Do You Like Monsters as Party Members in RPGs?

No, I absolutely hate it.

I'll still play games where that's a thing, but I vastly prefer party members to be well fleshed out characters that I care about in their own right - like the Persona games. Plus, from a gameplay standpoint, I like having the full breadth of customisation for all the party, whereas monster party members usually have far less customisability.

However, thinking about it, games such as Devil Survivor or Pokemon are almost their own other thing - they are JRPGs where there isn't really a "party" per se, but monsters the MC uses as the primary form of battle. I don't mind those games at all, but in the case of Pokemon the collection and rock/paper/scissors is part of the whole point and for Devil Survivor, you still have a group of kids battling along side you.

It depends on the game I guess.

Guys like Starky, Sprigg, Turnip, Lynx and Poshul from Chrono Cross aren't exactly human characters.

Edit: And Skelly! Can't forget Skelly now

If you mean "monster" as in opposing enemy NPC character that randomly becomes an ally but never has any lines of dialogue then no; if you just mean non-humanoid then there's plenty of examples of good non-humanoid characters.

I've always wanted an RPG with a Slime party member having amazing character development...

Sure... I liked the mutant dude from Fallout 3, He followed me around and fucked shit up for me.

@fredchuckdave said:

I think he means the former, given his examples.

Opposing monsters with no dialogue etc that become part of your party.

Also, I think there's a difference between a sentient non-human and a monster.

By monsters do you mean any ally that isn't human? Or do you mean monsters battling for you like Pokemon or how I remember Jade Cocoon? Because I think 'monsters' or other worldly creatures can produce some of the most interesting lore and backstories in games.

Not usually. Too often non-sentient monsters seem like a developer short cut to not have a VA for a character etc.

As with most things, really depends on how they are used.

Shin Megami Tensei is one of my favorite series, so yes? Then again, I feel SMT is one of the few games that does monster party members right, as they feel like more than just any old random monster.

Not at all. It's one of the many reasons I didn't like FF XIII-2. What you said about them being boring and without personalities is the reason I don't like them as well.

I don't really care that much. My first RPG was Final Fantasy Legends 2 and it let you have monster party members; they were pretty much the same as human party members.

You mean like a Pokemon/whatever was going on in Ni No Kuni type deal? Not if that's what the entire party consists of, no. I mean, I'm not saying it's inherently a bad idea, I've just never seen it done in a way that appealed to me.

EDIT: Persona 4 probably has the best balance on that front - the monsters are what you use, but the party members are still full characters.

I really enjoyed what Final Fantasy XII-2 did with its monster party members.

Only in Pokemon.

While not a monster, I was really annoyed that Repede in Tales of Vesperia counted as your 6th party member. While he certainly looks awesome, and is fun enough to play as, he's still just a dog... Still hate how they kept Flynn out of the core group at that, only to then bring him in for the PS3 version but then not even port the damn thing.

To this day do I wish we could have gotten Tales of Vesperia's PS3 version localised over here instead of Tales of Graces F =/.

All I can think of as a good example is FF7, never used Red and never used Cait. Pretty much ran the entire game with Cloud, Tifa and Vincent because I felt they had the most interesting character story.

I can still totally accept that Red had a good story, wasn't mute, had his part to play etc...but just....really? A weird...cat dog thing...thats not a fox that gives me SP leaves? Screw that.

@mysteriousfawx: Cait Sith was generally a poor party member, but his actual backstory and place in the fiction was one of the quirky high points for me. He's not real, but he kindof is alive and a splintered persona, and Reeve is kindof a wackjob, but he's a double agent so that's cool...

I take that the OP is being pretty specific about non-anthro characters with no personas. I haven't loaded up Rainslick 4 to know the context for sure... I'm actually a little surprised that Jerry would have a party who can't talk.

Depends on what constitutes a monster. The partners in the Paper Mario games were made from typical enemy species but had personality all their own. On that basis I say "Sure" but if by Monster you mean "all the characterization of a Pokemon" then I guess it depends on the game. Works real well for Pokemon!

It depends. A lot of the time though developers don't give them any character and it's simply a pokemon style situation. I'd rather have an actual fleshed out party member.

The funny thing is that Red XIII and Cait Sith were my main two party members the first time I played FF7 because they were way more interesting than most of the rest of the cast. Red XIII is one of the few characters I've continued to like in that game as time has gone by.

Pretty much this.

In the case of SMT, filling out the Compendium and making some incredibly powerful demons is one of the best parts of those games. It's actually not so far off from the feeling you get when you find a really good piece of loot in Diablo or Torchlight. I'd prefer party members with a story in virtually anything else, though.

No monsters. I consider monsters to be blank characters that don't say or do anything. If its a non human that talks and has a personality then it's fine.

Shale was pretty great. So when OP said monsters I had to think for a minute.

Better word would probably be "pokemon" since that's exactly what they are.

It works extremely well for Nocturne and Devil Summoner, so hell yeah.

But these are moretools than actual partymemebers. If we talk about Partymemebers I would think of horrible characters like Freya, Quina, RED and so on. so yeah I hate these kind of partymembers. As tools like in FFXIII-2 for example it is ok.

As long as the rest of the game is on-point, who am I to complain?

They're in my party. They have (albeit minimal and repetitive) dialogue.

I count them as party members.

Dragon Quest VIII did it best I think by letting you have your regular party and a monster party you can bring out whenever.

While they are not necessarily "monsters" I really like it when you get to use characters that were previously bosses.

You still have Gabe and the other characters, but the game straight up calls them trainers - they don't take part in the actual battles.

Also, to clarify, I am referring to enemy monsters that become part of your party, in a Pokemon kind of way.

I liked it in Dragon Quest V and Final Fantasy Tactics. I guess I can see where you're coming from in regards to them not being fleshed out characters, though.

In games like Pokemon it's fine because that's the entire point of the game. However in normal story based RPG's I don't like them at all.