Party based cRPGs?

tottin · Unread postby **tottin** » 02 Dec 2006, 04:09

What is your opionion on classic party based cRPGs?

arturchix · Unread postby **arturchix** » 02 Dec 2006, 04:29

Interesting question - I've got used to the traditional system of starting with a party of 4 characters but I have to admit that the system used in MM8, hiring and dismissing characters along the way, was very interesting though 4 characters would have been better. If it's well balanced, I'd like to hire and dismiss other party members, except the main one.

Mytical · Unread postby **Mytical** » 02 Dec 2006, 05:41

Since my favorite rpg(s) of all time is the Final Fantasy setting, I like the starting with 1 and gathering others as I go. Barring death or them turning traitor; however, they should remain in the party.

Aku · Unread postby **Aku** » 02 Dec 2006, 12:33

I voted "I don't care". I'm a fan of good games not their character systems. There are many great games with different approaches to the problem, but it doesn't matter what party system will look like. Only good gameplay matters to me.

arturchix · Unread postby **arturchix** » 02 Dec 2006, 12:49

Certain elements create good games and this one is actually quite important. Might and Magic RPG won't be the same if they will decide to drop the party system.

Angelspit · Unread postby **Angelspit** » 02 Dec 2006, 13:24

Recruiting along the way is best. I think ideally a game should allow players to play with small or large groups as they see fit, with perhaps a disadvantage for larger groups (higher maintenance costs, less experience).

klaymen · Unread postby **klaymen** » 02 Dec 2006, 17:26

I think that the hiring system in MM8 was the best

Kareeah Indaga · Unread postby **Kareeah Indaga** » 02 Dec 2006, 17:47

Mmm…I’m not really sure. Definitely one of the first two, but which?

On the one hand, it’s nice not having to go through part of the game without, say, a healer, or a Sorcerer for Wizard Eye until you find someone of the right class. (And when you do, they could easily be not high enough level to stay alive in the dungeons the rest of the party can smash through without trouble. Or more often at the beginning of the game, they’re too high level and won’t join you until you’ve gotten stronger, or they’re the only ones getting decent experience because everyone else dies first…) But having a “main” character makes it easy to decide who gets most of the barrels, the single suit of awesome armor we found in that chest at the bottom of the ocean, the really nice artifact we looted from the King of Thieves…because everyone else may be temporary. Your Main Is Forever(tm).

And I do rather like being able to switch out party members, that way if you only need/want a certain class for a quest or two (maybe an extra Knight in the Tomb of Magic-Immune Golems and SP-Draining Horrors) you have the option of trading out party members temporarily. (I think it might also be kinder to newcomers to the series, so if someone accidentally screwed themselves with an all-Knight party at the start when they weren’t nearly ready for that sort of set-up, they can exchange party members rather than start over.) I’ve also heard of people who liked MM8 because they could solo the game without having to get 3/4ths of the party killed at the start, and while I’m not into that myself, I see no reason why such a thing shouldn’t be allowable with more ease than MM7.

I would, however, like to discourage too many of the Dyson-Leland style quests that are made possible by party switching. While it’s more original than the usual kill-all-the-monsters-of-x-or-y-type quests or the Fed-Ex Quests, it’s bloody annoying to have to drop a seasoned, vital party member for someone half their level while trying to keep that person alive. (Overdune wasn’t so bad. Him you didn’t have to fight with, and he wasn’t so much of a nutcase. But Dyson Leland’s quests annoyed me.) Maybe if they weren’t mainline quests it wouldn’t be so bad.

GrayFace · Unread postby **GrayFace** » 02 Dec 2006, 18:23

I like choosing chars at start or playing with one character. I don't know what to choose. I don't like MM8 system.
[Edit] I chose creating a party

Grumpy Old Wizard · Unread postby **Grumpy Old Wizard** » 02 Dec 2006, 22:00

I chose the "create a party" option. I think it makes the game more replayable because then you can do things like create a party of all thieves or all wizards, ect for replayability. For instance the old black box/gold box D&D games and Wizardry.

I do like variety though and it is good to play rpgs where NPCs are recruitable(Ultima, Balder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights) or single character rpgs (like the Elder Scroll series or Ultima Underworld 1/2.)

I really like turn based party rpgs and wish more would be produced these days. In particular I like turn based games where you have a battlefield when there is an encounter so that the combat is tactical too.
GOW

Aku · Unread postby **Aku** » 03 Dec 2006, 13:01

Like Betrayal in Krondor? Now that's a great piece of classic crpg ;)

Lord13 · Unread postby **Lord13** » 11 Dec 2006, 22:52

I want to create my party members from the beginning.
I find it more interested than create just one char and found
the others in-game(such as MnM8 has or Dungeon siege from
other games), and the single char RPGs are much more bored
imo!

Sir William S Titan · Unread postby **Sir William S Titan** » 12 Dec 2006, 21:54

Voted: Don't care.

Though, it's more for the first two options, rather than the third.

HodgePodge · Unread postby **HodgePodge** » 13 Dec 2006, 02:14

GOOD HEAVENS! What a quesion. I love all the Might & Magic games 6-8! I love starting with a party I can develop from the start but after playing Might & Magic VIII … I gotta tell you I also love hiring new Heroes along the way.

So I guess I should've voted "I don't care" but I care a great deal. Gimme a game I love and I'll play it forever!

TheOne · Unread postby **TheOne** » 23 Mar 2007, 12:52

I voted "(2) I want to start with one character and recruit more on the way", but I think there is one more way (maybe the best one). So my choice would be:
- start with one character, but when you decide to play with new one, the old must appear in the "hireling house"
- you will be able to hire him, when you reach his level
- you can play alone all the time, or just create 4 or more characters and make a party

What do You think about that?

Bandobras Took · Unread postby **Bandobras Took** » 23 Mar 2007, 13:42

I'm missing the "both" option -- my ideal game has the option to create as many characters as you want but also provides recruitable characters in game.

UndeadHalfOrc · Unread postby **UndeadHalfOrc** » 23 Mar 2007, 19:27

>>>>I'm missing the "both" option -- my ideal game has the option to create as many characters as you want but also provides recruitable characters in game.

+1

In the Baldur's Gate games you can play the normal way (create 1 char, recruit 5 more) or play a "single player multipayer game" if that makes sense: create all 6 characters. You can create as many as you want/recruit as many as you want. You can create 3 then recruit 3 later. I prefer to play that way actually.

UndeadHalfOrc · Unread postby **UndeadHalfOrc** » 23 Mar 2007, 19:28

And in the old Eye of the Beholder games, you created 4 then recruited 2 more along the way.

DaveO · Unread postby **DaveO** » 25 Mar 2007, 18:36

I like the ability to create my own party at the start. Recruiting is nice, but I definitely prefer creating 'newbies' and seeing them advance to more power. I think parties of 3-6 characters is about the best. Those 8 person parties are likely never coming again.

BROJD · Unread postby **BROJD** » 05 May 2007, 04:27

Are there any party-based cRPGs left out there? I love the M&M games (but not HOMM) and the Wizardry games. I played the Activision game Wizardry and enjoyed it and am currently playing Dungeon Siege II.

I'd love to find another one out there. I prefer the first-person games like M&M and Wizardry (but not FPS action shooters).

And I'd kill for M&MX!

PS -- I voted for #1!

The Heroes Round Table