🚀 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 ...
>
>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 ?..
>

Just keep reading this group and you'll get lots of opinions.  You 
might want to post to rec.games.design for the designer's view also.

I've played and enjoyed both types.  It's a choice which affects the 
whole game design, and there is no one correct answer (or number of 
characters).

- Gerry

===========================================================
 http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/Brewster/brewster.htm 
 Brewster Kaleidoscopic Screensaver for Windows 95
 The only saver that simulates a real kaleidoscope
===========================================================

Overall l prefer the party to the single member, for variety. If I am
fighting with one player and he is a magic user, let's say, there may be
times I want to just break the ice by whacking things with brute force.
Single player games dont allow for this. Party members also allow for more
creativity in defeating monsters.
But Gerry's point is well made. I prefer party games, but some of my all
time favorites were single person games.

--
"I realized, sitting there, that I was a nut."  Philip Dick, Confessions of
a Crap Artist
Gerry Quinn wrote in message <6jou27$2g2$1@news.indigo.ie>...
>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 ...
>>
>>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 ?..
>>
>
>Just keep reading this group and you'll get lots of opinions.  You
>might want to post to rec.games.design for the designer's view also.
>
>I've played and enjoyed both types.  It's a choice which affects the
>whole game design, and there is no one correct answer (or number of
>characters).
>
>- Gerry
>
>===========================================================
> http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/Brewster/brewster.htm
> Brewster Kaleidoscopic Screensaver for Windows 95
> The only saver that simulates a real kaleidoscope
>===========================================================

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

Hey!... I found a message on Mon, 18 May 1998 18:55:42 +1000 from
Maria and Simon Ratner <z2152908@student.unsw.edu.au>....cool!:


>Hi everyone,
>
>I am a computer RPG developer, and i just want some opinions from the guys who
>play the games ...
>
>What are people's thoughts on whether it is better to have a single
>character (ie Diablo), or a party ?

It doesn't matter... Fallout has single character and it is good

>Good and bad points for either ?..

As long as you can control it in TURN-based, they're not a problem.

A good RPG ---> Balanced btween COMBAT and STORY. , and has a
Turn-Based mode for combat (MM6, despite being addictive, has too many
combat, I think. Fallout has a good balance).
So... maybe single character might be better than party system because
then you can focus more on the story than the stats.

>Simon Ratner
>__________________________________________________
>
>  I have seen the truth, and it makes no sense.
>
>  Contact us at:
>  	mailto:simon.ratner@iname.com  and
>	mailto:maria.ratner@iname.com

On Tue, 19 May 1998 05:59:14 GMT, cahyotw@hotmail.com (Cahyo) wrote:

[snip]
>A good RPG ---> Balanced btween COMBAT and STORY. , and has a
>Turn-Based mode for combat (MM6, despite being addictive, has too many
>combat, I think. Fallout has a good balance).

Nope - you can have a good CRPG with a real time combat engine.  In
fact, there are many - BioForge is, IMHO one of the best examples of
Computer ROLEPLAYING that exists - but it's real time all the way.

A good RPG ---> is a matter of personal choice :)

morgan

>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I am a computer RPG developer, and i just want some opinions from the guys who
>>play the games ...

What a novel idea.

>>
>>What are people's thoughts on whether it is better to have a single
>>character (ie Diablo), or a party ?

I personally prefer turn based, single player games.

>>
>>Good and bad points for either ?..

Regardless of party/combat options, there are a few things that make a
great RPG (IMO of course)

1) Rich, engrossing game world. You're playing a role in the game. You
take on the persona of your character and vice versa. The gaming world
should reflect this and create an atmosphere where you feel a part of
the game world.

2) A rich, intruiging story. The story should have lots of mystery and
a few plot twists to keep it interesting. The game draws you in, but
the story is what makes you care. The story should have a history
(something had to lead up to all this right?) which is presented to
the player both before the "game" and during the course of the "game".
This way, the character is drawn further into the story, and makes you
want to explore more and more to solve the mystery of what is the
truth.

3) Non-linear game play. I want to be able to go anywhere at anytime
in the game world. Obviously this isn't entirely possible, seeing as
how a story has to begin and end somewhere. But the closer a game can
come to this, the better. Dungeon crawls bore me to tears. Been there,
slain that.

4) Multiple ways to solve a quest or finish the game. I want the
challenge of finishing the game without the need to fire a single
shot, or the option to hack and slash my way into immortality.
Obviously, I want the type of character I choose to play affecting the
way the game world reacts to me, as well as kinowing what the ultimate
consequences of my action within the game world are. Simple
mage/warrior/thief classifications are a little old. I want complete
control over the devellopment of my character.

The only game I have seen so far which plays like this is Fallout. If
anyone can recommend other games that fit this mold, please let me
hear your suggestions.

sickmachine@hotmail.com (Indigo) writes:

>Regardless of party/combat options, there are a few things that make a
>great RPG (IMO of course)

>1) Rich, engrossing game world. You're playing a role in the game. You
>take on the persona of your character and vice versa. The gaming world
>should reflect this and create an atmosphere where you feel a part of
>the game world.

More than this, the world has to make sense in that your characters' lives
and all the other townsfolk and the environment have to be accounted for
from birth to death.  What's the setting like?  Small towns?  Walled cities?
Outdoorsy wilderness or monster-infested wasteland?  And, more importantly,
what do people do when they're not out adventuring to save the world, and why
would these guys you selected even bother?
Eg. one of Daggerfall's weirdnesses: monsters should not appear in walled
cities - did the bear in the tavern fly over the walls or did one of the gate
guards simply mistake it for a drunk noble and let it in by mistake?.
Similarly in Might and Magic, frequently towns are monster-infested.  Great.
Wouldn't any low-level fighter of any note just have cleared out all these
annoying pests before they wandered into the city?  For that matter, how can
a city still exist since trade and travel would be really curtailed by
wandering monsters?
Wiz 6: an entire colony of human thieves in the castle at the start, and an
entire city of Dwarves in mines.  Great.  What do they all eat?  Rocks?

>2) A rich, intruiging story. The story should have lots of mystery and
>a few plot twists to keep it interesting. The game draws you in, but
>the story is what makes you care. The story should have a history
>(something had to lead up to all this right?) which is presented to
>the player both before the "game" and during the course of the "game".
>This way, the character is drawn further into the story, and makes you
>want to explore more and more to solve the mystery of what is the truth.

In other words, keep as much of the plotline secret as possible.  Most
characters don't know their ultimate quest when they start out.

>3) Non-linear game play. I want to be able to go anywhere at anytime
>in the game world. Obviously this isn't entirely possible, seeing as
>how a story has to begin and end somewhere. But the closer a game can
>come to this, the better. Dungeon crawls bore me to tears. Been there,
>slain that.

On this I feel it is perfectly permissible to just say "no".  You can go
to the Wizard's Tower but unless you have a reason to be there, they may
simply not let you in.

>4) Multiple ways to solve a quest or finish the game. I want the
>challenge of finishing the game without the need to fire a single
>shot, or the option to hack and slash my way into immortality.
>Obviously, I want the type of character I choose to play affecting the
>way the game world reacts to me, as well as kinowing what the ultimate
>consequences of my action within the game world are. Simple
>mage/warrior/thief classifications are a little old. I want complete
>control over the devellopment of my character.

Also, make it feel like a world where objects have an effect on each other.
Consider Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz - sometimes you end up winning entirely
by accidentally stumbling onto a victory scenario, which is a very amusing
possibility (ie. you didn't consider that the arch-demon would be neutralized
by giving it lots of gold to play with, so when you turned and ran, and dropped
your cash, you accidentally won the game).

I once had an AD&D Paladin who reminded me of an Abbott and Costello comedy:
he never could do anything right but always seemed to win in the end.

>The only game I have seen so far which plays like this is Fallout. If
>anyone can recommend other games that fit this mold, please let me
>hear your suggestions.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA

<good points snipped> 


> The only game I have seen so far which plays like this is Fallout. If
> anyone can recommend other games that fit this mold, please let me
> hear your suggestions.

... and even then, Fallout's characterisation options were pretty
limited, mostly reflecting on combat options. Still a cool idea, but
overall, your character couldn't really change dramatically... I have to
admit that it's still the best on the market, which is sort of a sad
indication of the state of CRPGs...

The plot choices were a nice idea, but to be realistic they were of a
pretty simply branching nature - each town presents the option of a
good/bad way to do things, and the overall plot is fairly linear. I
never finished Fallout, but was told about the end sequence by a friend,
and the concept of it sounds cool - depending on the good/bad choice in
each town, parts of the end-sequence are different.

At least Fallout gave you the option of being a nasty chap, which is a
good thing... Ultima 7 really irked me with the game's insistence on you
not doing **anything** bad, even eating the food in your own bloody ship
that you payed for...

SPOILER BASED QUESTION - DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED THROUGH A
GOODLY SECTION OF FALLOUT!!!!

















Is it just me, or does it seem that once you pick up a nice little suit
of power-armour, that's pretty much any challenge gone out of combat?
Once I'd repaired the suit in the Brotherhood of Steel, combat from that
moment forward was a matter of either being obliterated or winning
without being scratched...

-- 
Laughing Wolf. 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "Treat your life like a tragedy, self-inflict abuse
*  treat your life like a tragedy,
*  precious else to choose, crucify yourself...."
*                                  Sneaker Pimps, Low Place like Home
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "When you reach an impasse, adapt and you will go through"
*                                               Taoist Principle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On Tue, 19 May 1998 08:47:09 GMT, sickmachine@hotmail.com (Indigo)
wrote:

>
>The only game I have seen so far which plays like this is Fallout. If
>anyone can recommend other games that fit this mold, please let me
>hear your suggestions.
>
You should, if you can get a hold of wasteland... the 'precursor' to
fallout, I dont know if there are multiple ways to finish the game...
but it does offer many places to explore and great control over
character advancement. Oh and incidently it is a group game and uses
turn based combat.

Overflow

On Tue, 19 May 1998 05:59:14 GMT, cahyotw@hotmail.com (Cahyo) wrote:

>Hey!... I found a message on Mon, 18 May 1998 18:55:42 +1000 from
>Maria and Simon Ratner <z2152908@student.unsw.edu.au>....cool!:
>
>
>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I am a computer RPG developer, and i just want some opinions from the guys who
>>play the games ...
>>
>>What are people's thoughts on whether it is better to have a single
>>character (ie Diablo), or a party ?
>
>It doesn't matter... Fallout has single character and it is good
>
Fallout is great.. probably the best roleplaying game on computer that
i have seen. What bothers me about most CRPG's is that there is no
oportunity for role playing, mostly your character(s) are defined in
to simplistic or restrictive terms, and dont allow you to really get a
feel for the character.

I dont know how others feel, but I only really 'care' about the
character when I feel that I have control over what they are good at ,
what skills they have and how they react, for example in the old SSI
games, I had no real way to play a character that used wits and guile
to solve his problems rather than brute force.. and all of the
characters just fit into their molds... oh he is just a fighter, or a
mage, rather than this Kris, she is is good with pistols but would
prefer to talk her way out of most situations.

>>Good and bad points for either ?..
>
>As long as you can control it in TURN-based, they're not a problem.
>
Totally agree here, in not one roleplaying session that I have had
with my group have I needed to decide what my character was doing in
the combat in 3secs everytime there was combat. Also a poor interface
design may cause severe problems if the combat is realtime, for those
of you who have played Fallout, can you imagine that if the combat was
real time, how quickly you would get killed while rooting around in
the slow interface of your inventory to change weapons? So either make
the interface quick and easy or make the combat turn based. Turn based
combat also allows you to make more strategic descions.

>A good RPG ---> Balanced btween COMBAT and STORY. , and has a
>Turn-Based mode for combat (MM6, despite being addictive, has too many
>combat, I think. Fallout has a good balance).
>So... maybe single character might be better than party system because
>then you can focus more on the story than the stats.
>
Story is everything, if the system is great, the interface is great
and the graphics are great and the story just plain sucks then I will
not play the game. One of my all time favourites, which I still play
now is wasteland by EA/Interplay, it has shoddy graphics but great
story and gameplay... so I play it, also you only have to look at the
popularity of games like Moria to realise that graphics are not the
most important thing.
>>Simon Ratner
>>__________________________________________________
>>
>>  I have seen the truth, and it makes no sense.
>>
>>  Contact us at:
>>  	mailto:simon.ratner@iname.com  and
>>	mailto:maria.ratner@iname.com
>
Overflow
	(remove the nup in replying to mail)

<Spoiler for Fallout ahead>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Laughing Wolf wrote:
> 
> Is it just me, or does it seem that once you pick up a nice little suit
> of power-armour, that's pretty much any challenge gone out of combat?
> Once I'd repaired the suit in the Brotherhood of Steel, combat from that
> moment forward was a matter of either being obliterated or winning
> without being scratched...
> 
> --
> Laughing Wolf.

Well Yeah, but the enemies are using Gatling Pulse-Lasers.  What did you
expect?

Chris Woods who liked watching the baddies meltdown in Fallout.

On Wed, 20 May 1998 13:23:03 -0500, Chris Woods <woodsc@cowboy.net>
wrote:

><Spoiler for Fallout ahead>
>.
>.
>.
>Well Yeah, but the enemies are using Gatling Pulse-Lasers.  What did you
>expect?
>
>Chris Woods who liked watching the baddies meltdown in Fallout.

Funny, most enemies I ran up against had simple laser rifles or
miniguns. I had combat and difficulty set to hard (the only way to
play). I only came across a handful of mutants without this set up,
and the majority of them had rocket launchers.