"Gather your party and venture forth..." ugghhhhhhhh

[Spectrum_Prez]

Is it just me, or is anyone else fed up with party-based RPGs?

Consider:
The worst part is when games built on engines obviously designed for a somewhat solitary existence get parties forced onto them like in Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian, in all their Bioware and D&D inspired idiocy, decided that adding companions and followers would be the perfect way to ruin one of the greatest strengths of the Bethesda engine - that horrific feeling of loneliness you get in a huge world.

Or, consider:
How forced 'parties' as a gameplay concept are in games such as Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2. The social dynamics in a group of tight friends simply do not work the way that Bioware wants them to work. Groups don't form around a single leader as easily as they imply. Talented individuals such as the companions you acquire in those games simply shouldn't have egos small enough to work together. You feel forced to bring all of them along, babysit their needs, finish all their side quests... until you realize finally that companions in Bioware games are the ultimate walking McGuffins. Their functions come first and are built into the gameplay, then the form is lopped on top with no consideration for how it influences the credibility of a game.

Ok, that's just off the top of my head. But I get the feeling that if I spent more time on this topic, I could explain my gut aversion to 'parties' better. It's Saturday morning and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Anyone else feel the same way?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Yeah, parties always feel better in Jrpgs since unlike Wrpgs where you're actually supposed to insert yourself in the character and feel you are the one doing the cool stuff, in them you are being told a story and a story with multiple interesting characters, one where the main player character is actually not the coolest or strongest of the lot (at least initially) is the most interesting.


I think this is more apparent in origins actually, since you start as a little more than a homeless dude and then 2 hours later you're one of the 2 remaining heroes of the country, while having not actually done much at all. This wouldn't have happened like so in a Jrpg, that's what happens there in the final stages of the game before you go beat the final boss or who you think is that at the time.

 

[distended]

I agree with the New Vegas comments... I never went with companions anywhere in that game. I kept Raul in my party for the repair benefit but I made sure he never left his shack. I'm sure the majority of players felt they added to the gameplay though.

 

[InfiniteJacuzzi]

The only game that did it right was Pikmin.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Oh and in fallout 3 having the dog was cool..cause all he said was "rawr" in various flavors...I didn't like any of the rest of the companions.

 

[Continuity]

Is it just me, or is anyone else fed up with party-based RPGs?

Nope, in fact there has been a serious lack of proper party based RPGs for a long time. Sure you can have 1 or 2 companions but thats not a party. 6 PC's is where its at.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Playing with companions is entirely optional, like it was in Fallout 3. I don't see the point in complaining about something that you don't even have to bother with in the first place.

 

[RuralGamer]

I am somewhat in agreement with the OP on this; parties only work when your companions in the story have a valid reason to be there and follow you; perhaps it can be argued that too few companion characters in games have motives that real people would have. And yes, companions are kind unnecessary in Fallout; in 3 I only ever used Fawkes and then only occasionally. In New Vegas, I find them far too much of a hindrance as they die far too easily.
The Stalker trilogy didn't have companions for a good reason; it ruins the atmosphere of being alone, just as you said (plus, the AI could be really stupid at times).

 

[Speakercone]

I disagree with the example of Mass Effect 2. In a military setting, it is precisely natural for a squad to follow their commanding officer, particularly as Shepherd is an excellent officer (yes, even renegade shep). This is why it made sense to me.

In a game like Dragon age 2, it can feel out of place. I'll never understand why everyone feels the need to follow Hawke, e.g. "oh my, you killed all the (standard enemy x)! I will now unquestioningly follow your orders at all times!"

Interestingly, DA Origins did things pretty well, where PC controlled characters were skeptical of Our Hero until their trust was earned in various ways. There was no good and bad, only things which each individual either liked or disliked. Do enough stuff they dislike and they attack you or leave forever. Made it feel like I had to manage my relationships as a matter of success in the overall mission. You know, like you might have to in a real leadership situation. This made the characters seem real, and made me emotionally invested in them.

Industry take note! that's how you bloody do it!

 

[Fr]anc[is]

My party has a response

Spoiler

 

[Zaik]

How were you forced to bring companions along in Fallout:NV?

I understand where you're going, but use relevant examples. You could easily play through Fallout:NV solo, the only real use for companions in that game was walking storage chests and an occasional distraction.

I do believe we need more where we don't have three other dudes to drag around, the four person party concept has been run into the ground more than cover based third person shooters, just over a longer period of time.

Considering the only recently developed popular "rpg" I can think of where there was just the protagonist by himself was The Witcher(which was almost impressively terrible), I'd agree that this is kind of a problem.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

I think my greater gripe is that often you have far too many personalities in one narrative. A tv series usually struggles to have 5 or 6 main characters, usually works better with 3 or 4 plus some periphery characters. In a movie, there are only ever max 4 or so people starring, unless you want to go all Oceans 11 and have a bunch of cardboard characters.

That's precisely the problem with ME2. Why did they keep on adding characters through DLC that simply weren't necessary? They could have cut out the Asari Justicar, Kasumi, Zaeed, and probaly Jacob, Grunt, Thane, and Legion, and not have lost a lot as far as gameplay or story goes. It becomes really obvious pretty fast that the only reason all these people are there is because someone sat down at Bioware and said, hey, let's make a game with a lot of people in it and then lets make a whole bunch of missions based on them. Bah.

I disagree with the example of Mass Effect 2. In a military setting, it is precisely natural for a squad to follow their commanding officer, particularly as Shepherd is an excellent officer (yes, even renegade shep). This is why it made sense to me.

Yes, but these were all freelancers or mercenaries more or less. Pretty much only Miranda and Jacob were part of the Cerberus hierarchy and the rest were free to do whatever the hell they liked.

I also find you seem pretty ignorant of the games you speak of. Obsidian, then known as black isle, were the ones who originally made the fallout series. And you could have companions then. it's also weird your commentary on the "bethesda engine", as pretty much all the games from them in the last decade have companions very similar to the oens from fallout-- optional.

I'm aware of Obsidian's history. I'm asking why they decided to force-graft a gameplay mechanic from another era onto an engine and gameplay style that was uniquely unsuited for that mechanic? And no need to ad hominem this conversation.

Playing with companions is entirely optional, like it was in Fallout 3. I don't see the point in complaining about something that you don't even have to bother with in the first place.

The point about playing with companions being optional isn't valid. Sure, you can ignore your companions, but then the game doesn't play the way it was meant to. It then becomes far more difficult than designed, features will be left out, and you might not even by able to finish the damn thing.

My problem is with games designed around parties, not whether a game allows me to ignore them or not.

 

[Zhukov]

If it means I can have good characters along for the ride then I have absolutely no problem with part-based RPGs.

Plot holes and competing egos be damned.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Eh, I've always preferred solo RPGs.

The only real party I enjoy is one composed of my friends. Typically while we go stomp on Baal's face.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Or, consider:
How forced 'parties' as a gameplay concept are in games such as Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2. The social dynamics in a group of tight friends simply do not work the way that Bioware wants them to work. Groups don't form around a single leader as easily as they imply. Talented individuals such as the companions you acquire in those games simply shouldn't have egos small enough to work together. You feel forced to bring all of them along, babysit their needs, finish all their side quests... until you realize finally that companions in Bioware games are the ultimate walking McGuffins. Their functions come first and are built into the gameplay, then the form is lopped on top with no consideration for how it influences the credibility of a game.

I disagree with this with the fury and potency of a thousand suns.

Possibly going supernova because of dark energy.

Which Tali is studying.

... mmm, Tali.

 

[Ghengis John]

Is it just me, or is anyone else fed up with party-based RPGs?

Consider:
The worst part is when games built on engines obviously designed for a somewhat solitary existence get parties forced onto them like in Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian, in all their Bioware and D&D inspired idiocy, decided that adding companions and followers would be the perfect way to ruin one of the greatest strengths of the Bethesda engine - that horrific feeling of loneliness you get in a huge world.

Or, consider:
How forced 'parties' as a gameplay concept are in games such as Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2. The social dynamics in a group of tight friends simply do not work the way that Bioware wants them to work. Groups don't form around a single leader as easily as they imply. Talented individuals such as the companions you acquire in those games simply shouldn't have egos small enough to work together. You feel forced to bring all of them along, babysit their needs, finish all their side quests... until you realize finally that companions in Bioware games are the ultimate walking McGuffins. Their functions come first and are built into the gameplay, then the form is lopped on top with no consideration for how it influences the credibility of a game.

Ok, that's just off the top of my head. But I get the feeling that if I spent more time on this topic, I could explain my gut aversion to 'parties' better. It's Saturday morning and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Anyone else feel the same way?

You and I do not feel the same way about anything. Simply put. Have your coffee and mull it over. I never got a "horrific feeling of loneliness" for example. To be horrified would imply feeling vulnerable and I was the God-King Of The Universe, even when I was running around in my underwear and a handle-bar mustache knocking the lights out of geckos. Parties were never forced on you, they were entirely optional, )You can in fact send them away at any time) the company (and their carry weight) was welcome to me and if you ever played fallout 2 you would have been ever so happy to meet Cass.

As for Mass effect 2, not everybody with talent has a huge ego and if they did perhaps it's simply a testament to shepard's leadership abilities that he can actually pull them all together? That asides they all have their own reasons to want to work with shepard that are explained in the game. Miranda has an objective, Mordin has his penance, Garrus is already Shepard's old friend ect ect. For that matter, the game is not unaware of how egos can clash. There are examples of the fact that such strong personalities may not get along without a leader like shepard around when you see infighting between crew mates like Miranda and Jack or Tali and Legion.

CONSIDER:
You're trying to force these games into some framework that you posses of what they should be as opposed to what they are. If you want to play a game where you John McClain your way to victory basically alone there are a million games that let you do that already. You might enjoy the Splinter Cell series, or how about Red Dead Redemption?

 

[Speakercone]

snip

I perhaps misstated my opinion somewhat. I am of the opinion that a great officer can inspire such loyalty even in mercenaries and freelancers. Everyone has their own reason for being in on the mission and it takes someone like Shepherd to command such a disparate group.

As for the problems presented by party play design, I think it has its place. I quite like small squad strategy systems (like Baldur's Gate if we're thinking old school) but I'll tend to agree that too many personalities can be bad unless time is taken to characterize each one. I'd also rather play a game where you have 3 well defined characters than a hundred 1D character-like models. I honestly think that ME2 accomplishes this most of the time but I agree that they've overdone it somewhat. (hoping they do something else with Legion in ME3.)

Also worthy of note, ME2 didn't require you to use your squad's abilities really. You could just let them autopilot, meaning that the gameplay was majority Shepherd centric.

 

[darth.pixie]

I like them. I needed them...I played this frail brainy scientist in NV. If Boone or Grandma wouldn't have been around, I would have died very very often. I just hid somewhere and let them clean house.

In almost every game, you can go solo. From NWN to ME.

I liked how the party was made in NWN 2. Everyone there had some attachment to stay with the player. And the banter was interesting.

I'm willing to think that in ME..everyone was terrified of Shepard. That or they had their own goals. Same with Hawke...some were odder like why the hell did Aveline keep hanging around with Hawke if she had a job? Wouldn't she be fired or something? Or why Fenris stuck around with a mage but sometimes a game without a party is boring. They're there to add comments and talk and carry your stuff. And if they're adventurous characters with whom you're friends, why not let them come along?

 

[Sejs Cube]

New Vegas has a companion that is a robot dog, your argument is invalid.