Do you miss party building in RPGs?

Recommended Videos

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
Not really, I mean it cool to make your own team classes and character customization but all of that isn't worth it if they lack a soul as in not no dialogue/ speaking role and not involved in the cutscene in anyway.
That what I hated about Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies. While I liked the party I made but they were a bunch of souless npc that follow you around which made the whole journey of your character plot really lonely.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
Zhukov said:
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.
Pretty much this. I work 40 hours a week and have school. As much as I love persona 4, I don't have time to replay a 100 hour game to get the bits I missed. It took me about a year to get through persona 3. Besides, if a character is completely missable, then they probably aren't well developed. Sure, ff7 had fairly well developed side characters, but that's rare. The last game I played for missed content was mass effect, but that was one of the few games I felt deserved it. Besides, I'd rather have a small cast of characters who are extremely well developed then a massive cast of soulless npcs I never use.

If a game is short, say 10 hours, it can probably pull of multiple play throughs and story paths. The longer it is, though, the less likely I am to replay large sections I can just look up on YouTube.
 

balladbird

Master of Lancer
Legacy
Jan 25, 2012
972
2
13
Country
United States
Gender
male
This is kind of a non-issue for me, since I mostly play JRPGS, and their closed narrative means not really having the issue.

On the rare instances I do play a WRPG, though, I like both methods. The only WRPG games I've played that merited more than one playthrough were the fallout games, which didn't really require the multiple playthroughs for party completion, but if a sufficiently compelling game did have that feature, I'd be all for it.
 

Daniel Janhagen

New member
Mar 28, 2011
147
0
0
Zhukov said:
I don't like it when games force me to miss half their content on each playthrough.
Not being able to do "everything" is actually one of my favourite parts of Baldur's Gate. I guess some of it is because I feel decisions carry more weight if they make me give something up, but mostly it is because it makes the world feel bigger, like there's more going on in the world, outside of what I actually do in the game.

I totally see your point, I'm just of the opposite opinion when it comes to what I like or find important to a game. :)
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
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.
Ah, Suikoden. Good times, collecting all 108 Stars. Good times indeed...

I like collecting the entire party, but when it's not possible to collect the entire party, I get kind of annoyed. I like to have everyone in one go. However, there are times when I'm okay with missing out on people, such as some games in Suikoden and the Fire Emblem games. Sometimes, if you want one person, you can't get another. I wish this wasn't the case, but when the game doesn't make you feel like you're missing anything (like, "Oh, sorry, you can't open this door because you chose the wrong person) then I'm okay with it.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
I really can't say that I miss it. Games like The Witcher and The Walking Dead have shown that it is possible to give a feeling of weight to choices without cutting the player off from a significant amount of content. I know that those aren't party-based RPGs (and one of them isn't even an RPG at all), but they did show that how a choice and its consequences are presented can go a long way to giving a sense of weight without needing to make the player feel like they have to replay everything in order to get the full experience of the game. As a result, it gave the feeling of weight that cutting off content can give without also giving a sense of being cheated out of content unless you spend another 40+ hours of your life to replay the game. As someone who rarely replays RPGs due to their time investment, I'd much rather not feel like I have to replay everything just to get the full experience.

With that said, there is certainly room for both systems given that there is an audience for both, and even I can enjoy a game that heavily encourages replays if the rest of it is compelling enough. Personally, though, I just prefer the not feeling like I have to replay the game just to experience all the content that I paid for.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
Yeah, I miss it.

Unlike some of the people above me, I feel no particular urge to get 100% in every game I play on my first playthrough, if ever. What I do like however is feeling like my experience was at least somewhat unique to me, that I might have done things differently with different results and that even if I never see it, there's more out there I could have explored and found. I like the air of adventure and exploration that knowing I wont see everything brings, giving me moments of "Huh, I wonder if?..." to ponder long after the game is finished. In this case "What if I'd brought X instead of Y, and what happens if I team up Y with W or if I'd said something else to V?".

That's the sort of stuff that makes me excited about rpg. The way most modern rpg make failure damned near impossible and put everything conveniently in your path lacks the feel of adventure that I've always felt was integral to the rpg genre.

I like knowing there's more out there, even if I'll never see it myself. Makes things more exciting for me.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
endtherapture said:
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.
I tend to prefer games where you make an entire party right from the beginning and use it for the rest of the game. The whole "Ultima 4+" system of recruiting party members is what creates a lot of these issues to begin with.

Most of the games right now that are trying to go back to party building sort of miss a lot of the point. They tend to be based around a sort of idea that characters need to all be highly specialized, and that your pretty much playing a game with one character, but it say takes up four slots and your calling it a party. I look at say the beta of "Wasteland 2" as an example, where your pool of points is so limited that your characters can only really be good at one thing, especially if the party is going to have all the tools it needs to succeed. Compared to say the original Wasteland where you might spend hours rolling (lol) but at the end of the day your party would likely wind up where everyone was fairly decent with at least one weapon, had decent stats, and usually a specialty and typically an area where they were passable (say a backup medic to bring the regular medic back if he is injured). It felt more like a party than say playing one of Sierra's old "Gobliiins" games. But you can't be too picky, it works, and it's party based, even if it doesn't quite feel right, like each member of my team is a complete individual for whatever reason (in a lot of games characters are even more specialized, but it just feels... different, especially when your making them youself). "Divinity: Original Sin" tried it as well, but has hit similar problems, where especially with the initial difficulty (fairly old school) you need to focus your characters in very specific directions.

For the most part I think the current trend towards the whole "companion recruitment" thing is so they can create sub-plots, and fill time with the dialogue and stuff. In some games this worked, especially when it was new, or there was a fairly unique setting involved, but as time goes on it tends to grate because there are only so many ways you can sit down and have the same basic conversations with the "typical hard drinking dwarven fighter" in various games (and let's be honest, it isn't a proper high fantasy game without a hard hitting, hard-drinking, dwarf on the front line) before it becomes old hat, and I feel like I'm wasting 20 minutes of my life so some voice actor can show off his dwarf voice saying the same things other voice actors have playing the same basic role, in other games. If I'm going to recruit a full party anyway, you might as well just give me say six party slots and let me just select "Race: Dwarf, Class: Fighter" and save me the song and the dance, and say use those resources towards actual game play. What was cool at first isn't that cool anymore. Especially seeing as this whole trend along with the predictable "who are the romance options" thing has snowballed in all kinds of weird directions. Don't get me wrong, romance and sex can add something to a game, but it seems like in a lot of RPGs nowadays as much or more time gets spent by the community about who you can do the horizontal bop with and less time on you know... the actual game. What's worse is I admit when I'm playing these games I probably pute a disproportionate amount of time into thinking about it myself "hmmm, well when I navigate these conversation options, will saying this cost me options later, or perhaps lead to something unexpected". For example in DA:O being *NICE* to Zevran pretty much puts you on a romance path with him, I think even The Escapist mentioned this as being terrible in at least one article... "I decided not to be dismissive or rude to the guy, and three conversations later I'm rolling around naked with the dude...". It's nice to say make a party and you know... not worry about all the dynamics some time. :)
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
Therumancer said:
What's worse is I admit when I'm playing these games I probably pute a disproportionate amount of time into thinking about it myself "hmmm, well when I navigate these conversation options, will saying this cost me options later, or perhaps lead to something unexpected". For example in DA:O being *NICE* to Zevran pretty much puts you on a romance path with him, I think even The Escapist mentioned this as being terrible in at least one article... "I decided not to be dismissive or rude to the guy, and three conversations later I'm rolling around naked with the dude...". It's nice to say make a party and you know... not worry about all the dynamics some time. :)
That's more a problem with modern rpg dialogue than anything related to party mechanics though. In Mass Effect 2 for example you're handed your party on a platter and without any choice, yet short of outright deliberately sabotaging your relationships it's also pretty much impossible to 'fail' a relationship while being particularly nice to a character is automatically interpreted as sexual interest.

If anything I'd think having a more diverse cast of companions to choose from, many if not all of which are optional, would and should give more freedom to the writers to create them as characters first and less as walking plot points.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
A little bit sometimes but...
Zhukov said:
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.
This. I use to like it a lot but that was when I had a lot of free time and not many games (i.e., when I was a kid). Now I have a ton of games and not much free time so I don't play the same game 10 times unless I really, really like it. I would also rather have less party members than lots of them who aren't that developed or relevant to the plot.

I prefer the modern approach where you might not be taking all of them with you all the time, have some flavour dialogue and maybe slightly different outcomes based on who you take but no drastic changes. RPG's where you have common areas for party members, them involved in parts of the plot even if you don't have them as your party and still get most of dialogue and their personal quest provided you don't ignore them completely. I also like to swap out members based on mood, the enemies I'm fighting or to try a different combat approach regularly rather than stick to a single group for most of the game and this approach makes that easier.
 

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
21
Oh how much I do miss this stuff. When planning the party and experimenting the game was really fun, and the game remained absolutely playable and fresh even after 10th playthrough. Nowadays we have stupid and false "choices" to "enjoy", when you can play the game twice at best to see all it has.
 

Summerstorm

Elite Member
Sep 19, 2008
1,480
125
68
Nope, i prefer having detailed control and super-in depth statistics over my own character and have all others played by the AI. (As long as the AI isn't doing something overly stupid)
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
The Madman said:
Therumancer said:
What's worse is I admit when I'm playing these games I probably pute a disproportionate amount of time into thinking about it myself "hmmm, well when I navigate these conversation options, will saying this cost me options later, or perhaps lead to something unexpected". For example in DA:O being *NICE* to Zevran pretty much puts you on a romance path with him, I think even The Escapist mentioned this as being terrible in at least one article... "I decided not to be dismissive or rude to the guy, and three conversations later I'm rolling around naked with the dude...". It's nice to say make a party and you know... not worry about all the dynamics some time. :)
That's more a problem with modern rpg dialogue than anything related to party mechanics though. In Mass Effect 2 for example you're handed your party on a platter and without any choice, yet short of outright deliberately sabotaging your relationships it's also pretty much impossible to 'fail' a relationship while being particularly nice to a character is automatically interpreted as sexual interest.

If anything I'd think having a more diverse cast of companions to choose from, many if not all of which are optional, would and should give more freedom to the writers to create them as characters first and less as walking plot points.
I mean if we're not taking into consideration the time it takes to write them maybe. Having more characters who were optional would mean writers have less time to devote to fleshing out any one character otherwise.

And if you're trying to write all your characters so that they don't have a permanent impact on your story (which you'd have to do if they were optional), that's probably a pretty heavy limitation on writing too. If Bastila were optional in KotoR then the writers wouldn't have been able to take her character arc all the way through to the place she did because it would mean entirely rewriting the ending, which would in turn mean rewriting what all the other characters do in the ending too.

I think there is a middle-ground to reach here. Some of the party gathering in RPGs nowadays feels too forced and artificial which changes the way you respond to them. And I think we're still learning about how to integrate companions in the story naturally in the age of animation actually being a thing that exists.

Ironically though, I thought ME2 handled it pretty well. Each character has a unique non-sexual friend path (with Garrus in particular being cool), as long as you reject one advance and then if you don't get on with your companions they're less ready for the final mission and might die because of it. Because the missions in the game are entirely focused on persuading the characters to join you and convince them of the threat, and it's staged out over the first 2 acts, the progression felt pretty good to me.

Dragon Age 2 tried a lot of neat things, particularly with taking characters away with you if you piss them off, and tried to make their likes/dislikes and progression arcs clearly labelled (and this time people are only sexually interested in you if you actively flirt with them). You can influence and change the way your companions think about the world. But despite all that, a lot of it did feel very artificial. Maybe that's something about the way they get recruited.

Overall my favourite implementation so far is Knights of the Old Republic 2, but I think there's lots of room to improve on that. Alpha Protocol had the best system of interacting with people in the world around you, but that might be because there wasn't a companions divide, there were just people and every person you talked to could be influenced in all kinds of ways.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
In Dragon Age 2, I'm pretty sure I missed Isabella. When someone asked me what I thought of the bouncy h-cupped pirate girl, I was all like, "what bouncy h-cupped pirate girl?". It was... confusing.

In Origins, I'm also sure I missed Zevran on my first run 'cause the killed him, and I purposely missed Sten on my second because I wanted to see what would change if I didn't have him around. Not much changed. Disapointed.

In a way, I kind of do, but only if the party members are locked off but still have a part to play in the plot, even if they don't join you, but if the party members are like "collectables" that you never use, then I think that's just the game being a dick.

Really, optional party members aren't easy to jam into the game in the first place. Party members aren't easy to create, especially if you intend to give them characterisation beyond "big tough guy action hero" or "strong independant woman". And if you do, that tends to leave some other characters less fleshed out. You either have characters that always exist, party or not, but still play a part in the plot, or something else like that, instead of having talking items that follow you around.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Party management really added to the replay value of a game, and as such I do miss it. RPGs were all about replay value, about the choices you made making distinct differences to the game world, and therein lay their charm. Nowadays most of the 'choice' is sucked out of RPGs so that people can 100% a game on their first playthrough and we're left with rather dull and uninteresting games that are little more than hack'n'slashers with levelling mechanics rather than proper, dyed-in-the-wool RPGs.

So yeah, I miss party management. I also miss pages (and pages) of character stats. I miss combat systems like Baldur's Gate where the outcome of combat was based on the skills of the character, not the dexterity of the player. Most of all I miss replaying a game for the 15th time and still finding new stuff.
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
I don't like having to create my whole party a la Icewind Dale, because I usually take a lot of time and I cannot decide who to make, what class etc.

That is why when it comes to making a party I'd rather get predetermined characters.
 

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
2,980
0
0
I like it when it is a small pool of characters... I liked it in games like FFIX where you had options for your team, and could combine to get the team that worked best for you, or FFX and XII where there was a higher emphasis on particular characters having specialist roles against certain enemies... this I liked, and having to increase those particular skills that work there.

I also liked the small team approach in Neverwinter Nights where you picked your team to reflect the character you picked... you can build it how you want to try and strike a nice ballance.

I don't like it, however, in some SRPGs... sometimes there is a large ammount of info to try and learn about each character, all it's strengths and weaknesses, and planning what you are going to do with that character to progress, and then you are dumped with 10-15 of them in one go! I found this with Fire Emblem. I don't have the time to play games all the time, and I would find that returning to the game after a week or so of not playing that I would forget what I was trying to do in the first place!

On the other hand I didn't mind it so much in Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea. I seemed to remember for these easier... probably because they were simpler games.

I like RPGs like Avernum too, where you have one party which you decide at the start, and work on those.

Summary: Small teams, set characters, yes! Larger teams or lots of characters, no!
 

Kotaro

Desdinova's Successor
Feb 3, 2009
794
0
0
There are still games with party-building. As long as stuff like Class of Heroes or Etrian Odyssey exists, then no, I don't "miss" party-building.