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

[DaHero]

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're just sick of the bad RPG mechanics, remember: For every Deus Ex there's about 1000 Modern Warfare 2's. AKA, gotta kiss a lot of frogs...

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

I don't know, it's always a pain in the arse when you have to build a character to deal with everything because they're on their own. For example, being unable to pick locks, hack computer terminals or persuade people. You can make it so that there are ways around it using other skills, but that just makes it feel completely arbitrary which skills you pick.

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.

Also, I like the fact that you consider an inability to make players connect with the characters a 'strength'.

 

[Fanboy]

Do I love partyin' partyin? Yeah! It's fun fun fun fun.

I'll admit I hardly used companions in Fallout/EScrolls, but that's mainly due to the annoyance of dealing with AI ADD. Sooo from a gameplay standpoint I totally agree with you, but that's not at all what you're saying so I do not.

Agree with you.

This time.

 

[theultimateend]

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.

Dogmeat is a must for really getting into character.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Also, I like the fact that you consider an inability to make players connect with the characters a 'strength'.

No, no, that's not what I meant. I meant the debilitating feeling of helplessness when you first start a Bethesda game, which slowly gives way to "I'm awesome, fuck yeah" over the course of the game. Part of that initial helplessness is feeling so alone in a huge world.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Companions may ruin the feeling of being alone and have terrible pathfinding, but they really help if you're on a low level or don't have any decent weapons (i.e. the first five hours or so you play).

 

[Mishi]

Not really? I don't really want to be alone. The best parts of the western RPGs I've played have always been getting to know the other people in my party.

 

[Nieroshai]

Pulled off right, it's fine. Mass Effect is different because of its party system as well as its story. Also, I thought people were tired of lone space marines saving the day with only a fistful of ammo and a bottle of steroids.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

That's like, your opinion, man. I love parties in my RPGs. But then again characters>gameplay for me.

 

[DustyDrB]

I love party-based RPGs. So my answer to your question: Absolutely not.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

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.


Anyone else feel the same way?

You don't have to have followers, you can always tell them to jog on and be onyour merry, lonely way

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

this. it's not that i dont like "non" party based rpg's, but i highly prefer actual party based ones, it makes the strategy involved so much more satisfying and i generally enjoy having other companions rather than just being a boring blank slate

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

You know which game REALLY did parties right in RPGs?

Spoiler: This legendary game

 

[Jaded Scribe]

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!

It was great in Origins, but I felt it worked in DA2 as well. For each possible companion (except your sibling, natrually), you have to do something for them before they offer to join your group. By doing that, you show to them you are capable, and can help them with their own dilemmas. Then, as friendship/rivalry grows, they grow more loyal to you. The Rivalry system feels odd at first, as it seems almost counter-intuitive, but if you read up on it on the wiki, it makes a lot of sense in the end.

In both DA games, the party questions the players actions, changes their view of the player (which can change how things play out), and banter with each other. It feels reasonably natural to me. Is it dead on? Of course not. It can't be.

 

[moretimethansense]

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?

First of all, you are never the only one.

Second you are never forced to have any companions, plus it's been in every Fallout since the origional including 3 which was designed by your, oh so cherished Bethesda.

Third, in mass effect you are a military leader, in ME2 they either join you or everybody dies, Dragon Age either they join you or everbody dies, ego does not come in to it.
Besides, not every skilled person has a massive ego and you alway either play a charismatic leader type of person or are someone that it is in their best interest to assist.

And no, I don't think parties shouyld be done away with.