What sort of RPG''s do you like more? The One Character RPG''s like Gothic I & II, Neverwinter Nights, Morrowind and the last Ultimas or party based RPG''s like Baldur''s Gate I&II, Icewind Dale, Planescape:Torment and Dungeon Siege Where do you think is the RPG-Aspect higher and what does more fun? What is better for Multiplayer? Feel free to discuss...

I like the immersion of the single player - it feels more like "you", you know?

I played Wizardry 8 with a party of six, and even though it was fairly easy to manage, it felt like the roles were diluted. You have some characters you don''t really care that much about, and just keep them around for their utility, and there are the favorites that you really pay attention to and protect.

When I played pen and paper D&D, I had a party of seven characters I ran myself. I thought of each of them as very distinct, and cared about each of them equally. But then I played them with others at the table, it wasn''t a video game I could just start up and stop whenever I felt like it.

There''s also a big difference between single-player local games like Morrowind and MMORPG''s like EverQuest and Asheron''s Call. The online RPG''s add that extra element of having the option of going around solo or playing with others.

I can safely say I don''t really like the party-based single player games. Not within my current tastes, anyway. They don''t seem to keep my interest.

i liked some early party-based games (like the first few Ultima games), but i don't know if it was especially because they had parties. it was nice to have multiple little guys to fight with, but it amounted to little more than a power-up type thing, not any better or worse than having more HP, bigger armor, and a bigger sword. plus, it took more time to manuever everyone.

in the early Final Fantasy games, the characters were more important, but that was because it was story-based and they were needed for the plot.

lately though, i prefer a single character to control, as it gives more control and less micro-management. plus, everything is leaning towards real-time (not turn-based) these days, and there is not time for setting up your six characters tactically.

[edited by - krez on February 14, 2003 3:40:57 PM]

Grandia 2 et FF quality stories.

Don''t fit in your choices ^^


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

I prefer party based (although not the particular ones you mentioned ;-)).

Most RPGs have a variety of things your characters can learn to do: fighting, magic, traps, athletics, knowledge, etc. Each of these usually derives from fairly independent attributes. And the games are usually designed so you can''t play without having at least one character who can do each of these. There will be a monster that can only be wounded by magic, and a magic-immune one. Nasty traps. Areas that are hard to get to. Etc.

I tried playing Might''n''Magic 7 without a sorceror once. No sorceror == no teleport (Lloyd''s Beacon) spell, making it almost impossible towards the end of the game.

But that''s one aspect that I don''t like about parties. Most games, you pretty much have to have: a good fighter; a good magic user (usually two, "healer" and "wizard"); a good thief; etc. Meaning that even though there are ten classes to choose from, the number of viable combinations is much less than (10!).

The problem with single characters, though, is that your character quickly becomes godlike. It feels unnatural to me that one could quickly become so dominant over every other creature. With a party, there''s a dependence of sorts: mighty Thundarr slays fiends right and left, but would soon collapse were it not for the healing spells from the cleric, or the magic armour spell of the sorceror.

Waverider: I agree about Wiz8. I feel no sense of bonding with my characters, and often get them confused! This seems to be a problem I have whenever there are more than four characters... four is my personal limit for being able to keep track of their histories, personalities, and abilities.

For multiplayer (non-massive) co-op play is my pick - which means a party based game.

Single-player, I prefer the FF style strong storyline (though it''s not quite plot driven - I''ve complained about this several times before)

Games in which multi-character party mechanics are used typically attempt to have some implicit tactical element, Just as Merie said.

This is to me the greatest failure of most RPGs that go that route. I feel that RPGs which require strategic thought end up divorcing combat from the characters who are involved, at the expense of remaining real RPGs, the Final Fantasy games made some honest attempts at tying it all together, and while I commend their spirit, I have found those games lacking of late (starting with FF8).

Games in which single charactre mechanics are used are implicitly limited, while they may provide a more in-depth vied of a single spirit traversing some great challenge, they never complete the circle and say that every character must carry their weaknesses as well as their strengths.

Too often I feel that in a single character game my choice of character will only determine the style of play that I use, it won''t change the progression of the game. Every character class/race you pick will still leave you controlling a death machine, what ever happened to druids who could tame wild creatures and bards who could get to the damnest places just to see stuff happen and sing songs about it, but never ever get in a fight.

In summary I would say that no one choice can be had over the other, but don''t get lost trying to balance every important element. Single character games must be dynamic to make characters truly different, and multi-character games must have coherence between the elements of combat and the elements of the characters themselves.


struct {person "George D. Filiotis";} Symphonic;
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

Although I agree with krez, single character gives you more control (if provided, depends on the game), but I prefer party-based RPG. Well, my first RPG game was party-based (Dragonlance), my second RPG game was also party-based (Ishar), so I think that's why I enjoy party-based games more than single-character games. A single person defeating the worst enemy in the universe and his minions (while the other people just sit like ducks) does not make any sense to me, although I don't like 5-8 people save the universe either.

In party-based games, you must think of the balance between each classes/races to allow balanced mixes. Also, conflicts between characters can be put as well. In Ishar, one character may dislike another character. s/he may refuse providing assistance (such as healing) to the characters s/he hates. One character can also kill the other characters (depends on their bonds). There could be a huge party conflict.

That is, make single-character games that gives you a feeling "I have a complete control over him" therefore, allow players to have more controls over that character (jumping, backflip, hack, slash, thrust, etc). In party-based game, brings up the interaction (like/dislike) issues between each character.

500

[edited by - alnite on February 15, 2003 1:30:57 PM]

Because of poor design, many party based games degenerate from an rpg into database management system. Who has the Talisman of passage, where did i put the +4 squirrel of regeneration, etc.

For this reason, I prefer single character rpgs. Although, Fallout 2 did a nice job of providing a party atomosphere without bogging down the player with micromanaging a small group.

In particular in Fallout 2, you could not control the party NPCs directly, for instance you could give your nps armor, ammo, weapons, etc, but the nps would only use the best weapon in his preference. Meaning that if you gave him a laser rifle, he wouldn''t use it if his weapon preference was pistols (I reaaly wish you could give you NPCS armor and stuff in NWN...). You also didn''t have direct control over these npcs in combat either.

I think that single player rpgs should focus on the single player. I believe that controlling a whole party crept into early CRPGs because that was the way pen and paper rpgs were played.

quote: Original post by yspotua
I believe that controlling a whole party crept into early CRPGs because that was the way pen and paper rpgs were played.

i agree.. i forget what game it was (an early ultima? maybe wizardry 1?) but it mentioned in the manual how the players should pass the keyboard around to take their turns, or have one player man the keyboard and the others can tell him what to make their characters do.