Do you miss party building in RPGs?

[endtherapture]

With RPG games nowadays, parties seem to have vanilla members and you will most likely "collect" all party members. I went through both Dragon Age games,ending up with a party where I didn't miss out of any of the members. They were always there at my beck and call ready to go adventuring.

I think this loses something from the old Baldur's Gate approach. In that game every had a distinct party and you had to replay the game to get everyone and play with different parties and different approaches. I miss having to carefully construct my party so people got along and didn't attack each other, balancing alignments and classes to fit my needs.

I suppose it's just a symptom of games being expensive, and developers not wanting people to miss their hard earned content by only playing a game once, but I do miss the party building of RPGs of yesterday and wish a game would return to that kind of approach rather than collecting all the NPCs and having them available when you want.

 

[Zhukov]

Nope.

I don't like it when games force me to miss half their content on each playthrough.

Because then if I want to see the rest, I have to play the entire fucking game again which means repeating all the bits that are common to all playthoughs. And, unless your game is truly exceptional, I ain't got time for that shit, mostly on account of not being twelve years old anymore.

 

[communist gamer]

Kind of but not that much, it was fun and gave me a reason to play the game for the nth time, on the other hand the micro-management that you had to do from time to time was just annoying and painfully irritating on the first play through (especially in baldurs gate, where the second and third party members you meet in the game are evil and you have no way of telling that, which can result in a bit of a problem further down the line)

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Depends. I've been playing Wizardry 8 for the fist time and the party creation is fucking brilliant. But it's a game where you create all the party members, not just find them and decide who to have stick around throughout the course of the game. I've heard a similar system is used for IceWind Dale.

As for Baldur's Gate... hmm, not so much. With Fallout 1 and 2 it wasn't so bad since they're primarily single-player driven games, but for a party-based RPG having to get characters later in the game is a bit of a bummer. I prefer having my party from the beginning and growing with the other characters over the game, not get some of my them halfway through, or whatever. So for party-based RPGs, the Wizardry 8 style is the better, I think. Sure they may not be as pre-written, but with a voice style, a portrait and your own back story, they can be just as personalised.

 

[Gankytim]

Nope.

I don't like it when games force me to miss half their content on each playthrough.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Look at The Witcher 2, two distinct branches in Iorverth and Roche, two equaly good sets of quests, not a second wasted on CDProjekts behalf.[/quote]

Because then if I want to see the rest, I have to play the entire fucking game again which means repeating all the bits that are common to all playthoughs.

So? Replaying a game isn't a bad thing. Shit I've replayed Metal Gear Solid probably twenty times and there's only two endings. Most linear thing on the planet, gets a decent amount of replays out of me, the mark of a good game.

It's like saying you don't want to eat a meal with egg in it twice because then you'll have to taste the egg twice, horror right? Can't enjoy an omelette again!

And, unless your game is truly exceptional, I ain't got time for that shit, mostly on account of not being twelve years old anymore.

So only twelve year olds are capable of replaying a game that wasn't "exceptional"?

Well, call CNN cause I'm Peter motherfucking Pan up in here.

 

[Zhukov]

Nope.

I don't like it when games force me to miss half their content on each playthrough.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. Look at The Witcher 2, two distinct branches in Iorverth and Roche, two equaly good sets of quests, not a second wasted on CDProjekts behalf.

Actually, that game is a pretty good example of what I mean.

I went with Iorveth and was bored shitless by the second chapter I got as a result. I don't know what happens if you go with Roche, maybe something awesome, or at least engaging. But I'll never know because I have no wish to play the entire game again. I'd have to repeat the intro, the first chapter and most of the third. And that common content was nowhere near good enough in my eyes to justify a repeat.

Because then if I want to see the rest, I have to play the entire fucking game again which means repeating all the bits that are common to all playthoughs.

So? Replaying a game isn't a bad thing. Shit I've replayed Metal Gear Solid probably twenty times and there's only two endings. Most linear thing on the planet, gets a decent amount of replays out of me, the mark of a good game.

It's like saying you don't want to eat a meal with egg in it twice because then you'll have to taste the egg twice, horror right? Can't enjoy an omelette again!

Actually, it's like saying I don't want another egg if I have to eat the five pounds of raw potato that comes with it.

However, I said I'll repeat a game if I find it really good. The overall quality of the game is not related to whether or not it makes me miss content.

I presume you consider MGS to be very good, yes? So you're happy to replay it.

And, unless your game is truly exceptional, I ain't got time for that shit, mostly on account of not being twelve years old anymore.

So only twelve year olds are capable of replaying a game that wasn't "exceptional"?

Well, call CNN cause I'm Peter motherfucking Pan up in here.

Wut?

No. Twelve year olds just have more time on their hands than adults with jobs.

Let alone adults with families. I don't know how gamer parents find the time.

 

[StriderShinryu]

That's a tough one. For me it really boils down to things being logical and organic. I don't really mind being able to miss out on party members, or even lose them, but I didn't like missing potential party members because I didn't know to do super complicated process XYZ that could only be done between point C and D in the game. I suppose you could say that I like the choices I make in that regard to have more obvious consequences. In this regard, the first Dragon Age really felt like it did that right for me.

 

[BrotherRool]

I don't really miss it that much. It is quite cool to think that someone's only following you because of a certain set of circumstances and it does give a greater sense of ownership. I always think it's pretty amazing when you're reading up on the game later and think 'Oh wow, she could have been a party member?.' So I get where you're coming from, games do feel a little flatter for not having that.

But on the other hand I think the negatives outweigh the positives. I would much rather have changing relationships with my party and choose to deliberately not take people on certain quests and take them on others than not have them at all. If you're only going to play the game once then all those extra companions were a waste of space. And it makes being dynamic with companions much harder, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 did great things with the interaction between the party and the player and began to really weave the party into the plot and missions to a nice extent. That becomes much harder when you don't know who the player might take on the suicide mission with them etc.

And it can create really nasty situations where the player feels like they're being forced down certain options they don't want to go. Not all companions will be equal and if you get a companion through doing a certain choice... it can makethe players feel like they have to pick that one every time.

Think of the Handmaiden in Knights of the Old Republic 2. Because she was so much more interesting than the Disciple it feels like you're punishing yourself whenever you choose to play a female character because you're losing her.

-------------------------------
If Dragon Age 2 was the last game you've played, I think DA2 is particularly bad at making it feel like you're gathering your party together. You meet everyone almost immediately and they join you easily, which makes them feel a lot more prescribed than in Dragon Age 1, KotoR, KotoR 2, where they're doled out a lot more slowly and it still feels like random missions may have a new character join you.

I think that was because Dragon Age 2 did particularly fantastic things with the way your interact with your companions and the way the story was told, with all those time skips. It made it very hard for them to give you a feeling of assembling companions over time.

 

[DoPo]

I agree with Zhukov - and no, I don't miss it. I really rather play a game a lone, anyway, as in, not even with an NPC party. I played the whole of NWN OC without party members and most of the expansions without them, either (aside from, say, a quest or event that required one). It's just my style, dunno - I don't usually find satisfaction in assembling more than a couple of characters, unless it's some sort of strategy game.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I 'unno, I reckon you're probably looking in the wrong place for classic CRPG mechanics in AAA RPGs like Dragon Age or KOTOR (basically Bioware RPGs).

That being said, come to think, I don't think many of the revival or niche CRPGs actually have optional party members, then again I haven't played any of them apart from Baldur's Gate (prefer Fallout myself). I can only assume Wasteland 2, Torment, Pillars of Eternity will have that feature, though.

I prefer customisability and job systems myself. So Bravely Default, basically.

 

[Caiphus]

Not in a major way. I actually much prefer the Dragon Age/Mass Effect system where everyone comes along for the ride at your HQ, and then you pick your 3 meanest motherfuckers and go to town. Sorry OP


I'm also a big fan, however, of actually "building" my party. I guess, if that's the term. I'm talking about the Legend of Grimrock/Dragon's Dogma/Divinity Original Sin/Icewind Dale type games where you can create your party from the get go, not just the PC. Reduces the personalities/stories that can be given to those characters, for obvious reasons. But yeah.

 

[endtherapture]

Not in a major way. I actually much prefer the Dragon Age/Mass Effect system where everyone comes along for the ride at your HQ, and then you pick your 3 meanest motherfuckers and go to town. Sorry OP


I'm also a big fan, however, of actually "building" my party. I guess, if that's the term. I'm talking about the Legend of Grimrock/Dragon's Dogma/Divinity Original Sin/Icewind Dale type games where you can create your party from the get go, not just the PC. Reduces the personalities/stories that can be given to those characters, for obvious reasons. But yeah.

I just find the Dragon Age option too easy. Sure you can miss out on Sten and Leliana in Origins but in 2 all of the characters are basically forced to join your cause. It just takes away an aspect of choice and consequence in RPGs for me and even puts an arbitrary restriction on gameplay.

The 6 man party of Baldur's Gate makes sense because you're travelling as a small group and not as an army, only have enough provision for those 6 people and if you had more it'd be slow going, so there's a reason for the game mechanic. Meanwhile in Mass Effect/Dragon Age why can't I take all of my 12 party members travelling with me into battle? Why can I only have 4 or 3?

 

[SkySwimmer]

I also want to explore everything and see all the games content, but I value very much the opportunity to strategize at the begging of the game or at some point later. That way I have the feeling that because of my strategically correct party building I succeed this well.
And that I control the way game develops more than if I would have all the characters at standby.

Also the the choices gain impact cause, they cannot be redone, thus the game gains importance in my view. Still it have little to no meaning if the game is a piece of trash overall.

 

[Caiphus]

I just find the Dragon Age option too easy. Sure you can miss out on Sten and Leliana in Origins but in 2 all of the characters are basically forced to join your cause. It just takes away an aspect of choice and consequence in RPGs for me and even puts an arbitrary restriction on gameplay.

The 6 man party of Baldur's Gate makes sense because you're travelling as a small group and not as an army, only have enough provision for those 6 people and if you had more it'd be slow going, so there's a reason for the game mechanic. Meanwhile in Mass Effect/Dragon Age why can't I take all of my 12 party members travelling with me into battle? Why can I only have 4 or 3?

No, that's true. Occasionally I do end up thinking about potential reasons why I wouldn't be able to bring my entire party in Dragon Age, and the answers are never suuuper satisfying. But I'm personally willing to give that up to have everyone there. Sorry that it bothers you though

I also don't really get frustrated by any lack of difficulty. Possibly because I'm 21 and didn't quite get into RPGs until KOTOR II. So maybe that's just what it's like to me. You go out into the world, potential party members are made obvious, or just given to you, job done. Game moves forward. Maybe I'm just shit enough at the actual games that I don't mind that finding d00ds is easy. That's a possibility.

But I hope that you can find some games that give you what you want. It's a shame that what you like has fallen out of favour, but maybe the indie scene can give you something.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I do miss the BG system, but I really can't expect game devs to demand people put in actual effort and build their party.
This is why you put in options, you can just as simply pop the characters into peoples inventory pockets ME style once you already have them set up in the wild as BG had.

Hell go one up and let characters who aren't in the party work as NPCs that offer their plot line as guest quests on their very own.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Honestly...not really, not what you describe. I am still a fan of old-school games like the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance gold box CRPGs, or Wizardry 8, that let you create your whole party. But I don't like games that arbitrarily limit the amount of connected content you can play in one go as a result, unless the differences in content are quite wide. It's sort of like playing a late-branching visual novel with five character routes versus an early-branching one; in the former, no matter how many choices you can make differently, you're still going to have to repeat a lot of common route content.

Granted, it doesn't bug me as much as a game giving me a ton of characters to use and making me choose to use a severely limited amount of them at a time (Final Fantasy Tactics, Dragon Age, etc.)...unless the game gets around that by letting me have the majority of them out (Disgaea), lets me switch between them on the fly (Tales of Symphonia), or at least has a very liberal shared EXP system (Septerra Core).

 

[VyseRogueKing]

Nope because I have the distinct and utterly manic playstyle of having to use everybody. Thus I like games that either: Have all party members in the same team, all party members receive the same amount of experience regardless of whether or not they were in the battle, and/or I can switch between members on the fly. Otherwise I end up with someone that needs to grind levels just to become relevant again.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Well, I wasn't able to take all the people I wanted into battle in Star Ocean 2 anyway so I guess it worked there. In most cases, I prefer to have everyone available even if it means they're a giant pain in the ass to collect like in Suikoden.