What is good about party-based play?

[Kide]

I at least as I learned more about wasteland love the idea of creating 4 ranger's, just hoping to be able to add more and more personality to them that will have some in game mechanics even. =)

And about the games now.... Not all like them. To me there has not been game equal in anyway to Arcanum or Baldurs gate 2 ever after them. That whole time dissapiered with the last icewind dale series and temple of elemental evil etc. Temple of elemental evil might be the last game that I would put into same cathegory... I think so... I did like Morrowind even when it was a different kinf of game, but absolutly hated Oblivion. Absolutly hated it, tried to play it, but it always felt too easy to go through, just click on a region you have already been and bam, your there... In morrowind you at least had more freedom, you had levitasion spell, you had mark and recal spells, you had meaningful ways to travel from one place to another. You could go to town port and sail to another one like in might and magic 7, or other logical ways to travel quickly... In oblivion you only need to have visited the place ones and then you just appear there, no effort.

The biggest problem with most games today I see the fact that you do not need to see any effort in them. The dumbing down for the masses, and masses want awesome graphics, so that's what they give...

Besides at least how I see mass effect or for example dragon age 2 is that you canät really even create your charachter. You are given charachter that you need to play. You are not even given a change to create your own charachter, whitch is essensial in a role playing game for me. I can never feel that those games are truly roleplaying games. I donät know why it feels so mutch different than you put into the role of a "chosen" one, but there I still felt that I did create the charachter, the charachter just happend to be part of a certan event and such.

And don't get me started on the dialogue... I could never think of enjoying oblivion style, or mass effect style dialogue options..... I loved hoe arcanum did it for example... if you were intelligent you had more options, you did not know about it though before you were in the situation. And one of the main things I hate about most of the now day RPG games is the fact that you know what skill you need and how mutch you need to do something. like in fallout 3, you need skill level of 25, and then you can do this. I do not want to know that.... That takes all immersion out of the whole experience for me.

And I could go on and on and on.... So please don't try to say there are good RPG games whitch do this already, as I consider none of them good. Dragon age origins has been the only one near to that, but it failed in many aspects as well. And dragon age 2 being such a horrible sequal took all the great things that origins tried to do again and threw them away........

I just really do not need to here how there has been great games with the main charachter thing, as there really hasenät, not in my opinion, but of course it is a matter of opinion. ^^



And I live in Oulu at the moment, so a lot more in the north from where you visited, but good that you had a nice time during your visit. =)

[Kide]

And if I add some other things I don't like today's games as you got me started. =)

Inventory.... Boring inventory, no weight limit, no nothing. Absolutly boring. I enjoyed my inventory in the old games, even when it was almost like it's own minigame. But it was a feature I still loved.

and still the thing I miss the most in modern RPG games, is the fact that there is no such game where there would be any kind of tactical party combat. Fallout 3/new vegas companions, are pretty worthless. Dragon age, you can hve 4 companion's in battle, that is at least something... But... Again it ain't six or even more that I liked.

There are just so many things.... Can you really say that Dragon age origin's had as interestning combat system as in baldur's gate for example?

[Vaux]

@paultakeda:
The only difference between our point of view is who make the characters in your party. Have a main character doesn't mean this character is the chosen one, look fallout tactics, your main character is like other member of your team and the game is party based (ok the RPG side and the background/interaction with party's NPC aren't good enough).



PS: the last fallout-like game is Arcanum who goes out in 2001

[Kide]

^Yrp if we are very specific about what kind of art/graphics style ecpesially I liked the most would be Arcanum style.... And well there has not been game like that ever since... And no game whitch would have had as awesome way of having skill's and diversity, or that your intelligence had effect on what you can say.... There are just no such games no more, and have not been for a very very long time....

[paultakeda]

@paultakeda:
The only difference between our point of view is who make the characters in your party. Have a main character doesn't mean this character is the chosen one, look fallout tactics, your main character is like other member of your team and the game is party based (ok the RPG side and the background/interaction with party's NPC aren't good enough).

And like I said, if that's what you think then feel free to do that in WL2 by just creating one PC and filling the slots with NPCs. No one is stopping you from doing that, so why are you stopping me from making more than one PC for the squad?

[Vaux]

And like I said, if that's what you think then feel free to do that in WL2 by just creating one PC and filling the slots with NPCs. No one is stopping you from doing that, so why are you stopping me from making more than one PC for the squad?

And like I said in the other topic "I'm a ok with the "Up to four player-created characters, with a cap of 2 or so on extra recruits" if the recruit still have a background and interaction with you" :p

[paultakeda]

And like I said in the other topic "I'm a ok with the "Up to four player-created characters, with a cap of 2 or so on extra recruits" if the recruit still have a background and interaction with you" :p

I have no problems with that and I enjoy NPC banter. One of the things that was great about WL was that an NPC in your party could actually refuse to do what you wanted. It was revolutionary to me that that could happen (not to mention making me mad at the NPC). I'd say the chances of having interesting NPCs is 100%, so you're covered.

[Drool]

You want to pretend you're an order of monks on a mission in Bard's Tale III? Sure, do it. Just remember that the game was called Thief of Fate so if the end battle is ridiculously hard you can only blame yourself.

And good luck getting to the other dimensions without a Chronomancer

Actually, I think having a pre-built party like Wasteland did would go a long way towards appeasing the people who want a single main character. You can just delete one of the pre-builts and make your own insertion. Which, incidentally, is what I've been doing lately on my replays of Wasteland because I don't feel like making a full party. And I never much cared for Hell Razor anyway.

[paultakeda]

Actually, I think having a pre-built party like Wasteland did would go a long way towards appeasing the people who want a single main character. You can just delete one of the pre-builts and make your own insertion. Which, incidentally, is what I've been doing lately on my replays of Wasteland because I don't feel like making a full party. And I never much cared for Hell Razor anyway.

Hell Razor's a tool.

What's funny is I mess around with party creation in WL and actually named one of them Ace before I realized why I named him Ace. Amazing the things your brain keeps for twenty odd years.

[Woolfe]

I want to turn this around. Whats SO BAD about having a party instead of a single character.

YOU still control them, you still choose their actions. But now you get to choose rest as well.

So I roll up Desire Sajak (kudos to anyone who recognises the name).
She is a melee fighter type. So I start building her and putting skill points in the hand to hand combat type options, or melee weapon options etc.
Then I roll up Gazza Stone.
He is a technical wiz. He focuses on mechanical skills, lockpicking, repair etc etc. Oh and he is handy with a sub machine gun.
Then I roll up Wilhelm Karn.
He is a sniper, he focuses on long arms and survival skills, including first aid.
Then I roll up Talia West.
She is my Doc, and is also really good with Speech and Barter type skills. Doesn't do too badly with a shotgun either.

Now I have my party. Each with skills and specialistations.

Why is this such an issue for some of you? I don't really understand the resistance to this.
You can still interact with various things, but instead of the main character doing everything, you pick the player who is most appropriate. Oh a bit of bare hand boxing going on, throw Desire in.
Oh I need to repair an engine to get a pump started to provide water from the well. Gazza is the man for you.
Some nasty beast pounding towards me in a dead charge. Boom headshot from Billy.
Need to outtalk the crazed preacher attempting to have the group lynched. Ms West to the rescue.
Need someone to marry the Mayor's daughter who has been mysteriously knocked up at about the same time your group arrived in town.... Well, I'd send Desire, but the Mayor may not believe that unless the Doc can fast talk him into believing that Desire is a mutant with an extra set of genitalia

The above is one of the elements "I" like about party play. I have built a complete team, they can handle almost any situation, but no one member stands out above the rest. Unless I want them to.

Sure I could probably do the same with a single player and a bunch of NPC's. But I don't want to. That is what I liked about all the old school party based games. It was MY party, I didn't have to have someone else's character put upon me. That I keep because they are the best healer/mechanic/fighter, even though I dislike the look/feel/character of them.