Current Events > I kind of hate having to choose party members in JRPGs.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Say a game that gives you 8 people to switch out in a 3 person team. And only 6 of those are good choices, and of those 6 at least 3 of them are redundant because the other 3 are better. But then you feel like you have to keep using them all anyway to keep their levels up. And towards the end when you have all of those characters inevitably you just start shunting the ones you don't like as much to the side and forgetting about them.

FFX is an example where you felt compelled to make sure everyone got a turn but really there were only like 3-4 people you consistently used. Xenoblade Chronicles was an example where you just straight up forgot about 3 of the characters.

I'm not sure it's a good mechanic. I think I'd just prefer 3 permanent characters that can have more variety to their build choices.

Thoughts?
---

You shouldnt play Chrono Cross then
---

Xenoblade Chronicles was one of the only JRPGs that I actually used every character.
---

Try playing one of the really advanced (not single-character-based, obviously) challenge runs on FFX. You'll quickly learn to appreciate every character. ;)
---

Yeah it tends to just stress me out/bother me. Though I guess I don't care too much if they make everyone level evenly even if they're in reserves, because otherwise they're basically dooming you to have to be stuck with who you choose first.
---

I would rather have a large roster with a couple meh characters than have to play through an entire game that only has 3 characters and they're all emo/badasses with zero depth.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Try playing one of the really advanced (not single-character-based, obviously) challenge runs on FFX. You'll quickly learn to appreciate every character. ;)

And by every character you mean Rikku.
---

I feel the opposite to be honest (as long as unused characters get EXP too). I like having options, especially on subsequent playthroughs. Obviously it sucks when some party members are way worse than the others, but I don't think that alone is an indictment of having party choices. There usually still enough viable characters for it be worth it, even if there is an 'optimal' party. Some games are better than others at that.

I'm also a sucker for unlockable / optional characters. Discovering them is a nice surprise. They do have their pitfalls though, like generally not having a big role in the story to reduce the number of variables (see: Vincent and Yuffie, and similarly FFVI's optional characters).

trails in the sky the third will kill you
---

Tmk posted...

Yeah it tends to just stress me out/bother me. Though I guess I don't care too much if they make everyone level evenly even if they're in reserves, because otherwise they're basically dooming you to have to be stuck with who you choose first.

Suikoden is especially bad at this.

"Didn't use Pahn throughout the game? Fuck you in dueling Teoh and later bringing Gremio back to life, then!"
---

FFX is actually a bad example for your point because they let you switch members with no penalty and there are specific enemies that each member besides Kimarhi (who is marginalized by Auron being a piercer) is strong against.

Titus gets those quick enemies
Yuna is a healer and late game elemental
Wakka is flying
Lulu is elemental
Auron is piercer
Rikku is mechanical and has a large speed advantage
Kimarhi can take out piercer and elemental

So tidus and Rikku automatically should be the starters for every battle because of their speed and then wakka or Kimarhi. Rikku is usually not well matched up except for certain areas but acts first so usually she gets switched out at the beginning of a battle for Auron or Lulu who have shit speed

they even throw kimarhi a bone by having multiple enemies that require piercing in a lot of battle sets.
---

Also, I feel like IX is good in that end game every one of your characters can hit max damage pretty easily if you do some character specific work as well as FFVIIi because all the characters can be molded the way you want.
---

I was going to agree but your example of FF10 is pretty strange considering the existence of Suikoden or even worse, Chrono Cross. That game was crappy for a bunch of reasons but the whole 40 party members is pretty up there. Big reason being they were all pointless, useless, one dimensional characters with really annoying "accents" that makes it a chore to read their already banal and inane dialogue.

I prefer rpgs that have a very limited playable team, hell just 4, with the story giving really strong characterization to these 4. That's harder to do when it's 8 or more party members, but I understand the idea is to add replay value to the rpg by trying out different characters. If only said different characters were fun to play as.
---

I used FFX as an example because despite being perhaps the most perfectly balanced RPG I've ever played it still runs into this issue of having to choose and feeling slightly strongarmed into giving everyone a shot, i.e. the problem is fundamental and not something you can escape even with very good game design.

Maybe it's just me. I'm that guy that hordes items I'll never use and feels like everyone has to level up their EXP otherwise I'm not playing the game properly.
---

I dont think the problem is a fundamental one it just takes the characters being actually balanced just like any game. You are right that FFX strongarms balance through different enemy types though. I dont agree that it really forces you to choose though.

I think the issue becomes that it is easier to create balance through simplicity and then you are basically playing glorified rock paper scissor and the more complicated things become the harder it is to keep it all under control.
---

I feel the exact opposite. I hate RPGs where you have a set party, or only a few extras to choose from. The more variety the more chances Ill find a character I like.

Disgaea games are a good example. They have a buttload of characters and Ive taken a liking to Pleinair, Asagi, Priere, Nisa, Pram, and Petta to name a few. I just toss aside anyone I dont like and let them rot while the guys I do like accumulate literally hundreds of thousands of levels :3
---

gameplay is always secondary to RPGs for me

it is roleplaying - the story the character interactions and the adventure - that matters most so i prefer a tight small roster of meaningful heroes to have the spotlight. instead of a baziliion interchangeable nobodies.
---

myzz7 posted...

gameplay is always secondary to RPGs for me

it is roleplaying - the story the character interactions and the adventure - that matters most so i prefer a tight small roster of meaningful heroes to have the spotlight. instead of a baziliion interchangeable nobodies.

I also feel the exact opposite lol. Story has always meant zilch to me; I suppose thats why I never play visual novels. I mean I play a game to play, not read some story :<

For me gameplay is 100% important and story is 0%. Thats why I can play Japanese games that I cant fully read like SRW without missing out on anything. I just want to make giant robots blow each other up, not see what Amuro has to say to Lelouch :<
---

You must really enjoy Pokemon lmao
---

Oh God no. I dont find the gameplay enjoyable at all. Or I havent, for like 20 years or so.
---

fuzzylittlbunny posted...

Oh God no. I dont find the gameplay enjoyable at all. Or I havent, for like 20 years or so.

I was referring to Pinky <_< and in a sarcastic way, given how there are over 700 'party members' to choose from
---

Awww :((
---

@fuzzylittlbunny posted...

Awww :((

Now I feel bad <_< brb reading your posts

[...]

I'd hate to play a game where I had no idea what was going on story-wise <_< the thing with me is, I'm easily satisfied. You could give me the most repetitive gameplay with the most lacklustre story and I'd have fun playing it, but as long as I actually know what's going on
---

On story vs gameplay -

I think a balance is needed. If a game is all gameplay but no story - e.g. Kingdoms of Amalur, you failed to get dragged in and immersed in the game at all. It had terrific combat but there's only so many "go find my magic ring" fetch quests for NPCs that all look exactly alike you can do before it's really dull.

On the other hand too much story and not enough gameplay is a trap a lot of games fall into and creates a frustrating "just let me fucking play already" experience. How I felt about most MGS games.

I think more than just the story it has to be an immersive, engaging experience. I think that's what made Skyrim so gripping. It wasn't an original story by any means but it did an immense job of dropping you into it and making a cinematic experience you actually got to play rather than simply watch.
---

Hard disagree. I love games where you have a large handful of characters, and need to pick 4 or 5 of them as your main team. Anywhere from 8 to 20 characters is a good amount for me. I don't hate if there are more than that, but games like Suikoden and Chrono Cross have a little too much for my ideal gameplay, though I love both anyway. For SRPGs like Fire Emblem or Disgaea, I think 40 to 60ish is good, with FE10, 11 and 12 being furthest on the spectrum and having way too many characters who all play almost the same.
---

KainWind posted...

Xenoblade Chronicles was one of the only JRPGs that I actually used every character.

I wanted to elaborate on this earlier. I felt like I actually had a reason to use each character in this game (besides the fact that I was in love with at least two of them, and really liked the others). Using each character and different party combinations let you increase their affection which led to seeing all the heart to hearts throughout the game. I was also constantly overleveled so using everyone helped a bit with that too. Most games don't really care what party you use.
---

KainWind posted...

Xenoblade Chronicles was one of the only JRPGs that I actually used every character.

---