wolfgrimdark said:

I love CPRG and been playing them for ages. But I am not a big fan of combat as the main reason to play a game. How much I get out of combat depends on so many factors involving style, mechanics, methods, character classes, visuals, and on and on.

I like games to escape, make my own characters, explore, do quests, have companions, and do many things besides combat. I have Solasta wish listed but have not picked up yet as it sounds like combat and tactics, and sticking to the P&P rules, are its main strong points and all three of those are lower on my importance rating of whether I would enjoy a game or not.

I suspect I will get it at some point if nothing else is on my radar but I am far more excited about WotR and BG3 final releases coming out. Those two games are a blast to play in all areas and have very nice visuals and mechanics, great story, and really satisfy my gaming itch.

I am glad Solasta is doing well - if they sell a lot then maybe the next game will be a bit richer in features and visuals. Plus more variety is good - gives more options for people to find a game they really enjoy.

Click to expand...

Fraud I know we both like Skyrim and if that game had the D&D rules and creatures, I think it would be my favorite game ever. Fighting a Mindflayer in Skyrim with a Paladin, Yes Please.