Solasta Solasta II - coming to Early Access in 2025

[Artyoan]

Over a decade ago I made fun of Jeff Vogel's opinions on difficulty.

I'd be curious to see if he still agrees with that initial blog post. It is from 2009 and if the Dark Souls series has taught me anything, it is that proper difficulty enhances every other aspect of the game. While I don't think crpgs match up entirely with a more skill based action game, the lesson about difficulty remains true. It should be capable of pushing the player and also play fair. Every advancement then becomes meaningful, which ingratiates the player to their own characters, choice of progression, the game lore/setting/plot, and even their own luck in managing it all.

A mindless grind is fine every now and then. But that tops out at an 8/10 game and it isn't what sticks with me over the years. Some frustration is a healthy thing. I think people are underestimating the 'normie' capacity for taking on some challenge.

 

[Mortmal]

Just going to repeat this:

Re: encounter design, I just want to say this - I think it's very possible for somebody reading this thread who hasn't played the game to get the impression that Solasta is some sort of repetitive trash mob fest. But it really isn't. Altogether, the game does not really have that much combat. There were many moments when I was going through a dungeon and thought to myself "Some other game would totally have plonked down a filler encounter here".

Compare Solasta with Dungeon Rats, for instance. A typical scenario like the fire ant tunnels will have you encounter three ants, then four ants, then even more ants, and finally the final battle against the ant queen. A pretty typical encounter progression scheme in an RPG.

In Solasta, there are often only two encounters in this sort of scenario. The goblins outside Caer Lem and the goblins in the cave. The spiders over the pillars and the spider queen.

Or take an elaborate dungeon like the Manacalon Ruin, a pivotal location in the story where your party obtains the game's titular MacGuffin, which has only three battles in it (and the first one vs the cultists outside is a quick cake walk).

Or how about the Cradle of Fire, Solasta's "orc caves" where you don't actually fight all that many orcs. There are exceptions that are more typical like the zombie and ghoul-infested Dark Castle, but I think the devs did make an effort to do things differently here.

I just think it's weird how some people give Solasta a particularly hard time for its encounter design. It doesn't stand out but it's not terrible either, we've all played worse.

Seems like a strawman to me. I've argued endlessly about why Solasta's encounter design ruins the experience - using arguments you usually support in principle, actually (content > system design).

Who has argued anything that sounds like "too many trash encounters"? Nobody. Solasta's encounter design is bad because it requires little thought or input.

Have you played Artyoan's mods? The difference between how the mod and Solasta proper uses the terrain features and systems in Solasta to produce interesting, thought-provoking engagements is plain as day.

For example, one of the first fights in Solasta involves an area that's very intersting on paper: you have to cross a divide and your only way across is a bunch of spaced out pillars. You have to navigate these pillars while fighting spiders able to climb on their sides.

I remember looking on my Spider Climb buffed Paladin stand sideways on the side of one of the pillars engaged with a spider thinking "this should be the most fucking cool thing ever, why isn't this cool?" And the answer was because the spiders, despite their superior movement abilities, posed almost no threat to the party. Their composition had no superiority in terms of action economy, placement or abilities, but were complete fodder.

That area alone shows Solasta's squandered potential perfectly. It is such a brilliant systems implementation used for nothing of worth at all.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I think it's important not to lose sight that the package had a lot of great things that made it worthwhile in the first place.

I'm usually the one defending OK games against binary Codex criticism of "either it's bad or it's the best thing ever." I just didn't enjoy Solasta at all

But now you have two big threads for trolling , grunking and hear yourself talk, which is most likely your greatest delight. So don't deny it—Solasta has finally given you some enjoyment.

See, this is why I nominate you for the butthurt awards <3

How is it being butthurt to rejoice in seeing a fellow codexer finally enjoying himself? Merry Xmas!

 

[Morality Games]

The vast majority of gamers don't even notice that games like Skyrim, Red Dead: Redemption, Grand Theft Auto, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc, etc, etc aren't very difficult, it never even occurs to them to look at the games in that light.

Of course I realize this. Doesn't change the fact that it's overall a bad thing for one of my favorite hobbies. It's a bad attitude for everything in life, in my opinion, and it promotes stagnation. I will always openly criticize it, but I'm generally surprised to encounter it on the codex, which is usually a haven away from such depressing normalcy.

The sort of tension between bread and circuses entertainment and genuine artistry is practically a pillar of civilization that writers and commentators have been bemoaning since before Pliny the Elder.

The time when PC gaming existed solely for the amusement of an extremely niche audience of a couple hundred thousand nerds who didn't mind if both their jobs and their hobbies were extremely technically demanding was a magical and wonderful time in the history of the hobby, but not one that is likely to be reproduced in the foreseeable future.

Tactical Adventures' situation is that they are one of a few studios in a unqiue position to capitalize on the new market opportunities left behind the wake of Baldur's Gate III where they can build a much larger, financially seucre, and much more famous studio than ever seemed possible (not that this is a foregone conclusion, but only that it is possible).

The logic in such a situation is (much like Josh Sawyer and Pentiment after the Microsoft acquistion), if you want to go back and put genuine artistry ahead of bread and circuses entertainment, you can always do it after you are rich and successful.

 

[Pink Eye]

You don't stay in business for long making high quality RPGs, just look at Iron Tower

VD has repeatedly said that Colony Ship sold more than AoD. It also sits at a mostly 80%+ rating on steam. The game resonates with actual RPG fans. As far as I'm concerned, Colony Ship *is* a success, period. The problem was that it didn't meet VD's financial expectations to secure the next game - that's the issue. Also, it's kind of disingenuous to use Iron Tower as an example against wanting quality RPGs when the studio barely gets any marketing - on top of having a super niche following. Colony Ship struggled in terms of attention throughout the entire Early Access period - that isn't a fault of the game but the fact that it had no marketing. Iron Tower is, and to quote VD: "A small stall in a giant gaming bazaar. Without exposure (media coverage, big YT names, Steam's front page, etc), this market of hundreds of millions shrinks to a quarter million players who know about the game (and might or might not be interested in it)."

That's the reality.

Iron Tower makes amazing RPGs. Those that do hear about them and play the games, have nothing but praise for them (again look at Colony Ship's steam user rating it speaks for itself); it's just that not a lot of people know about the studio. To further cement the point of marketing: Battle Brothers was recently covered by a german youtuber with a million subs, the game's visibility would sky rocket and it resulted in a ton of sales - the developers even dedicated a patch to commemorate the event.

It's not *just* about quality RPGs, it's also about breaking into the mainstream conscience. With marketing, you'll be throwing a bigger net that'll catch those dedicated players that may otherwise have not known about your game. Only reason why I even knew about Iron Tower to begin with is because of the Codex. Had I not been a user of this site I would never have known about AoD, Dungeon Rats, and Colony Ship - I would have missed out on three great RPGs simply because I wouldn't have known. That's the issue: not everyone uses the Codex and not everyone is going to know about the studio. It's all about attention and visibility, which is something Colony Ship struggled with.

The lack of visibility isn't due to the premise that people just want casual click simulators where they aren't challenged, it's simply because the game didn't get the attention it needed or deserved.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

I do not think Solasta was particularly difficult. I do think it made creative use (and, to be fair, actual use) of PC's skills. Casting dancing lights is both an environmental benefit and also a tool in combat, since undead fear light. For a time it was also the first DND crpg where flight was actually used in a non gimmicky manner. Solasta, then, is a good choice for people who like tinkering with character sheets.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Crispy it's Chinese Open World Turn Based RPG. Combat is gridless tho (high AP pool for free movement).

It's exactly what Solasta could be. Exploration is meaningful and not just busy works with secret quests and shit to find. The world also support sequence breaking to a degree.

A very good example on how open world TB CRPG could easily works

 

[scytheavatar]

Over a decade ago I made fun of Jeff Vogel's opinions on difficulty.

I'd be curious to see if he still agrees with that initial blog post. It is from 2009 and if the Dark Souls series has taught me anything, it is that proper difficulty enhances every other aspect of the game. While I don't think crpgs match up entirely with a more skill based action game, the lesson about difficulty remains true. It should be capable of pushing the player and also play fair. Every advancement then becomes meaningful, which ingratiates the player to their own characters, choice of progression, the game lore/setting/plot, and even their own luck in managing it all.

A mindless grind is fine every now and then. But that tops out at an 8/10 game and it isn't what sticks with me over the years. Some frustration is a healthy thing. I think people are underestimating the 'normie' capacity for taking on some challenge.

Making a difficult game is by itself a difficult task. The Souls games are difficult in a brilliant way, even normies can get good at them without needing much reaction and motor skills. Fromsoft is very good at teaching their players how to handle difficulty, if it is too bullshit just run past it.

What which makes the Souls games so successful is how simple their system is, yet how much depth they have been able to extract out of it. It will not be as easy for a D&D game to achieve the same thing.

 

[Harthwain]

The vast majority of gamers don't even notice that games like Skyrim, Red Dead: Redemption, Grand Theft Auto, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc, etc, etc aren't very difficult, it never even occurs to them to look at the games in that light.

That's because in these games difficulty as such isn't the goal, like it is in tactical games (the whole point of tactical games lies in beating its encounters). In all the games you mentioned it is about exploring the vast open world, which gives the player the sense of freedom and exploration.

 

[TumblingTorin]

The talk about making sure the player can defeat an encounter just reminds me of similar problems in tabletop. The idea that you have to be able to kill any enemy you see. In older editions of DnD, combat was a last resort you want to do as the rewards as the XP you gain was little compared to the XP you get from treasure. You could potentially go through an area without a fight and still get enough XP to level up.

Newer edition made the main way of getting XP is from killing enemies so now players always want to try to fight any encounter they see and they get pissy if they think an encounter is too hard. Shit going south? Gotta fight until your last breath, no running away! Gotta get that XP! No wonder a lot of DMs are just leveling up players based on sessions nowadays. The desire to kill everything makes it harder to do something like say, in Elden Ring where the devs put a powerful monster in the starting area that you are meant to avoid until later unless you are good at the game. And even if you pick a fight with it, running away is always an option. CRPGs very rarely allows or makes it hard for the player to run from battles.

Which also bleeds into how punishing dying was in Solasta. One character fail all their death saves? Better have a revive scroll or it's GAME OVER. This harshness force the devs to have to make all encounters managable, because they can't have a single party member dying without risking a game over.

 

[Nortar]

CRPGs very rarely allows or makes it hard for the player to run from battles.

You make a good point, but the same argument works in both ways.
It is extremely rare to see enemies fleeing from battle they are losing.

When you slay a pack of hungry wolves, they would fight to the last drop of blood as if their canine honor forbids them retreating and seeking easier prey.
A high level wizards would cast all kinds of shit except the basic "invisibility + dim-door the fuck out".

In my tabletop days we had to be inventive and make elaboreate plan to make sure smarter enemies (especially "bosses") won't escape.

The last good implemention of this I remember in was BG2 when vampires would turn into mistand flee to hide in their coffins, so you had to find and finish them off with stakes. But I guess nowdays this would be way too frustrating for modern players to be cheated out of their victory and loot.

 

[mediocrepoet]

CRPGs very rarely allows or makes it hard for the player to run from battles.

You make a good point, but the same argument works in both ways.
It is extremely rare to see enemies fleeing from battle they are losing.

When you slay a pack of hungry wolves, they would fight to the last drop of blood as if their canine honor forbids them retreating and seeking easier prey.
A high level wizards would cast all kinds of shit except the basic "invisibility + dim-door the fuck out".

In my tabletop days we had to be inventive and make elaboreate plan to make sure smarter enemies (especially "bosses") won't not escape.

The last good implemention of this I remember in was BG2 when vampires would turn into mistand flee to hide in their coffins, so you had to find and finish them off with stakes. But I guess nowdays this would be way too frustrating for modern players to be cheated out of their victory and loot.

One of the biggest ones to me is why does a dragon (or similar) not just fly away if the battle is turning against it?

Dragon's Dogma (and 2) actually deals with this by putting on various battle timers where the thing will just take off if you don't beat it before then or if you start winning but aren't quick enough to disable its wings/knock it over, etc.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

CRPGs very rarely allows or makes it hard for the player to run from battles.

You make a good point, but the same argument works in both ways.
It is extremely rare to see enemies fleeing from battle they are losing.

When you slay a pack of hungry wolves, they would fight to the last drop of blood as if their canine honor forbids them retreating and seeking easier prey.
A high level wizards would cast all kinds of shit except the basic "invisibility + dim-door the fuck out".

In my tabletop days we had to be inventive and make elaboreate plan to make sure smarter enemies (especially "bosses") won't escape.

The last good implemention of this I remember in was BG2 when vampires would turn into mistand flee to hide in their coffins, so you had to find and finish them off with stakes. But I guess nowdays this would be way too frustrating for modern players to be cheated out of their victory and loot.

Always fun to remind everyone that the Gold Box games, starting in 1988, would have enemies flee a losing combat, with some resemblance to the morale rules that have existed in Dungeons & Dragons since the beginning (and were present in the Chainmail Rules for Miniatures before that). Yet another feature that is apparently too difficult to implement for our Current Year AAA CRPGs, each made by hundreds of people over a period of several years.

 

[0sacred]

Always fun to remind everyone that the Gold Box games, starting in 1988, would have enemies flee a losing combat, with some resemblance to the morale rules that have existed in Dungeons & Dragons since the beginning (and were present in the Chainmail Rules for Miniatures before that). Yet another feature that is apparently too difficult to implement for our Current Year AAA CRPGs, each made by hundreds of people over a period of several years.

Reminder that his much shunned BG1&2 had morale

 

[Roguey]

Always fun to remind everyone that the Gold Box games, starting in 1988, would have enemies flee a losing combat, with some resemblance to the morale rules that have existed in Dungeons & Dragons since the beginning (and were present in the Chainmail Rules for Miniatures before that). Yet another feature that is apparently too difficult to implement for our Current Year AAA CRPGs, each made by hundreds of people over a period of several years.

Those had a higher level of abstraction, it seems like it'd be tricky to do this in a way that wouldn't come across as silly in a modern game.

Also if you don't get the full xp for killing them, people will revolt.

 

[Mortmal]

Always fun to remind everyone that the Gold Box games, starting in 1988, would have enemies flee a losing combat, with some resemblance to the morale rules that have existed in Dungeons & Dragons since the beginning (and were present in the Chainmail Rules for Miniatures before that). Yet another feature that is apparently too difficult to implement for our Current Year AAA CRPGs, each made by hundreds of people over a period of several years.

Those had a higher level of abstraction, it seems like it'd be tricky to do this in a way that wouldn't come across as silly in a modern game.

Also if you don't get the full xp for killing them, people will revolt.

They might not get full XP for the encounter, but they were still getting full XP for the treasures. Some OSR systems are also balanced around awarding XP only for treasures. This is a completely different system that cannot be applied to Solasta 1 or 2 in a satisfying way. Encounters in such systems are very lethal, with fewer hit points and morale checks triggered if enemies are downed in the first round or when half of them are defeated. However, this introduces an entirely new stat in the stat blocks and requires a DM's gentle hand to balance everything on the fly.
In contrast, systems like AD&D 2e and BECMI take a very different approach, where it was often better to avoid playing fair or to sidestep encounters altogether, an approach that is ill-suited for video games if the goal is faithful adaptation. Nevertheless, such a system would almost certainly be a lot more fun to play.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.solasta-game.com/news/186-happy-holidays-adventurers

Happy Holidays, Adventurers​

Community Stream #02 Friday 27th

For those of you who are still around, join me for a cozy Community Stream on Friday 27th - where I will be sharing development anecdotes and answer more questions from viewers. Grab a cup of hot cocoa, wrap yourself in a blanket and let’s have a little chat!

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

In contrast, systems like AD&D 2e and BECMI take a very different approach, where it was often better to avoid playing fair or to sidestep encounters altogether, an approach that is ill-suited for video games if the goal is faithful adaptation. Nevertheless, such a system would almost certainly be a lot more fun to play.

The first five editions of D&D/AD&D all took the approach of awarding experience points primarily for treasure and only secondarily for defeating enemies, which, as you've described, generate incentives for the players to develop creative solutions to obtaining treasure. AD&D 2nd edition relegated treasure XP to an optional rule, while adding XP awards for "completing a story goal" or "completion of an adventure", as well as a set of ill-conceived "individual class awards", such as 100 XP to a thief or bard for every successful use of a special ability, and optional "individual experience awards" for player performance; although this could still create incentives to avoid combat, it is less clear than in the earlier system.

 

[JarlFrank]

Over a decade ago I made fun of Jeff Vogel's opinions on difficulty.

I'd be curious to see if he still agrees with that initial blog post. It is from 2009 and if the Dark Souls series has taught me anything, it is that proper difficulty enhances every other aspect of the game. While I don't think crpgs match up entirely with a more skill based action game, the lesson about difficulty remains true. It should be capable of pushing the player and also play fair. Every advancement then becomes meaningful, which ingratiates the player to their own characters, choice of progression, the game lore/setting/plot, and even their own luck in managing it all.

A mindless grind is fine every now and then. But that tops out at an 8/10 game and it isn't what sticks with me over the years. Some frustration is a healthy thing. I think people are underestimating the 'normie' capacity for taking on some challenge.

Vogel's recent games are completely boring in their encounter design, it's just slogging through copypasta encounters that don't do anything interesting, so yeah I think he still thinks like he used to.

He also fell in love with modern Bioware design around the time he made Avadon and the encounter design in that series is just as horrendous as it is in Dragon Age.