Solasta - Winter Update / Patch Notes

Pladio said:

In another instance, The Witcher, the inability to make the character my own (i.e. Geralt is a womaniser and speaks like a brute) made it very hard to play, not to speak there's very little in the way of affecting the build due to having to play with a silver sword.

Click to expand...

That's actually not true at all. Geralt can be roleplayed via choices; particularly when it comes to taking sides or endeavouring to take a neutral route, a theme which appears in all three games. You're wrong that he's a womaniser as well, because he can be played completely celibate without romancing anyone. Even the third game has this choice despite how close Geralt comes to Triss and Yennefer in the narrative. If you played him as a womaniser, then that's on you, sorry. I've corrected so many people on this point over the years here at the 'Watch.

Also as far as affecting a build goes in the first game, there are options as far as what stances to master in, the various signs and the choice of stats to upgrade. (strength, intelligence, dexterity, stamina and intelligence). All of these are customisable and change the way Geralt can be played. So you're wrong on this. The fact that he's a set protagonist may give players problems in terms of attachment, but the idea that you can't change his "build" is nonsense. The silver sword is mechanically a part of the setting (required for monsters) and a key part of his arsenal, but there are other options and weapons to experiment with, especially in the sequels.

And seriously, sorry to beat up on you Plad, but a game with a D&D system isn't a roleplaying game? Doesn't sound like you've played too many D&D games to me. Goldbox games are still role-playing to me even if modernity has tended to shift the goal posts with what quantifies as an RPG. In short, I don't think you've made a very strong case for discounting Solasta's true RPG status, but I understand it's your perspective and individual definitions tend to prevail over more generally accepted ones.

Pessimeister said:

That's actually not true at all. Geralt can be roleplayed via choices; particularly when it comes to taking sides or endeavouring to take a neutral route, a theme which appears in all three games. You're wrong that he's a womaniser as well, because he can be played completely celibate without romancing anyone. Even the third game has this choice despite how close Geralt comes to Triss and Yennefer in the narrative. If you played him as a womaniser, then that's on you, sorry. I've corrected so many people on this point over the years here at the 'Watch.

Also as far as affecting a build goes in the first game, there are options as far as what stances to master in, the various signs and the choice of stats to upgrade. (strength, intelligence, dexterity, stamina and intelligence). All of these are customisable and change the way Geralt can be played. So you're wrong on this. The fact that he's a set protagonist may give players problems in terms of attachment, but the idea that you can't change his "build" is nonsense. The silver sword is mechanically a part of the setting (required for monsters) and a key part of his arsenal, but there are other options and weapons to experiment with, especially in the sequels.

And seriously, sorry to beat up on you Plad, but a game with a D&D system isn't a roleplaying game? Doesn't sound like you've played too many D&D games to me. Goldbox games are still role-playing to me games even if modernity has tended to shift the goal posts with what quantifies as an RPG. In short, I don't think you've made a very strong case for discounting Solasta's true RPG status, but I understand it's your perspective and individual definitions tend to prevail over more generally accepted ones.

Click to expand...

Sorry all your points on Witcher 2 or 3 make no sense to me since I didn't play them.

Regarding choice on build, the stances in the Witcher 1 are not choices. You get them from the start. You can improve them if you want but overall its simply big opponents slow stance, small opponents fast stance. It's not much more complicated than that for 99 percent of the encounters.

Regarding womanising, the choices to not womanise may be there but its simply pushed in your face to the point you get cards with naked women on them after having sex.

On the point of goldbox games, no I didn't play most of them as I didn't have access to them at the time.

I think it's ok for a définition of something to evolve over time.

Any game with a dnd ruleset does not make an rpg in my opinion. That's just combat rules basically. You could build a dungeon crawler with the dnd ruleset. To me that's not an rpg. It's a dungeon crawler.

Back to my point above, imagine a tabletop dnd game where the DM does not allow you to do anything but fight.

Not an rpg. Just a combat game.

Maybe in the 80s it would have been enough to be an rpg. To me it's not anymore.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Pladio said:

Sorry all your points on Witcher 2 or 3 make no sense to me since I didn't play them.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a shame then. You're missing out on some great choices and consequences. Whilst I didn't like the skill tree in W2 as much as the first game, it's still worth it for the branching narrative alone.

Pladio said:

Regarding choice on build, the stances in the Witcher 1 are not choices. You get them from the start. You can improve them if you want

Click to expand...

That sounds like a choice to me. My point is, you don't have to play the game in the black and white fashion you describe. You're able to freely distribute points between these skills after level up.

Pladio said:

Regarding womanising, the choices to not womanise may be there but its simply pushed in your face to the point you get cards with naked women on them after having sex.

Click to expand...

That's false equivalence though. The sensation of having something in your face doesn't make it so across the board. In any case, being aware that he can played in a different, non-womanising way is probably a good thing from the perspective of balance.

Pladio said:

On the point of goldbox games, no I didn't play most of them as I didn't have access to them at the time.

Click to expand...

No time like the present. GOG does a great job in this regard. I encourage you to play 'em, it'll give you a better appreciation for D&D combat.

Pladio said:

Any game with a dnd ruleset does not make an rpg in my opinion. That's just combat rules basically. You could build a dungeon crawler with the dnd ruleset. To me that's not an rpg. It's a dungeon crawler.

Click to expand...

Well, dungeon crawlers are a specific crpg subgenre. We'll have to agree to disagree if you don't see them that way. They're certainly still roleplaying games to me. Matt Barton would agree too - not to play an authority card of course.

Pladio said:

Back to my point above, imagine a tabletop dnd game where the DM does not allow you to do anything but fight.

Click to expand...

Ok, sounds like one of my DM mates in high school when I was playing 2nd Ed! He was most comfortable with tactics and large skirmishes. Our classes in the party often deterimined our roles on the battle-field. There was still some minor town and npc interactions, but we mostly fought in dungeons and went on quests. For me, that's still role-playing. (My character was a rogue incidentally…)

There is still dialogue in Solasta though, yes? Ways to influence story-telling? Choices & Consequences? Given it's EA, I'm not interested yet, but on the surface of it, a new D&D combat system outside of BG3 certainly intrigues me.

To be honest though, I think you'd be hard pressed to name a game that heavily uses D&D rules, that is not widely regarded as a cRPG.

Edit: Heroes of the Lance is pushing it! I never did complete that game.

Pessimeister said:

To be honest though, I think you'd be hard pressed to name a game that heavily uses D&D rules, that is not widely regarded as a cRPG.

Edit: Heroes of the Lance is pushing it! I never did complete that game.

Click to expand...

I did mention several times that this is my personal definition. I think calling every dnd game an RPG is way too broad and hampers the ability to pick games.

From my current playthrough of BG3 and Solasta, both in EA. I would definitely say BG3 is an RPG, whilst Solasta is not.
One is a battle simulator, the other actually allows me to play a role. I restarted the game 4 times in BG3 and I saw 3 different outcomes on multiple quests. I had different build paths. I had choice in how I approached not just quests, but also the gameworld. Etcetera.

Pessimeister said:

There is still dialogue in Solasta though, yes? Ways to influence story-telling? Choices & Consequences? Given it's EA, I'm not interested yet, but on the surface of it, a new D&D combat system outside of BG3 certainly intrigues me.

Click to expand...

There is a story, and there are dialogs, it's not heavy, and as mentioned in my previous post, not much in choices & consequences because of limited resources. The way dialogs flow changes a bit with the choices, but it's more style than substance.

Pladio said:

From my current playthrough of BG3 and Solasta, both in EA. I would definitely say BG3 is an RPG, whilst Solasta is not.
One is a battle simulator, the other actually allows me to play a role.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that a combat simulator, there are discoveries, opportunities to talk oneself out of combat. There's a main story, even though it's not as dense as other games (but BG3 doesn't have a dense main story either).

And there is no main character, you can actually roleplay the whole team if you like, though you'll need more imagination because the game doesn't provide a personal history, nor a lot of different faces, voices and hair lengths

Still, you can define the personality of each member and it will affect the dialogs somewhat. And while the companions don't have deep conversations on their past (you create them, after all), they do varied remarks on the adventure based on their personality - to a limited extent, it's a small dev team.

I would even argue that you could have more freedom in roleplaying in Solasta, because in BG3 the companions have their own pre-made history and classes, and their own like/dislike of one another. But granted, choices have bigger consequences, the scale of the two games is simply not comparable.

Pessimeister said:

To be honest though, I think you'd be hard pressed to name a game that heavily uses D&D rules, that is not widely regarded as a cRPG.

Click to expand...

I think the key is how much imagination you're ready to invest in style and substance. Some games make it easier on roleplaying by making the NPC and companion personalities more obvious. And some games really give you the tools to go further by giving significant consequences to your choices.

Is it necessary to roleplay? I suppose it depends on everyone's expectations, I don't pretend to give a universal definition of RPG. But it's good to know what everyone means by RPG, open-world game, and so on, to avoid any confusion