Way to little

  • 1
  • 2
sarge33rd
Level 12
1 month ago (edited)

You just don't get my point.  The "game", in this state is more like a budget title.  At this point, there is zero they can do to change my mind.  I gotten a refund because I don't believe in supporting something that is SO obviously lacking content.  There are plenty of games out there that you invest FAR more time into, this is not one of them.


No, we get your point. We simply find it devoid of value. We disagree ENTIRELY, with the very premise OF your point. In our minds, this renders your position untenable and indefensible.


AAA titles, where you can expect "100s of hours...", start at $59.95. This has been repeatedly on sale for sub $30. Your AAA title wont be $29.95 for 10 years or more. (Look at D3 still selling for $49.95 despite being almost a decade old) Your position, is based in the simple fact that you bought something without doing any looking at it first. Therefore, your expectations were never in line with what the devs openly promised to deliver. Your fault, not theirs. 

Silverquick
Level 9
1 month ago

On top of what Sarge just said... 

There is already a good 20-30 hours of content and the game hasn't even been released. 

With the Dungeon Maker I've already made 6 Quality Modules for about 2-3 hours more content each for another 12-18 hours more content, and that's before the game has even seen release, and that doesn't even include the 2-3 hours per module of content from other Dungeon Maker modules by other Creators. 

Once it does release... even if the Devs only put out 40 hours of content... (and it will likely be around 60 hours)... 


....with just what I've done... and gauging how much content came from NWN and NWN2... We're easily looking at a good 200+ hours of content game from people making Dungeon Adventures. 

Rokahn
Level 3
1 month ago

How much time you should be spending in a game based on the cost is very subjective. Personally, I think if you get one hour per €, that is a good enough investment for me. For games, that is low, but compared to other forms of entertainment, that tends to be very high (theme park, movies, concerts, ...).

The amount of time you can spend also depends on the style of game. For online multiplayer games, the amount of time you can spend on them is theoretically infinite. This game is a single player RPG, so by it's very nature the maximum time you can spend is more limited.

I have taken a look through my Steam library, and I happen to have KotOR 2, for which I have done a single playthrough. The game has 43h on record. I'm sure, if you were to look at similar games with a relatively rigid storyline, the amount of time for a playthrough would be similar. Other examples of this would be Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, ... With that in mind, I would say that Solasta scores ok.

Also note that there are games that do much worse. I have playthrough of Dishonored in 27h and one of Bioshock in 16h...

Having said that, I think there is an area where Solasta does fall short, and that is in replay value. There is not enough variation in the classes to make the playthroughs very different, unless you try an oddball idea like a 4 wizard party. The game really needs more classes to spice up replays.

And unfortunately, it looks like classes will be added in the form of DLC, which will make the game expensive... 

Okahey
Level 2
4 weeks ago

I am actually extremely impressed that the developers haven't fallen to design creep. I am glad they stayed to level 10 and to limited number of classes and sub classes. With limited time, funds etc, design creep can kill an endeavor faster than anything else. 

Even comparing games to games - WoW is fantastic value if you want to spend 40 hours a week playing games. But my leisure time is limited now, and I don't get that long to play - I certainly don't want to spend it grinding or doing dailies or whatever. I would much prefer a tight, well done experience that I can get through in a reasonable time. Reasonable, of course, is different to everyone, but I can say with certainty that I enjoyed the Alpha of Solasta much more than BG3 or Pathfinder WotR, both of which I have purchased and played. To be honest I probably spent more time on Solasta before I forced myself to put it down so as to not spoil the full release experience. 

I am spruking Solasta to anyone who I think would be vaguely interested and I feel no shame in doing that based on the price or length. To be fair the cost is fairly inconsequential to me - I don't have to make a choice between this and eating for example (as I have in the past) but I think it compares well to contemporary offerings on the price-length-quality balance.

I just hope they have pockets deep enough that the offering on May 25 or shortly there after is largely bug free. 

shout27
Level 8
4 weeks ago

I can see both sides of this argument and how both sides are both right and wrong. Frankly, for everyone talking about how closely they stick to 5e rules, they probably wasted a large chunk of money on one of their homebrew changes (Darkvision not working per base rules) before returning it to base rules.

My biggest problem with this game feels like it's going to be immersion/story. I see this deliberately paragon-ish setup for the entire campaign world revealed so far, what I consider to be a poorly implemented crafting setup, and deliberately spoon-fed story that doesn't allow for any meaningful choices of the player's... and well, it's kind of disgusting.

On the other hand, they breached ground that 90% of the rpgs that I've played never touched. Lighting rules and interaction, 3d dungeons that need athletics to traverse, spell components, etc.

So, keeping my verdict in reserve for the actual full length game. Even, though I'm actually expecting to be disappointed at release.

I honestly don't put much stock in designers that put more emphasis on race equality by kicking racial advantages in the nuts, than on the coherent and realistic telling of a story that can actually take place in a world of magic.



 



  • 1
  • 2