Infinitron wrote:What do you call a game like Baldur's Gate, then?
Some folks have taken to calling that style the "Chosen One" style. It's a single-character style. You're playing a character, not a party - so I guess "character-based" would be a fair moniker?
Pfff ! That's cerebral masturbation !
Then Icewind Dale is party based but not BG... But the combats are EXACTLY the same ! The fact is, what you call party-based RPGs are just more focused on fights and less on story telling... which is a hassle IMO.
krellen wrote:Icewind Dale doesn't have banter between Minsc and Edwin. It doesn't force my characters to be "sassy" or "stoic" or "barmy". It doesn't create banter between characters on the fly. The PCs are PCs, and the game has no say in how they interact with one another. NPCs that join the party can have these features - and that's what you get with Baldur's Gate, a party full of NPCs that the game controls and a single PC that you control. Icewind Dale gives me 6 PCs that I control. It's different.
Yup, and that's why IWD is boring and BG great, that's why I finished IWD just twice and spend hundreds of hours during years on BGI & II. IWD is just about fights, BG is about story telling plus the great fights of IWD. Do I say that BG is far superior to IWD ? Yes, indeed.
I think your definition of "party-based" RPG is just old-fashioned guys. Since there is a lot more RPG with just one character nowadays, it seems logical to call "party based" RPGs like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age where you create one character but have to play a whole group during fights (sometimes I really wonder if any of you ever played RPGs after 2000