Here is another simple poll with a simple question for you all. So lets get started without me ramble on any more, and wasting your time.

The question is do you prefer Solo-based RPGs or Party-based RPGs?

It's funny, in theory I love the idea of party-based games (so that's how I voted), but I guess I would have to be honest and say that I have enjoyed more solo RPGs. I guess a lot of that has to do with the fact that there really haven't been that many great party-based games, especially when they nearly died out for an entire decade.

Party based. I love tactical party or squad base combat. Solo kind of limits the tactical gameplay options and shift the focus more to speed and reflexes, were as party-based is more about building your team to cover all enemy types and making the party work together.

I enjoy roleplaying to of course, but good tactical combat with lots of options is what makes me come back to games like Baldur’s gate for the 20th time.

I agree with Firestorm. Plus, I tend to find it more immersive that a group of people would have more likelihood of survival and balancing each others' weaknesses than a single person.

People complain about being able to be a "jack of all trades" or close to it in games like The Elder Scrolls, but honestly, without a party, you kind of need to be able to have a balanced character on some level. You can't have a thief disarm a trap, a mage counter a buff, a fighter to do the heavy damage, a bowman for ranged attacks, etc.

However, I always role-play specific characters that actually do have weaknesses. Keeps things more interesting and challenging that way.

solo. Parties don't feel quite so immersive for me unless we're talking Fallout1/2.
I felt a connection with every character there.

Well, it depends on what kind of game, something like Deus Ex or System Shock or such would not work at all with a party. Neither would Gothic games.

But generally I tend to prefer the party based games.

I enjoy both very much, but I have to say that my favorite kind of RPG is the solo kind - because I'm a huge immersion fan, and a party tends to get in the way of putting myself into the world. It means I can't really focus on roleplaying my alter ego - and the AI is never quite good enough. AI party members always find a way to get IN the way

Also, for immersion to reach its peak - the game must be playable in first person, and games with that option rarely have parties, as party controls get unwieldy when not having a tactical layout with a bird's eye viewpoint.

It's been years since I played RPGs for the combat, so while I really love a nice tactical combat system with a full party - I find that most other aspects of a party based game get watered down, because the developers focus too much on getting the tactical stuff to work with so many participants.

It really depends on definition: What is a party based RPG.. ? Are we only talking about more tactical games like Fallout 1-2, Divinity: OS and Baldur's Gate 1-2, or do we also include games like Mass Effect and KotOR? You can have companions in Skyrim, FO3 and F: NV, but I assume those are still solo at least, right?

Originally Posted by Maylander
It really depends on definition: What is a party based RPG.. ? Are we only talking about more tactical games like Fallout 1-2, Divinity: OS and Baldur's Gate 1-2, or do we also include games like Mass Effect and KotOR? You can have companions in Skyrim, FO3 and F: NV, but I assume those are still solo at least, right?

Personally, I consider a game "party based" when party members are not optional.

I don't really care if RPG is party or noparty. I just want a good game.
So can't vote here. Sorry.

I'm pretty anti-social so solo is my prefered method. If it is party-based, I still prefer to roll all the characters so that I have full control of the builds. I play BG in multiplayer, for instance.

However, my favorite mod for Skyrim is a companion mod, so if companions are done well enough they can work for me.

No preference for me, so I can't vote in the poll.

I like party-based for the group strategy and I find solo games more immersive.

I'm a tactical nerd, so I had to choose party over solo.

Another advantage for party-based is the posibility to experiment with different aspects of the game (combat, magic, thievery. etc.) without replaying it. In most solo-based RPGs, you need to forfeit a good part of the possibilities if you don´t want to play the game again with another character.
By the way, I think that a good realistic RPG could be solo, party or even army-based depending of the kind of quest. The tradition of a lonely hero that wins a war against an entire army is lovely and funny but a change would be welcome. By the other hand, for e.g. spying-type quests, doesn´t seem a good idea to use a four or six team…

Originally Posted by Swann
Another advantage for party-based is the posibility to experiment with different aspects of the game (combat, magic, thievery. etc.) without replaying it. In most solo-based RPGs, you need to forfeit a good part of the possibilities if you don´t want to play the game again with another character.

I think that is one of the strengths of a solo game as well. I like it when the way I build my character has meaningful choices. I agree with you on the one hand but it is nice when you have to agonize over that precious skill point because you know you can't have it all. In a lot of party based game there is not really much actual choice in character building because you have one of each type that you can min/max.