| You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, starting and replying in topics, voting in polls and more. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community today! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| number of team members | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 13 2011, 12:08 PM (168 Views) | |
| Rydrum2112 | Oct 13 2011, 12:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Methodologist
|
For some reason I have always enjoyed games that give you 4 team members to battle more than 3. (SO4 better than SO3; FF6 vs 7,8,9,10,12,13). I feel as though having the 4th member allows me to have more combination type attacking going on, as well as allowing me to have a member focused on healing, buffing & debuffing. In 3 member games I always find that I need each character to "minor" in healing. Are there any advantages to the 3 team games? Or does anyone here prefer them, if so why? |
![]() |
|
| Fayt | Oct 13 2011, 08:44 PM Post #2 |
|
Easy wins have never been my style
![]()
|
I tend to agree that I prefer 4 team members, you can just have more more offence at your disposal that way. That way I typically take have 3 different attackers and one support character, say Arumat, Reimi, Bacchus & Myuria. With 4 characters you also tend to have a better chance of keeping the support character alive. But in Till the End of Time for example with just three characters either Sophia or Adray just feel doomed and far less useful, but you struggle to survive without them leaving you no choice but to grind more. |
![]() |
|
| Quark | Oct 15 2011, 08:32 PM Post #3 |
|
bite my shiny metal-
![]()
|
I have to agree with you guys, the more party members the better. With 4 members you can have a more balanced party (eg. 2 fighters, one offensive mage and one supportive mage) and adds impact to whatever other tactic you choose to employ. Like Fayt mentioned, it also helps keep your party members alive. |
![]() |
|
| Padraic | Oct 16 2011, 09:57 AM Post #4 |
![]()
I was a teenage anarchist
|
I really liked FFIV's five party members. That game wasn't that easy, but gave you so much room to manipulate strategies, I loved it |
![]() |
|
| Arumat | Oct 17 2011, 01:45 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Bunny
|
I agree. I don't like having only 3 party members. |
![]() |
|
| Namenloses | Oct 17 2011, 02:10 PM Post #6 |
|
"I'm tearing off 50 percent of your skin."
|
Like they say: the more, the better. |
![]() |
|
| Rydrum2112 | Oct 17 2011, 02:51 PM Post #7 |
|
Methodologist
|
It's interesting that all of us here prefer 4 member parties but the vast majority of RPG's (at least the ones I have played), use 3 members. |
![]() |
|
| Fayt | Oct 17 2011, 10:16 PM Post #8 |
|
Easy wins have never been my style
![]()
|
When I think about it even more, most of my more preferred RPG's in fact have 4 or more playable characters to use. I've loved the Suikoden titles over the years, they have 4 or more. Valkyrie Profile always has 4 as well. Even my old school favourite RPG, Phantasy Star IV has four active characters in battle. That's not to say I don't enjoy 3 character games, Resonance of Fate for example only has three, it's quite different but I loved it too. |
![]() |
|
| Padraic | Oct 18 2011, 08:12 AM Post #9 |
![]()
I was a teenage anarchist
|
There, corrected ;D But you require more strategy in games with 3, so it makes it harder and more satisfying. |
![]() |
|
| Fate | Oct 19 2011, 02:06 PM Post #10 |
![]()
[ Ρ R I N C E ]
![]()
|
I never really complain about how many members are usable in battle in a game, so I won't say that more members is particularly better. For one, some games have a limited selection of characters, of which only a few appeal to me. Take Cross Edge, for example. Combos in that game are everything, and you have to match up their types to actually produce the combos. I ended up using three characters I loved, but that left the last space restricted to a single character that could effectively fill the role--somebody I didn't even like. I would have preferred just three characters in the game for that. On the other hand, some games have more characters I liked than spaces to put them, such as Star Ocean 3. I was enjoying using Nel and Roger a lot, and I got Nel to about level 120 in Sphere 211 before I had to ditch her for Mirage because Mirage filled the role better. And sometimes, a character is somebody you don't love or hate, but they're so useful that you just have to have them; they then take up a space just for that purpose. I mean Maria, of course. The one game I will remark on and go against myself, though, is Record of Agarest War. It's a strategy RPG. For most tactical and strategy RPGs, you have about ten characters to dispatch. For Agarest, you have six, all of whom are dispatched automatically. It makes the game so hard. But, I suppose for me, it's not so much about the difficulty as it is having characters I personally like. Go figures. xD I never pay attention to the number of members because I assume the game knows you can beat it with that number, so it never got to me. As a final note, though, there is one thing that's annoying about having many characters: leveling up. If it's a game where experience gets divided, you get really little. Sooner or later, I start killing off four and keeping one alive to level them up individually. And of course, killing the four is a pain, too. If it's a game where experience is always equal, that's fine. But I do have a tendency to be really weird and not let any characters be a higher level than my favorite (Golden Sun: Dark Dawn)... >>" |
![]() |
|
| Fayt | Oct 19 2011, 10:17 PM Post #11 |
|
Easy wins have never been my style
![]()
|
When you play a strat RPG like Fire Emblem is when I really notice that. You end up with over 20 odd characters to choose from, but if you neglect a few characters even for only one or two battles you'll notice them quickly fall behind, you get to the point where you injure opponents only to have the weaker ally finish them off. But it's part of the strategy I guess. Suikoden is another with a load of characters, probably around 40 or so playable - crazy numbers. But it's experience system is designed so lower level players can catch up very quickly - which is certainly needed! In games like Till the End of Time I just rotated my characters frequently, only switching to my best team for the tough boss battles. But yeah, there are pros and cons to either side, generally I'm most comfortable with 4 though. |
![]() |
|
| Padraic | Oct 21 2011, 01:37 PM Post #12 |
![]()
I was a teenage anarchist
|
Pegasus riders, or whatever they were /cough But that always annoyed me in FE. It took forever to level, and then when you did, you'd have to do the strategy Boss said, but then you'd have one character who everyone would target, but they're the max level, and you can't rank them up yet :I |
![]() |
|
| Fayt | Oct 21 2011, 05:07 PM Post #13 |
|
Easy wins have never been my style
![]()
|
Yeah, 'experience stealing' is what I called it. As tempting as it is to put your best on the front lines, you'll pay for it later as the others just get weaker and weaker. At least in the GameCube titles you could accumulate bonus exp and share it to some weaker characters to help balance it up a bit. Although I instead used that to level up characters who were 90+ and reset if it was a crap level up.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Star Ocean Series · Next Topic » |











5:13 PM May 21