• 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -


#2 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

Pretty self-explanatory: what is your favorite number of characters in a party in your RPGs? I personally prefer four, as it allows dedicated roles for tanking, healing, and damageers, without redundancies.

#3 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

all SMT games besides Digital Devil Saga (and the first two personas I guess) have 4 party members and they are the best RPGs thus 4 is the best RPG party size.

#4 Posted by Yummylee (21509 posts) -

Four seems like a good round number and it's what I'm used to. I just wish the ME games allowed up to a total of four.

#5 Edited by UitDeToekomst (709 posts) -

four seems to be a magic number for me, including main guy. it tends to allow enough flexibility without getting overly complex. depends a lot on the game and how things work in it, though, of course.

#6 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

5 because then I could have Chie, Yosuke, Yukiko and Kanji!

#7 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

@Sooty said:

5 because then I could have Chie, Yosuke, Yukiko and Kanji!

um Teddie > Yukiko

#8 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@Sooty said:

5 because then I could have Chie, Yosuke, Yukiko and Kanji!

um Teddie > Yukiko

My foot > your toes

#9 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4398 posts) -

Depends on how many characters I like. I only use characters I actually like in rpgs, regardless of how good they are or how difficult my selection makes the game. In something like Lost Odyssey for example, I loved the entire cast, even the kids, so in my stupid, crazy, yet perfect world, my party would be huge. Having to choose only 3 characters made it quite difficult for me. In something like Dragon Age 1 or Mass Effect, I only really liked a few characters so 3-4 worked for me there.

If I had to choose, I would go with 6 just in case there's quite a few characters I get attached to.

#10 Posted by believer258 (11802 posts) -

One

...what? Sue me! This must be why I like Oblivion and Skyrim so much more than most of the RPG's I play, though I do enjoy Dragon Age Origins a good bit.

#11 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

4 is the golden number.

#12 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

Six. The more the merrier!

#13 Posted by BaneFireLord (2927 posts) -

@believer258 said:

One

#14 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5144 posts) -

You and three henchman.

#15 Posted by Slay3r1583 (608 posts) -

I went with six as my two favorite RPG's (Suikoden 2 and Baldur's Gate 2) use six person parties. I like having overlap with character roles because I never feel like I'm totally screwed if one or two characters die during a fight.

#16 Posted by joshthebear (2700 posts) -
@Abyssfull

Four seems like a good round number and it's what I'm used to. I just wish the ME games allowed up to a total of four.

^ This.
#17 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

7

#18 Posted by Captain_Insano (1535 posts) -

4 is a good solid number. Suppose Baldur's Gate and the like got me used to that. Could divide then into a 2 x 2 formation. 2 to scout and the other 2 to follow and support.

#19 Posted by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

4 right amount for roles to devople any more it gets busy

#20 Posted by SpaceRunaway (861 posts) -

Six, the classic Suikoden number.

#21 Posted by Commisar123 (1791 posts) -

4: 2 DPS, 1 Tank , and 1 Healer. This way I get all my roles filled and the party isn't unwieldy.

#22 Posted by Hunter5024 (5621 posts) -

I chose 3 because I like to have a party where every move is very important, and I don't feel games offer that when you have 4 moves you can use. I recently played through ff9 again, and felt like it took too long to get around to the people I wanted to use and that there was a lot of redundancy among the roles. Admittedly 3 can feel limiting if you're forced to use your main character, if the white mage is useless outside of healing, or if you're in a situation where one of your dudes is down and can't seem to get back up. However I feel that these things can all be designed around, and when at their best 3 man parties are the way to go.

#23 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

5 for DnD based RPGs. 4 simply is not enough.

For turn based JRPG's I like 3.

#24 Posted by Neurotic (632 posts) -

Four. It's what I've become wired for although three is not so bad either.

#25 Posted by MrMazz (953 posts) -

4 since its the easiest to manage with a variety of combat styles I wouldnt mind a 6er but you have to have some really interesting characters to make me care bout them

#26 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4719 posts) -

Four is the right number for me. Any more than that and it becomes far too chaotic on screen. To deal with that devs tend to go with an isometric perspective, and that's just flat out gross.

Mass Effect does handle three man parties quite well, though.

#27 Posted by ApeGantz (217 posts) -

I like 5 but prefer 4.

#28 Posted by FreakAche (2953 posts) -

In JRPGs it should definitely be four, one for each elemental. Western RPGs, it's a bit more up in the air, but I'll go with four anyway.

#29 Posted by NekuCTR (1663 posts) -

3. I cant think of any other game that has a 3 party system other than FFX..... FFX is pretty good guys...

#30 Posted by Irvandus (2877 posts) -

4 Cause you can fill all roles and bring another character along just for fun.

#31 Posted by RandomHero666 (3181 posts) -

I prefer 3, works for most final Fantasy Games I like, Mass Effect, and Rainbow Six

#32 Posted by RagnarokRed (90 posts) -

Six since it's been burned into my head as the normal party number. Thanks FFXI.

#33 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -

Come to think of it, I can't imagine a game like KotOR or Mass Effect with more characters than they already have, simply based on the way combat is designed. I guess a plus with three character parties is that, since dedicated roles are less necessary, you can have pretty much whoever you want in your party, whereas in games like Dragon Age or even Persona 4 it becomes more about who is useful in combat than who you actually like. Even though I really liked Naoto as a character, she was completely useless in combat because all her abilities focused on 1HKOs and massive damage spells, which I found useless. Likewise, in Dragon Age, I was pretty much forced to always have Leliana or Zevran in my party in fear of being unable to unlock a chest, and I didn't especially like either of those characters. Even worse, in Dragon Age 2 the only viable tanking companion was Aveline, who I found to be rather boring. In three party systems, each character is more rounded. In KotOR I could take Carth and T3 on a mission, and then Mission and Bastilla on the next without really changing how I play. In Mass Effect I would switch up parties all the time so I could see each character develop. Maybe 3 character parties are best.

#34 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@Red said:

Come to think of it, I can't imagine a game like KotOR or Mass Effect with more characters than they already have, simply based on the way combat is designed. I guess a plus with three character parties is that, since dedicated roles are less necessary, you can have pretty much whoever you want in your party, whereas in games like Dragon Age or even Persona 4 it becomes more about who is useful in combat than who you actually like. Even though I really liked Naoto as a character, she was completely useless in combat because all her abilities focused on 1HKOs and massive damage spells, which I found useless.

Well, i always took the ones i liked the most with me. Chie, Kanji and Teddie. Chie was fairly useless compared to Kanji, but i really like Chie.
#35 Edited by Red (5994 posts) -

@MikeGosot: True, but in that scenario you had two ice guys and two melee guys, which was rather inefficient. It's also pretty necessary to have at least Yukiko or Teddie in your group, in order to heal. I mean, if someone wanted to, they could play Dragon Age or Persona 4 with whoever they wanted, but it would makes things a lot more difficult than having a more structured party. I liked Kanji a lot more than Yukiko, but it wouldn't make sense to switch them out because my group needed a healer. In other words, even though you may like a character, you won't necessarily like them in combat, and vice versa. Perhaps less variation between companion characters can actually be a good thing.

#36 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@Red said:

@MikeGosot: True, but in that scenario you had two ice guys and two melee guys, which was rather inefficient. It's also pretty necessary to have at least Yukiko or Teddie in your group, in order to heal. I mean, if someone wanted to, they could play Dragon Age or Persona 4 with whoever they wanted, but it would makes things a lot more difficult than having a more structured party. In other words, even though you may like a character, you won't necessarily like them in combat, and vice versa. Perhaps less variation between companion characters can actually be a good thing.

In my second playthrough of Persona 4, my team was Chie, Kanji and Yosuke. MC was the healer. The MC is so flexible, you can change your team anyway you like and still make awesome strategies. By the way, i'm not saying you're wrong, and i would like if the characters were more flexible. But hey, a challenge is not always a bad thing, huh?
#37 Posted by RE_Player1 (7558 posts) -

3-4

#38 Edited by fisk0 (4033 posts) -

Wait, why so limited alternatives and no "other"? I think the most manageable party size is 8, like in the Wizardry games (at least Wiz8 had 6 user made characters and two companions/NPCs). Wasn't that also the size in Fallout Tactics and the first few Might & Magic games? More than 8 tends to get a bit much though. Or at least more than 10, though I think I might have played some with 12 party members.

#39 Posted by phampire (284 posts) -

a preferred party size of one? thats pretty lonely. 4 seems to be the magic number, it worked well in dao and most old school rpgs.

#40 Posted by fisk0 (4033 posts) -

@phampire: iirc most old school dungeon crawlers had 6.

#41 Posted by Soapy86 (2620 posts) -

It really depends on the game doesn't it?

#42 Edited by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -

Really depends on the combat, you know? In a game similar to that MMO-style like Dragon Age, FF12, Xenoblade etc I like 4 which bums me out slightly about the latter two but FF12 was amazing and Xenoblade looks to be great so I don't mind too much I suppose.  
 
For games with traditional turn based combat I actually prefer a party of 3. Classic turn based combat with 4+ members can drag on a bit, I am playing DQ8 right now and normal battles feel like an eternity at times when 5-6 enemies and 4 party members are all taking action per turn. It was only worse in Lost Odyssey (as much as I loved that game) with 5, especially near the end of the game when you got double-item/spell and longer spell animations. 3 characters double casting endgame spells could lead to 1 turn lasting a few minutes... 
 
In more action focused RPGs (Mass Effect, Skyrim, KH, Souls, etc) I actually prefer to just have 1 character. NPC party members are useless half of the time and do so many annoying things.

#43 Posted by StarvingGamer (8152 posts) -

Final Fantasy Tactics party size was 5 so... 5

#44 Posted by MonetaryDread (2017 posts) -

@believer258 said:

One

#45 Posted by PixelPrinny (1030 posts) -

Four to Six. Suikoden's 6 member system was great and it's a shame more large-roster games don't let you use 6 characters.

#46 Posted by EchoEcho (822 posts) -

Five or six for some good ol' pen-and-paper D&D. I see a lot of people saying four because of Tank, Healer, DPS, DPS -- but what about crowd control? What about buffer/debuffer? What about that guy you keep around just to disable traps and open locked doors? Four just isn't enough, I say!

#47 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@EchoEcho said:

Five or six for some good ol' pen-and-paper D&D. I see a lot of people saying four because of Tank, Healer, DPS, DPS -- but what about crowd control? What about buffer/debuffer? What about that guy you keep around just to disable traps and open locked doors? Four just isn't enough, I say!

That's why I think it fully depends on what type of combat we're talking about. If it's just the three role approach (DPS, Tank, heal) 4 works for me, but when we add extra layers like you're suggesting (buff, CC, etc) certainly going to need some more.
#48 Posted by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

Four plus summons.

#49 Edited by DrifterInGreen (49 posts) -

@NekuCTR said:

3. I cant think of any other game that has a 3 party system other than FFX..... FFX is pretty good guys...

I know Final Fantasy X-2 does and I think XII had three at one time as well.

I said four because I remember plenty of times while playing FFX where two of the three characters I had out would get knocked out at the same time.

#50 Posted by Beforet (2916 posts) -

Five, because you put a question mark next to it.