When playing a long, involved, intriguing RPG that has a compelling story and involves figuring out puzzles, and will probably require you to save more than once and play over the course of several sessions, do you prefer to play it alone, or with others?

If with others, than HOW MANY others?

Do you prefer challenges that require teamwork, or ones that each person has to figure out on their own while still part of the same team?

Also, if you play an RPG with others, how likely are you to play it again on your own? Let's say you play and finish a map with others that you enjoyed, but you got the sense that there were a lot of secrets, or things you didn't figure out. Would you go back and play it on your own/with other people? Would you have preferred to play it on your own in the first place?

I like rpgs that can make each character/player feel unique and useful.

I'd say single player, maybe with an extra head when it comes to difficult puzzles, but not another player.


I guess my answer to the first question makes this one void, but I'd say teamwork.


Hmmm...
Depends on the replayability. If there are some randomized elements in the map, I would definately play it again, especially if I felt there were undiscovered secrets.

Both. Single for regular bonuses. Group for extra bonuses.

I'm not patient enough (most of the time) to finish a single player map (I've only finished RUSH xD).
I've always prefered maps RPGs with 3 players: this allows you to make awesome teamworking puzzles, have a great storyline based off each character and get them to keep interested into the map.
Aesthetics and gameplay would push me to play a RPG again (like SpellSwords).

Good to hear. I'm really leaning toward a single player, because you can make the world more immersive, and control the experience more, and plus, my triggers and locations would be a lot more complicated for 2 players. An extra head -- definitely, that's one of the reasons single player seems so attractive with this map: it's designed so that the player will have more than one (and often many) units at his command at any given time.

Cool. That's definitely what I'm going for in this map. I think you and I have similar tastes in RPGs.

What do you mean by bonuses?

Definitely, me too. Although in this map, if there were multiple players, the nature of the world is such that the personality and background of each character would be pretty much exactly the same. The only thing that would distinguish them from other players would be the decisions they make. This is very intentional and essential to the character of the map itself. So the appeal of playing this map with other people would be the experience of figuring out the same puzzles together. Yeah, I just realized that only one player is needed to win, and I'm not willing to make other players required to win, not for this one. So this probably shouldn't be a multiplayer map at heart. But I do like the idea of having two players, just in case, so if someone figures some puzzles out, then they can play with their friend and show them what they learned.

Although to be honest, I may be weird, but if I like a single-player map enough, and my friends are over, I'll show it to them. In a single-player map, you can switch off between two people. The nature of this map isn't extremely time-sensitive, so it'd be easy to switch off, and two heads are definitely better than one, especially with puzzles. In the Starcraft campaigns, it's boring to watch -- you want to be able to play. But with maps that have puzzles, some of the playing is watching and figuring things out. So both people can contribute even though only one person is at the keyboard.

Three players, interesting. You're right, there is something about 3 that gives a group feel, but still somewhat intimate which allows for involvement by everyone.

Yeah, I guess there aren't too many engaging single player maps. I found a few way back in the day, but they all seemed to be broken. That was before I knew that patches could mess things up. Maybe I should try them again with previous versions...

Aesthetics are huge for me too. And gameplay. Freedom of action, IF it's used well, can make for very fun gameplay. And replayability.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 30 2009, 11:42 am by razorsnail.

I think 1-2 players (with the second player being optional) is the best because then you can play with a friend, which is always fun, or by yourself if you're friendless. Basically, you have more options. I don't think 3 players is good because of the extra triggering and because it's hard to find 3 people.

I think that 1-player RPGs are fun, however, the best RPGs, at least for replayability, are 1-3 players. IMO, number of players is almost like having children. You don't want an only child, it's boring for him, but you don't want just two, because then one might feel less loved than the other. Three or more is just right

If you can create a sort of player AI via triggers that creates another player, you can have 1-3 human players, and then have the AI around to give them someone to combine against and such.

Ideally, I find 5 player rpgs best. The problem becomes the necessary computer players. My rpg has 4 human players, a nice balance I think (of course I would, I'm making it lol, so take that only as a humble opinion), but playing maps is generally more fun with more people. Even if the average game on b.net might suck wih a bunch of noobs, playing with a few good friends is much more fun than playing by yourself. Of course, it can be 4x more triggers, but I think it's worth it. You should consider more than three, but of course, it's your call.

In my experience, I have a hard time keeping more than 3 people in an rpg map, but to me anything less isn't very fun, considering this is SC's engine, and is thus rather limited for rpg's, but offers the uniqueness of easy multiplayer to it. To not offer multiplayer to an rpg makes me simply look at a single player rpg for ideas, and not for the experience. If I'm to play a 1-player rpg, I'll play it where it's better written, better designed, and looks better... like any snes rpg or better.

It's not that I can't agree it's possible to create a good 1-player rpg on SC, but despite me looking into a lot of them recently, I've seen a few good ideas but nothing good overall. And you can only fit so much complexity into an SC map. So really I want something that makes it fun... which is playing it with more people. But I don't like having the people required, but if that's a necessity, so be it; I'll try to find them if it's 3 max.

I also think it is nice to have more than 3, if not for the possibility of splitting into 2 parties for leveling, if the map works that way. But yeah, more people is generally more fun if they stay and play nice.

Hint: run the script by some other people to see if it sucks or not.... I'd love to see rpg's that not only have a good mechanic, but are at least written well... Some scene effects/music are nice too, though not too necessary.