Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
What do you think is best Party or single player mode?
:pPad
------------------
Hasn't this question been asked practically a million times?
(dumb voice) Oh, are there gonna be parties (/dumb voice) Responce: No! Now repeat that about fifty times a day and you're getting the picture.
------------------ Pokemon is awsome! Anyone why says otherwise is too old to get it. Go to the unofficial EV webboard site! Just click (url="http://"http://yoshi.zzux.com/phpbb/")here(/url) to go. That's where the Arorian Outlook is. Go to my ezboard, (url="http://"http://pub101.ezboard.com/bmousesboards")Mouse's Boards(/url)!
Err... Mouse, he didn't ask anything about whether Coldstone would support parties. Go back and reread.
Personally, I see advantages and disadvantages to both.
Having a party, whether of PCs or NPC followers, makes it easier to have a complex story. Each character can have their own history, goals, and motivations. On the downside, combat and party interaction with an NPC are more difficult to manage in a manner which is both "realistic" and fun. If the player has any choice as to his party members, care must be taken to ensure that all characters are approximately balanced, both in terms of story depth and in-game usefulness. I'm sure you can think of a half-dozen party-based RPGs that failed to live up to this challenge; who here actually used Relm in FF6?
Having only a single character gives the option for greater development of that one character. Not only can the story explore his past, present, and future in much greater depth than is possible with a party, but it can also allow the player to really control the development of the character by impressing his own personality upon him. Also, combat and NPC interaction can be managed much more easily. On the downside, it becomes more difficult to create any NPCs which "feel" as significant as the hero, because unless your game is entirely story-driven, there will be long segments of game time (visiting towns, exploring dungeons, travelling, etc) where the hero is the only major character present. Other characters have a hard act to follow if they want to keep up, story-wise.
A random thought: Most party-based RPGs actually worked in what was essentially single-player mode for NPC interaction. Very rarely (outside of cut scenes) will you see NPCs react to the other members of your party when you speak to them. I don't think I've seen a party-based RPG that actually had party-based interaction with NPCs.
------------------ Back in my day, we didn't have any of this here UBB nonsense. It was DiscBoard or nothing, and we liked it! "In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane." - Mark Twain "The answer is yes or no , depending on the interpretation." - Albert Einstein
Well, the problem with multi-PC games is that it is difficult to have real-time battle, which is of course what has been said to be the case with CS. But I must say that while I think both are good, it depends on you type of game style as to whether one or mulitple PCs would be better for your game. I am personally thinking of making a system where you have one or two NPCs with you and you can switch control with any one of them at any time, and if the character you are useing at the time goe unconcous or dies, you move on to another until there are none left(in which case it is game over). The idea is similar to the DreamCast game "Silver" or something like that(name, I mean). If you know what I'm speaking of, hunk.
I support having parties. Without them, most RPG ive played would have been EXTREEMLY boring....
------------------ I dont have a signature
Definitely a party guy over here.
An RPG without parties, is well....an adventure game.
Saphfire
Quote
Originally posted by saphfire: **An RPG without parties, is well....an adventure game. **
Nonsense. To pull up a few older examples: Was Dragon Warrior an adventure game or an RPG? Final Fantasy had a party, but none of the characters actually had a personality; the exact same story and very similar gameplay could have been had from a single-PC game.
Would you consider Deus Ex closer to being an adventure game or an RPG? I've often heard it described as the latter; never as the former.
In terms of actual "role-playing games" (as opposed to computer RPGs), parties are the common norm, but I've read some very good adventure modules designed around a single PC.
PoG comes close to being an adventure game at times, but there's no reason that your own game should have to be. I have some game concepts forming in my own head which are not fully articulated yet, but are very definitely not an "adventure" game, and are certainly possible with Coldstone.
Instead of saying "Oh, RPGs x, y, and z had parties, and I liked them, so a game isn't an RPG without parties", think instead "How can I make an exciting role-playing game with an interesting story revolving around a single character?" Trust me, it can be done.
Originally posted by Glenn: **...snip...
...snip...
Instead of saying "Oh, RPGs x, y, and z had parties, and I liked them, so a game isn't an RPG without parties", think instead "How can I make an exciting role-playing game with an interesting story revolving around a single character?" Trust me, it can be done. **
Glenn,
I'm neither disagreeing nor wishing to argue a point with you. What you have said is accurate and to the point.
There are, however, certain very powerful reasons to desire 'parties' when designing an RPG.
The complexity and variety of puzzles, battles, traps, side quests, treasures, prizes, items and villians contained in a game are very much determined by the race/caste and number of PC's that the player controls. With multiple PC's and multiple race/caste possibilities the game can be very open and complex. The replayability of a game also increases greatly if different 'parties' can be used in playing. A 'single PC' game is by this very fact very limited in creative originality. Not in 'quality' but in 'quantity'. Unless the PC is given the role of 'Super warrior/mage/thief/priest'. And if this is done, well, you have an 'adventure' game and not an RPG.
If you must have a single PC, then the whole game must be designed as 'winnable' by a character with 'allowed' traits. This does lead to adventure type games... the PC traits were designed by the games author and are not 'player choice'. Different roles and choices are not allowed. Not RPG.
Skip
------------------ ...it wasn't me...
Originally posted by SkipMeier: **There are, however, certain very powerful reasons to desire 'parties' when designing an RPG. **
Of course. Personally, I'd love it if Coldstone supported parties, but I've accepted that it probably isn't going to happen any time soon. Mostly, I've just gotten a little fed up with all of the doom and gloom people saying "No parties? How am I supposed to make an RPG with this?" I've probably overreacted a bit, sorry.
** ...With multiple PC's and multiple race/caste possibilities the game can be very open and complex. The replayability of a game also increases greatly if different 'parties' can be used in playing... **
Certainly. I said as much above, though not in so much detail. On the other hand, I've never seen an RPG which really took advantage of the possible complexity offered by parties. As far as I've seen, having different party members usually means nothing more than slightly different combat methods, and perhaps a few lines of dialogue difference in the same basic plot structure. I'd love to see an RPG where different parties have different methods of solving puzzles, different side quests, and different villains. However, the (as far as I know) complete lack of such games on the market suggests to me that such a game must be almost excessively difficult to create.
I do see where you're coming from, and I'm sorry to seem to argue with you. In my defense, it's late, and I've been spending too much time in Just Chat.
Originally posted by Glenn: **Certainly. I said as much above, though not in so much detail. On the other hand, I've never seen an RPG which really took advantage of the possible complexity offered by parties. As far as I've seen, having different party members usually means nothing more than slightly different combat methods, and perhaps a few lines of dialogue difference in the same basic plot structure. I'd love to see an RPG where different parties have different methods of solving puzzles, different side quests, and different villains. However, the (as far as I know) complete lack of such games on the market suggests to me that such a game must be almost excessively difficult to create.
**
Play Baldur's Gate2. If you have Keldorn and Viconia in the same party, Keldorn will attempt to kill her, and most likely succeed. If you take Nalia with, her "husband" will come after you. Unfortunatly, BG2 is not out for mac just yet. If parties are supported in Coldstone then I'll make the party members be the most important thing in the plot. And even if CS doesn't, I'll just change who the main character is from time to time. I will succeed...
------------------ Evil is as evil does. I'm not evil, I'm just corrupt.
Originally posted by Glenn: **Nonsense. To pull up a few older examples: Was Dragon Warrior an adventure game or an RPG? Final Fantasy had a party, but none of the characters actually had a personality; the exact same story and very similar gameplay could have been had from a single-PC game.
Tu shé! I'm sorry to say I have been interested mainly in 16-64 bit RPGs and their clones, a la SNES and up. In such cases, tis hard to find a real "RPG" with one character. I am in err.
I would argue my points for, but SkipMeier has already done an extroardinary job on that behalf. Hopefully, the Coldstone programmers will take heed to his words. Until then, I must continue planning, ironing out my dream game.
Sure, I CAN make a game with a single character. I WILL make a game such as that. But, that is not my dream. Coldstone has never promised to cater to dreams, but, one can dream, can't he?
(QUOTE)Originally posted by SkipMeier: **
** (hope that worked)
If that last part of what you said is true, then the only true RPG's are games like Everquest and UltimaOnline(is it ultimO or ultimA?). In that type of RPG the only NPC's are PC's, but merchants are around too. In everquest you actually talk to the merchants by typing in things with certain key words and henceforth(ooh do I get big word points for that one?). In such a game it is hard to be evil however... and to the person who wanted to see an entirely evil game, well if we did that and it got popular we would have people thinking it lead to some sort of high school shooting or something. Evil is as Evil does, but some evil is just sick.
Originally posted by SkipMeier: **Glenn,
The complexity and variety of puzzles, battles, traps, side quests, treasures, prizes, items and villians contained in a game are very much determined by the race/caste and number of PC's that the player controls. With multiple PC's and multiple race/caste possibilities the game can be very open and complex. A 'single PC' game is by this very fact very limited in creative originality. Not in 'quality' but in 'quantity'. Unless the PC is given the role of 'Super warrior/mage/thief/priest'. And if this is done, well, you have an 'adventure' game and not an RPG.
Skip,
This may hold true if you are planning on a D&D; style of RPG, where it's all about the dice and player stats. But I personally feel that having classes and races and such determine puzzle solving and fighting ability is pretty shallow. Wouldn't you agree that a game wherin the player themselves, the person at the keyboard, has to figure these things out on their own? Take an RPG like Soul Reaver. Personally, I found it to be a very satisfying one character RPG. The reason being that I had to solve the puzzles, and I had to do the fighting. I didn't just have to enter a few commands, cross my fingers and hope the stats fall in my favor. I will agree that some variety in character class can also improve the replayablity of a game. But you can still implement that and not have to use parties to do it. Take the Diablo games for example. (And no, I don't think the Diablo series is a true RPG, but just bear with me. ) You get to choose what kind of character to start off with, a large brute, a magic user, etc. All the staples of good RPG character types. Now expand on that one step farther. Make each character class follow a separate path, but each path ends up coming together somehow at the end. This way, the player gets a different take on the ending, depending on which character they use.
------------------ "Angels banished from Heaven have no choice but to become Demons." -Vicious
Yes, it's possible to make an engrossing RPG with a single character. But it's also possible to do the same with a party. Extra characters add to variety and replay value, and heighten the atmosphere with deep character relationships and interactions. This is the game I like, one about a team, growing together. It's just not the same alone.
And lone RPGs make for introverted loners :)...I enjoy the social gathering via multiplayer games.
------------------ "When Israel cried out to the LORD for help, the LORD raised up a man to rescue them. His name was Ehud...who was left-handed. Ehud made himself a double-edged dagger that was 18" long..." Judges 3:12-30
hey, what've you got against introverts, huh?
but seriously. I see absolutely no reason why an intelligent person who is dedicated to their craft cannont make an RPG work with a single PC. (actually, I feel a little sheepish now -- I made the main character of my Big Game an introvert and a loner partialy to reflect the features of ColdStone)
Take it how you will: 1.) accept your fate and make a straightforeward hack n' slash, worry free, diablo style game because you can't bear to live without a party. hey, some of that violence is sure to cure the pain of losing your mage, cleric, and dwarf, right?
2.) build a creative (although time consuming) party system using linked NPCs and a central, player controlled character. (ex: secret of mana) very difficult to do, but it can work beautifuly if you've got the time and energy.
3.) go the Lorenoth route and have your central character switch from time to time (Note #1: this could prove very interesting -- forcing the player to chose how he sees each character by building relationships between them from every angle. A love triangle where all three sides are controlled by one user? c'mon now...)(Note #2: this is also a creative aproach to building a serial RPG. Every episode centers around a single character that fits into the whole of your universe and either aids/hinders the other characters. Maybe even build in some system where depending on your choices in a previous episode, the newest episode begins differently? plugins, save me now...)
4.) make that "shallow" adventure game. I mean come on people: who here actually liked that weak little adventure game "Zelda," or whatever it was called. But seriously: why are you even playing an RPG? if you didn't want some kind of adventure, you could always break out the old deck 'o cards and play a little solitaire. There is no law saying that an adventure cannot also include the solving of puzzles, the interaction of governments, the sway of lovers, and the difficulties of ethics.
5.) just write a good ole' fashion hero's story. he doesn't have to save the world, or even his home town. All he has to do is be loved in the eyes of the player, and his job will be accomplished. Look at Harvest Moon, if you really need convincing.
6.) and many more ideas that I can't come up with right now, but I'm sure you all will.
There are a million ways to make a single PC game reflect the intracacies of society, the tribulations of romance, and the complexeties of friendship. Just because a character is not neccessarily attatched at the hip to your PC does not mean that they do not exist. If you can build up a true personality in an NPC, they will be forever engraved in the memory of not only the imaginary PC, but the player behind them as well. A character of any importance, if presented correctly, will not die with the unloading of their sprite from memory.
------------------ Do not follow me for I may not lead. Do not lead for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me, either. Just leave me the hell alone. -Jedi
I'm guessing jmitchell is a dungeon master.. or would make a great one
Why would you want your game to just "work"? That aside, I see only two major facts prevelant in this post that has evolved into the heated debate it was never supposed to be:
Some people prefer games in which they control multiple party members; others do not. Do not attempt to persuade the other party, it cannot be done.
Chances are slim that the first release of Coldstone will not have the choice of multiple party members. While this is disappointing, nothing can be done to change that. We must live with it. Perhaps we may "settle" for another method. But all we'll be doing is settling.
Originally posted by Terminsel again: I'm guessing jmitchell is a dungeon master.. or would make a great one
actually, I never played D&D.; all my friends tell me I missed out. well, half of them anyway. the other half can't figure out why I spend all my time playing video games and making wierd looking 3D art... oh well.
Originally posted by saphfire: ** Why would you want your game to just "work"? **
I don't mean "work" in the sense that it simply functions as a single PC game. I mean "work" as in all the pieces come together to form a masterpiece of contemporary interactive fiction, etc, etc, or however you'd like to describe the most engrossing game you've ever played. I guess I could have phrased that better.
Also originally posted by saphfire: ** Some people prefer games in which they control multiple party members; others do not. Do not attempt to persuade the other party, it cannot be done.
Chances are slim that the first release of Coldstone will not have the choice of multiple party members. While this is disappointing, nothing can be done to change that. We must live with it. Perhaps we may "settle" for another method. But all we'll be doing is settling.**
I feel your pain here -- I can tell you were itching for party support. I wanted turn based battle systems, but that didn't happen either. I'm not saying that my ideas are perfect: if you really, really wanted to build a car, and you only had two wheels, you couldn't really build a car. but you could build one hell of a bicycle. (Note: if that metaphor made any sense at all, I can rejoyce) What I meant was that people should use what they have to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and they'll be able to find happieness even with a single PC game. at least untill v2.0 comes out...
(edited for spelling)
(This message has been edited by jmitchell (edited 06-03-2001).)
Hmmm...
Party based RPG's (In my opinion) are superior in terms of the strategy, I tend to enjoy these more because you get more options and I just like the way the party balances out with each PC gaining particular crucial skills I say one character is simply not enough because each caste type has different strengths and weaknesses - balancing these out so that you have a strong party is the great enjoyment behind party based rpgs, the problem is that y0u have to put up with crumby turn based combat and different 'modes' like in reamlz - I rate reamlz as a great game because I enjoy working on my characters skill levels and stuff but the problem is that the gameplay in terms of battle is poor.
Single player rpgs like evo or diablo are better I think in terms of gameplay and realism you can shape the games better as everything is on the same levels - you are not dragged away from the game to engage in combat.
I dunno