Can someone explain the difference between Wizardry and M&M?

Love puzzles!

Also, tried Wizardry 8.

That may be true for the Wizardry games (I've only played Wiz 6), but personally I prefer MM1 and 2 over 3-5, due to better combat system. MM2 really hit the sweet spot for me, being the most tactical of all the M&M games, and also having automap and being one of the best looking CRPGs of the EGA era.

I'm pretty familiar with the dates. Wiz 1-3 created a genre, but BT1 improved on it and then Wiz 4 - 6 stole from the Bard's Tale. And nobody is asking anyone to play Wizardry 1 - 4. And M&M1, while charming, was a step backwards from the Bard's Tale. While M&M 2 may look nice on the Amiga, it looked pretty poor on the C64.

Hey, comrade Hoverdog already posted the Mondblut's Wizardry vs Might & Magic Universal Comparison Chart.

I am just puzzled somebody discovered some kind of "story" in M&M. Indeed, Wizardry had exactly zero of it up to and including 5, but really picked up on it with 6 onwards. Finding those bits of macabre soap opera about the queen and the king and his wizard and his bastard child really gave me shivers (and an occasional bit of nervous laughter, such as discovering that stash of BDSM loot in the queen's boudoir). Meanwhile, the story of every Might & Magic game is as such: "There is an Evil Overlord who threatens the whole world. In order to get to his Dark Citadel and kill him, you need a key kept by Evil Underlord. In order to get to his Dark Fortress and kill him, you need a key kept by Evil Underling. In order to get to his Dark Castle and kill him, you need a key kept by Evil Henchman. In order to get to his Dark Ramparts... repeat ad nauseum till the Evil Not-So-Giant Boss Rat and her Dark Hole-in-the-wall."

Duh, and how exactly did BT "improve" on Wizardry? By introducing realtime outside combat? I didn't notice later Wizardries stealing it, thank god.

Gosh, with such a hurtful duh, you are making this hard. The Bard's Tale 1 improved on Wizardry 1 - 3 by adding music, adding more buffs (like better light spells, armor spells, compass and others) improving graphics, varying locations, adding different schools of magic outside the traditional cleric and mage and the ability to switch between them, the ability to add random creatures to fight in your party, having illusionary creatures to fight and summon, and some other updates. I could also compare BT2 to Wiz IV, with BT2 bringing distance based fighting, real time puzzles*, music based puzzles, some random drop items that can be added to creatures found for your party, and an additional mage class. There is more, but you get the point.

* not an improvement, but they tried.

And which of these we single-handedly owe to BT and not to the general advancement of computer or roleplaying (or computer roleplaying) games, so that Wizardry would have to "steal" it?

Music and graphics - you don't expect us to believe CRPGs would still be stuck with CGA vector shit were it not for the innovashuns of Bard's "Steve Jobs" Tale, do you?

More spells, classes, whatever - it's not like AD&D and other RPGs the CRPGs were ripping features from didn't already bloat themselves with dozens of classes and literally thousands of spells by the time. Them creeping into CRPGs of the future (and the later going "more of everything" in every other conceivable way as well) was a constant way of things, until the decline hit.

Locations - well, BT tried to add a city level to replace the generic and efficient town menu, and failed quite hard. It's nothing but annoyance. Besides, Ultima did full-fledged outdoors and shit from day 1, M&M and later Wizardry didn't have to be impressed by the BT's failure of a town to introduce wilderness of their own.

Recruiting or summoning creatures into party - might give it to you.

I disagree that BT failed with it's city implementation. For me, back in the mid 80's, one of the most impressive parts of Bard's tale was Skara Brae (and the map which came in the box was actually pretty useful). The feeling of freedom moving round and exploring an actual city in '3D' wasn't beaten for me until I played GTA 3 some 20 years later.

I don't know if your trying to capture this or just saying you like MM better. As someone who likes both Wizardry and Might and Magic something has always bothered me about this picture when it gets posted.

Either way your still a fag on a trike.

In Wizardry combat is phase based, in Might and Magic it is turn based.

Wizardry is slow and stretched, Might and Magic is fast and big.

Wizardry is work, Might and Magic is fun.


I recommend getting the Might and Magic sixpack from GoG and starting with MM3. If it's too difficult for you play World of Xeen instead.

True. Thankfully, for straight men there is always...

On this I'll disagree: Wizardry was almost 100% D&D for the magic system. BT at least attempted to get out from under the typical Wiz magic system. The contribution BT made to overall RPG's was not as significant as Wiz, but the contributions BT should not be overlooked and I'd argue innovations in BT made Wiz (IV and onward) better games.

Eh, the town was more than a menu: it was the setting itself. Who didn't wander into that Grand Plaz (?) and marvel at the Mangar statue in the middle and wonder where this game would take them (ok, there was nothing there, but the description wasn't bad.) The town had sentries that prevented areas from being entered, but you could overcome them pretty early in the game. I repeat, I'm not slamming Wiz or Ultima, but Ultima 1 didn't shine because of the detail of indoors/outdoors nor was that part of the game mind-blowing, but U1 showed what could be done. They took what was built in U1 and kept developing that until U6, which touched points with Wiz with the U3 dungeons, and touched BT with UV and the day and night graphics.

I can't pinpoint who exactly invented the mana system first, but find it highly doubtful that was BT's achievement. Hm, come to think of it, psionicists were in AD&D pretty much from day 1, and their spellcasting system for PPs is the mana systems of the future precisely.

Dunno, it might have been impressive back in 1985, but I don't find anything spectacular in a maze with one shop, one tavern, and a fuckton of empty rooms half of which generate repeating random encounters.

It was awesome at the time, but yeah, there really isnt' much to it. I went over and saw the Let's Play for Wizardry IV and I feel like a fag for even getting on here and defending the Bard's Tale, but here we are.

M&M games are Wizardry games without frustration

It looks like GoG might not even sell Wizardry 1-8, so it looks like I get a go at M&M anyway! I dig the exploration aspect, though I've played Wizardry 8, so I'll probably enjoy this. I also have a Demise and Realms of Arkania playthrough to do, and LoL2 was my favorite game, and I still haven't played the first one, so I'm going to be a busy little Codex bee for the next few months. I can't even figure out what order would be best to play these games in! Oh yes, and UU1/2 are sitting on my computer for later, so it looks like I may just bury myself in a cave with an instruction manual and hibernate for about six months with my little netbook, in case you guys send out a search and rescue. :/

Those games should not be enjoyed on a netbook. They should be set up on a massive tower with at least a 14/17" inch screen (the more the better, and your face stuck to the monitor. You need to dive in to enjoy them ; not to chill out on the couch, netbook on the lap, and feet on the table.

Try RoA series first. Then M&M and then anything else Amberstar/Ambermoon/Albion for example!