Anyone else sick of squad based RPGs?

[NiPah]

Nope I enjoy squad based RPGs.

I don't hate solo RPGs either, but the tend to get boring easily.

Also don't get into the whole "action RPGs and JRPGs aren't really role playing games", its boring rhetoric that no one outside a small in group uses to prop up their own gaming preferences

 

[smallthemouse]

...so you're sick of BioWare? Far as I know they're the only ones who make squad based WRPGs. I guess trying playing more Fallout, Elder Scrolls, or The Witcher?

Oh, but yea, not sick at all. We get what, maybe one a year, two this year because we are exceedingly lucky? yea, that's WAY too many.

I have played all the Fallouts and I tried Oblivion, but i gave that one up after 15 minutes. I always end up being OCD about doing EVERY side quest and exploring EVERY area, so I usually felt overwhelmed and lost interest mid way through the game because I sidetrack myself.

Like I said before, I loved the Witcher, as it pretty much had everything I like in an RPG. Setting, non black and white decisions, no squad play, amazing protagonist, not completely linear, but not sandbox either, and not overwhelming in that there arn't a retarded amount of pointless sidequests.

Also I don't know if Assassin's Creed counts, but I also loved that.

I'm not really sick of squad mechanics, but I never really pay attention to them. In both ME1 and ME2 I pretty much did all the combat myself and only brought along squad members I actually liked and wanted to hear more from. And in Dragon Age: Origins I spent plenty of time setting my teams scripts so I could just go around backstabbing people without worrying about whether my teammates knew what to do.

Hell, the only reason I even have companions in Fallout 3 and New Vegas is because I essentially just use them as pack-mules to carry all my stuff or use them as tanks to distract the enemies while I pick them off. Which is why Fawkes and Veronica were my favorites. That along with them being the more interesting companions

Not to say I dislike squad mechanics, I just tend to prefer my teammates remain autonomous and able to think for themselves while I do my thing and not require me to babysit them.

Definitely this, I think thats why I played through Mass Effect, since you don't have to babysit your squad mates in combat.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I think you are silly, if you don't like the system then why are you specifically playing squad based RPG's?
And praising a game that takes away your options is down right daft, noone said you haveto switch characters in DA, just let them do their thing if you are really so upset by the mechanic.

I do agree however that the party members should be optional, if you don't need them why drag them along (in ME they usually didn't help out with anything, and DA2 is actually simple enough to play with a single guy).

 

[The Rockerfly]

Yeah I hate them too, the combat has usually got to stop or freeze so you can issue commands and give appropriate tactics. Sometimes you can build it into the AI but it has to be really complicated to do it otherwise PC gamers will yell at console games and say it's "dumbed down".

I think Kingdom Hearts is a good example of a good squad based RPG. You needed your team mates but you never played as them and you could set their AI and throughout the game they would never get stronger than you. That and the AI menu interface was really good.

I hated KOTOR and Dragon Ages' combat because every time I saw an enemy I had to pause, select an attack, select an enemy then possibly switch characters and do the same problem. That is not good gameplay, if I wanted turnbased combat I would play a JRPG and it requires so little input than select an attack. I want to actually be doing something myself rather than menu manage and the weird thing is when they make it more streamline, many pc gamers complain and say it is dumbed down. It's better in real time where I actually have an impact in combat bar pressing one button, waiting until I want to use a different attack and if I die switch characters and repeat the process.

All in all squad based rpgs are mostly shit, creating terrible combat which I know some people must like but it has so little involvement with the player and it has so much faffing about. Just take the combat from kingdom hearts for a squad based rpg and be done with it

/rant

 

[smallthemouse]

I think you are silly, if you don't like the system then why are you specifically playing squad based RPG's?
And praising a game that takes away your options is down right daft, noone said you haveto switch characters in DA, just let them do their thing if you are really so upset by the mechanic.

I do agree however that the party members should be optional, if you don't need them why drag them along (in ME they usually didn't help out with anything, and DA2 is actually simple enough to play with a single guy).

I don't understand your first statement. With the massive amounts of Mass Effect and Dragon Age references everywhere and their high review scores, they peaked my interest. Its not like I don't play games I like, but when most of the titles I have high hopes for are coming out later in the year, I have to settle with other games. Is it wrong to try new things?

Who said not having squad members is taking away options? To me it just seems like an extra level of complexion that is unnecessary. I COULD go through each squad member and tell them to use their most powerful attack on a boss monster in the middle of combat, or I could decide what tactics to use, what equipment to bring, and what a monster's weakness on a single character beforehand and play accordingly.

Too many options arn't a good thing either. The game can end up spread extremely thin if theres so many options, but can be rich and entertaining if it is linear. Just because you have options does not make a game better.

When I let the party members do their thing in DA, they die because they are too stupid to move out of the way of the ogre charging at them from half a mile away, leaving me alone to fight hordes of monsters meant for a four member party to handle. (maybe I'm just bad, I don't know) but the gripe is that even if you can leave them, the game is designed with four squad members in mind, and is alot harder if you go solo.

Diablo 2 had a wonderful mechanic of making monsters stronger as more people joined your game, and weaken them as they left. I'm sure the same could easily be done with Bioware games instead of forcing us to micro manage everyone's equipment, tactics, level ups, and abilities.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

My gripe with squad based WRPGs is quite clear, however I seem to have grown used to a party of people in JRPGs.

I supposed with WRPGs using the convention a little more prevelantly then it's become more noticable, but it hasn't necessarily made it better or worse. I view my virtual companions in the same way that I do my real life ones: More than happy to have them when I'm in the mood.

This is why I struggled to get into Dragon Age: Origins but slipped right into The Witcher (aside from the better combat, writing and characters). I just find that when characters are thrus upon me I dislike them for their combat annoyances rather than get to know them for their characters. One good example (oddly in a JRPG) is Karol in Tales of Vesperia. God I fucking hate Karol.

Tl;dr
I like to choose.

 

[veloper]

Nope.

[HEADING=2]It's not like there are many tactical games left anyway.[/HEADING]

OP can't find a one-man RPG, seriously? What's the issue?

 

[Defense]

Do SRPGs count as squad-based? Because I'm a pretty big fan of Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea, and I could go for another SRPG fix right now.

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?

I don't really play WRPGs, as for me those hardly constitute RPG at all, at least in my books.
For me the RPG that I love to play is with party characters, level a team, blah blah. you know JRPG.

Im a little dried out over the bioware "RPGs"
And the fallout craze. Just not into that "Action RPG" crud.
Xenosaga and Final Fantasy XII anyday.

You do know that neither Xenosaga or the FF games are RPG's? You're not playing a role, just following a pre-set story that in no way is modified or influenced by any of your actions, you make no decisions for yourself and you have no dialog options in the most recent FF game at all. That's not Roleplaying, but rather a tactical adventure game at best.

So is a game an RPG because it has different endings? Because Demon's Souls has two endings, but none of them are at all related to your actions during the game. You just decide if you're going to be evil or good at the last minute of the game before the credits roll. Dialogue wheels aren't a defining feature of RPGs either. Persona 3 has many dialogue wheels where the options not only lead to the exact same result, but don't even try to disguise it.

Not just different endings, but choices throughout. In a JRPG you can't "play" a role, because your decisions will be exactly the same every single time you play. I can't tell Lightning in FF13 to shut the hell up, even though I'd want to, or beat the hell out of Hope and make him leave my party, because the story isn't a roleplaying game, but an adventure game I'm allowed to control at certain points.

But if I feel like being a total ass to Jack in Mass Effect 2, or being kind and supportive to Alistair in Dragon Age, or being a ruthless dictator only seeking profit, a benevolent messiah of good, or something in between, I can. That, to me, is essential for an RPG. I can play the role I choose.

Which, I feel, is something that JRPG's do not have and thus, are not RPG's.

Where would Demon's Souls fit then? It offers linear paths in each world, but you are allowed to progress in a nonlinear manner. You can change your play style and equipment at any point and increase your stats exactly how you want them. There isn't much NPC interaction as it's meant to be a solo game.

 

[AmbitiousWorm]

Yes and no.

I really liked the squads in Baldur's Gate 2 (first RPG I really played) because of the party banter. Without it I would have soloed or built my own party. I wasn't really a fan of Dragon Age due to the managing of your party members.

Never had followers in any of the Fallout games, haven't played New Vegas yet though....

I thought Mass Effect provided a nice mix. Being able to use your parties skills but not have to control them was great.

Still prefer soloing though.

 

[StraightToHeck]

you could solo KoToR? didn't know that

anyway

I agree with you when it comes to Dragon Age but I really liked Mass Effect 2; it mostly comes from my incredibly short attention span that doesn't permit me to put up with the tedium of constantly equipping and leveling 10 idiots at the same time, whereas in games like Torchlight and ME 2 you only have to equip and assign skills to your character to any significant extent

BTW Torchlight for XBLA is awesome, for all you soloing loot-junkies

 

[SyphonX]

There are just as many solo-RPG's, as there are "squad" RPG's.

The stories and setting for the squad-based games tend to be more grand and complex, because the plot requires a gathered "team effort" of sorts. Solo ones are more like, "stop the assassin so the king can go about his business" etc.

The Witcher is probably the best fantasy RPG (solo) to come out in some time, and the sequel is coming out this May, so there is that.