Solo v.s. Party

Ihsan · Post by **Ihsan** » December 7th, 2007, 2:16 pm

I much rather prefer solo. Perhaps the ability to hire mercanaries, or have animal companions would be cool, but these should be costly.

Sakar · Post by **Sakar** » December 7th, 2007, 2:42 pm

I've always preferred party-based CRPGs. That's not to say I don't enjoy single character RPGs, but I definitely enjoy creating and developing an entire party of characters.

nackidno · Post by **nackidno** » December 7th, 2007, 4:23 pm

I would like the future Eschalon games in solo based gameplay. Changing from book to book will just make the game more "false".

Sakar · Post by **Sakar** » December 7th, 2007, 4:58 pm

nackidno wrote:I would like the future Eschalon games in solo based gameplay. Changing from book to book will just make the game more "false".

It could easily work into an ongoing storyline simply by introducing new characters along the way that you have the option of joining to your party, ALA The Magic Candle.

The biggest hurdle is the psuedo-real-time engine. Moving multiple characters in the current engine would be a nightmare, though...

macdude22 · Post by **macdude22** » December 7th, 2007, 5:04 pm

I typically prefer parties, but I have to admit I've really grown to love Eschalon's solo system. It's good fun rolling a few different characters to see how play style changes with them. Just do some incremental updates in Books II, and III and keep solo play. Hone the creation system and balance of skills. In the future perhaps make a new game (based in the eschalon world?) that is party based.

Rollor · Post by **Rollor** » December 7th, 2007, 5:48 pm

I thought it was pretty close-knit that book 2 would be party-based. Now i see a poll which is almost even and the other poll votes for single

nackidno · Post by **nackidno** » December 8th, 2007, 7:34 am

In the future perhaps make a new game (based in the eschalon world?) that is party based.

I like that idea.

chamr · Post by **chamr** » December 10th, 2007, 3:45 pm

I have nothing against party-based cRPG's, but I voted solo for E:B2 for one reason: streamline. I think the design feature that has appealed to me the most is "less is more". I'm not a fan of tons of content for content's sake and would rather a game focus on the fundamentals and keeping the game fun through-out rather than just cramming in tons and tons of land mass, quests, dialogue and such to reach a rather arbitrary goal of hours it takes to play. For me, this game has struck a wonderful balance between having enough to do and see without overwhelming me with "stuff". So, in that vein, I think adding more PC's would stray from that approach.

dalamber · Post by **dalamber** » December 18th, 2007, 4:12 am

Solo.

My arguments for it:

1)Combat is an essential part of gameplay, but RPG gameplay is not only combat. Wizardry or goldbox games are true hardcore oldschool, but I sure don't want to play something like that now. When I'm going from Bordertown to Blackwater, I'm ok with dispatching several monsters along the way, but 5 or 6 10-15 minute long battles (like it would have been in Wizardry) are way too boring. Book 1 seemed to me more like Ultima 7 gameplaywise. Ok, Ultima had a party all right, but it was in realtime, so that didn't make battles longer, you just killed the enemies and continued your quest. Or had to reload and prepare a bit better

2)Development time. Monster AI should be improved dramatically for party combat, more character animations are required, companion following needs to be added to engine, skills and classes need rework and rebalance.

3)I'll call this "thieving skills". Thief playing style is hardly applicable to a party game. Making a party of 6 sneak looks awkward and you'll sure spit a lot of curses when your followers trigger a trap you avoided so carefully. Maybe if you could leave party in a tavern and do the job yourself...but why do this if you can go alone from very beginning? And, I'd also add a thief type some conversational skills too, and I don't like the way they work in party-based games.

single player · Post by **single player** » December 19th, 2007, 6:49 am

PAAARTAAY!
But only if the developers manage to get rid of that walking bug, where each little sprite causes the game to slow down (E:B1).
More playable charaters, pleas, more classes, more options.

Oh, and get a levelling system that is a little less boring.
And monsters that randomly respawn.
And...

bkrueger · Post by **bkrueger** » January 3rd, 2008, 9:06 am

I prefer to have a party.

The infinity-engine did this best (and allowed all variants, like building your complete party in the beginning, like Icewind Dale, or gather your companions like Baldur's gate).

I also like the semi-turn-based paused fight of the infinity engine. Since I prefer turn-based, I dont care for AI of the party members, I prefer to control them.

But since story and atmosphere are the most important for me, I would happily prefer play without party, if you say that developing party mechanics would distract you from these more important issues.

zengrey · Post by **zengrey** » January 6th, 2008, 6:50 am

If it matters to anyone else, I say keep EB 1-3 solo all the way through. Hopefully popularity of the game will result in wildly unforeseen sales, and then Basilisk will have the financial fluidity to create a multiplayer, or party style CRPG. As it is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And, btw, I personally think that if every online gamer in the world tried this game out, BG would have a different vintage Volvo for every day of the week. Meanwhile, support these folks. My GF and I tell all our friends about our adventures with our game, and they either ask where to get it or smile in a sympathetic fashion, having been there before. I have posted enough random ideas on the wishlist. My real life wishlist is to buy a 'puter this year that is screaming edge enough to fully enjoy this gaming experience (I'm running this game on an iMac with 256 RAM). Slow, but when you've been game-starved for years, you do what you have to. Anyways, once again I'm babbling.
Cheers, zengrey.

Rubeck · Post by **Rubeck** » January 10th, 2008, 6:48 pm

macdude22 wrote:I typically prefer parties, but I have to admit I've really grown to love Eschalon's solo system. It's good fun rolling a few different characters to see how play style changes with them. Just do some incremental updates in Books II, and III and keep solo play. Hone the creation system and balance of skills. In the future perhaps make a new game (based in the eschalon world?) that is party based.

I agree with absolutely everything he said here. Especially liked the spin-off idea, that's pretty good.

Jude · Post by **Jude** » January 10th, 2008, 8:52 pm

GSV3MiaC wrote:Fallout was the party based RPG where you were in more danger from your own lunatic (the name escapes me) with a gatling gun than you ever were from the mutants, iirc.

Back to the poll - why no 'don't care' option? I'll cheerfully play either ..

LOL! Kind of like in Myth: The Fallen Lords when your own dwarves would run away, throwing satchel charges behind them and blow up the rest of your people!

I like either type, too, solo hero or party as long as the game can be played solo without other players.

I would love to have the choice of playing female heroes, though.

Jude

Legendary_Gamer · Post by **Legendary_Gamer** » January 18th, 2008, 1:59 am

I hate doing party management! I like the option of being the SOLE HERO. However, if you could pickup NPCs that you had limited control over, like in Lionheart by Bioware, I would be okay with that. You could have people join you, but you really can't take their stuff at all.

Lionheart is a huge favorite, but this games open ended exploration ability and pursuing any quest at any time is simply wonderful.

SOLO!!!!

The Drunken Lizard Pub

Solo v.s. Party

Do you want solo or party play?

Well,

SOLO!!!!!