What's the point of non-party combat?

[Wyrmlord]

Outside of first-person action RPGs, such as Daggerfall or Ultima Underworld, I mean. More specifically, I mean games where you just control one person, and your companions can not be controlled.

There are JRPGs which start off with one character only, and for a long period, fighting will simply involve pressing attack button for one character only. What's the point if there is only one thing to do?

Even the Western JRPG, Albion, involves a long segment of going around either by yourself or with one lone partner, before you get additional team members. That segment is the boring segment.

Neverwinter Nights also messed this up, because you could just get a stronger party member and let him fight instead. What's the fun in a game that plays itself? And you were still limited to one additional partner only. So not even a choice in what variety or mix of people to bring along.

Fallout at least made up for it with targetted shots, and a variety of weapons that work in different ways in different situations. However, it was still hurt by lack of party combat.

 

[Surf Solar]

I thank god to this day that Fallout didn't feauture full party based control. The reasons have been discussed before, for me it is more enjoyable to see random stuff happening when the companions do their turn (I never really had problems with their AI and stuff like them shooting you in the back accidently only added for me). They aren't lifeless shells ordered around like some muppets, they have their own "life". It doesn't really make sense to give some people "orders" in this setting, as you're not controlling some elite commando, rather some random wastelanders travelling together, as they can get pissed by your actions or even decide to attack you at some point.

The story etc. is about you - the chosen one/vault dweller - not about the whole party. It is not centred around travelling in a party, it is just an option. Full party control would've made the game even more easy than it already is too, IMO.

 

[JarlFrank]

I don't mind single char RPGs, but then they shouldn't be turnbased and shouldn't give you a party.

Diablo is cool, first person RPGs are cool, but what the fuck is the point of making a relatively complex TB system and giving the player followers but then not let him control them (Fallout, Arcanum). This is why I played without followers in both Fallouts, and only used them in Arcanum because I liked the characters and wanted some support chars to heal me. Follower AI is usually shit so they just go and do something stupid and die.

If there are followers, give us full party control. If you don't, what's the point of a party in the first place?

 

[MMXI]

Even the Western JRPG, Albion, involves a long segment of going around either by yourself or with one lone partner, before you get additional team members.

 

[Jasede]

Hm...

 

[Wyrmlord]

@Surf Solar
Another example of how Good 'Roleplaying' =! Good Game.

@ MMXI
Why act shocked? Albion is very close to JRPGs in its colour scheme, its look, its fixed main character, and its general linear style.

 

[Surf Solar]

@Surf Solar
Another example of how Good 'Roleplaying' =! Good Game.

Why? I kinda see where you are coming from and partially agree, but in this example for me the game benefited from that decision.

 

[DraQ]

Outside of first-person action RPGs, such as Daggerfall or Ultima Underworld, I mean. More specifically, I mean games where you just control one person, and your companions can not be controlled.

There are JRPGs which start off with one character only, and for a long period, fighting will simply involve pressing attack button for one character only. What's the point if there is only one thing to do?

Even the Western JRPG, Albion, involves a long segment of going around either by yourself or with one lone partner, before you get additional team members. That segment is the boring segment.

Neverwinter Nights also messed this up, because you could just get a stronger party member and let him fight instead. What's the fun in a game that plays itself? And you were still limited to one additional partner only. So not even a choice in what variety or mix of people to bring along.

Fallout at least made up for it with targetted shots, and a variety of weapons that work in different ways in different situations. However, it was still hurt by lack of party combat.

Un-derping from wyrmlordian..................................................................Done.

Lack of options is boring and makes for bad combat. I'm also stupid and like to state the obvious.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Wow, Jakub Zahowrski, even when you agree with me, you have to say something bad about me.

What do you have against me, Jakub?

 

[felipepepe]

I like single-char games, Divinity II you control only one character, and it's great, because you have many spells and habilities. And on both Baldur's Gate and Fallout Tactics I made a "solo run" once and was pretty fun.

But it's true, either you control everyone or go alone, companions that do whatever they like are a pain in the ass. I HATED when Cassidy and Sulik started doing stupid things, like punching robots. And Marcus killed me more than any other thing in the wasteland.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I thank god to this day that Fallout didn't feauture full party based control. The reasons have been discussed before, for me it is more enjoyable to see random stuff happening when the companions do their turn (I never really had problems with their AI and stuff like them shooting you in the back accidently only added for me). They aren't lifeless shells ordered around like some muppets, they have their own "life". It doesn't really make sense to give some people "orders" in this setting, as you're not controlling some elite commando, rather some random wastelanders travelling together, as they can get pissed by your actions or even decide to attack you at some point.

The story etc. is about you - the chosen one/vault dweller - not about the whole party. It is not centred around travelling in a party, it is just an option. Full party control would've made the game even more easy than it already is too, IMO.

Same here. I didn't really have problems with cNPCs in Fallout except for lack of stuff that should be obvious for any reasonable AI system like not trying to shoot through friendly characters.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Hrrmn

the argument here being that being able to control one character only in an rpg with tactical combat is limiting potential of gameplay depth

and mitigating factors against this statement are nuances like the whole debate on gamist versus simulationist implementation of combat in a more intimate party setting, since arguments like x-com units should be completely controllable require less discussion


well bros how would you feel about a TB combat system where depth of control of party members is entailed by stuff like main character combat situation intensity and team member awareness/experience

e.g., and this is a quicker example than ideal and probably not the best way of selling the idea: being able to control everyone properly as you initially close in and start the first rounds of combat but if your main character gets hemmed in and gets distracted management of other characters will be much more limited like only be able to set ai combat strategies for those within earshot or be able to signal retreats by indicating specific area and having the AI chose its own path there until situation cools down for individual members

stats and skills governing all that of course

and lets assume somehow friendly AI isn't retarded across the board for purposes of this discussion

I think people will be more amenable to unoptimal AI member combat decisions if they know there are transparent game rules governing all that. Again, no bro would call bullshit bad design when an xcom rookie gets mind controlled by ethereals and panics and runs into a sectapod ambush

 

[Marobug]

summing up thread:
tb combat+party=tactical combat=Cool
tb combat+single character=boring combat*1000= Uncool
rt combat+party=total clusterfuck=Uncool
rt combat+single character=ARPG=if(done right)=Cool

 

[felipepepe]

summing up thread:
tb combat+party=tactical combat=Cool
tb combat+single character=boring combat*1000= Uncool
rt combat+party=total clusterfuck=Uncool
rt combat+single character=ARPG=if(done right)=Cool

That makes Fallout uncool bro. That's not cool.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

coolness is a semantics issue best left to the philosophers among us

 

[Marobug]

summing up thread:
tb combat+party=tactical combat=Cool
tb combat+single character=boring combat*1000= Uncool
rt combat+party=total clusterfuck=Uncool
rt combat+single character=ARPG=if(done right)=Cool

That makes Fallout uncool bro. That's not cool.

Shit completely forgot about fallout.

I always sucked at math.

 

[MMXI]

Why act shocked? Albion is very close to JRPGs in its colour scheme...

Colour scheme? Seriously? It pulled off the colourful alien world well. Nothing specifically JRPG about it.

...its look...

Its look? Which look? Its top down view outside of dungeons and towns? Like Amberstar/Ambermoon and even the Ultima series?

...its fixed main character...

Yep, true. But it's not exactly the first cRPG to have a fixed protagonist. In fact, western RPGs have had fixed protagonists before the genre even existed in Japan.

...and its general linear style.

Yeah, it is a linear game, but I don't think that defines anything. There were quite a lot of linear RPGs in the 80s and early 90s, for example, though with little narrative.

 

[DraQ]

Wow, Jakub Zahowrski, even when you agree with me, you have to say something bad about me.

What do you have against me, Jakub?

Praatek Senjay detected.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I thank god to this day that Fallout didn't feauture full party based control [...]

That's very cool and I kind of agree, but in the end of the day the AI is still retarded, and Ian / Marcus still got you / Myron plastered all over that wall.

There are JRPGs which start off with one character only, and for a long period, fighting will simply involve pressing attack button for one character only. What's the point if there is only one thing to do?

These games are focused on having a party, but the story sometimes demands that one character will be alone. Nothing they can do about that, I guess.

 

[Excidium]

Anyway, having a party doesn't necessarily mean the combat will be good.

I'll take Fallout combat over Baldur's Gate combat any time.

 

[MMXI]

I'll take Fallout combat over Baldur's Gate combat any time.

I wouldn't. It's far less tactical and takes a whole lot longer.

 

[Excidium]

But it's a lot more enjoyable, at least for me.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Wow, Jakub Zahowrski, even when you agree with me, you have to say something bad about me.

What do you have against me, Jakub?

Praatek Senjay detected.

So, you have a deviant art gallery full of dragons ?

 

[Surf Solar]

I thank god to this day that Fallout didn't feauture full party based control [...]

That's very cool and I kind of agree, but in the end of the day the AI is still retarded, and Ian / Marcus still got you / Myron plastered all over that wall..

The playercharacter can miss and "Oops.. XY was hit instead of ABC!" aswell, why should NPC not? Besides that, it's the players fault if they always stand in line of a fucking burst weapon or a person known to have less experience with firearms.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I thank god to this day that Fallout didn't feauture full party based control [...]

That's very cool and I kind of agree, but in the end of the day the AI is still retarded, and Ian / Marcus still got you / Myron plastered all over that wall..

The playercharacter can miss and "Oops.. XY was hit instead of ABC!" aswell, why should NPC not? Besides that, it's the players fault if they always stand in line of a fucking burst weapon or a person known to have less experience with firearms.

It's a general AI problems. It shouldn't try to shot through other people by it does.