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?

Sword of the new world had a family system where you control 3 family members at the same time.

In Sword 2 you control up to 3 characters and develop an even larger family not a single char.

I like this setting in single-player games like Dragon Age, where i have a pause-button and really can micromangae the team if needed. In a real-time environment it often becomes chaotic, also due to the lame "Pet-KI" or pet-managment-sytems. Or you have some turn based instances like in Atlantica.

An there is SWTOR where you control 2 characters. Well, some people call the companion a pet. ;)

Star Trek Online also gives players the ability to control up to 4 bridge officer NPCs on Away Team ground missions, which allows for some nice flexibility.

I agree that it's not a common feature, though.

Originally posted by dave6660

Why did this never catch on?

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.

Sword of the New World!

It's a really gorgeous MMO and the gameplay is completely unique.  It does get extremely micromanagy to handle giving orders to three characters at a time, but that's part of the fun.

Other games probably haven't done this because theres no big indicator it's a type of gameplay people want.

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

In Sword 2 you control up to 3 characters and develop an even larger family not a single char.

I like this setting in single-player games like Dragon Age, where i have a pause-button and really can micromangae the team if needed. In a real-time environment it often becomes chaotic, also due to the lame "Pet-KI" or pet-managment-sytems. Or you have some turn based instances like in Atlantica.

An there is SWTOR where you control 2 characters. Well, some people call the companion a pet. ;)

Sword 2 huh?  Interesting.  I've heard of the title but know nothing about it.  I'll have to give it a shot.

Though I'm in the minority here, turn based games don't bother me.  They can be just as fast paced as the next guy.

Pets don't count in my book.  They're just a supplement to the main character.

Originally posted by maplestone
Wouldn't it get confusing in groups of groups? 

The battles can get very "busy" but it's fun.  It gives you that large battle experience with only a few players.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by dave6660

Why did this never catch on?

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.

Originally posted by Psychow

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by dave6660

Why did this never catch on?

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.

It would be unique, but it's just not for me. I like the attachment feeling to my character. I can't have that with 3 or more of them.

I'm not asking for a sandbox, but we just need a game that has endless tools of player driven content, e.g., player housing, cities, rivals, etc. The only time we see tools like this are in hardcore sandbox games like Darkfall and Mortal Online - so hardcore to the point where it's boring for most.

I want a blend of WoW and SWG.

Originally posted by mmoDAD

It would be unique, but it's just not for me. I like the attachment feeling to my character. I can't have that with 3 or more of them.

 

 

I'm not asking for a sandbox, but we just need a game that has endless tools of player driven content, e.g., player housing, cities, rivals, etc. The only time we see tools like this are in hardcore sandbox games like Darkfall and Mortal Online - so hardcore to the point where it's boring for most.

I want a blend of WoW and SWG.

I thought the same thing until I tried it.  Now I find having lackeys suits me :)

XCOM: The MMO.

I like it!