Favorite Parts of Might and Magic [Archive]

Randomos

03-25-2005, 09:41 PM

I'm going to chime in again here... The community that has stayed enthusiastic about the Might and Magic titles... has been really loyal for years now. You've stuck together when there was no new game in sight even.

So I would love to hear some of your input about what's important about these games to you. What does make them special? Why Might and Magic instead of another game or a new game? Something about these games is different- what is it? I know different people may have different opinions. We'd be really interested to hear what you have to say...

JustStoneColdJo

03-26-2005, 04:33 AM

Stories...Good gameplay...
To me it's the underlying story. I dont care about great graphics and RTS ****. I want something that will immerse me into it. Most games out today do not do that for one reason or another. Heck, I still play the old M&M Games, I have M&M 1-5 installed on my computer and every so often I dust them off to play again. Why? THE STORY.
I know I am in the minority with most gamers but it's the little things that make games great.
Each and every game has a HUGE Backstory and M&M and HoMM tried to stay true to their roots, even when there was public dissent on their direcion. The integration of Sci-Fi Elements into the M&M Universe is what sets it apart from the other games and I feel that this needs to stay in the game. I know there will be people against it, but the M&M History is so rich to not include it will do a disservice to the name and legacy of M&M.

Jayce_jta

03-28-2005, 09:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JustStoneColdJo:
Stories...Good gameplay...
again. Why? THE STORY.
I know I am in the minority with most gamers but it's the little things that make games great.
Each and every game has a HUGE Backstory and M&M and HoMM tried to stay true to their roots, even when there was public dissent on their direcion. The integration of Sci-Fi Elements into the M&M Universe is what sets it apart from the other games and I feel that this needs to stay in the game. I know there will be people against it, but the M&M History is so rich to not include it will do a disservice to the name and legacy of M&M. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally are with Joe. The scifi elements really set it apart. That being said it was nice when they were in the game near the end but I didn't care for being able to actually use the blasters in the later might and magics. It just lost something there. I think it was handled the best in the early games. Where it was kind of a revelation at the end.

Bottom line for me is the game has to be fun. Good storyline, decent graphics, good music, open and nonlinear. Too many RPG's sacrifice the game for graphics and will have a playthrough time of 20 hours or something pathetic like that. Might and Magic's used to be pretty epic in scope.

ritcher1

03-28-2005, 08:24 PM

Of the Heroes games, it seems like I was most addicted to Heroes III. I especially liked how the heroes had specialties.

OZFirst

03-28-2005, 08:43 PM

Well, you're going to realize this quickly enough, so we might as well bring it into the open: some of us feel the integration of sci-fi elements is a bit of foolishness. Personally, I don't want blasters mixed in with my unicorns.

I think part of the appeal of the Heroes games was a sense of familiarity. If you had played one, you could play all of them, and without reading the manual. Towns, spells vs. might, unicorns and black dragons, heroes -- you knew what you were going to get. And while "easy to learn but difficult to master" sounds like a cliche, of all turn-based games, Heroes was exactly that.

ritcher1

03-29-2005, 07:25 AM

C_h_u_c_k_l_e_s

03-29-2005, 02:19 PM

Joe is right on target here. The graphics...while they're a nice bonus, are just eye-candy. The storylines were original and unique to the RPG world. The randomness added HOURS of replayability.

Now heroes is a whole other ballgame. Storylines were okay, but not the draw. What drew people to that game was the replayability, the subtle balances required to succeed, the wide variety of heroes you could create while at the same time remaining balanced with completely opposite types of heroes. The heroes games were just addictive. Period. Once you toss in the map editor...whoa! Now you've hooked in a whole new set of gamers. The creative ones. The NWC products usually came with 20-30 maps that were very fun to play. But once you added in the user-made maps, you had hundreds and hundreds of maps to play. I can't think of many games out there that people are still playing religiously ten years after the game was released. So what's my favorite part to the games....replayability and randomness. For example, I've played the H3 map "free-for-all" well over a dozen times. It's completely different ever, single time. If you guys could even come CLOSE to what NWC produced with M&M1-8 and Heroes1-3...I for one would be thrilled! (mm9 and h4 were dissapointments for me)

Herodujour

03-29-2005, 05:51 PM

First and foremost in the M&M world is story, story, and story. Graphics are nice but I would give them up for a good storyline (For example; requiem needed a decent video card for the graphics but the storyline made you over look the blocky graphics). MM7's storyline was enough to get me pissed at the goblin attack on my city!

Did I mention story is important? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now one thing that would be nice and if you want to be mean. Randomize the side quests. I like them but for replayablility I stopped doing some of them.

Now for Hero's, the others covered it but the AI! I think in Hero's III there was a couple times were the AI had forces that could just kick my butt and yet it would not leave the castle. Hmmmm I am going to have to fire it up now.

SkyBroad

03-29-2005, 06:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by OZFirst:
Well, you're going to realize this quickly enough, so we might as well bring it into the open: some of us feel the integration of sci-fi elements is a bit of foolishness. Personally, I don't want blasters mixed in with my unicorns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*nods*
I always hated the science fiction element of the games and the M&M games were a chore for me to finish once the blasters were introduced into the story line.

*waves the FORGE SUCKS flag*
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Back to the question....

Of the M&M games, I probably liked M&M6 the best. I liked the interface and I liked the storyline. I could really get lost in that game. I broke my ankle at the beginning of skydiving season in 1999 and had to keep my leg elevated. My summer was ruined so I buried myself in M&M6 and was able to completely forget about my broken ankle or whatever other fun I was missing out on.

For Heroes, I liked H3 Shadow of Death best but without the Conflux. At the moment, I'm still playing H3 more than any other game. BTW,the storyline for the Heroes games didn't matter to me at all. I don't think they necessarily even need a storyline.

Jayce_jta

03-30-2005, 09:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SkyBroad:
*nods*
I always hated the science fiction element of the games and the M&M games were a chore for me to finish once the blasters were introduced into the story line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because you never played MM 1-5 where they didn't have those infernal blasters in the game at all. The Scifi was implimented much better in the early games. It was a total chore to switch over to them in 6-8(well I never finished 8 so I'm not sure about that game). The part in MMVII where you had to go underwater was annoying also.

Hey did you notice that underwater ship looked like the Battlestar Galactica? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

C_h_u_c_k_l_e_s

03-30-2005, 12:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jayce_jta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SkyBroad:
*nods*
I always hated the science fiction element of the games and the M&M games were a chore for me to finish once the blasters were introduced into the story line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because you never played MM 1-5 where they didn't have those infernal blasters in the game at all. The Scifi was implimented much better in the early games. It was a total chore to switch over to them in 6-8(well I never finished 8 so I'm not sure about that game). The part in MMVII where you had to go underwater was annoying also.

Hey did you notice that underwater ship looked like the Battlestar Galactica? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I've noticed that most of the people who were vehemetly (sp?) opposed to the Forge were also the same people who hated the sci-fi in MM 6 and up. The way they integrated the tech into the first 2 games especially were brilliant. For those of you who are not sure what I'm talking about...go back and play MM1 and MM2. The Sheltem/Corak storyline was addictive as all get out! I missed it a BUNCH in MM6. (but that was my ONLY complaint about MM6) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OZFirst

03-30-2005, 12:16 PM

I think what you're forgetting or missing is that an awful lot of Heroes players haven't played M & M and don't care about the story, world, or connection between the two games. We just want to get our black dragon on.

ValiantFwiffo

03-30-2005, 12:17 PM

C_h_u_c_k_l_e_s

03-30-2005, 12:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by OZFirst:
I think what you're forgetting or missing is that an awful lot of Heroes players haven't played M & M and don't care about the story, world, or connection between the two games. We just want to get our black dragon on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. I'm fully aware of that fact. But for some reason those same people you're speaking about can't seem to grasp the concept that Heroes came directly out of the M&M plot line. Those 2 series are very much connected. Just because you don't play one doesn't mean the designers shouldn't integrate aspects of the two together. They simply should've done a better job of it than the pitiful Forge idea. I was, for the most part, against the Forge....but I was very much in favor of linking the two series together by incorporating the tech aspects. Just not in a game-breaking fashion. They just had to get creative...like they were in all the MM games.

If you wanted a game that was purely fantasy and had no connection to sci-fi elements in it...you shouldn't have picked up a Might and Magic branded game. :O) NBL ozzie, nbl.

OZFirst

03-30-2005, 12:27 PM

Fairy nuff, but I submit that the M & M series should simply receive a dignified burial, as there are far superior rpg series out there (BG, NWN, Fallout if you must have science), and we can carry on with Heroes free of that silly aliens storming the castle nonsense.

NBL yourself.

C_h_u_c_k_l_e_s

03-30-2005, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by OZFirst:
Fairy nuff, but I submit that the M & M series should simply receive a dignified burial, as there are far superior rpg series out there (BG, NWN, Fallout if you must have science), and we can carry on with Heroes free of that silly aliens storming the castle nonsense.

NBL yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Well, considering the last installment of the series...I'd be tempted to agree with the burial. :O) But as for superior RPG's....not sure I agree with that one (with the exception of the last 2 MM's). The downfall of the series wasn't a lack of ideas or something along those lines...it was simply three-dee-blow. I'm sure Trip could manage to grind Microsoft into extinction if he got his inept fingers on it. *sigh* I'll still hold out hope that Ubisoft can bring back the glory days. *crosses fingers*

ToxicMunkee

03-30-2005, 01:20 PM

I like the fantasy. There aren't enough fantasy games out there, and many of them are starting to rely on "technology". I know there's a technology tie-in with the Might and Magic series, but it's Might and Magic first, not Might and Magic and Blasters. *shrug*

Just let me keep my skeletons.

ValiantFwiffo

03-30-2005, 01:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ToxicMunkee:
I like the fantasy. There aren't enough fantasy games out there, and many of them are starting to rely on "technology". I know there's a technology tie-in with the Might and Magic series, but it's Might and Magic first, not Might and Magic and Blasters. *shrug* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phtooey... Vast majority of the games are fantasy based. Technology is where it is at. There aren't enough technology games out there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Posted by Munkee: Just let me keep my skeletons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Steals Munkee's skeleton*

*Watches as she collapses into an amoeba-like blob*

*Pokes her with a femur*

ToxicMunkee

03-30-2005, 02:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ValiantFwiffo:

*Pokes her with a femur* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah ha! *pulls out her sword and cuts Fwiff's hand off* Have at you!

Pitsu

03-31-2005, 01:49 AM

Replay to #1

If we talk about Homm, then H2 is the best for me. The reason is overall feeling of the game. There are no artificial thingies like many upgrades in H3. Every object/town has personality and fits to the universe, nothing gives impression that it is implemented just for balance or gameplay.

Of course since H2 was my first, nostalgy plays a role too.

In comparison to other TBS games Homm has very good replayability thanks to stacking. Creature stacks means that your armies are almost never identical. However customisation of new/existing objects in (map)editor is something that Homm could adobt from other games (Or from WoG).

If we are talking about MM games, I think being non-linear (quest filling odrer and storyline wise), team based and allowing turn-based gameplay are the most important features. Sci-Fi elements are a part of MM world, but if the story is good (not by Hollywood criterias http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif) they aren't necessary.

RexMund1

03-31-2005, 11:18 AM

my favorite parts of the Might and MAgic series are building the party in a way that will allow me to do the things I want. Because of that I like M&M6 best...simply because you could build your group and mold the skills with less of a feeling of resriction than in the others. I think the later versions over specialized the characters which limited the diversity in playable parties.

I am however really more of a Heroes player than an M&M'er. HOMMII and HOMMIII were both incredibly addictive and enjoyable. The little tweaks to the system from 2 to 3 were mostly enhancements with only a few annoying little things. I loved the music in II, and the replayability that came from a solid map editor and strong player made map community. The story in HOMM is really only necessary in the campaigns which I always play through and enjoy but the main draw of the game to me is the strategy involved in trying to find a way to win. The overall back story is irrelevant and limiting if it is a focus...
Some of the best maps I played were set in totally different worlds than Erathia or wherever. For Example, I loved Myth and Legend which had nothing to do with Queen Catherine.

Make the game fun to play...give us the ability to play each other in a reasonable amount of time, and don't make the graphics too distracting and I'll be pleased.

Qrystal_Dragon

04-01-2005, 01:24 PM

LOL. The poor developers are going to have their hands full trying to satisfy the diversity of players. I insist on good graphics. Nothing turns me off from a Heroes map more than a bare map focused on the battle element alone. I love the exploring bit of Heroes. I loved H3 but fell in love with H4 even more once mapmakers figured out how to get around the limitations of the AI.

The element within H4 of developing heroes took some time to learn but became the preference for me. I learned to like having them involved directly in the battle. I still detest the fog of war but would have found it more acceptable if the viewing range was a bit wider. To me the introduction of the caravan for moving troops was a great addition to H4. The graphics are awesome and not the dark/dreary aspect I've seen in some games. Besides us old farts don't see as well as some of you young ones.

The H4 map editor had a large learning curve, but once conquered map makers could do some amazing things. I'm still surprised with some of the things that map makers manage and can't resist popping into the editor to see how they did it. The down side to map making in H4 is it takes sooooooooo long to make a map and by the time a map maker is finished, they are sick of it. I've seen many a map that had one level nicely done and the maker gave up with it on the second level ending up with a poorly produced map. I speak from experience as I have a completed H4 map ready for testing, but sick of it so on my PC it sitshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I feel in love with Heroes because of it's fantasy aspect. It's replayability. It's turn based strategy. And it's awesome graphics. Final Fantasy was a game I once enjoyed but lost me as a fan when they took the sci fi route. So Down with Forge!

RexMund1

04-01-2005, 01:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I speak from experience as I have a completed H4 map ready for testing, but sick of it so on my PC it sitshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm totally with you hating the Fog of War but approving of the caravans Q...
btw..if you are looking for someone to Play (not a rigorous playtesting but just a general different set of eyes on how the map plays) your map I'd be happy to load it up and give it a try I haven't played HOMM IV in a long time now.

Dentari

04-01-2005, 01:48 PM

Ok, this is really two questions, as the M&M RPG series is a seperate beast from the HoMM series.

Since Homm 5 is actually being developed, I'll address the HoMM series first.

Things I liked:
- Hero specializations. In H3, I loved looking in the tavern each week to see if there was a kickass hero I could recruit. It let people have favorite heroes that they could identify with.

- The Explore Aspect. This is a big part of the success of HoMM I feel. The fun of going down into the dungeons to look for artifacts and treasures, or exploring the forests, etc.

- The Fog of War from H4. I disliked in H3 how someone could suicide run a hero deep into your territory, and then see everything you did for the rest of the game. Adding the fog of war was a good idea, allowing for more tactics. Though the option to build sentry towers should exist.

- The economy or army choices in H3. Play conservative, build up cash and "tech", or play aggressive and build up the army to explore and conquer as fast as possible? They totally ruined that in H4.

- Caravans from H4. Great idea, saved quite a bit of time in creature shuttling.

Things I didn't like:
- The fact that is many HoMM games, the outcome is often decided as the result of one big battle, when each side's "super stacks" hit each other. As a way to counter that, I would suggest giving Heroes a leadership stat, that would determine the maximum size or strength of the army that could accompany them. I feel this would add an immense amount of strategy to the game alone.

- The amount of time spent running around making sure you picked up the windmill, leprechaun, etc, every week. Would be nice if they would just store up until you hit them, rather than worrying about missing a week. Or maybe if you could add a waypoint type system where you could set a hero on a defined loop so you didn't have to manually do it every turn.

more to come as I think of them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dentari

04-01-2005, 02:18 PM

Just read Rex's dislike of the fog of war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I do agree that the fog of war as implemented in H4 was a bit too restricting. But there could easily be a compromise between the the two systems. Large visibility radius, and the option to build towers or use items or spells(for example sentry wards from wc3) to help combat the fog. But the unlimited "I see you and you can't do anything about it" method of H3 kind of sucked, at least in multiplayer.

RexMund1

04-01-2005, 02:32 PM

I agree with you that the way the map was revealed in HOMM 3 made suicide runs profitable in multiplayer games but they really over did the fog of war in Homm IV

I think that all flagged resources, castles, mines, and heroes should have a radius around them the gives the owner clear view that way a hero can march along the road exploring and still see something 1/2 a days journey from his home castle as well as seeing if someone came out of the shadow behind him and is now sneaking up.

I also think the shroud (if they insist on having it) should come on gradually and not all at once.

OZFirst

04-01-2005, 02:37 PM

Don't like that leadership idea at all. i think it would slow the game way down, and I like my big armies. I think you'd end up with the zillion heroes running around with small armies.

Just my tuppence.

OTOH, it might make your third and fourth heroes relevant, so I'd probably learn to like it.

Dentari

04-01-2005, 07:03 PM

A gradual shroud fading effect would be neat, but might be tricky to implement.

I've liked the idea of limiting army sizes somehow ever since heroes 2, when it became apparent that your best chance of winning was to build the super stack that could crush opposing armies without losing a single troop. Heroes 4 tried to change that a bit with the silmultaneous combat, but I think a lot of people preferred the post strike retaliation of H3. I think that if you had a leadership stat, it would encourage people to play a bit more aggressively to use up their lower level creatures in order to make room for the higher level creatures as the game progressed. And it would encourage using 3 or 4 heroes actively instead of the standard 1 big offensive hero, and 1 smaller defensive hero if needed. It would also allow for some more choices in character development. Stronger, smaller armies, or weaker, but larger armies, depending on if your character invests points into leadership (charisma?) or not.

Pitsu

04-01-2005, 11:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dentari:
...when it became apparent that your best chance of winning was to build the super stack that could crush opposing armies without losing a single troop. Heroes 4 tried to change that a bit with the silmultaneous combat,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main change against superheroes that H4 did was that hero stats (except tactics skill) did not boost creatures anymore. In H3 a group of cretures was much better under main hero than under secondary heroes. In H4 you actually do not lose firepower just by giving a strong stack to weaker hero. Still, it wasn't a prefect solution.

A solution is giving penalties to huge armies: slower speed on adventure map, perhaps also morale and turning berserker like in Kings Bounty. On the other hand: limiting is limiting, and I would prefer a system without strickt limits. The unit experience system, introduced in last WoG, is also something to think about. You won't merge armies that carelessly anymore.

Regarding FoG, I support the H4 system with improved methods to increase your area of sight. I know that garnissoning a scoting hero in a mine gives me good view, but the hero is more likely needed elsewhere...

Edit: some typos corrected