The data is pretty split even with a lean towards people preferring main character. People like to be themselves and or customize their own playstyles generally without the interferance of other party members

However. On the other hand, a well crafted story with a party of adventurers who you invest time into getting to know and such can be a very wholesome experience in the face of adversity. Know the people you are willing to put your lives on the line for, who do you trust to save you in your darkest hour

I one of those people that wouldn't mind myself or other characters (so I like both). However, considering I do not play RPGs, if those happen to be platformers or mission based type of video games, I really wouldn't care if I get to customize my character, create my own character from scratch, or pick the adventurers installed in the video game.

Honestly, it really depends on what mood I'm in from moment to moment. Sometimes I feel like making a whole group of characters, other times I want to just play as one person.

And then sometimes I end up doing a half-and-half. I recently replayed Skyrim, for instance, but I used a cocktail of mods that let me gather up a whole party of companions. Would that technically count as creating a whole party, or is it still just "solo adventurer", since the CPU is technically controlling the others? So on and so forth.

Depends on the combat and how I can choose my character(s). Third person action game? Single player. JRPG or tactical game? I would want a party, of course. It's a question that requires a lot more knowledge about the game before I could ever make a choice. A game like Mass Effect where your party is integral to the story and romance options? Of course I want a party I can choose. If it's me vs. the world like Dark Souls? That's a single player game.

I can't answer that as just a stand alone concept since it really depends on what game we are talking about.

My main problem with parties is that I feel self conscious when I'm dragging them around as I scour 100% every nook and cranny of an area. Also it can be a pain to deal with them getting in your way. Like setting the group formation in CRPGs. That's why I really liked Rogue Trader more than Wrath of the Righteous because RT has the setup phase. In WOTR my party would get stuck in doorways or pathfind stupid (Ironic because it's a Pathfinder RPG). In JRPGs where you only control the main character and everyone gets into place automatically during combat that's fine too. And in first person RPGs like TES I definitely prefer going solo so I can stealth and then run if I need to.

Huh, data is split, and honestly that's accurate. I could go either way, more so just preferring if the game is fun. I do lean just slightly more toward the main character option.

I'd vote for both if I could. Just depends on the game. Sometimes I want to explore solo, sometimes I'd enjoy a story with a party dynamic.

It depends a lot on the game type i think, but i find a party system works often better to tell a better story. Especially if party interaction is key in the gameplay, like certain characters working better with others, or having more diversity with what they do VS being a solo character where while all the choice are entirely yours, you're more limited in them at the end becaue you can only realistically follow a single path each time.

I love having a party of adventurers, and I hate when there's one main character who's required to be in the party so they end up overleveling everyone else.

Didn’t expect a dead-even split of 257-257. Incredible.

It depends of what kind of game we're talking about, though based on the question itself I'm assuming it's some sort of RPG.

The main question for me (from a purely mechanics standpoint) is: will there be character classes (fighter/mage/thief/etc...)? If yes, there should probably be some sort of party system so the player doesn't accidently build themselves into a corner and be unable to progress because their squishy wizard doesn't have a way to beat the magic-immune golem or what-have-you.

A secondary consideration would be if it's Real-Time or Turn-Based, since the player needs to be able to keep track of all their characters and make decisions for each of them. In Real Time, the more characters you have to control, the more hands-off you need to be able to be with each of them, whereas Turn-Based games give you all the time you need to think, but you have to make every decision for each character yourself.

I have never seen a more dead even poll in my life and it has gone on for several hours now.
Gaming in general has always been a more solo experience for me so I guess it's reflected in my choice of one main character. Groups can be very hit or miss depending on the quality of the supporting cast members.

It depends on what story you want to tell! Write about something you know really well, whether that be a solo thing or a friendship thing.

I'm leading more towards a party of adventurers, but that's cuz I like the classic RPG styles, like, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, etc
But is hard to answer without knowing what kind of RPG you're looking for, depending on that, one option or the other may be more fitting

it depends on the style of rpg but i would still say parties overall are way more fun :3 especially if the game has any actual writing worth talking about lol
grimdark solo adventures will fall when Ichiban Kasuga and the Power of Friendship walk into the room

I'm unsure what sort of gameplay you're crafting the game around, and that's a pretty big component of what determines where the focus of development should go.

A middle-ground for both of these categories would be examples you're probably familiar with - Rimworld and Kenshi. You can choose any one of them to be 'you' if you so choose, or just play it as an omniscient entity that controls the whole party from the shadows.

Where the focus exists lies entirely in the mechanics of the game. For your examples of "you as the MC;" Terraria, TES/Fallout, Dark Souls etc, there are other NPCs which can be controlled in ways similar to a party - Terraria has merchant NPCs, TES and Fallout have a regular follower system, Dark souls has a summon system, and so on. Despite the prevalence of these features in the game, I think the perception of these as single-protagonist games is to do with the mechanics specifically. Almost all of your time and the progression of the game goes into your ability to improve yourself, rather than your party members. On the opposite side of this (FF, Darkest Dungeon, etc), your time is primarily spent on improving the group's overall strength and abilities, to a much shallower level for accessibility's sake.

Why I call Kenshi and Rimworld a middle-ground is because there are 'depthy' mechanics you can use, but they are not limited to a single 'You' character, and there are more broad mechanics that would make more sense in a game like Darkest Dungeon. In FF and DD, you're expected to swap out or trade characters often, so they have simple sets of skills that don't really change much throughout the course of the game, and don't have very complex statistics as far as the player is able to influence. You don't get to pick each individual armor piece or train individual skills for each character in these games, and the story actions are largely expressed as whole-party actions, rather than the actions of a single person. Divinity: Original Sin and Baldur's Gate 3 are good examples of other games that break this rule, with a lot of inter-party interaction and depthy choices related to each character on their own - even some simpler mechanical things like gear and stats. Rimworld and Kenshi go all in on letting you pick just about every little thing about your characters, in addition to letting you have more of them.

You should consider what sort of mechanics you want the game to focus on, and allow the overall 'genre' to be derived from this, if it has to be specified at all! It may come down to the scope of what you have the time and resources to do that determines what the end product looks like, more than anything. The Kenshis and Rimworlds of the gaming industry take years and years to develop, because of how many mechanics need so much attention, and all have to work nicely together.

Pretty even split I'd say, which makes me think you should just go with what you'd personally enjoy most.

I'm going with single player, but with the option of having a party.
Also I'd love it if the game lets you pick any race OTHER than Human, like Anthros or even Kemonomimis (Elder Scrolls and FFXIV are great examples).

So if Humans aren't the only option, can you add an Anthro alternative, please?

For me, the reason I prefer 'protagonist' type games is that micromanaging a party can sometimes be more nuisance than challenge. There may be ways around that. For example, what if you could assign, I dunno... weighted preferences for equipment attributes, combat roles, and positioning? For example, the party is expecting to face a fire elemental, so you tell your tank to prefer heat-resistance and stand front-and-center, and tell your DPS to prefer cold or water weapons, and assume a flanking position. Better yet, if left to their own devices, their tactics could be made with an appropriateness based on their wisdom score.

Yes, that does sound like a nightmare to implement.

Both, and it depends on how the RPG works. If the game plays well, has awesome characters and story, lore, music...then it doesn't really matter.
...in short: If the game is good, I am for both, so dev's choice!

Party based RPGs allow Solo Runs, but main character only will be cursed to solo plays...As said: To me, both is good.

Literally a 0.86% current difference between voters is impressive. I'm with the majority of commentors where it's literally entirely dependent on the game being played. I enjoy both, am a massive fan of Fallout and Pokemon games, but I also love stuff like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate.

It's semi-rare to see games do both, and have moments where you're alone, and moments where you're with a group. I play a lot of racing games (because car go fast gives me the adrenaline and dopamine), which are kinda off in a world of their own where, yes, you're typically a solo driver against a pack, often are one against all, which feels like it would lean more into the single player category. But then it gets deterministic if you've got allies on the track with as much capability as you have, where you coordinate other drivers and such. Either way, long-winded way of saying it's entirely up to the developer, and a mood-based scenario that's subjective.