One Man Army protagonist, or leader of a party / group?

[Lotus Victoria]

Greetings champions! Good to see you again!

Yesterday I played a little bit of Metal Gear Solid and I ended up wondering:

What do you like more:

- A one man army protagonist, like Dante, Snake, Kratos, your character in Skyrim, etc, (not a loner, literally a guy/girl who can do anything and everything, without the help of others) (Ok, I'm aware that Snake uses the help of other people, but you get my drift, right? )

or

- A dependent protagonist, like Shepard, Chrono, X/Zero (they are powerful, yes, but they need help from oneanother and from others), Ramza Beoulve, etc, which are powerful, yes, but cannot conquer their objectives without the help of others

Which one do you prefer?

See you soon, my champions!

[TheCount]

Its usually easier to develop a 1-man protagonist imo, they get all the spot light/story development. They also tend to be somewhat crazy,angry at the world and have a twisted sense of right/wrong not always but they do. These guys have a real high badass ratio.

Team protagonists get less spot light, have a team to keep them on track and have a less badass ratio. Their success comes from getting a good team. I would argue that one of the reasons FF7 was awesome was that Cloud's crew were all well developed characters that added something to the team.

I would lean slightly to the team based hero.

[Judge Malthred]

Group based allows for a lot more development of interesting scenarios and characters. Suddenly your main character isn't just affected by what they do or driven by their own needs, but by that of their team as well. Allows for more dynamics.

[Itisamuh]

Good question. I think the best stories are those that strike a balance between the two, having a central protagonist that is clearly the main focus (the player character) with a squad of support characters who are important to the plot and to your own character development, but do not take away from your glory. Traditional old school role playing games tend to do a good job with this, moreso than action games and other genres.

[Nerevar]

One man army, I guess. To me it's just more fun. The less realistic the experience - the better.

[Gallahadd]

Group based by far. While it's fun being super strong it can get pretty boring, I prefer having a team to work with, gives you chance for hilarity.

[Vocah]

Obviously a party of One Man Armies!

[Super Kami Dende]

I like a Group Leader that can also One-man army shit.

Like Batman, who has the Bat-family such as Robin/Nightwing/Oracle he can call on and kind of orders about, or the Justice League who he teams up with at times, or random people like Azrael/Catwoman/Jim Gordon he will ally with for certain things, but can also just take it upon himself too fuck shit up solo.

[WarpedAcorn]

I depends on the game and genre, but typically I find that things get more interesting when "your" character has to rely on others to get certain jobs done. Plus its an excuse to have more characters and hopefully have a good interpersonal story. One of the main reasons Mass Effect became such a hit was due to the characters and their relationships. How many people remember Wrex as a shotgun wielder vs. a bad ass Mercenary/Warlord who had seen some real shit and cared deeply for the future of his people?

So in short, my vote is for a leader who needs a team.

[3DTyrant]

I like both, sometimes I want to play a game where the character I play as is a badass without a team, and exactly the same for the other end of the spectrum.

[Viscoe]

I think ultimately I like the group more, but it really depends on the genre of the game. I think if a game is trying to tell a complex story, a group dynamic is more enjoyable. If it's presenting an adventure over anything else, then solo or at most a group of two.

[Daita Tetsu]

You had me at Ramza Beoulve.

I dont think I have too flat of an answer though, its entirely apples and oranges.

Different scenarios, different needs

Kirito would have made an awful protagonist for FFT, Ramza would have been a boring protagonist for SAO..

[Katchii]

One Man army leading a group.

I like both types of games for different reasons. One man army games are usually more frenetic and fast paced, very action oriented. Group based games are usually more strategic, less frenetic with more organized combat. Devil May Cry and Final Fantasy Tactics are both great games, but obviously for very different reasons.

[Aeula]

Indifferent. Depends how the main character and those around them are built in terms of story.
As for gameplay, I generally prefer to just jump in and destroy everything alone (Games like skyrim make it so followers are frigging useless and even a hinderance at times).

[Poppincaps]

I've always liked games where you can play with other characters. Part of the reason why I chose to play a Hunter in WoW many years ago. Bonus points if the follower/companion is a dog/wolf.

[Icaras]

Depends. On a game like Final Fantasy 14 where my own created character is the focus (or say Duke Nukem where you just play as Duke) I'm happier for them to be a one man army and shown to not be beaten.

In an RPG with multiple characters being playable, I prefer "the love" to be spread around amongst the PCs, not just the hero character.

I suppose I'd liken it a bit to a shonen anime, in that if there's really just the main character, then it's fun for them to be overpowered and then focus. But if a shonen series has a bunch of interesting ally characters but the hero quickly outstrips them, you start to get annoyed because you want to see the allies do something.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Dependant protagonists are more interesting have more room for development, as they cannot do everything right alone.

[-aiko-]

Dependent

/10char

[barackopala]

Dependant protagonists are nice due to how some of their limitations can be aided by the team and end up in a somewhat richer experience in my eyes.

[May90]

I definitely prefer teams. Playing as a single hero gets very repetitive real soon; for example, I am playing Witcher 3 currently, and the need to wander alone through dark places for hours really kills my enthusiasm. Companions can bring in a lot of flavor, even if they are mute and just passively follow you.