Might and Magic Might & Magic X - Legacy

[ilitarist]

There were still plenty of optional areas. And after the first act plot gating was not there. IIRC you could get all the powers needed for swimming/climbing whenever you want after act 1. MM7 had something similar with a shorter Act 1, hadn't it?

And combat in MMX is great.

(unlike Wasteland 2)

 

[V_K]

There were still plenty of optional areas.

That's a bit of a stretch, I think before Act 3, you generally had a choice of 2-3 optional dungeons at any given moment (unless you rush to Act 2 without finishing any of them, then yes, the choice would be bigger), some of which you had no chance to survive at current power level.

IIRC you could get all the powers needed for swimming/climbing whenever you want after act 1.

Nope, some shards were found in Act 3.

I'm not saying it's a bad game (and I'm not generally a fan of MM games), but exploration-wise it left a lot to be desired compared to e.g. Lords of Xulima.

 

[Iznaliu]

But even if it did, I have a feeling they'd end up downplaying the Might & Magic part, the same way Bethesda tend to downplay the similarly nerdy and outdated "The Elder Scrolls" in favor of their games' subtitles - people call it "Skyrim", not "The Elder Scrolls 5".

People call PoE2 "Deadfire" when it has sold a grand total of 0 copies. How do you explain that?

 

[Sceptic]

At their essence, Ubisoft's Heroes games are "Euro-ware" products. Which means low budget, colorful, somewhat oldschool, pretty fun, if a bit janky and shovelwarey. When these games are successful, their colorfulness gives them a casual appeal that manages to transcend their low budget, oldschool turn-based nature. HoMM5 is the prototypical example of a successful Euroware release.

No it's not. HOMM5 was a big budget AAA game for what this was considered back in 2006, with the usual trappings (all-3D, full voice acting, expensive-looking cinematics, etc). You're engaging in revisionism by applying 2017 standards of Euroware to something that's more than a decade old and predates Euroware.

The thing is, HoMM5 came out in 2006, before indie development was really a thing. That meant a big publisher like Ubisoft could own that niche and turn a reasonable profit from it. But today, they're competing with dozens of indies and small developers who are all capable of making similar games. It no longer makes sense for Ubisoft to invest in it.

Except nobody is making Heroes-like games. The niche is completely empty. Ubisoft stopped making Heroes games because they rushed and botched the last 2 games dramatically, and then in typical publisher fashion blamed the lack of success on "nobody wants these types of games" instead of, oh I don't know, nobody wants incompetently made games. It's the same kind of logic behind the adventure games remakes - LSL Reloaded indicates that nobody wants to play adventure games rather than, I don't know, nobody wants to buy the remake of the remake. It's been the same repeat story for years now.

So if they can't make a colorful low budget Might & Magic game, their other option is to make an AAA RPG with it. But the Might & Magic brand doesn't seem suitable for that. I mean, look at the name - "Might and Magic". It's so cheesy, an obvious product of the 80s, when the idea that you could be "a fighter, OR a wizard!" was something that could excite nerds.

"Final Fantasy" is even cheesier and it hasn't stopped them selling millions of copies. The only reason the brand is unsuitable is because Ubisoft haven't made any effort to make it suitable. You can sell anything if you market it right - see No Man's Sky, or hell have a look inside the Grimoire thread.

I don't know, maybe there is an alternate reality where a game like Arkane's Dark Messiah really took off and Might & Magic somehow succeeded as an AAA RPG brand. But even if it did, I have a feeling they'd end up downplaying the Might & Magic part, the same way Bethesda tend to downplay the similarly nerdy and outdated "The Elder Scrolls" in favor of their games' subtitles - people call it "Skyrim", not "The Elder Scrolls 5".

Bad analogy and revisionism again. Nobody ever referred to any Elder Scrolls individual games as TES#. Arena was always Arena. Daggerfall was always Daggerfall, not "The Elder Scrolls 2". Yes Bethesda downplay the Elder Scrolls part, and it's probably a good idea, but that's nothing to do with it being outdated.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[V_K]

and die(which is desired, isnt it?).

Not in my book. Since access to trainers is tied to plot, power-gating becomes a version of plot-gating. Same issue I had with e.g. Gothic.
Although I generally consider killing the player without a fair warning bad design, but that's a whole other debate.

 

[Luckmann]

Compare WL to WL2. WL2 DC improved on it in every way. [...]

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

stuff

I generally agree with what you wrote, but also have to say that I gave MMX a very honest spin and I wouldn't say its most serious problems were down to lack of proper funding. Although that didn't help obviously. But I give them credit, it's pretty obvious that people won't be able to suddenly just start making good crpgs again after what was happening for the last few decades. At least those guys evidently had some idea, contrary to, let's say, obsidian or inexile.

 

[V_K]

the same way Bethesda tend to downplay the similarly nerdy and outdated "The Elder Scrolls" in favor of their games' subtitles - people call it "Skyrim", not "The Elder Scrolls 5".

Bad analogy and revisionism again. Nobody ever referred to any Elder Scrolls individual games as TES#. Arena was always Arena. Daggerfall was always Daggerfall, not "The Elder Scrolls 2". Yes Bethesda downplay the Elder Scrolls part, and it's probably a good idea, but that's nothing to do with it being outdated.

Yes, and TESO is always referred to simply as "Online".

 

[Iznaliu]

and then in typical publisher fashion blamed the lack of success on "nobody wants these types of games" instead of, oh I don't know, nobody wants incompetently made games

Sometimes publishers legitimately can't tell the difference.

 

[Luckmann]

and then in typical publisher fashion blamed the lack of success on "nobody wants these types of games" instead of, oh I don't know, nobody wants incompetently made games

Sometimes publishers legitimately can't tell the difference.

As much as publishers are clueless, imagine if you legitimately didn't know much about the subject, and then you have the developers saying "We didn't do anything wrong! The game is great! It's not our fault!"

Nobody tells those execs living in their affluenza-bubble that a game was shit. What conclusion can they possibly come to other than "Maybe people don't want these games, then?".

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not really committed to this argument, but some light rebuttals:

Except nobody is making Heroes-like games. The niche is completely empty.

I didn't say "Heroes-like", I said "similar". Ie, similar enough. So, King's Bounty, Disciples, all manner of Stardock and Paradox-published games, etc etc.

"Final Fantasy" is even cheesier and it hasn't stopped them selling millions of copies.

JRPGs come with a different set of expectations, I think. Not to mention a large Japanese audience with very different tastes.

then in typical publisher fashion blamed the lack of success on "nobody wants these types of games" instead of, oh I don't know, nobody wants incompetently made games.

I'm not saying that Ubisoft thinks nobody wants Might & Magic games, or that Ubisoft couldn't make a good Might & Magic game. I'm saying I think it's increasingly not worth it for them to make one compared to 2006, and hence the IP's future is bleak.

 

[LESS T_T]

It probably has future in China. A licensed Chinese only mobile game by Tencent seemingly well-received by the looks of user reviews (122,170 reviews, 4.9 average score).



I guess, if this goes well, Ubisoft probably will consider making another Hereos game to retain the "premium" value of IP.

 

[V_K]

I guess, if this goes well, Ubisoft probably will consider making another Hereos game to retain the "premium" value of IP.

Or maybe they'll just sell it to the Chinese completely.
This is kinda poetic to be honest - Wizardry ended up in Japan, now M&M ends up in China. If Koreans pick up Ultima, we'll be all set.

 

[LESS T_T]

If Koreans pick up Ultima, we'll be all set.

Lord Korean confirmed.

 

[Iznaliu]

now M&M ends up in China

Given Low Magic Age, there is potential in the Chinese RPG scene.

 

[Sceptic]

I didn't say "Heroes-like", I said "similar". Ie, similar enough. So, King's Bounty, Disciples, all manner of Stardock and Paradox-published games, etc etc.

Huh, somehow I missed the last 2 King's Bounty games released after Crossworlds, thanks to the "light rebuttal" I can remedy this. Did you have any specific Paradox or Stardock games in mind? I was under the impression they dealt with completely different beasts, more pure strategy and 4X games than the strategy-RPG hybrids like KB and HOMM, but I haven't really played any of their games I think.

I'm not saying that Ubisoft thinks nobody wants Might & Magic games, or that Ubisoft couldn't make a good Might & Magic game. I'm saying I think it's increasingly not worth it for them to make one compared to 2006, and hence the IP's future is bleak.

Unfortunately I don't think I can disagree with this.

 

[Sinatar]

I'm honestly shocked that Ubisoft hasn't rebooted Might & Magic into a Skyrim clone yet.

 

[Iznaliu]

I'm honestly shocked that Ubisoft hasn't rebooted Might & Magic into a Skyrim clone yet.

If they wanted to do that, they might as well create an new brand and avoid pissing off M&M fans.

 

[GlutenBurger]

I'm honestly shocked that Ubisoft hasn't rebooted Might & Magic into a Skyrim clone yet.

If they wanted to do that, they might as well create an new brand and avoid pissing off M&M fans.

I remember saying something similar when Fallout was being made into a Morrowind clone. From a business perspective, I was dead wrong.

 

[Iznaliu]

I remember saying something similar when Fallout was being made into a Morrowind clone. From a business perspective, I was dead wrong.

Two points:

• Isn't FO3 known as "Oblivion with guns", not "Morrowind with guns"?
• Bethesda is in a different position from Ubisoft.

 

[GlutenBurger]

Yeah. It was a while ago so they've all sort of blended together in my memory.

 

[LESS T_T]

It probably has future in China. A licensed Chinese only mobile game by Tencent seemingly well-received by the looks of user reviews (122,170 reviews, 4.9 average score).

I guess, if this goes well, Ubisoft probably will consider making another Hereos game to retain the "premium" value of IP.

Well, from Ubisoft CEO himself: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-08-01-the-big-interview-yves-guillemot

Instead, Ubisoft's popularity in the region stems largely from its PC output, including the Heroes of Might & Magic series which, while niche in the West, is a "significantly meaningful brand" in China, according to the publisher. In fact, China is the top sales region for HOM&M VII.

 

[ilitarist]

Funny how they call the game Heroes of Might & Magic, even though it's called Might & Magic: Heroes for the last 7 years.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Honestly I think a lot of the failures of Legacy and the recent Heroes games is the horrendously generic, boring, and shitty fantasy world they created. There are few shades of interesting story threads in Heroes 6, but none of the charm and wonder of the JVC games.

It also goes back to M&M 9 when they threw out everything they'd built for a decade and wrote some odd viking fan fiction instead.