TissueBox
Member
(Skip to the TLDR to get to the main question if you want, most of this is just Tissuebox the blog. I mean, er, me wondering outloud!!)
Got to thinking about this while returning to Elder Scrolls (another thread for another day). There are many designations for the RPG genre that compose their own sort of subgenre such as the cRPG, "J"RPG, tactical RPG and etc. Usually these labels are enough to distinguish one game from the other, though what difference they're characterized most by (ie aesthetic, mechanics, or simply the platform/region) has tendency to vary. In spite of my love for several RPGs, I'm no expert and take much of it for granted I think.
What I found interesting to compare is the difference/similarities between role-playing games centered on the micromanagement of a party-based system vs. those that drop you into the world mostly in control of yourself. Games like Fallout and The Witcher leave you in charge of a single character's advancement and choices and makes for some compelling, concentrated story-driven gameplay but some might say sacrifices the rewarding depth of other party-based combat and leveling systems. While other single-character games like Vagrant Story make unique and influentially clever use of the character-driven roleplay environment.
On the other hand there's RPGs like Final Fantasy, The Bard's Tale, Wild Arms, and a plethora of others that are all famously party-based (the roots of which stem from classic board games a la D&D) but also mechanically varied in terms of approach to combat, some opting for real-time over turn-based and vice versa. And considering how these games could vary (from action-RPGS to roguelikes) it might suggest its reliance on the party system doesn't have much to do with how much more in-depth a game actually is.
There's a lot of types of RPGs out there and some very uniquely of their own breed but not all worth comparing -- of course, what matters is that you enjoy the game, a solid sense of statsitc- and story-based progression and meaningful choices, regardless of (sub-)genre!
THAT SAID, at least in my case, I haven't seen the disparity between party-based and single-character RPGs addressed that much sooo I just wanted to throw it at GAF for dinner and then run away.
TLR Is there that much of a difference and even if there was is it enough to matter or sway you on a game on its own or are things like the combat system more prominent regardless of it including a party vs. single-character focus? Which subgenre/type of roleplaying game do you think utilizes which system more often..? Do you sense a shift in focus in modern-day roleplaying games as opposed to the 90s or 80s or is it just the wind?? Which kinda game do you think handles its story and characters better and o'course which type does your favorite roleplaying game fall uder?
As for me, I think it mainly comes down to the feeling of company -- do you like going on a land-trotting adventure to save the world with your friendly (and sometimes annoying) band of companions, going the route of the lone wolf, or being given the option (or even a hybrid, in some cases)? It's probably mostly a characterization thing. (Oh and my fav RPG is actually Chrono Trigger, to throw my two cents in. Characterization in that game is still hard to beat to this day and astonishingly well-done -- in spite of its arguably simplistic combat.)
Feel free to lock if old and both late to he party AND single..!!
EDIT: ALSO traditionally with an RPG is the implementation of some kind of class system. Speaking of Elder Scrolls, some might say a game like Skyrim which pretty much does away with hard class identifications (you can play however you like whenever you like [early on, anyway]) can afford that design decision because of its solo focus, as opposed to a party in which characters adopting different roles are integral. D'ya think this means much and are classes less necessary in a single-character/solo game..??
Got to thinking about this while returning to Elder Scrolls (another thread for another day). There are many designations for the RPG genre that compose their own sort of subgenre such as the cRPG, "J"RPG, tactical RPG and etc. Usually these labels are enough to distinguish one game from the other, though what difference they're characterized most by (ie aesthetic, mechanics, or simply the platform/region) has tendency to vary. In spite of my love for several RPGs, I'm no expert and take much of it for granted I think.
What I found interesting to compare is the difference/similarities between role-playing games centered on the micromanagement of a party-based system vs. those that drop you into the world mostly in control of yourself. Games like Fallout and The Witcher leave you in charge of a single character's advancement and choices and makes for some compelling, concentrated story-driven gameplay but some might say sacrifices the rewarding depth of other party-based combat and leveling systems. While other single-character games like Vagrant Story make unique and influentially clever use of the character-driven roleplay environment.
On the other hand there's RPGs like Final Fantasy, The Bard's Tale, Wild Arms, and a plethora of others that are all famously party-based (the roots of which stem from classic board games a la D&D) but also mechanically varied in terms of approach to combat, some opting for real-time over turn-based and vice versa. And considering how these games could vary (from action-RPGS to roguelikes) it might suggest its reliance on the party system doesn't have much to do with how much more in-depth a game actually is.
There's a lot of types of RPGs out there and some very uniquely of their own breed but not all worth comparing -- of course, what matters is that you enjoy the game, a solid sense of statsitc- and story-based progression and meaningful choices, regardless of (sub-)genre!
THAT SAID, at least in my case, I haven't seen the disparity between party-based and single-character RPGs addressed that much sooo I just wanted to throw it at GAF for dinner and then run away.
TL
R Is there that much of a difference and even if there was is it enough to matter or sway you on a game on its own or are things like the combat system more prominent regardless of it including a party vs. single-character focus? Which subgenre/type of roleplaying game do you think utilizes which system more often..? Do you sense a shift in focus in modern-day roleplaying games as opposed to the 90s or 80s or is it just the wind?? Which kinda game do you think handles its story and characters better and o'course which type does your favorite roleplaying game fall uder?As for me, I think it mainly comes down to the feeling of company -- do you like going on a land-trotting adventure to save the world with your friendly (and sometimes annoying) band of companions, going the route of the lone wolf, or being given the option (or even a hybrid, in some cases)? It's probably mostly a characterization thing. (Oh and my fav RPG is actually Chrono Trigger, to throw my two cents in. Characterization in that game is still hard to beat to this day and astonishingly well-done -- in spite of its arguably simplistic combat.)
Feel free to lock if old and both late to he party AND single..!!
EDIT: ALSO traditionally with an RPG is the implementation of some kind of class system. Speaking of Elder Scrolls, some might say a game like Skyrim which pretty much does away with hard class identifications (you can play however you like whenever you like [early on, anyway]) can afford that design decision because of its solo focus, as opposed to a party in which characters adopting different roles are integral. D'ya think this means much and are classes less necessary in a single-character/solo game..??
