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

[Vampire cat]

To quote Sam from Stargate SG-1: "It doesn't say anywhere that an SG team HAS to consist of 4 members". I'd like to see some RPG's where I could feel like I needed the party option. And maybe all of the people you brought with you didn't have to be in the "best pal" or "tags along for vengeance" category, but things like mercenaries. Goons. Hired guns/swords.

Most of all it would be great if you got the OPTION (not forced or anything, cause I KNOW a lot of people hate playing with other human beings in these games) to have one of your friends play as one of your party members in coop, maybe a few more than the main character could have some dialogue options too. I know I'd gladly take the passenger seat if given the possibility to play with a friend.

In the end though I'd rather see more RPGs allow for more ways of solving tasks than they already do. You do get all the conversation options, and an occasional event that decide parts of the future, but in only a few games do we ever get to chose just HOW we want to complete our task. This tends to be due to missions that are too heavily planned out, linear worlds and similar. I just don't feel like I'm role playing properly when I don't get those freedoms, so many RPGs that other recommend highly don't do it for me at all.

 

[Stammer]

I'd rather have a game where you could choose to have companions if you want them. Like in any real "role-playing" game, I'd like to be able to interact with the world around me, and say after helping someone have them offer to come along and help me too.

Of course that would split a lot of your resources and rewards (food, water, treasures, etc.) but it would have obvious positive effects as well. Like, if you knew you were badass enough to take on the world on your own and plunder all the booty for yourself, that'd be great, but if you didn't want the feeling of loneliness and maybe some backup you could choose that too.

 

[Jessta]

I loved star ocean's parties, I played through the first two like four times and re arranged my parties completely different which ACTUALLY effected the story each time.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Hah. Obsidian/black isle has done something like 15-16 games. All of them have team/grouping mechanic to some degree. I think it's pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about, This is a simple fact you have demonstrated repeatedly. Instead of feigning like you do know, you could have just admitted your error. I havent even slightest what you are mumbling about in regards "engine" and "gameplay style", nor do I care to. It's pretty obvious this thread is a wastte of my time. I'll denunk your little bit of fiction and be on my way out from under this bridge.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I asked, why did Obsidian insist on adding a mechanic that was poorly suited for a particular engine? i.e. Why did they add a party system to a game, Fallout: New Vegas, based on an engine by Bethesda that is all about being alone in a huge world?

My answer to the rhetorical question is that they felt pressured by the success Bioware has had with the formula and because they wanted to hew to tradition, despite the fact that it didn't really make sense. But other might have different reasons.

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.

Perhaps my choice of the term 'ego' was bad. What I mean is that having so many unique personalities under one person's leadership is bound to run into problems with priorities, stress, clashing opinions, etc that are natural in a large organized group.

And I think the even larger problem, which I didn't put enough of a focus on in my original post, is that it creates difficulties for the developer since when everyone is so unique, no one becomes unique anymore. They have trouble devoting enough attention to every single character evenly and you end up with stereotypes with stereotypical backgrounds and missions.

But I guess that's more of a problem with large parties, not parties in general.

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.

That's true. But FNV took it a step further from FO3 by having a 'base' for your party, which was extremely forced, and they obviously spent a lot more time on the system than FO3.

Also, as a general point, I'm not arguing that all parties are bad and no game should have them. I'm arguing that not all RPGs should feel obliged to provide you with companions if the setting, the story, the gameplay, and everything else really don't call for it.

 

[moretimethansense]

Snip

A few good points but:

You claim that they get along too well yet in many of Bioware and Obsidion's games the party does take issue with each other, sometimes even coming to blows, they are forced to work together by circumstance not because they like each other.

Your complaint about dedication to charecterss doesn't make sense to me as I've liked most of Bioware and Obsidions charecters and found them to be quite engaging, I feel you may be the problem here.

As for large parties, check out Valyria Chronicles, 50(ish) charecters each with their own personality, flaws and virtues, granted much of it is only in the in game biography.
Or Suikoden, 5 main games each with 108 charecters, very few of which are in multiple games, and in each game at least half of them get charecterization.

Finally I agree not every RPG needs a party, but pretty much each one you've listed a party really is called for, both in story and setting.

 

[zehydra]

I like party-based turn-based RPGs, like FF and Golden Sun, and I like Team-based action gameplay, but I don't think I would like an Action-based RPG with team-based play, unless the team was made of other human players.

 

[Xanadu84]

I would only gripe about party based RPGs if there were a glut of party based RPGs with no exploration of the alternatives. Variety is the key, not one approach being intrinsically better then another.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

OMG!!!!! I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE OP!

THIS is the PRIME REASON that I found NWN 2 to be completely inferior to NWN 1!

I don't always mind having some backup occasionally, but I don't want to be forced to have a group of companions when I could go in myself and take care of everything and feel that much more of a badass.

---

Note: Summoned minions do not count, because they often don't conflict with the fact that it's me kicking arse here.

 

[Therumancer]

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?

I actually like having a party, though I prefer to build it myself given the option, old school RPG style (Might and Magic, Wizardry, etc...).

As far as the thing with companions in Fallout goes though, your dead wrong there. To be blunt you've always had companions in that series. In the original "Wasteland" which inspired "Fallout" (and was mentioned on the box of the original Fallout) you started with a 4 man party and in addition recruited other companions (Ace, Christina, Covenant, etc...) to join your group. In Fallout 1 and 2 you likewise had companions availible from the very beginning, indeed part of the point of playing as "Charisma Boy" was to expand your party size and have the NPCs fight the battles for you.

It's hard to really blame them from "ruining the feeling of isolation" when that really was never a part of it, even going back to the very beginnings of the series before it was known as "Fallout".

I'll also be blunt in saying that the series was always intended to be a bit too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously. A series post-apocolyptic experience is something it never was, and it surprises me when people try and claim otherwise.

 

[Levethian]

I find party-based RPG's which ask me to control and micromanage different characters unimmersive. I can suspend disbelief when playing the 1 role I invested in, but not 3+.

I'm delighted to have them stick around if they'll look after themselves and offer interesting dialog & observations, but that's it. No babysitting.

I've been enjoying Bethesda's solo RPG's since Daggerfall.
Somehow I don't mind Wizardry/Might & Magic party-based games, since you control the party essentially as a single multi-bodied mass rather than having to actively zap your consciousness into another body.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

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

Seconded. Then again, I kinda cheated by using a mod that allowed me to have both ED-E and Rex at the same time. Not my fault. Those guys are awesome. Cassidy too, though she talks too much sometimes.

OT: There have CERTAINLY been games that did it all wrong. For example, WHY do I have to bring along squadmates to the CITADEL in ME2? Why can't I go alone? Why can't I go in shorts, for that matter. Why do I have to put on Power armor and 5 guns? You'd think Shepard would be able to handle him/herself in a surprise firefight. But these are petty grievances.

I DO wish more games did the XCOM approach of having you craft the ENTIRE party. Less personal, but whatever.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

As far as the thing with companions in Fallout goes though, your dead wrong there. To be blunt you've always had companions in that series. In the original "Wasteland" which inspired "Fallout" (and was mentioned on the box of the original Fallout) you started with a 4 man party and in addition recruited other companions (Ace, Christina, Covenant, etc...) to join your group. In Fallout 1 and 2 you likewise had companions availible from the very beginning, indeed part of the point of playing as "Charisma Boy" was to expand your party size and have the NPCs fight the battles for you.

It's hard to really blame them from "ruining the feeling of isolation" when that really was never a part of it, even going back to the very beginnings of the series before it was known as "Fallout".

I'll also be blunt in saying that the series was always intended to be a bit too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously. A series post-apocolyptic experience is something it never was, and it surprises me when people try and claim otherwise.

Actually, my problem with the party in F:NV wasn't that it made no sense in relation to the Fallout series, it was that it made no sense in relation to the Bethesda engine the game was running on.

For better or worse (which one, I don't know since I haven't played the original Fallouts), what Bethesda did to FO3 changed the core gameplay style of the Fallout series. Trying to add something back in from a different gameplay style on top of a completely different foundation didn't work and seemed really disjointed.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

I would only gripe about party based RPGs if there were a glut of party based RPGs with no exploration of the alternatives. Variety is the key, not one approach being intrinsically better then another.

See, here's the thing. I wouldn't say there's a glut of party-based games yet, but we're leaning towards that direction.

There seem to be less and less solitary RPGs (for lack of a better word), which I think is a shame. Variety is definitely the key, and I think we're losing it. To get my fix, I have to jump over to 'action adventure' titles now.

The thing that pains me the most is seeing games obviously designed to be 'solitary RPGs' getting parties added to them just to go along with the trend. And that's why I used the F:NV example.

I'm also worried about how parties are getting unnecessarily large, like in ME2. But that's a secondary thing, really.

As a joke for the old Cold War warriors, I guess you could say I'm worried about both 'horizontal' and 'vertical' proliferation.

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

Perhaps my choice of the term 'ego' was bad. What I mean is that having so many unique personalities under one person's leadership is bound to run into problems with priorities, stress, clashing opinions, etc that are natural in a large organized group.

I'd say ME2 did a fairly good job with that. The obvious example is the fight between Jack and Miranda, they nearly do come to blows, but after Shepard yells at them then they decide they can put their personal issues aside to work for the great good [sub][sub][sub]THE GREATER GOOOOOOD[/sub][/sub][/sub], the same with Legion and Tali. It's not perfect, but it is and acknowledgment that strong personalities do clash.

DA:O wasn't bad either, IMO; if there were actions that your companions thought were questionable, they'd call you on it, or possibly even leave or attack you. And the party banter generally reflected how they felt about each other too. Morrigan and Alistair is a good example: they pretty much hated each other, and so their dialogue could at best be called snarky and at worst venom laced. Again, it's not perfect, but I don't expect it to be.

 

[Continuity]

I 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?

Is it though? really?

The roots of obsidian/black isle CRPG are firmly planted in AD&D which is about as party based as you can get. Plus I think AD&D works perfectly as a CRPG, there are plenty of ways in which the gameplay is streamlined to enable you to feasibly control a whole party... for a start you don't have to do any of the record keeping or rolling, nor do you have to know the rules, the game takes care of all of that. All you're doing is a very high level management, and in fact that would be quite thin if you were just doing it for one character.
A fighter for example is as boring as they come, but an essential part of a party, the gameplay comes from managing the party in every aspect, from composition, to equipment, specialisations, and combat strategy... take all that away and all you have is a hack 'n slash.

So in summary I think your question here is completely misguided, there are clearly two categories of CRPG, the party based which has a lot of management and strategy, and the adventure based which is usually more action focused. E.g. BG and TES... each to their own (I like both BTW).

Variety is definitely the key, and I think we're losing it.

Well this I agree with, though its not just happening in the RPG genre but all genre. thats the forces of the mass market and the AAA budget for you, they see a formula that sells then thats all they make. Fortunately we still have the indies putting out good stuff to show them how its done, plus you do get the occasional departure from the AAA factory norm which is always welcome. There are still devs that make stand out games, valve, obsidian, gearbox even, cd projekt... etc. they're out there.

In summary, yeah theres a lot to complain about, but then when you look at the bigger picture its really not so bad, there is still more than enough variety out there you just have to look for it.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Okay I'm mixed on this, take oblivion for example . You are an adventurer righting or bringing wrongs, getting richer by the minute and buying houses like your involved in a dodgy property pyramid scheme. Not one person wants to be friends with you? Hang out with you, be your bromance or romance? I find that a little unrealistic. (Im so not counting adoring fan so just dont...)

I love the solo play and I would want to keep that, but it feels like your this complete outcast from the NPC society and seperate from it. I think that prevents alot of immersion sometimes. Friends and lovers back in town are good. Companions? Well for me that depends on the game.

 

[Bakuryukun]

Nah, Solo RPG's get boring to me after a while. I prefer the party system, it makes the world feel more cohesive to me, because ideally people are talking to each other about the goings-on in the world, and about it's history etc. Also it makes battle systems better to me when your directing a unit of people as opposed to just one most times.

 

[Bostur]

The thing that pains me the most is seeing games obviously designed to be 'solitary RPGs' getting parties added to them just to go along with the trend. And that's why I used the F:NV example.

Then you are picking a bad game for making an example. FO always felt like a solo game, with the option of having a few weak companions for variety. They were more like expendable side-kicks than real party members. If NV changed this concept in some way, the change was probably that the companions ended up too strong. In this way feeling more mandatory than they should have been.

Parties in cRPGs is not a new trend. Party based RPGs started with 6-8 characters. If anything the trend is to reduce the amount of NPCs.

In terms of character development, in a party based RPG you can specialize the main character more. If the main character is solo you usually need a jack of all trades build. This gives party based RPGs some opportunity to give the main character some more flavour, instead of always being the generic warrior/wizard/healer with degrees in Nuclear Physics and Cooking.

Also its easier to add tactical depth when you have more than one 'piece' to control in battles. The tactical gameplay has been an important trait of many RPGs throughout time.