Originally posted by Quirhid I thought Warhammer could've been an ideal IP for such a game. Controlling single squad/unit.
The Warhammer IP would be a great candidate for that type of game. It would probably have to be turn based to work though. Too bad we got the current incarnate of WAR
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Originally posted by madazz In STO I enjoyed it a bit. Overall it wasn't my style of play. However I would love to see what other developers would come up with. I'd for sure try them out. Considered Sword for a bit too... but yeah.
They also have it in TOR and D3 .. with the followers. My only complaint (particular for D3) is that there is no control at all over the follower. It would be good to at least be able to set a "defensive" or "offensive" stance.
Yep. AI sucks. Especially in PvP. Perhaps a slightly slower paced combat and small unit size would be the right way to go for an MMO.
Or have an extremely large with more fodder-type NPCs and control the captain...
That's where the line between team mate and pet starts to get blurry. I want to be able to micro manage all the members of the team as if they were my main character.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I'll be honest, any game that has me controlling a team is not to my tastes. except the total war series if you want to think of rts as "a team".
But I've never been interested in controlling a group of 3 or 4, etc and if a game that I'm playing allows for the computer to do most of the work then I fully take advantage of that.
Does that mean you didn't like Dragon Age: Origins? I loved that game, but maybe it's not for everyone.
I loved Dragon Age Origins. But I only controlled the team "minimally". I was as hands off as I could be.
Did you play any of the SSI gold box games.
Truth is, I find combat in Dragon Age abysmal. The real-time pause mode combined with a camera you need to constantly be tinkering and endlessly making micro-adjustments to character position makes for a very unenjoyable strategic experience for me. The turn-based mode of the Gold Box games provides for what feels like a far more fun and strategic experience because it custs the needless annoying factors away and grants complete control. SSI gold box games still have some of the best strategic combat of any party-based RPG.
Why did this never catch on? It's a nice change of pace from the 1 player - 1 character traditional rpg. When done correctly it can also provide a nice strategic element, something that is sorely lacking recently.
One of the many gripes I read about is the feeling that your character is not unique and just another face in the crowd. A game where there are dozens of very specialized classes and the player chooses, say, five of them (with duplicates allowed) provides for a large amount of variation.
Swapping characters in and out of your team can provide a very different play style without ever needing to re-roll.
The only mmorpg I've played like this is Atlantica Online. Sadly PvP builds are very similar but PvE builds vary greatly. I've actually never met another player who used the same formation as I do.
Do any more of these types of games even exist?
It did, its called a Real Time Strategy game or RTS.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
That's where the line between team mate and pet starts to get blurry. I want to be able to micro manage all the members of the team as if they were my main character.
You should really check out the arpg Krater. You control a squad of three in trinity-style combat. Your hotbar contains abilities from all three members so giving multiple commands is a breeze. No multiplayer yet, but it's supposed to be coming soon.
I'll be honest, any game that has me controlling a team is not to my tastes. except the total war series if you want to think of rts as "a team".
But I've never been interested in controlling a group of 3 or 4, etc and if a game that I'm playing allows for the computer to do most of the work then I fully take advantage of that.
Does that mean you didn't like Dragon Age: Origins? I loved that game, but maybe it's not for everyone.
I loved Dragon Age Origins. But I only controlled the team "minimally". I was as hands off as I could be.
Did you play any of the SSI gold box games.
SSI gold box games are turn-based. Essentially the combat part is like a Strategic RPG. It is a lot more difficult o control a party in real time. I believe BG did that with ability to stop at any time.
That's where the line between team mate and pet starts to get blurry. I want to be able to micro manage all the members of the team as if they were my main character.
You should really check out the arpg Krater. You control a squad of three in trinity-style combat. Your hotbar contains abilities from all three members so giving multiple commands is a breeze. No multiplayer yet, but it's supposed to be coming soon.
Krater is a pretty bad game in terms of combat design, animation and what-not. Its low production value really does not help. I do like the core 3-man team idea .. but it just wasn't executed right.
Comments
The Warhammer IP would be a great candidate for that type of game. It would probably have to be turn based to work though. Too bad we got the current incarnate of WAR
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
That's where the line between team mate and pet starts to get blurry. I want to be able to micro manage all the members of the team as if they were my main character.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Truth is, I find combat in Dragon Age abysmal. The real-time pause mode combined with a camera you need to constantly be tinkering and endlessly making micro-adjustments to character position makes for a very unenjoyable strategic experience for me. The turn-based mode of the Gold Box games provides for what feels like a far more fun and strategic experience because it custs the needless annoying factors away and grants complete control. SSI gold box games still have some of the best strategic combat of any party-based RPG.
It did, its called a Real Time Strategy game or RTS.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
You should really check out the arpg Krater. You control a squad of three in trinity-style combat. Your hotbar contains abilities from all three members so giving multiple commands is a breeze. No multiplayer yet, but it's supposed to be coming soon.
SSI gold box games are turn-based. Essentially the combat part is like a Strategic RPG. It is a lot more difficult o control a party in real time. I believe BG did that with ability to stop at any time.
Krater is a pretty bad game in terms of combat design, animation and what-not. Its low production value really does not help. I do like the core 3-man team idea .. but it just wasn't executed right.