🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <355FF78E.A4E3AF26@student.unsw.edu.au>,
  Maria and Simon Ratner <z2152908@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am a computer RPG developer, and i just want some opinions from the guys
> who play the games ...

So, you're a CRPG developer who doesn't play the games? ;)

> What are people's thoughts on whether it is better to have a single
> character (ie Diablo), or a party ?
>
> Good and bad points for either ?..

Okay, there are three different methods of handling this situation.  They are
Party (like M&M 6), Generalized Character (like Diablo), and Specialized
Character (like Fallout).  With the Party and Generalized methods, you
normally wand up with a player who has access to all functions of the
characters at once (and before anyone mentions the Diablo classes, the game
discourages that much specialization).  People make somewhat balanced
parties, avoid putting to much in fighting or magic, and so on.  With a
Specialized Character, the player has only limitted access to the total sum of
character abilities.  A player can generalize, but usually at a much greater
penalty than in a system designed for it.

All of these are perfectly valid design methods that can work depending on the
game design.  The party lends itself well to combat and number heavy games.
The generalized character is usually found in RPG's with more of an action
content.  And the specialized character is geared more toward a very broad
game which is not necessarily combat oriented  (translation: if you do this,
you're going to have to do four times the work to make it good).

I like the specialized character best since it encourages replaying the game,
and I like playing with a character designed for what I want to do than a
do-anything Party or Character.  However, I cheerfully play all three.

Joel Mathis

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading