Zero Punctuation: Might & Magic X: Legacy
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So it's alright then? I'll keep an eye out next Steam sale, assuming I haven't cleared a bit of the clutter (Read: Games I was excited to buy in the moment, but now look at dubiously as my time on this earth dwindles away, and there are television shows I still haven't downloaded yet).
Oh who're we kidding... get on the heap.
The repetition of party members lines brings back fond memories of Wizardry 8. A game I strongly recommend, assuming you're at all interested in buying M&M:X. It looks a bit old, but you can drop into it without any need for a 300 page manual, and it'll still make sense. It's not grid based either, which I'm not a huge fan of. Turn based inside of combat, but always free movement.
Oh who're we kidding... get on the heap.
The repetition of party members lines brings back fond memories of Wizardry 8. A game I strongly recommend, assuming you're at all interested in buying M&M:X. It looks a bit old, but you can drop into it without any need for a 300 page manual, and it'll still make sense. It's not grid based either, which I'm not a huge fan of. Turn based inside of combat, but always free movement.
Can anyone actually make a coherent case for why free-roaming movement is inherently better than grid movement with regard to game mechanics, other than "because FREEDOM"?
Grid movement works for MMX and neatly ties into the mechanics of the game, and it certainly beats the circle-strafing/kiting/AI-exploit cheese that basically became the combat mechanics once free movement was introduced in MM6.
I found MMX to be an entertaining little dungeon romp with combat mechanics that are significantly more fun and addictive than anything BioWare or Bethesda have put out in a very long time - and boy, was it nice to see a RPG once again that provides the occasional challenging combat encounter and makes me put some thought into party composition and character development.
MMX is the most fun I've had with a RPG in quite a long while.
Grid movement works for MMX and neatly ties into the mechanics of the game, and it certainly beats the circle-strafing/kiting/AI-exploit cheese that basically became the combat mechanics once free movement was introduced in MM6.
I found MMX to be an entertaining little dungeon romp with combat mechanics that are significantly more fun and addictive than anything BioWare or Bethesda have put out in a very long time - and boy, was it nice to see a RPG once again that provides the occasional challenging combat encounter and makes me put some thought into party composition and character development.
MMX is the most fun I've had with a RPG in quite a long while.
You can't seriously be saying Wizardry 8 didn't need a manual. Wizardry 8 is so complex you can beat it without having any idea of what half your party does and half of the stuff the other half can do. And without at least a reference, there's little chance of you carrying out a conversation because I guess "hunting for words that actually do something" is just better than a straightforward dialog tree.NezumiiroKitsune said:
They're all set into the same universe (as of M&M X, the Ubi M&M is officially part of the same universe). In the start the series shared a mix of fantasy and sci-fi. It was also a bit silly, but not nearly as silly as the first few Ultimas. However, Might and Magic kept with the sci-fi elements throughout the series (even X officially included a few). Meanwhile the Heroes series follow a more traditional fantasy story even though it is in the same universe. It complicates because initially the Might and Magic series were about world-hoping. In Might and Magic I-V you basically saved an entire world and hopped on the next. Though in IV-V you technically hop to the other side of it. Then Might and Magic III follows into Might and Magic VII, that is in the world of the Heroes games. Heroes I-III take part in the world of Colony, as well as Might and Magic VI-VIII, and the events from one series often interacted with the other. They also share monsters and characters (with Heroes from Heroes of Might and Magic usually being found somewhere in the Might and Magic games).blackrave said:
Then Heroes IV met face-first with into the world-hopping theme of the Might and Magic games, with Colony being destroyed (because a certain Hero kept taking a weapon called ARMAGEDDON BLADE into battle, with predictable results in the end...) and the factions of the game using alien technology into an exodus to the world of Axeoth, where Heroes IV and Might and Magic IX takes place.
Then 3DO, and with it New World Computing, went under because 3DO was the current EA of the early 2000s. Ubi got the rights and rebooted the series in Heroes V, was connected to previous games only through mechanics and the theme of the factions and their creatures. Heroes VI is then a prequel to events hundreds of years in the past of the fifth installment. Then M&M X is a direct follow-up to the events of Heroes VI and tied the world of Ashan (from Heroes V-VI) into the larger universe of the previous Might and Magic, but only through background events.
tl;dr - As abomination said, they're all set in the same (BIG) universe, but they also share characters and themes between the franchises.
To be fair, you probably would need that with any franchise that goes past the fifth installment...blackrave said:
Though, also to be fair, I simplified the whole story the most I could. There are at least four spin-offs from the Might and Magic games, not counting the Heroes of Might and Magic ones. And all but the very first Heroes of Might and Magic games had very extensive expansion packs, often more than one.
If you don't mind the Grid-based gameplay, Sword of Xeen (that's Might and Magic IV+V combined). Like I said, M&M III follows directly into M&M VII, so Sword of Xeen is actually relatively friendly as an entry title. Or even X, despite Yahtzee's reservations, it is actually quite a competent grid-based game, and probably the best one to start since it is mostly lore-free from the rest of the games (it is full of nods to other M&M games, but if you're unfamiliar to them, they'll only look like quirks of whimsy) and has the most current graphics.blackrave said:
If you prefer free-form movement, go straight to VI. The story is mostly self-contained and the game is quite challenging by itself. Also, it has some of the most gloriously huge dungeons in the series... and probably from all RPG's not completely set around a single dungeon-crawl. You'd, however, need to contain yourself and stick to turn-based combat if you want challenge. As some have stated, it is quite easy to exploit the game mechanics in real-time.
All Might and Magic games (sans X) are available at GOG.com... also, all Heroes games too (sans VI), but only if you're looking for a strategy title. In fact, M&M I-VI are all bundled together as a single purchase. Though I don't really recommend M&M I and II. Those are really, really dated. As in, you can only play them through hot-keys. There's pretty much no mouse interface (unless GOG somehow used the Mac version, which actually does use the mouse, but even then they're very hard to get used to for someone used to modern game UI and controls).
Storywise, you'd have to start with III, though. While it does have some baggage from I and II, it is the one that truly starts to get the ball rolling with the themes that would later be found in the Heroes franchise and later M&M games. But VI is the one that starts off in the storyline most fans care about: the story of the world of Colony and the first true contact with the Kreegan (pretty much... well... alien demons).
and they're nothing like the original series, which are like the developers making a legal means for torture... atleast the first few, idk what happened in the later ones.DeliciousCake said:
Anyway, you can't really compare the 2 series at all.
Fantasy games with the SS eh.... it could work....
I have to agree with Herr Croshaw: grid-based movement strikes me as needlessly convoluted, especially in the Age of Decadence demo; what's the point of it when the entire grid only encompasses about three square feet of ground?
I have to agree with Herr Croshaw: grid-based movement strikes me as needlessly convoluted, especially in the Age of Decadence demo; what's the point of it when the entire grid only encompasses about three square feet of ground?
I don't agree with turn based combat and grid based movement being a matter of technological limitation. Chess has grid based movement not because it's impossible to move the pieces to any position you want on a board (as it plainly isn't), but because that opens up interesting strategic possibilities. The same can be said for checkers, or any other board game where you arrange pieces on a grid. The grid based movement (tied with turn based combat) is a valid design element, not a workaround.
I didn't play M&M so I can't tell if they take advantage of this design element to the fullest. If they're just sticking you in a corridor you advance through by discrete steps, yeah, that's not very much fun. But it wouldn't be any more fun if they let you move fluidly along that same one dimensional corridor.
I didn't play M&M so I can't tell if they take advantage of this design element to the fullest. If they're just sticking you in a corridor you advance through by discrete steps, yeah, that's not very much fun. But it wouldn't be any more fun if they let you move fluidly along that same one dimensional corridor.
I would have thought anyone who played MMIX would have urged the developer to return to grid-based movement. That game's free roaming ruined the combat and made it almost completely unstrategic.RandV80 said:
I'd say yes and know. I actually did try one of the latter Might and Magic games on GOG, one of the free roaming ones 7 I think, and yeah didn't really like it. Basically a bad primitive version of The Elder Scrolls FP combat, except with a party. I was thinking of a game I used to own 10 years ago that I thought was Might and Magic IX, but looking at the latter it most certainly wasn't. Very similar, except with a slight sci-fi side to it, and I think the # on it was 8. Anyways, it was one of these types of games that used free roaming, but still kept the tactical turn based combat. Does this sound familiar to anyone? I think it was the last game I ever traded it, but I'd still like to play it again.Blood Brain Barrier said:
But anyways, basically what I'm getting at is if you're game is a maze-like dungeon crawl, such as Legend of Grimrock or Etrian Odyssey, I'm fine with grid locking. If you're going to go outside and introduce larger area's, by all means please keep the turn based combat but it should be free roaming. Grid based movement was a necessity of the limited technology at the time. Nothing wrong with it really, but with a game like Might & Magic X it seems like they've artificially imposed it over the game world.
Ahhh I got it, it was Wizardry 8 that I was thinking of. This is what had me confused as to why Might & Magic X went back to grid based, because I thought the last game worked like this:Blood Brain Barrier said:
Free roaming exploration with turn based combat where the enemy's position on the screen mattered and spells & maybe abilities could have dynamic area effects.
Wow, what a shame. I mean, I know I should look at other reviews too, but I was thinking of getting this and I think Yahtzee covered enough flaws adequately that it doesn't seem worth it to me.
I've been a Might and Magic fan my whole life... started with the original Might and Magic: Secret of the Inner Sanctum when it came out in the mid 80s and I played it on my little Apple IIc and mapped all the rooms out with graph paper... (but I tell ya, I was sold on the the automap when it came out in Might and Magic II.)
And yes, the macaroni walls were lovely. I've played every game in the franchise except IX (as it was reputed to be a nasty, nasty bugfest when it came out) and now X. Might and Magic VII was my favorite--free roaming world, free movement, mini-games, interesting paths your characters could take, choose between light or dark side, etc. Good character system, etc.
This seems to be a sad attempt to recreate what... about circa M&M III or IV with better graphics?
Part of what I admired about M&M is that through most of its lifetime, it was trying to do the best with the technology it had--as Yahtzee points out is what good game designers do. Like I said, I think they were one of the first games that at least I encountered that used an automap. As soon as they could get to free-roaming movement, they used that, and made it awesome. They worked with moving into 3D graphics. They had a quest journal so in fact, yes, it was easy to track where you met the shield trainer guy. Playing M&M VI or VII now would feel very old school (although still hella fun to play) but they were accomplishing a great deal with what you could do in fantasy gaming at the time they could come out.
And that's really what I would expect of a true successor of M&M -- not to rest on the laurels of its past but indeed to use whatever's available now to present a complex, varied, fun open world fantasy game. I'd expect and want a new M&M game to look like and play more fun than Skyrim, not look like and play less fun than Daggerfall.
Sounds like I'm better off installing M&M VII and giving that a replay. (Which, if Yahtzee could stomach it, I would recommend to him to see what a good M&M game looks like--though it still contains elements that would frustrate him.)
ETA: And yes, for a modern day grid-based "oldskool" fantasy tribute, I'd much rather play Etrian Odyssey, where the DS functionality makes what could be frustrating gameplay in other media rather engaging instead.
I've been a Might and Magic fan my whole life... started with the original Might and Magic: Secret of the Inner Sanctum when it came out in the mid 80s and I played it on my little Apple IIc and mapped all the rooms out with graph paper... (but I tell ya, I was sold on the the automap when it came out in Might and Magic II.)
And yes, the macaroni walls were lovely. I've played every game in the franchise except IX (as it was reputed to be a nasty, nasty bugfest when it came out) and now X. Might and Magic VII was my favorite--free roaming world, free movement, mini-games, interesting paths your characters could take, choose between light or dark side, etc. Good character system, etc. This seems to be a sad attempt to recreate what... about circa M&M III or IV with better graphics?
Part of what I admired about M&M is that through most of its lifetime, it was trying to do the best with the technology it had--as Yahtzee points out is what good game designers do. Like I said, I think they were one of the first games that at least I encountered that used an automap. As soon as they could get to free-roaming movement, they used that, and made it awesome. They worked with moving into 3D graphics. They had a quest journal so in fact, yes, it was easy to track where you met the shield trainer guy. Playing M&M VI or VII now would feel very old school (although still hella fun to play) but they were accomplishing a great deal with what you could do in fantasy gaming at the time they could come out.
And that's really what I would expect of a true successor of M&M -- not to rest on the laurels of its past but indeed to use whatever's available now to present a complex, varied, fun open world fantasy game. I'd expect and want a new M&M game to look like and play more fun than Skyrim, not look like and play less fun than Daggerfall.
Sounds like I'm better off installing M&M VII and giving that a replay. (Which, if Yahtzee could stomach it, I would recommend to him to see what a good M&M game looks like--though it still contains elements that would frustrate him.)
ETA: And yes, for a modern day grid-based "oldskool" fantasy tribute, I'd much rather play Etrian Odyssey, where the DS functionality makes what could be frustrating gameplay in other media rather engaging instead.