Anyone else sick of squad based RPGs?

[smallthemouse]

I honestly could not enjoy Dragon age 1 or 2 because of the requirement of party members everywhere you go. Same goes for Mass Effects, but I thought it was a little more bearable because of the visuals, combat and setting.

I loved KOTOR because of the fact that you COULD bring your party members with you on missions, but you can also go solo.

It seems (to me) very hard to take on a role in a role playing game where you can literally jump from character to character in combat (Mass Effect did a better job by not letting you take direct control, preserving the "I am Shepard" mentality).

I feel that I have to really connect with the character in an RPG, and I felt nothing like that with the Dragon Ages.

What do you think?

edit: incidentally, my favorite RPG ever is The Witcher, not squad based, no black and white decisions, and a badass and voiced protagonist

 

[Irridium]

To be honest, I don't mind. Although I wish there was at least just one mission where I could take all my allies, and we could go on a totally bitchin' mission together.

Kind of like during the climax of DA:O, where you and all your allies attack the gates of Denerim. Only you can control them as well. And they banter with each other while fighting.

Just once I would love to do that.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I haven't played a truly solo WRPG in awhile, myself. Kinda getting sick of all the talking...Bioware overdose, I suppose.

 

[smallthemouse]

I haven't played a truly solo WRPG in awhile, myself. Kinda getting sick of all the talking...Bioware overdose, I suppose.

Really? Fallout? The Witcher, Elder scrolls? Fable?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The last truly "solo" RPG I played was New Vegas. But I'll stick to my squad, thank you. Tartarus runs would get pretty lonely without my peeps.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Squad based ones are better, in my opinion, and there are many more that are not squad based. Tactics is always a great thing.

 

[The Madman]

Yeah all... erm... three of em? Let's see, there's Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and... um...

Well, as far as games released in the past couple years go, that's really about it in the 'western rpg' market aside from some more niche titles like Drakensang.

 

[Worgen]

I dont mind squad based but Im tired of only being able to take a small squad and having all the others just jacking off back in the camp

 

[Dr Spaceman]

No...

I've always preferred the party based RPGs. I like having characters that are really specialized in certain areas. KOTOR felt weird to me at first only having 3 characters since I'd started really getting into RPGs through Baldur's Gate. Solo RPGs are fun, but I always feel like I can't specialize a character too much or I'll miss out on something.

 

[baconsarnie]

If the whole team came along and they sorted themselves out with everything according a basic layout that the player could set then that would be fine, as long as they weren't completely useless.

 

[mikespoff]

I like party-based RPGs - you get a lot more flexibility with your protagonist.

Most good RPGs are worth multiple playthroughs - by choosing different allies, you can use a totally different spec on your main character and still make it through the game.

 

[ultrachicken]

I think that both squad based and non squad based RPGs have their own merits. I enjoy them both.

 

[mireko]

No.

One of the main reasons I play RPGs is because I enjoy the characters, so it wouldn't make any sense for me to do away with them.

That said, I usually solo sandbox-style WRPGs, but that's just because they very rarely give me any characters worth caring about (New Vegas being a HUGE exception). Of course, in those cases we're talking about a completely different kind of game. For once I think we should actually define more subgenres.

 

[RatRace123]

I dont mind squad based but Im tired of only being able to take a small squad and having all the others just jacking off back in the camp

This sums up my answer too, I like having a varied squad, but I hate how my squad gets torn apart while the others are back at camp (presumably enjoying tequila shots and massages).
I still like having the variety of skill sets and personalities of different party members though.
Solo RPGs feel too lonely to me.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

If the combat is strategy oriented then having to manage a squad is a good way to add a layer of richness to the game.

 

[Worgen]

I dont mind squad based but Im tired of only being able to take a small squad and having all the others just jacking off back in the camp

This sums up my answer too, I like having a varied squad, but I hate how my squad gets torn apart while the others are back at camp (presumably enjoying tequila shots and massages).
I still like having the variety of skill sets and personalities of different party members though.
Solo RPGs feel too lonely to me.

the way I would like to see it handled is either a bigger squad or have party members come and go, or even just have them out doing things while your on your missions, like the assassins you got in assassins creed brotherhood

 

[Harkon]

I might be wrong, since I loved the squad aspects of DA:O and never went solo, but there were lots of threads on the DA:O forums about "solo Nightmare Rogues." But, those people may have taken their party and just had them stand back by pressing the h key, which is a way to make DA:O a solo game. That being said, I do hate how they force certain members into your party during some quests.
Imho I don't feel video games are great for role playing, single player ones at least. Table top games, like Dungeons and Dragons, are much easier to role play in since you can actually see the other people role playing, interact with them, and such. This is just my bias tho.