Whatever Happened to Parties?

[Malthaussen]

I wonder why it is that CRPGs of late have killed the party concept? After all, a game permitting a "party of six" or whatever can always be soloed, but a game with only one character can not be expanded to a party. But of all the CRPGs developed recently, only the Temple of Elemental Evil game was party-oriented, and that game was so bad they're giving it away now.

The D&D concept was party-oriented. Real life commando/special operations are party (team) oriented: a group of specialists combining their abilities to achieve a goal.

The vast majority of the greatest literature of fantasy is party-oriented. Either companions chance-met on the road, or friends struggling together from the beginning, but always a group working together to save the world or beat the Grand Wazoo. (Yeah, there are exceptions: Conan, John Carter, Gor, Kane, Elric, etc... but party-oriented tales are greatly in the majority)

The greatest CRPG series (or even pnp RPG games) were all party-oriented: Wizardry, Might and Magic, the Gold Box games, the Infinity Engine games... only recently has the genre become dominated by single-character games.

I do not buy single-character games, and will not buy single-character games. Surely I'm not the only one who feels this way? What is the difficulty? Even in the Aurora Engine games, a party can be assembled over the Internet -- why, then, is the single player forced to rely on only a single character (plus a hireling or two)? Is there some technical issue? Or is it just some kind of designer prejudice or fad?

I have heard numerous excuses: play balance, the inability of players to use multiple characters realistically, etc... all, IMO, groundless. "Play balance" is a joke. There is NO SUCH THING as a "balanced" game, because the players themselves are not balanced. An encounter I may find difficult can be beaten by another with a paraplegic hobbit wielding a bent spoon. And vice-versa. And if an individual player may find it confusing or difficult to run multiple characters -- then there is no reason he cannot create a "solo" hero to meet his needs.

I wish that developers or board moderators would create a sticky, a poll, a survey, or some means to canvass the playing public and discover how many of us would really rather have a party, rather than a solo game. Or, at least give us rational reasons why it is impossible to accomodate parties of 4, 5, 6 or even more characters.

-- Mal

[ 11-23-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Malthaussen ]

[T-D-C]

Rumors that I've heard so far indicate that NWN 2 will take the type of party system from BG2. This would be fantastic. I've even heard that Dragon Age my also implement a full party system.

Alot of this coms down to time and programming. Alot of the good points of the party system in BG2 was all the interparty banter. This takes a lot of time, planning and programming.

With the speed that most companies are trying to push out games its no wonder that then engines and the developers can't push out a full party system.

[Stratos]

You really takes this seriously, don't you?

In any case, several newer CRPG's focus on online gaming. A game like NWN is a single-player game played directly from the box, but online, it becomes more of a party based game. Or at least, this is probably what the developers intended.

Edit: To add to a future survey; my personal preferenses are small parties, 3-4 characters, each filling a certain role. I generally don't feel I need more characters, other than perhaps when I'm trying to learn a new game's mechanics. The extra characters can be more of a baggage than anything else; you have to spread your equipment amongst your party members and they can soak up precious XP in games where those are divided in the group.

[ 11-23-2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[armageddon272]

I know, there are a lot of games id love to be multiplayer, like Morrowind, or play AvP with a friend over, that would be sweet. i remember reading the Oblivion FAQs and it asked was it gonna be in multiplayer, they said it wasn't because they wanted to make the best single player game. that can mean one of two things,

1) making it multy-player takes away from the songle player experience

2) Bethesda wants to get glory for making the greatest single player RPG (again, after Morrowind).

I think its the former.

[Malthaussen]

The NWN 2 will use a bastardized form of the NWN 1 henchman concept, according to the FAQ. There will be up to three henchmen (although the designers disparage that term) over whom the player will exercise more control than in NWN 1, but who will come and go at their own pleasure, and may only be available if one commits certain acts or meets other preconditions. There will only be one "real" player character, however, because the design team believes that having more "dilutes" the role of the hero.

Poppycock, IMO, which is pretty much why I started this thread. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I haven't seen the official word on Dragon Age, but have also heard the rumor that it will be party-oriented.

Banter and such is a welcome aspect of the BG series, but I am perfectly happy with the IWD system of creating one's own party. I have more than enough imagination to conjure up the banter among my party members, many of whom I have been adventuring with since the late 1960s. [img]smile.gif[/img]

"It takes too much time to do it" is probably a realistic assessment, but that doesn't make it a worthy reason. Designers might just as well say "It takes too much time to do it right."

-- Mal

[Stratos]

I really wonder if Morrowind would work online. They'll have to split up it's huge game world in sections to make it work.

[armageddon272]

yeah, or maybe just you get to use your hero, but there is one huge city in which you can ineteract with other players that you can't do i single player mode.

[Niadh]

The only way to get something like Morrowind to work in multiplayer is to make is a small scale MMO. Many games are now catering more for multiplayer usauge as it is now common for people to have a boradband connection and high end computer able to run it smoothly. As technology advances, so does trends. Think of Pong advancing to modern tennis games or Wolfenstein 3d compared to Half Life 2.

[Ladyzekke]

I have to agree, I prefer a game with a party rather than a game with just one main character (and "rented" NPCs don't count)! I do love NWNs, but I cannot lie and say I was not disappointed that there was no "party" in the game.

I like parties LOL. And I like having a lot of NPCs here and there in a game that you can choose from to recruit. It makes the game unpredictable and interesting, as well as make the game re-playable in a LOT of different variables as well. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-23-2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: ladyzekke ]

[Cloudbringer]

I have to agree! One reason I loved BG2 so much is the interaction btwn party members. Some of the lines were priceless!

I was disappointed when I saw that NWN would be reducing that to one henchman. NWN is great in mods that allow parties and online gaming, but I do miss the old BG2 party! Of course in some ways the henchman are better if you did have trouble deciding what each of your party should do in a battle etc because they decide for themselves, mostly. But on the other hand if you like to micromanage your party...it's not so hot.

Hope the new games bring back a party of more than one npc!

LZ, one reason I love our multiplay games is the teamwork and the interaction.. the way we can have fun, kidding around while kicking a dragon's backside or wandering lost in a cave. The one-henchperson games don't feel quite so 'team'-like.

[ 11-24-2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]