I have to strongly disagree. I don't think I could bear to train and upgrade six characters. I love the idea of a sole hero. It adds so much more to the Role Playing experience. I always find that party based RPGs are more strategy games or interactive stories than role-players. In single character RPGs there is a much stronger bond between the character and the player. The character is like a child of the player, being brought up from a baby 1s level to a mature 30th level and beyond.
After that spiel, I do enjoy party-based RPGs, but for their strategy elements more than their RPG elements. Both styles are good, but belong in their own realms. Diablo 2 did a good job in melding the two by providing the option of a party (Paladin) or a hero (Assassin) or a selection of either (Barbarian, Druid, Necromancer).
No, I don't know entirely where I'm going with all this. I think my point is that both styles have their merits, but trying to combine them will cause too much micro-management.
Larian has already stated that Riftrunner is a party-based game, with at least one player-controllable party member (the death knight). So the argument is not whether there will be a party, but how it is implemented. I would far rather party members that interact with each other and have detailed back-stories, than mindless drones who are an extention of the main character (like in IWD).
That said, 5-8 party members may be a bit excessive (although it did work well in BG2 and Torment, so it could still be good if done right).
