Do you miss party building in RPGs?

[happyninja42]

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.

Your forced to have them accessible, but you are not forced to actually use them, or engage in their character specific plot stuff. I never play with all of the characters they provide me, partly because it takes multiple play throughs (which can be tedious if I didn't find the game that engaging). I might not like the specific characters' personalities, and don't care to engage/support them. Or I just simply don't like their abilities when it comes to the combat. So they are forever a benchwarmer in my games. Or it could be that I just absolutely LOVE some characters (like the Dwarf in DA 2), and pretty much always have him in my party, because his dialogue is just so damn funny. But I have the choice of which ones to build my party from, which I'm fine with. This lets the player decide what type of group they want. I usually just disregard the extra characters as not being part of the events, since I'm not including them.

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?

Because you're travelling as a small group and not as an army? And only have enough provisions for those 3/4 people? And if you had more it would be slow going? I mean, in DA and DA 2, you're barely making ends meet for the most part. Your characters are fleeing the Darkspawn plague, and end up as refugees in a strange lang, having to barely survive as they progress. So, yeah being broke and unable to fund/support a large force makes sense there too.

In Mass Effect...*thinks*...eh, there's less of a reason, I'll admit. It is a military ship, and the crew are military personnel for the most part. I guess you could say that they have tasks on the ship that have to be manned, and if you took all of them at once, it would put the Normandy in a staff critical situation? *shrugs* I'm stretching there a bit, but that's what I got.

 

[spartan231490]

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. So much this. I love DA: origins, but as much as I enjoy it, I wouldn't want to have replay it to see all of the party members. It still took effort to increase your relationships with all of the characters, and get the content that goes with that. Party-based RPGs take dozens or hundreds of hours to complete, why go through all that again just to see 5 hours worth of content from another party member?

 

[endtherapture]

I am really surprised with the responses in this thread. Very surprised. I thought people on the Escapist enjoyed having loads of extra content and replaying games but it looks like life has caught up to you lot and you are wanting instant gratification, seeing 100% of the game on one playthrough. That's really sad

You're missing something that's pretty much unarguably terrible game design. There are a few things that like 99% of people agree are just straight-up bad to the point that they won't buy your game:

-- Content-limits that force replay without actually making the story/game different (such as limited parties in a linear-plot game such as you're describing).

No way. In Baldur's Gate playing through the game with a different party changes your game style. Aerie is a completely different style of mage from Edwin or Imoen for example, Korgan is different from the paladin Keldorn. Building a party to get along and experience the different classes and on different playthrough using different equipment etc. is compelling and interesting.

Because you're travelling as a small group and not as an army? And only have enough provisions for those 3/4 people? And if you had more it would be slow going? I mean, in DA and DA 2, you're barely making ends meet for the most part. Your characters are fleeing the Darkspawn plague, and end up as refugees in a strange lang, having to barely survive as they progress. So, yeah being broke and unable to fund/support a large force makes sense there too.

You're travelling as a small group of maybe...8-12 characters. Why can I only take 4 with me when attacking a castle or going into the Deep Roads? What are my other characters doing at camp whilst my 4 man party is fighting, dying and bleeding against numerous enemies? It's an arbitrary gameplay mechanic not explained by the game because you can access your party at almost any time, but for some reason you can' have them all travelling with you into battle.

 

[The Madman]

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.

Here's my problem with Mass Effect 2 and it's recent ilk, and I just want to point out in advance that I actually really like the Mass Effect series so don't take this as one of those 'hater' things.

Your decisions don't actually matter, not beyond a certain degree anyway. With every character in your group there's only one of three states; You either don't interact with them and don't do anything for them, making it a failure state that will probably lead to their deaths in the end of the game. You interact with them and play it nice, doing their mission and succeeding, and they'll probably live in the end so long as you don't make them do anything stupid. And then there's the romance option.

At no point does any character really change based on your decisions and actions beyond fitting into one of those three states. They'll never disagree with you but still respect you unless that's the purpose of their character, in which case they'll act that way no matter what you do, they'll never have begrudging acceptance or meek fearfulness. What you see is what you get in every case, you're not really roleplaying with them, you're just completing their missions to get the best ending unless you're in the mood for being a dick, in which case you deliberately sabotage your relationship (Because there's no way you could accidentally sabotage it, the game makes sure everything is very deliberately marked). Then if you're really nice to them and you're of the right gender you'll get to become fuck-buddies with em. There's no such thing as 'I like you but you're not my type' or 'I can never forget that thing you did then', if you're nice and you're the right gender then BAM, sexy.

Compare that to Baldur's Gate 2. Aerie is a character you get early on and in typical Bioware fashion of reusing tropes, is basically the Tali of your group should you choose to have her with you. But she's vulnerable, she's afraid, she's nervous and flighty (Go figure), but ultimately is struggling to better herself and become more independent. If you act nicely with her, if you're kind to her and show interest, there will come a time when during a rough time in the game you can choose to sleep with her. Here's the thing though, she'll leave you if you do. She'll just outright leave, because she was tired and scared and by sleeping with her at that moment she thinks (rightly) you took advantage of her. She'll fly away home.

It's a trap set specifically for the sorts of people that go "I was nice to her now give me sex", and it's a trap that came along long before this was even a big trope as it is now in modern rpg. Yet even then the devs had the foresight to think that this character has her own agency and personality and that there should be consequences for ignoring that. Same goes with the other romances in the game, you can screw them up, you can fail, you can simply just be not the right person and that's GOOD. It gives the characters personality, it gives them a sense of being beyond simply the set of three states I mention above for ME2.

That's the strength of having a big, diverse cast of characters in an rpg. Sure not every one of them is going to be important to the over-arching plot, but that's fine, they don't all need to be. What's important is that they have their own story and you can make a difference with them. And what's more if you fail you don't automatically lose the game, you can just go recruit someone else and by doing so involve yourself in their story as well making the game all the more unique to you.

At least that's how I've always seen it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Depends. I don;t like having content completely locked off.

If I like a game, I will replay it and try different things. I will play with a different party or make different choices or whatever. I don't need or want a cheap gimmick to force the issue, especially if it's the only reason to give a crap about a second playthrough.

 

[BrotherRool]

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.

Here's my problem with Mass Effect 2 and it's recent ilk, and I just want to point out in advance that I actually really like the Mass Effect series so don't take this as one of those 'hater' things.

Your decisions don't actually matter, not beyond a certain degree anyway. With every character in your group there's only one of three states; You either don't interact with them and don't do anything for them, making it a failure state that will probably lead to their deaths in the end of the game. You interact with them and play it nice, doing their mission and succeeding, and they'll probably live in the end so long as you don't make them do anything stupid. And then there's the romance option.

At no point does any character really change based on your decisions and actions beyond fitting into one of those three states. They'll never disagree with you but still respect you unless that's the purpose of their character, in which case they'll act that way no matter what you do, they'll never have begrudging acceptance or meek fearfulness. What you see is what you get in every case, you're not really roleplaying with them, you're just completing their missions to get the best ending unless you're in the mood for being a dick, in which case you deliberately sabotage your relationship (Because there's no way you could accidentally sabotage it, the game makes sure everything is very deliberately marked). Then if you're really nice to them and you're of the right gender you'll get to become fuck-buddies with em. There's no such thing as 'I like you but you're not my type' or 'I can never forget that thing you did then', if you're nice and you're the right gender then BAM, sexy.

Compare that to Baldur's Gate 2. Aerie is a character you get early on and in typical Bioware fashion of reusing tropes, is basically the Tali of your group should you choose to have her with you. But she's vulnerable, she's afraid, she's nervous and flighty (Go figure), but ultimately is struggling to better herself and become more independent. If you act nicely with her, if you're kind to her and show interest, there will come a time when during a rough time in the game you can choose to sleep with her. Here's the thing though, she'll leave you if you do. She'll just outright leave, because she was tired and scared and by sleeping with her at that moment she thinks (rightly) you took advantage of her. She'll fly away home.

It's a trap set specifically for the sorts of people that go "I was nice to her now give me sex", and it's a trap that came along long before this was even a big trope as it is now in modern rpg. Yet even then the devs had the foresight to think that this character has her own agency and personality and that there should be consequences for ignoring that. Same goes with the other romances in the game, you can screw them up, you can fail, you can simply just be not the right person and that's GOOD. It gives the characters personality, it gives them a sense of being beyond simply the set of three states I mention above for ME2.

That's the strength of having a big, diverse cast of characters in an rpg. Sure not every one of them is going to be important to the over-arching plot, but that's fine, they don't all need to be. What's important is that they have their own story and you can make a difference with them. And what's more if you fail you don't automatically lose the game, you can just go recruit someone else and by doing so involve yourself in their story as well making the game all the more unique to you.

At least that's how I've always seen it.

In Mass Effect 2, Jack is a scarred and emotionally damaged person whose been used by every person she's got close to and has learnt to treat sex as something that people just want from her.

Fairly early on into the game she offers to have sex with you, you can accept and go through with it.

And if you do, she'll hate you forever. It will be impossible to ever make her loyal, or pursue her relationship in a positive manner any further. She does the mission, but she's not focused and will die if you put her in a tight spot. However if you recognise that she's a frail and abused person and that she's not ready for sex, then instead of going through with it, you can talk it out with her and much later on as the relationship path has continued she's in a place where she wants to take that step with you.

Also every character in Mass Effect has two friend states and one is a romance and one isn't. It gets used the most in Mass Effect 3, where if you are in a romance with Garrus then you do all the mushy relationship stuff. If you're not then he actually has started pursuing a relationship with Tali instead and you get the 'friends' arc. In fact, Garrus has multiple 'friend' arcs in Mass Effect too. If you drive him to do extreme things in ME1 and take risks then he decides the law is not for him and that he needs to go the almost anti-hero vigilante route, if you're much more pacifistic then he decides he was too rash in dismissing C-Sec and that the rules are there for a reason. (Admittedly this doesn't have a consequence for anything)


But generally the Mass Effect series is way too formulaic, particularly in it's 'top bottom' win thing. And in general Bioware is too focused on sex as the end goal of the relationship. And as you said there's no real impact with people liking or disliking you.


But consider Dragon Age II. Depending on different events you can drive characters into situations where they leave the party permanently. Your relationship with them is a significant determinant in whether they'll try to kill you or not in the end game. You can have a romantic relationship with them which is only triggered if you actively flirt with them, otherwise you can have a friendly relationship with them. Within that friendly relationship you can push them towards several different opinions and aspects. Or you can have a negative relationship with them, and within that negative relationship, it can still be sexual if you decide to come onto them, or it won't be if you won't. If it is negative, that also has consequences and a character arc, in fact going the negative route can be a better option because it might force them to fix some of the severe character flaws which are highlighted by your disapproval.

And their opinions of you are based on your actions towards them and around them and can't be 'top-righted.' Carver hates Hawke being nice and light-sided towards him because he sees it as Hawke setting herself above him. Whereas if you're angry and aggressive he gets to push back and he feels closer towards you. In some cases you can even completely invert a relationship in one moment. If you refuse to let Merril continue with her life obsession then she'll immediately hate you.

On the other hand, if you reach 100% friendship with someone then they trust you enough that they won't be put off by insults or actions counter to what you believe in. Since you've been so nice, maybe you're not wrong to help the mages ettc.

Or in Dragon Age: Origins (Which admittedly also allowed you to not ever take a large selection of your companions), there are even multiple 'just friends' states. In a friendly relationship with Alistair you can either make him into a harsh cynical person or a light friendly person, depending on how you interact and advise him.


I do think the way modern games deal with companions is flawed and has lots of areas for improvement, and Baldur's Gate II was exceptional in the way it let you interact with them (and the lack of animation is probably a huge part of this), but I do think they're constantly trying new things and finding new answers to their problems. Even the way the crew moved around the ship and talked with each other in ME3 was a really interesting and fun idea that I've never really seen before in the same way. Dragon Age II in particular was a huge innovator, and generally Obsidian have a pretty decent track record with this stuff.

 

[garjian]

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.

If you bring Morrigan when you meet Wynne, she taunts her and you're forced to fight her I think... either way, you don't get her. I didn't even know she was a party member until someone told me months later, because why would you not bring Morrigan?
Zevran too. On my first playthrough I had no idea he was a party member, so I killed him when he attacks you.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I don't miss it in the way the OP puts it.

That approach is.........Yeah it's pretty annoying. I hate missing party members, or having to kick some out because I hit the party limit. At least with Dragon Age Origins, it seems like you REALLY have to piss them off to make them leave you.

However, if we're talking the Etrian Odyssey approach (create a bunch of heroes of whatever class you want and assigne their skills however you want, and make as many or as few as you want!), then yeah, I want more of it.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

In Mass Effect 2, Jack is a scarred and emotionally damaged person whose been used by every person she's got close to and has learnt to treat sex as something that people just want from her.

Fairly early on into the game she offers to have sex with you, you can accept and go through with it.

And if you do, she'll hate you forever. It will be impossible to ever make her loyal, or pursue her relationship in a positive manner any further. She does the mission, but she's not focused and will die if you put her in a tight spot. However if you recognise that she's a frail and abused person and that she's not ready for sex, then instead of going through with it, you can talk it out with her and much later on as the relationship path has continued she's in a place where she wants to take that step with you.

Also every character in Mass Effect has two friend states and one is a romance and one isn't.

I think there is more than just those arcs...

At one point, after several friendly chats with her, I got Jack feeling confused and conflicted and saying she's not sure if I like her or not and to just put it out there. I said I wanted to just be friends.

...She refused to speak to me for the rest of the game, although she DID gain loyalty through her Squad Mission thank GOD.

EDIT: And she was like that even after I took her side in the Miranda and Jack cat fight. She only let me talk to her again AFTER the final mission.

 

[pearcinator]

I prefer being able to get every party member in a single playthrough.

For example, I just finished Jade Empire for the 1st time; thinking I did almost everything I still missed 3 party members?!? There were 3 blank spots on the party screen. I could not be bothered playing through again trying to find them. I don't mind it if there's a choice to recruit or not. In KOTOR, if you could save Juhani from falling to the Dark Side then she becomes a part of your group. If you can't then you kill her and you lose an early Jedi from your party. That is perfectly fine with me!

So, no I like being able to collect my whole party in one playthrough as I am a completionist, it feels as if I had 'completed' everything. If you can't recruit them all then I feel annoyed because I'll have to start the game again and in most cases I can't be bothered!

 

[Frankster]

Star Ocean second story and Baldurs Gate have permanently won me over to the side of those who enjoy it when a game has optional party members and having different party dynamics which in turns has an influence on the story.

It's something that's rare nowadays though, really struggling to think of when was last game this was an option. seems Dragon Age and Mass Effect were the last ones and I'm not even sure it was possible to miss party members in mass effect.

 

[The Madman]

I do think the way modern games deal with companions is flawed and has lots of areas for improvement, and Baldur's Gate II was exceptional in the way it let you interact with them (and the lack of animation is probably a huge part of this), but I do think they're constantly trying new things and finding new answers to their problems. Even the way the crew moved around the ship and talked with each other in ME3 was a really interesting and fun idea that I've never really seen before in the same way. Dragon Age II in particular was a huge innovator, and generally Obsidian have a pretty decent track record with this stuff.

I agree with you actually. The way your companions moved around in ME3 was one of my favourite new features and added a bit more life to the characters, and Dragon Age 2's way of handling dialogue was pretty neat even if I'm still not a fan of the whole 'speech wheel' mechanic. That said in DA2 also had some pretty terrible characters that were about as inconsistent as it got at times and the story was often forced and rushed.

Obviously I've never played ME as much as you have either since I never knew about the Jack thing. That's nice, I like that. Although I'd still argue my point remains largely the same.

More characters just adds more freedom and diversity I feel. The freedom to write a character first as an actual character and second as a plot point or convenience. It allows the player more freedom with their decisions and more freedom for the writer to have serious consequences. Problem is that in this age of every new AAA rpg needing to be all cinematic alongside this somewhat surprising tendency for everyone to have 100% of what a game has to show first time through, multiple characters just isn't always an option. Especially not when voice acting and animation costs are involved. And for the last few years every rpg has been like that...

Fortunately with Divinity: Original Sin alongside the upcoming Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 it seems I'll be getting my wish.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

I like the large party mechanics because of the options it gives. If I feel like I have missed a huge part of the game I will re-do the game as a different class or style as well. Just to really change it up

The argument of saying you don't like party building is kind of meh in my eyes because most games that have you collect party members also offer different classes or options to play with different style. Because a game gives you different class, do you need to re-do it as each class to have "completed all the game content" as the second posted complained? Options exist to give immersion and make your game choices matter. If I could get all the people and they happily existed together that is bull. Humans naturally have rivals and/or others they dislike so to see it in a game adds immersion and another challenge.