I think the second idea would lack replay value, and the strategies you could use would have to be limited to whatever's available mid-battle. Having some level of customization over your party before entering a battle adds variety to your potential strategies and could shake things up on a second playthrough. I could also see making *two* characters at the start feeling a little slow, especially if the game sticks to a small scope.
The first and third ideas both really appeal to me! The first idea would let the player choose permutations of party members, allow multiple permanent party members to synergize together, and let you try out a new boss you recruited while only substituting 1/3 of your normal roster, which would encourage experimentation. The third idea would enhance the game narratively, give more reasons to care about a character than mechanics and aesthetic, and put more emphasis on the battle-to-battle archetype recruits.
I see what you mean about losing the Pokemon-like aspects; it seems kind of inherent in all three ideas, since you'd be "losing" your normal recruits after every battle even if they're still converted on the map and whatnot. Continuing the Pokemon analogy, I think you could still have a "Pokedex" even if you don't have a "PC"- a checklist of archetypes as the player goes through the game could help motivate them to keep going, even if the entries don't do anything. Getting rid of the collecting part of the game may also help keep its scope in check- there would be far fewer permutations of parties to plan around, and you wouldn't need to worry about developing side content for 100% completion.
1
Tobias 1102~9M
Thanks for your feedback!
I felt while finalising this post that the idea where you create two characters at the start wouldn't work, but left it in anyway. The main reason I even considered it is because it'd give the player another opportunity to use the pixel face creation thing which I feel could be one of the game's selling points. I definitely won't be going with that one though!
And I'd definitely have a Pokedex-like thing! Those seem to be common in all RPGs these days, I've noticed, and I personally have a particular fondness for them. Atonal Dreams has one too.
I really like the Pokemon-like freedom of building a party out of recruited archetypes, and it'd be a shame to lose that, but the more I think about this, the more the idea of having just a single ally stands out to me. It'd mean you might be outnumbered in many or even most encounters, so turning the tides would be more satsifying, and writing narrative scenes where just one character interjects would be way easier than dealing with interactions between potentially clashing party members...
Actually, I suppose the original version of Belief had a party of two, too... HMM.
The first and third ideas both really appeal to me! The first idea would let the player choose permutations of party members, allow multiple permanent party members to synergize together, and let you try out a new boss you recruited while only substituting 1/3 of your normal roster, which would encourage experimentation. The third idea would enhance the game narratively, give more reasons to care about a character than mechanics and aesthetic, and put more emphasis on the battle-to-battle archetype recruits.
I see what you mean about losing the Pokemon-like aspects; it seems kind of inherent in all three ideas, since you'd be "losing" your normal recruits after every battle even if they're still converted on the map and whatnot. Continuing the Pokemon analogy, I think you could still have a "Pokedex" even if you don't have a "PC"- a checklist of archetypes as the player goes through the game could help motivate them to keep going, even if the entries don't do anything. Getting rid of the collecting part of the game may also help keep its scope in check- there would be far fewer permutations of parties to plan around, and you wouldn't need to worry about developing side content for 100% completion.
I felt while finalising this post that the idea where you create two characters at the start wouldn't work, but left it in anyway. The main reason I even considered it is because it'd give the player another opportunity to use the pixel face creation thing which I feel could be one of the game's selling points. I definitely won't be going with that one though!
And I'd definitely have a Pokedex-like thing! Those seem to be common in all RPGs these days, I've noticed, and I personally have a particular fondness for them. Atonal Dreams has one too.
I really like the Pokemon-like freedom of building a party out of recruited archetypes, and it'd be a shame to lose that, but the more I think about this, the more the idea of having just a single ally stands out to me. It'd mean you might be outnumbered in many or even most encounters, so turning the tides would be more satsifying, and writing narrative scenes where just one character interjects would be way easier than dealing with interactions between potentially clashing party members...
Actually, I suppose the original version of Belief had a party of two, too... HMM.