/vr/ - Retro Games

I always prefer no humans when possible.

FFVI - MOG/YETI/LOCKE
FFVII - Caitsith/REDXII/CLOUD
ChronoTrigger - Frog/Chrono

>>1755991
I like parties, 7-9 main characters with 2-4 optional side-characters to choose from.

Max battle size of five, but I can have a party of one if I want for replays or whatever.

No set leader(in battle or overworld), and if the party has to get split up for story reasons I'd like at least some say in who goes where.

>>1755991
I just use the characters I like, and when possible have the usual Bruiser/Magician/Healer party.

>>1755991
Depends on the main character.

If it's some destined child who doesn't know shit about it then he's got to do it alone.

If it's some adventurer, either alone or with a sidekick.

If it's a person set on a quest he has to recrute party members that are either unrelated or vaguely related to his own quest.

Five is good enough, come on now fighting five on one is already unfair as fuck but it covers everything you need ( fast attack, big damage attack, status effect, healing, area of effect ) for harder/more complex RPGs.

BoF 4's system is pretty much perfect.

>>1755991
>Or RPGs where you get to select a few members that come with you while the rest remains?

That. For me, the magic number for parties is 3. And preferably able to be outnumbered by enemies in combat.

Bonus points if your comrades actually follow you around on the minimap.

One-woren adventures

>>1755991
>RPGs where you get to select a few members that come with you while the rest remains

I usually like this setup but what makes it better is when the game gives you a really big battle that brings in the entire party to fight against it.

>>1756181
Like the Rance games?

>>1756075
>Bonus points if your comrades actually follow you around on the minimap.

This is usually quite cool but can be a double edged sword when enemies roam visibly as well.

At least in Grandia it's terrible because enemies outmaneuver you so hard they might as well have added random encounters.

I prefer games where you don't get to choose party members (either there are only enough to make one party, or the game forces you into specific party comps for different parts of the game), or where the party members aren't really characters.

The river part of FFVI is the only example I can think of for the former, and Pokemon and Dragon Warrior III/Monsters are examples of the latter.

>>1756209
You mean where characters join and leave your party as the story or requires it?

Like guys who just share a bit of a road with you?

Similar to all of FF4? or Grandia?

>>1755991
I like it when they are always together. I get way too indecisive when I have to leave some behind somewhere, that is if there are a lot of options to choose from. Strategy type RPGs usually have this effect on me.

I think a good size is 3 if there are members that can handle more than one role. If not, and every member has their own unique role and can only do what's assigned to their role, then 4 is better.

>>1756214
>You mean where characters join and leave your party as the story or requires it?

That concept fits, even though most games I've played that did that still had the element of party choice, which I really don't like because I'm biased towards characters you gain early in games and therefore often don't experience ones that come later.

Like I said, the best example of what I'm talking about is the part of FFVI where the party gets separated and you have to use all of your current members, but they aren't together and go through their own events.

The perfect RPG for me would introduce most/all of the characters very early in the game and write a story set around them fighting a common enemy, but for the most part separately in set parties. Like Group A infiltrates the palace, Group B rallies the populous, while Group C tries to find outside help, and sections of the game conclude with co-op dungeons. If this game exists I want to play it, but I don't think it does.

>>1755991
>RPGs where the entire party is always together and even fights at once?

this one

Breath of Fire 4 has hands down one of the best battle systems Ive seen in a turn based game.

you know what really bugs me though is when they have to write off how the party can't travel together because

>Hur dur it's conspicuous.

Really FF7 had a group consisting of

A guy with a sword bigger than him
A wolf lion thing with a fire tail
the only black guy in the world
A chick with hooters bigger than the first guys sword in a very slutty ooutfit
a gay vampire or whatever
a stuffed toy and a cat robot
yuffie

the only who passes for any form of subtly is Aerith and she's the one the bad guys knew all about.

so yeah go ahead split up you're all gonna blend right into a crowd

>>1756407
FFX kinda copied the BoF4 system didn't it?

Bigger the better. Shame most JRPGs never go past four party members.

>>1756430
I think six is the most common party size.

>>1756421
>FFX kinda copied the BoF4 system didn't it?

It was similar, a bit faster paced but lacked combos which was the best part IMO

I wouldn't go as far as to say they copied it though, a lot of games even before BOFIV let you use the whole party, Wild Arms 2 and even BOF1 come to mind, it just typically wasn't as faced paced

like you'd have to open a menu swap em around and then the old party would fade out and the new member in

but yeah outside of ACTUAL narrative reasons there's no reason to ever split the party.

NEVER SPLIT THE PARTY, it's RPG 101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa2ucfgVgQ

3 man party
Strong fighter, pure cleric and slut mage

List four.

>>1756430
I love Suikoden's combat system and how it doesn't get at all bogged down by six party members.

>>1756491

It's a shame that the first one locked in half your party for you.

I mean I WOULD have used Flik and Victor anyways but Id have preferred it to be my own choice. There's some 70 playable characters and in the end you have to choose 3

two and the later games handled it much much better

>>1756504
Yeah, it took them a while to figure out that whole Convoy thing. Although to be honest, imposed characters generally weren't bad. Generally.

>>1756512

Gremio was fucking awful. Mediocre stats and no unite attack?

So glad they gave Nanami one

>>1756512
that fucking guy

>player is about to face his first real boss who has a good chance of killing him
>"I KNOW, LET'S FORCE A SHITTY CHARACTERS ON HIM!"

although I guess the trick to fighting the abomination was being the right level. kahn helps, too.

>>1756547
>>"I KNOW, LET'S FORCE A SHITTY CHARACTERS ON HIM!"
>Not using the convoy

you're own fault nigga

>>1756421
FFX ripped off a lot of shit. Kind of the reason why I'm not too fond of it, besides the dumb narratives.

Check out where Blitzball originated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdk-6xHrmcA

I much prefer one-man adventures, I don't really get the love for parties.

>>1755991
>Or RPGs where you get to select a few members that come with you while the rest remains?
God no. If it's one thing I love about FFX and the Breath of Fire games (excluding II, which is a real shame) it's that you can swap party members in-battle and everyone is with you. BoFIV perfected that.

Even if they can't do that because it'll make the game too easy then I'd at least like something like FFVII's final battle that required multiple parties and FFVI's dungeons where you need multiple parties to get through it.

Total amount of party members should be about 7-9 with 3 or 4 playable in battles.

>>1755991
I generally prefer 6-8 for variety. That said, I'm not averse smaller or larger ones, but in the case of larger ones, it's nice if the developers still manage to get characterization and development done for each party member, rather than 2-3 being left out, or feeling like they're simply bonus character that are simply there.

Bigger parties are always better, but it's way better when there is a sense of dynamism to each character. Suikoden did that pretty right, and while I'm biased to the games themselves, having a huge pool that lets you cycle many in and many out is just tops.

With regard to how I pick my parties, now I just leave it up to random.org. I used to pick them out based on who I liked and who would fit better at that point of the story but now most of the RPGs I play are on their 3rd-4th replay so going with a random draw when I can does help spice up an older game quite a bit.

>>1758578
It's comfy and has a sense of camaraderie if you've got well written characters.

Though, one man adventures certainly have their upside, especially if you're going for a very hands off kind of game where there's no story and not much dialogue, just adventure and what you make of your surroundings.

>>1756407
>the only black guy in the world
I like how I'm only just noticing this now

>>1756075
Ah yes, the power trio.

In my opinion though, the "perfect" RPG party is four. Warrior, Rogue, Wizard, Healer.

Any more than four is where the party starts getting a bit unwieldy and redundant. Ultima IV has a fucking eight-man party. Eight!

>>1756407
Don't say slutty. It's demeaning.

I'd love to see an RPG where you can only elect up to 5 party members but the other members you get in the game join the battle via assist attacks[i.e. party face uses an attack combined with a member who's not on the party]

>>1760260
select*

>>1760254
Slutty.

>>1760254

>>1760254
Nobody's talking about you or to you.

>>1759603
>God no. If it's one thing I love about FFX and the Breath of Fire games (excluding II, which is a real shame) it's that you can swap party members in-battle and everyone is with you.

3 didn't have it either. In fact you could only swap at statues. Which is a pain when you sometimes need a special ability

>>1760284
New nickname: Princess Scarletletter.

>>1756407
>>1760230

>the only black guy in the world

>>1761170

>>1761173

>>1759603
>FFVII's final battle that required multiple parties

... did anyone actually do this? Instead of just KotR/Omnislashing their way through and ignoring the party swap prompt.

>>1761175
Nevertheless, he's still the size of a gorilla

>>1761308
Anon, back in the day when the internet wasn't around people actually played games blindly a lot. And did not get the hidden super powerful kill-all summon in their first go.

>>1761334
I'd argue that the internet started becoming a household thing a year or two prior, but the truth of the matter is that my stepdad just happened to have a strategy guy (the unofficial one that got the publisher into hot water with Square).

>>1761368
*guide

>>1761371
> Not having a strategy guy you call to get hints instead of looking up a guide

.. I am that guy for many games.

>>1760494
Too bad. It's been a while since I played 3. It's weird since I can remember constantly swapping Rei and Momo. 2 is the worst offender though, having to go to one specific town to do it everytime was such a horrible idea. Even though it makes more sense than switching at statues.

>>1761308
Didn't you *have* to do that in the Bizarro Sephiroth fight? I remember each group having to fight a different side of him or something. Anyway, I hate using OP moves. It's like people who claim Game X is easy then mention they're using a broken mechanic.

>>1761368

actually even without the internet practically every magazine under the sun spoiled and explained the shit out of every single detail about FF7. Even you know what