GameBanshee Forums

Just wanted to start a thread to discuss features common in any RPG. If anyone has thoughts about RPG features, please share your thoughts. Thank you.

I'll start first. I've been noticing that there are quite a number of RPGs that have as many as 8-10+ characters in a party for a team-based RPG (namely, the Final Fantasy series, the KOTOR series to name a few). The problem is that you are limited to 3 or 4 characters in your team and the rest have to waste away back at base or wherever they are. Now why is that? What is with the numerous characters?

Whenever I play these types of games, I sometimes wonder whether if the other party members that I seldom use are necessary at all since most of the time, the characters that are always in my party are the ones that will get the most attention while the rest just waste away. I sometimes feel like I'm neglecting them even though they're not useful.

DesR85 wrote:Now why is that?

It adds replayability, as you can play through the game with different characters (and, if properly done, this can have a significant effect on the game). Besides, it's necessary. Being able to take all characters would leave you with no sacrifice. It's simple decision making. Furthermore having to control a party of 8+ characters would be more nuisance than fun IMO (surely there can be exceptions, depends on the game).

In PS:T, the characters were so well-written that each seemed to possess their own personality and separate agenda, while in BG2, the individual party NPCs really did have excellent dialog, arguments, fights, missions, and occasionally took over leading from everybody. This feature wasn't native to RPGs; it came from Sir-Tech's Jagged Alliance, where you had to hire wacko mercenaries who had unique, odd quirks and vendettas against one another.

Monolith wrote:It adds replayability, as you can play through the game with different characters (and, if properly done, this can have a significant effect on the game). Besides, it's necessary. Being able to take all characters would leave you with no sacrifice. It's simple decision making.

Okay, it makes sense, about the reason why these team-based RPGs featured many characters in a party. Never gave it much thought until I set up this thread.

Monolith wrote: Furthermore having to control a party of 8+ characters would be more nuisance than fun IMO (surely there can be exceptions, depends on the game).

Can't agree more. The only team-based game(s) I know of that allows you to control more than 4 people are Freedom Fighters (12 people max) and Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 with 6 people (2 teams, fire and assault, 3 men in each team). Very troublesome even though the controls are simplified to make life easier controlling them. So far, I have yet to encounter an RPG that puts you in command of more than 4 people.

Fable wrote: This feature wasn't native to RPGs; it came from Sir-Tech's Jagged Alliance, where you had to hire wacko mercenaries who had unique, odd quirks and vendettas against one another.

I see. I thought that RPGs were the first to come up with this multiple character feature. By the way, this Jagged Alliance, I never heard of this game. Is it an RPG or another type of game?

DesR85 wrote:<snip>
I see. I thought that RPGs were the first to come up with this multiple character feature. By the way, this Jagged Alliance, I never heard of this game. Is it an RPG or another type of game?

JA is a tactical squad turn-based game: Jagged Alliance series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, Xandax.

I've been pondering about this for a while but I would like to write about it anyway. I've noticed that there are some team-based RPGs (games like KOTOR, for example) where players would like to try playing solo and managed to beat the game without any team members at all. Sometimes, I wonder how they managed to pull if off?

Now, I'm not the type of player who would go to such lengths in any game I play but this had me wondering for a while. I've seen how the battles go in the KOTOR series and I can tell that going solo in a game like that will guarantee get you killed unless you are accompanied with team members to help you out.

A lot of people play through games solo to add to the difficulty and challenge of the game. It's also not as impossible as it might seem to solo through a game that's party based. In most party based games, the experience gained is shared out among the party members. If you only have one party member, then that character will get all the experience and level up extemely quickly. In most cases this will lead to incredibally powerful characters.

Of course, it also forces you to choose your character build more carefully. You have to find different ways of dealing with things like traps and so on if you aren't playing a character with theif abilities for example. It just requires more thought to solo through some games, and a lot of people like that added dimension of challenge. Myself, I prefer the party interactions, so I don;t generally solo through games.

DesR85 wrote:Thanks, Xandax.

I've been pondering about this for a while but I would like to write about it anyway. I've noticed that there are some team-based RPGs (games like KOTOR, for example) where players would like to try playing solo and managed to beat the game without any team members at all. Sometimes, I wonder how they managed to pull if off?

Now, I'm not the type of player who would go to such lengths in any game I play but this had me wondering for a while. I've seen how the battles go in the KOTOR series and I can tell that going solo in a game like that will guarantee get you killed unless you are accompanied with team members to help you out.

Well, it's not hard finishing a game solo (like Bloodstalker said) but even though it's harder it just makes the game more fun since again, as Bloodstalker said, it makes the player give more thought into the playing; tbh I think the gameplay is much funnier when playing them solo but you miss all the dialogues and their hints and advices. I don't really think that a great Sith lord would have 2 of his best friends following him everywhere; it's just weird. On the other hand, a Jedi going solo isn't that cool. So I'd actually want the developers to put more into the solo part of the game since some people actually prefer this to the team based gameplay (they should put more effort into the party but there should be something given to people who like to play the games solo).

First time I played Baldur's Gate 2 I played with a party, next time I imported my main character from that BG 2 session and played through the whole game solo (he was an evil mage ). And now you don't think this is possible because he was a mage, well it is. Second time was actually funnier.

With KotOR 1 I first played the game with a party then next time I played it I played solo from start (played evil both times).

DarthZ wrote:So I'd actually want the developers to put more into the solo part of the game since some people actually prefer this to the team based gameplay (they should put more effort into the party but there should be something given to people who like to play the games solo).

I'm not sure if that is a good idea. To me, if a game was meant to be a team-based one, they (the developer) should just stick to it rather than making the game focus on going solo. This will surely defeat the purpose of a team-based game in the first place. Sure, the AI in the KOTOR series isn't one of the brightest bunch around but at least it does make progressing through the game a lot bearable.

DesR85 wrote:I'm not sure if that is a good idea. To me, if a game was meant to be a team-based one, they (the developer) should just stick to it rather than making the game focus on going solo. This will surely defeat the purpose of a team-based game in the first place. Sure, the AI in the KOTOR series isn't one of the brightest bunch around but at least it does make progressing through the game a lot bearable.

I'm not sure everyone agrees. I only think they should add some conversation alternatives when you're playing solo (not put 100 hours of work into it), I still think that the group based part is the most important part.

DarthZ wrote:I'm not sure everyone agrees. I only think they should add some conversation alternatives when you're playing solo (not put 100 hours of work into it), I still think that the group based part is the most important part.

I think that will probably be too troublesome for a developer to implement. It's a nice touch, I may agree, but it is not really necessary. In addition, I don't think that the developers of team-based RPGs would have anticipated anyone going solo.

In my opinion, it seems to be possible to go solo in a team-based RPG but not in other types of team-based games like Freedom Fighters, Rainbow Six series, Ghost Recon series, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 and Star Wars: Republic Commando. Going solo in those games are enough to get you killed sooner or later.

DesR85 wrote:I think that will probably be too troublesome for a developer to implement. It's a nice touch, I may agree, but it is not really necessary. In addition, I don't think that the developers of team-based RPGs would have anticipated anyone going solo.

In my opinion, it seems to be possible to go solo in a team-based RPG but not in other types of team-based games like Freedom Fighters, Rainbow Six series, Ghost Recon series, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 and Star Wars: Republic Commando. Going solo in those games are enough to get you killed sooner or later.

Well, we are in the RPG forum, aren't we? I don't say that they should implement it in every game, only the RPGs. One word, roleplaying, the ability to go solo. It's a small thing to add which can result in a very good .. ye, result. Every part of roleplaying they can add into an RPG is welcome; thats why they're called RPGs and not "team-based kill with lightsaber".

DesR85 wrote: In my opinion, it seems to be possible to go solo in a team-based RPG but not in other types of team-based games like Freedom Fighters, Rainbow Six series, Ghost Recon series, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 and Star Wars: Republic Commando. Going solo in those games are enough to get you killed sooner or later.

Well, soloing in R6 -series is possible, since I have soloed through the R6 and Rogue Spear, without much trouble...

I don't see in necessare to implement soloing part to game which is meant to be team based. If the game was even considered to be meant to be able to finish by soloing, then it would have done so, like BG and IWD series. But soloing is not mandatory IMO.

Kipi wrote:Well, soloing in R6 -series is possible, since I have soloed through the R6 and Rogue Spear, without much trouble...

I don't see in necessare to implement soloing part to game which is meant to be team based. If the game was even considered to be meant to be able to finish by soloing, then it would have done so, like BG and IWD series. But soloing is not mandatory IMO.

I'm just saying that you should be able to go solo in an RPG if you want. I don't think KotOR or BG are "team based" RPGs (now people will give me lots of complains but; yea its my opinion). The more choices, the better RPG.

DarthZ wrote:I'm just saying that you should be able to go solo in an RPG if you want. I don't think KotOR or BG are "team based" RPGs (now people will give me lots of complains but; yea its my opinion). The more choices, the better RPG.

Actually, can you name some RPGs which doesn't allow you to go solo? I can't think anything else than Final Fantasy -series, and the partying in necessare for the plot...

Kipi wrote:Actually, can you name some RPGs which doesn't allow you to go solo? I can't think anything else than Final Fantasy -series, and the partying in necessare for the plot...

Thats what I'm saying...

I'm saying that they should add features to the soloing parts of the "party" RPGs; doesn't have to be that much, maybe just another dialogue or two.

Kipi wrote:Actually, can you name some RPGs which doesn't allow you to go solo? I can't think anything else than Final Fantasy -series, and the partying in necessare for the plot...

KOTOR II:Sith Lords can't be played entirely solo, you can play a lot of the game solo, but there are several places in the game were soloing is not an option. Heck in two places (Nar Shadar and Onderon) you are forced to play without your main character through a couple of stages.

I noticed that quite a number of open-ended RPGs (those on the PC) like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, Morrowind, Baldur's Gate series and Oblivion to name a few seem to be following this trend of putting you (the player) in the role of a main character who is mute and customisable (be it facial and physical features).

My question is, why are these customisable but mute main characters seem to be so popular in most PC RPGs compared to set main characters that can talk and have his/her own personality? Isn't having an interesting main character as important as interesting team members or NPCs in any RPGs, let alone in any game? To me, an interesting main character in any game is what drives the story forward.

I mean, doesn't anyone find these mutes particularly irksome when it comes to conversations, be it text or voice-acted? Whenever I play these types of main characters, I get the feeling that I'm playing a blank slate that seem to be very detached from the conversations of others and what goes on around him/her (or more like a spectator).

Compared to playing a main character that have a personality and can even talk, I prefer this type of main character (the one with the personality and can talk) as the player will feel like you're playing a living and interesting person rather than a blank slate who couldn't say anything for peanuts. This also will give me (the player) an incentive to know more about them and to progress further into the story with this particular main character as opposed to the mute one.

DesR85 wrote:I noticed that quite a number of open-ended RPGs (those on the PC) like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, Morrowind, Baldur's Gate series and Oblivion to name a few seem to be following this trend of putting you (the player) in the role of a main character who is mute and customisable (be it facial and physical features).

My question is, why are these customisable but mute main characters seem to be so popular in most PC RPGs compared to set main characters that can talk and have his/her own personality? Isn't having an interesting main character as important as interesting team members or NPCs in any RPGs, let alone in any game? To me, an interesting main character in any game is what drives the story forward.

I mean, doesn't anyone find these mutes particularly irksome when it comes to conversations, be it text or voice-acted? Whenever I play these types of main characters, I get the feeling that I'm playing a blank slate that seem to be very detached from the conversations of others and what goes on around him/her (or more like a spectator).

Compared to playing a main character that have a personality and can even talk, I prefer this type of main character (the one with the personality and can talk) as the player will feel like you're playing a living and interesting person rather than a blank slate who couldn't say anything for peanuts. This also will give me (the player) an incentive to know more about them and to progress further into the story with this particular main character as opposed to the mute one.

Well first: SW:KOTOR series and BG series isn't open ended, they are infact pretty linear. SW:KOTOR just mask the linearity with the "choice" of which planet to visit and BG hides it by offering massive amount of side quests making the gameplay-time very high.

Anyways....
The reason "mute" main characters are so popular in gamedevelopment is that it is roleplaying games. You are meant to assign your own personality and behaviour to the character.
Thus it will be practically impossible to mirror this if the main character had a "voice" because that voice would not cover much of the possibilities of the players own infused attributes.
One person might play an evil assassin and thus the voice should match that, another the holiest of holy and thus again - the voice needs to match that. Another might want to roleplay a shrewd, devious - but good hearted person, and thus would expect the character to sound as such.... and so on.

Also - recorded dialog cost much more then written so economical it is not as feasible, if needing to record multiple voices of the same dialog.

Xandax wrote: The reason "mute" main characters are so popular in gamedevelopment is that it is roleplaying games. You are meant to assign your own personality and behaviour to the character.
Thus it will be practically impossible to mirror this if the main character had a "voice" because that voice would not cover much of the possibilities of the players own infused attributes.
One person might play an evil assassin and thus the voice should match that, another the holiest of holy and thus again - the voice needs to match that. Another might want to roleplay a shrewd, devious - but good hearted person, and thus would expect the character to sound as such.... and so on.

Also - recorded dialog cost much more then written so economical it is not as feasible, if needing to record multiple voices of the same dialog.

these are good points, but I too prefer a character with a personality to begin with, since I havn't played any RPG that your designs truly affects the plot, they only give you a feeling of evil or good for instance but didn't really affects the plot, and it's understandable..if they can't come up with one good plot today..they sure can't come up with multiple plots to suits gameplay style

besides I think it's doable, if anybody played black or white..the cursor (a hand) grows claws and turns more devilish when you play evil, and emits light and becomes more angelic when you play good..I guess voices could be modified on the fly as well to suit the game play style.