/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5207281
4 feels more balanced.

They're all casual shit slogs for retarded children.

>>5207298
cringe and bluepilled
>>5207289
I prefer 4 person parties for that reason too, but my favourite rpg is chrono trigger because of all the techs that couldn't work in a 4 person party.

>>5207281
4 person because I want to see more characters
and also because I think star ocean 2 had the greatest combat system ever made and every game should try to at least replicate it if not improve upon it

>>5207281

4 or 5. Anything less just feels cheap, especially when it means I have to bench over half the playable characters. In fact I don't think the entire roster should go over how many character you're allowed to field.

>rpgs with a party
literally babby tier

>>5207324

>>5207281
Hey it's the 50th RPG thread on the catalog

1 person

>>5207324
Ayyy, I'm currently playing through that for the first time. The combat is great but everything else is still pretty mediocre.

4 unless the combat system is slow as fuck (FFIX)

>>5207729
the first bit can be a bit of a slog, but after giving it a bit of a chance it became my favorite game

>>5207757
The combat is compelling and fun enough to keep me going. I'm just having a hard time liking the character models and the story so far isn't anything to write home about either. Though both are still miles ahead of the last jrpg I played, Xenogears. I guess I'm being a bit harsh on it, as I do like it.

>>5207763
personally, I loved the character sprites, they're real cute
fun fact, the character artist for SO2 is a hentai artist did a bunch of star ocean 2 hentai

6

>>5207281
It has everything to do with game balance, how to distribute healing duty, buffing/debuffing being single/multi target etc.

In general, the more characters the easier it is to stay alive, and you maintain a high damage output even if one or two characters are on healing duty. So things matter less, even if your choices increase.

The correct answer is that the party number doesn't matter as much as having reserve characters who you can switch out without a turn penalty, such as Final Fantasy 10.

>>5207281
3 party members and the occasional 4th one who drops in and out of the party

>>5207281
4 or 5, that way you don't have to condense roles and can experiment outside of the typical fail safe party of pure damage characters and a healer. Not retro, but Megaman X Command Mission is the absolute worst at this.

If there's 3 characters then at least do >>5208043, though I'd rather there be some type of penalty as realistically the character has to acclimatize.

Thought about it sometimes.
3 characters party almost always boils down to a healer and 2 dps/dpt characters. If the game forces you to play with the MC, and only have one viable healer, that already ruined nearly all the party customization you could have.
4/5 characters party is usually a good number to not dumb down the battles too much. More than that and the characters start becoming too individually weak, and drop dead too easily.
I like the Breath of Fire IV approach though.

The amount of customization is a huge factor. If it's a game where each character has a specific role, you want a bigger party. If it's a game where you have to build your characters, a smaller party can put more emphasis on trying to figure out the best way to distribute skills. Like, you've only got three guys, so do you want to make one of your other guys function as a backup healer? Do you put buffs on your healer or put them on someone else so they don't have to waste a turn of healing to set it up? Do you want to put all of your buffs/debuff skills on the character that can use them most effectively or spread them out so you can fire off multiples in one turn?

>>5207692
Final Fantasy 7 Crisis Core.

>>5208680
More like this badboy

>>5207407
pleb and zoomer

>>5208152
>I like the Breath of Fire IV approach though.

BOFIV's was so good.

Four is good if you have four or more enemies in an encounter