How many playable characters should a game have?

[Dagger Dias]

This question deals with every single genre of video games, and I want you to keep that in mind when you answer it.

How many playable characters should a game have, and why? Does the genre of a game matter when determining how many playable characters there should be, why or why not?

In RPG's the playable cast can be as small as one hero going at it on their own like in Dragon Warrior 1 or as many as over 40 like in Chrono Cross. I find that 9 or so is a reasonable cap in the RPG genre. You obviously need the basics of a hero, a love interest who perhaps might be playable, warriors, rogues, spellcasters, maybe a villain who briefly can be playable before turning heel, then throw in a couple of random others such as ninjas or summoners (these random fillers vary depending on the world the game takes place in) to make the story more interesting.

In action games you often only need one or two. One for the main storyline, with another as an unlockable mode. Devil May Cry 3 is a great example. You played through as Dante first and then Virgil was an extra mode. Zelda does fine with only Link, as do many other action/adventure games.

For Platformer games the number of characters depends on whether they get unique abilities or not. If they don't, then you do not need more than 4 so that multiplayer action can go on in the story mode. If each character has unique abilities though then a larger number can be accepted. Definitely no more than 7 if you ask me. Any number larger that would cause the developers to have to go through great lengths to make the characters different.

Fighting games can have massive playable casts, but like with platformers it comes down to the abilities. Big time. Why play a fighting game with 20+ people if they don't have abilities to set them apart? Street Fighter 4 and Smash Bros Brawl have huge lists of playable characters, and both give each person unique skill sets, justifying the number of characters you can play as. As long as the abilities set them apart enough, fighting games get away with having more playable characters than any other genre.

Racing games can have large casts too, but it ends up being rather pointless if the vehicles have stats rather than the characters. Mario Kart Wii, for instance, has a huge cast, but every single lightweight is identical to the other lightweights. As much as I love that game, that should not be the case. If the vehicles have stats rather than the characters, then you really don't need more than the 4 to 6 range. If the characters have unique stats, then much like the fighting games you can get away with having a MUCH larger cast with people that many will want to play as.

It's different for each genre, but if I had to do an overall analysis without taking genres into account, then I would go with 4 people because most genres have more than one person and if it's a one player game the other 3+ characters could always be used for unlockables or a quest with a different difficulty, and even replay value comes into the picture. 1 by themselves gets boring, with a few exceptions (Zelda) and too many people (like Chrono Cross) raises the issue of developing every single one of their stories.

So what do the rest of you think?

 

[RicoLen]

Or 108 like in Suikoden (Suikoden 3 btw is probably the best JRPG I've played since FF6)

I prefer games with a larger cast, not more than 20, but more than 10. FF6 was amazing through and through for it's character development of each of the characters. It's by far my favorite JRPG I've played. It's like a piece of art in all honesty. Aside from Gogo & Umaro who were secret characters anyways, every character served a vital purpose in the game and just made it that much better. That game has a cast of 12 and it felt a lot more natural and had much better character development than that of it's sequel, the game everyone ELSE seems to think is the best thing since sliced bread.

In general I'd say more is better as long as it doesn't come at the cost of character development.

 

[The Doctor]

This isn't a question that can be answered easily. It depends on the game. Obviously fighting games should have a large cast but with other games the answer isn't so clear. It all depends on whether or not the presence of more playable characters will enhance the game, or whether they'll just be useless features.

It's totally fine to have 90 characters, if each one has a use, is unique, and is well-developed. However, if 85 of your 90 characters are boring, offer no real advantages, and bring nothing new to the table, maybe you should just stick with five.

If you think your game's story can be told with only one character then go ahead - Only have one character. Games are means of accomplishing a goal and telling a story. A game shouldn't have characters for the sake of characters, it should have as many playable characters as is necessary to tell a good story and accomplish the goal the designer set out to achieve.

 

[Fizzy]

It all depends on the type of game. Fighting games as previously mentioned, need as many interesting characters as possible. Sometimes, fighting games seemed to have a wide selection of playable characters but most of their skills were either boring, or closely resembled other available characters skills. In a fighting game, I say get as many characters as you can fit without making them repetitive or boring. It adds to the replay value of the game.

As for other genres like RPG's I enjoy a high amount of characters as long as the game has a few much needed things to support a huge cast.

First, you need to have shared experience with every single member. Most RPG's including Final Fantasy games offer many playable characters but make you choose which to use and leave the others to rot. You can have three at level 99 and the next three at 5. It's really frustrating that you would need to replay the entire game just to be able to use the other characters. With shared experience, you can switch members in and out whenever you please without having to worry about them being unable to contend with the upper leveled monsters.

Another must for an RPG to have many characters is for each of them to play a large part in the story. A game like Final Fantasy Tactics can get away with having many characters that have nothing to do with the story, but a game like Final Fantasy 7 cannot. It just adds to the game to not have seemingly useless characters in your party that don't contribute to anything. I guess this is just a personal preference, but I enjoy having them all be major additions.

Like Doc said, it's a tough question to answer because there are many different genres with different answers. I chose to go over two genres but there are many more that have entirely different answers. Point is, having many characters can be a great and fun thing, or a terrible thing. It all depends.

 

[The Deadly Viper]

Hmm this is a very tough questions. Some games you should only play as one character, where the storyline is appropriate. However in fighting games you have to have a load of characters , imagine a fighting game with only 2 playable characters nowadays that'd just be silly. So really it depends on the genre of the game.

 

[Woo Woo Kid]

More than 100 characters for a fighting game.

 

[911 JP]

I really dont think it matters, every game has a different selling point. Take MAG for its huge online play to Red Dead Redemption for its freedom and cretivness. Every game has a selling point that will appeal to the target audience.

In games that have many missions / quests a variety is good, and more characters will appeal to people, especially if they are all different (abilities, missions to do etc.) However in games like SvR and fighter games a variety is good and playing with excess fuels the game with variety which I believe is a good thing.

I really feel that more = better and with just one playable characters has gotten old, and variety is beginning to take control of the gaming market, and it should do more. I really think that a game shouldnt have a set number of characters as I think there should be variety, and playable characters in excess is a good thing.

 

[MargeraRVD316]

This is an interesting post. Glad there is sections like this in the forums.

 

[MargeraRVD316]

It's all about the game. If it were say a Zelda game, only Link of course! That's classic, it's the way it is, always was, and always will be. You want to play Ganon and Zelda, pick up Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
Say it were a sports style game like WWE '12. Every single person from the roster.
But if it were a fighting style game like Super Smash Bros. I'd say tons, and tons, and tons.
If it were a FPS, what the Hell would it matter? People only buy the games for online anyway.
And besides, who cares? It's only the NPCs that people care about now-adays anyway. :/

 

[Blue Chipper]

The number of playable characters should be based on how many are needed; it varies on the individual game. Simple answer, but it's true. If a lot of characters are needed, then put a lot of characters in. If one character will suffice, then put in only one character. Also, certain genres generally require more playable characters. For instance, the fighting genre requires a lot of characters, however, a shooter doesn't demand quite as many.

All in all, it depends on the game.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

It depends on what type of game it is. For example, look at Tomb Raider. The whole game is based around Lara Croft, and noone else. Therefore, she is the only playable character required in the game and any other character would be pointless.

Same with Pokemon, Ash is the character the game is set around so once again there is no need to play any other character than him. He is the only one needed.

BUT, in fighting games I believe the more characters in the game to play with, the better. It makesfor more variety in the gameplay, opportunities to master the individual styles of fighting and the movesets of more characters and keeps the game fresh for longer. A perfect example of this is the Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter series'. Would the game be as fun if you could only go through single mode as Liu Kang or Raiden? No.

WWE games always offer a wide roster of playable characters and I think that is great, the more the better. Players have the chance to use their favourites and usually WWE make the rosters pretty good and accurate as to who is currently wrestling in the WWE. The addition of Legends to the series for use in exhibition and universe mode is brilliant too, as you can use former favourites who have left the company and retired. I am loving playing as Brock Lesnar in this years game for example, and am looking forward to unlocking Kevin Nash and Booker T.

 

[poppycock]

Like what has been said it really depends on the game. Obviously games like wrestling and other sports games you want as many wrestlers/teams on the roster to be playable. I am not a fan of RPG Final Fantasy type games but the ones I have played I have enjoyed the aspect of meeting new characters and building a little team as the game goes on. I think in that case having a certain amount of exciting characters (5-10) would interest me more than having lots which would just confuse me. I loved Mario 64 as a kid and did not think it could be improved anymore but the addition of extra playable characters in the DS version really added something for me and I enjoyed it very much.

 

[GI Cake]

In Fighting games, a large cast of playable characters are a must. But they shouldn't go the route that Smash Brothers took and made clones of one another filling up the characters in their second game. Characters should have some contrast and allow different playing styles to use in games. Fighting Games like the latest Mortal Kombat game can show you how important it is to find the perfect mix of quality and quantity. Not only did each fighter in Mortal Kombat had a different feel to the others, their was a great collection of fighters to choose from with their different play styles and appeal.


In RPG games, it is nice to have at least 12 different characters to put in a party or a group of 3. The best part of RPG's is customizing your crew and which members you took along with you when you embarked on quests. So far the best game to do this was Dragon Age:Origins. If needed, I had a nice selection of different types of Spell-casters to bring along with me. Perhaps I didn't need Morrigan for a mission against demons but needed the Light mage who has better buffs and spells for the certain mission. And of course a rouge to provide a ton of Offensive and Defensive bonuses to battle and with their great perception, spot and disarm traps in front of the path. And depending on how you crafted your character, you can bring along another Tank or spec out a warrior to be the damage dealing badass of your group and attract all the mobs of darkspawn his way.

Overall I would say I would have to pick a small amount of quality characters over an abundance of clone characters that are pretty much only one color change away from being the same character.