1eyedking Why M&M isn't a "poor man's Wizardry"

[cvv]

In MM6-8, you'll often find massive mobs of high level enemies on certain maps, but if you've got the fly spell, you can easily pass over them, drop right in front of a chest and collect an awesome reward early on.

Believe it or not, there are people - for example me - who consider that sort of thing neither desirable nor fun design. Juking your way past an Elder Dragon guarding a Big Sword of Buttrape early on and then melting mobs for half the game without breaking a sweat is a surefire way to ruin a good game. It's no better than buying the Dragon Armor DLC in Dragon Age and then being an invincible mofo for the next dozen hours.

As for the MMX mention, I gotta admit, I never understood that "myiaaa, I'm railroaded" complaint. The point of playing an RPG is the joy of progression. And as far as I know, and I've been playing RPGs since 1993, there are only two ways of making it work in a non-linear game - either have a completely open world from the start but then the element of progression is achieved through level scaling - that would be Skyrim and its ilk for example. Or have more or less contrived "checkpoints" throughout the world that you unlock as you level up, either in the form of guardian mobs or some other mechanics like the flower field in the beginning of W7 or the blocked bridge in MMX. Personally I much prefer the second alternative, although there are games that do level scaling well, W7 being the prime example.

 

[Azrael the cat]

In MM6-8, you'll often find massive mobs of high level enemies on certain maps, but if you've got the fly spell, you can easily pass over them, drop right in front of a chest and collect an awesome reward early on.

Believe it or not, there are people - for example me - who consider that sort of thing neither desirable nor fun design. Juking your way past an Elder Dragon guarding a Big Sword of Buttrape early on and then melting mobs for half the game without breaking a sweat is a surefire way to ruin a good game. It's no better than buying the Dragon Armor DLC in Dragon Age and then being an invincible mofo for the next dozen hours.

As for the MMX mention, I gotta admit, I never understood that "myiaaa, I'm railroaded" complaint. The point of playing an RPG is the joy of progression. And as far as I know, and I've been playing RPGs since 1993, there are only two ways of making it work in a non-linear game - either have a completely open world from the start but then the element of progression is achieved through level scaling - that would be Skyrim and its ilk for example. Or have more or less contrived "checkpoints" throughout the world that you unlock as you level up, either in the form of guardian mobs or some other mechanics like the flower field in the beginning of W7 or the blocked bridge in MMX. Personally I much prefer the second alternative, although there are games that do level scaling well, W7 being the prime example.

Almost without exception I've preferred open but 'enclosed', detailed, maps (Deus Ex, BG2/PS:T, Geneforge series, SS series) to open world games. Open worlds are a great idea, but they don't translate into a proportionally equivalent set of time and resources with which to design them. With remarkable frequency they end up giving the player fewer options for how to tackle a problem compared to a game with enclosed but well-designed maps (open world and 'good level design' have thus far proven mutually exclusive - no intrinsic reason why this must be the case, but the resources to pull it off would be immense).

Plus games like Geneforge and FO1-2 show that you can have large explorable continents without having to create a full open world, so long as you map the key areas and logical places of interest with enough quality that it creates the illusion of a living geography. Arcanum too, given that the areas between the 'points of interest' are just filler that you aren't expected to trudge through. Genuine open world games often fail even at this - FO:NV aside (which is an exceptional case as they could work with existing tech and hence focus almost entirely on world design), they end up having to choose between procedurally generated filler or theme park design. Even the Gothic games are heavily reliant on using subtle gating and natural walls to create the illusion of an open world without falling into the trap of actually pursuing one.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I find the OP self-contradictory, because for me crpgs like MM were always about killing stuff, levelling and pimping out your guize and not about open world exploration. I generally dislike the exploration type crpgs, I don't like TES games (even the supposedly good ones), Gothic and Risen are meh for me and so on, but I do like MM games, though at the same time I agree with the tricycle .jpg cause I'm an honest guy that won't spend his time getting worked up on the Internet about how every game he likes is genius incarnate. MM is a popcorn crpg, Wiz is a proper prestigious crpg. Funny enough, I also think MMX is kinda bad, killing stuff was improved compared to previous MM games, but levelling and pimping is really lacking, they almost matched Bethesda with how unexciting and meh finding supposedly rare and awesome relics/artifacts can be. That's not how you make good crpgs people.

 

[Scroo]

I never understood the whole elitist thing around Wizardry and M&M. Why look down on M&M? Why not just enjoy both series and thus have a ton of awesome blobbers to play?

Sure, Wizardry is more complex but a hack'n'slash blobber that lets you gain 100 levels while exploring a huge open world does have it's place too.

 

[Cadmus]

I never understood the whole elitist thing around Wizardry and M&M. Why look down on M&M? Why not just enjoy both series and thus have a ton of awesome blobbers to play?

Sure, Wizardry is more complex but a hack'n'slash blobber that lets you gain 100 levels while exploring a huge open world does have it's place too.

Yeah meng, why do you argue about pointless shit? Just enjoy the nice ga....oh shit we're on codex. Sorry, let me try again.

You fucking cocksucker, can't you see Wizardry is way better than M&M? Are you fucking retarded? Go play Mass Effect on RPGWATCH and suck a cock while you're at it. Would you not debate with someone if they tried to say Hitler is almost as good Churchill? This is important stuff, pleb. Are you a nazi? Do you love nazi cock in your eye sockets? What am I saying?? Whaat whaat

 

[TigerKnee]

I never understood the whole elitist thing around Wizardry and M&M. Why look down on M&M? Why not just enjoy both series and thus have a ton of awesome blobbers to play?

I used to think like that and only play blobbers that I thought was super 10/10 good which is why I didn't particularly bother with M&M. After all, life's too short to waste on playing every single game that gets released, right?

Then the blobber well almost entirely dried up and so I had a choice of either not playing anything, replaying an old game for the 30th time or settling for weaker entries and I guess I picked the last option.

 

[Broseph]

There are fountains placed everywhere which can temporarily provide huge boosts to your stats, effectively allowing you to defeat tough monsters at low levels for massive XP.

Sorry but this isn't freedom - freedom would be having the tough monsters but providing ways for clever players to beat them at lower levels other than exploiting nearby "god-fountains". This is just lazy design IMO.

It's not really lazy design when the god fountain is halfway across the world and it's up to the player to put two and two together.

I actually thought M&M X was the best so far so I'm quite happy for it to sit in uncanny valley territory. I found combat in the M&M games more a pain than anything else so having challenging and tactical fights was actually a move in the right direction and I actually like the way the game world opens up as you progress as it provided more of a sense of achievement, which I like.

I agree to an extent - I like more challenging and tactical fights, but tacking on those more tactical elements when you still have a four character party and no battlefield positioning at all just feels wrong to me. This made the combat annoying and predictable "put up your buffs or watch your squishy characters die in one hit." Combine that with Diablo-esque potion chugging and you've got a combat system that is technically more tactical but ultimately doesn't really capture that M&M feel. If you're gonna go full Wizardry, do it right.

I've never played any Might and Magic so I don't know shit. The only argument I really disagree with is that it's not open world if you have tough monsters blocking your path.
For me, that's the best kind of open world, because I have something tangible I can measure myself against and a visible challenge ahead of me that I can approach in my own way and try to cheese it somehow or lvl up or anything and no matter the monster in the way, if the world is open otherwise, that's uhh an open world for me. I mean, sure usually you need to unlock a few areas but that's still open world as far as Im concerned.

There's nothing *wrong* with beefgates per se, but what I was getting at is that even if those kinds of games are technically open world there is usually a very clear intended progression from one area to the other (Fallout 1, for example). M&M often didn't have that, especially in the early entries.

 

[SausageInYourFace]

Combat in the M&M games is simple and easily resolved precisely because if it was more complex, it would stand in the way of the fun of exploration

Broseph's assessment is correct.

M&Ms minimalistic combat does exactly what its supposed to do, which is providing a fun gameplay experience without distracting by slowing the game down unnecessarily with bothersome and tedious combat. What some (naturally combatfags, stripped of what they like most) may consider to be overtly simplistic and dumbed-down, others may consider to be minimalistic-elegance. Count me among the latter.

 

[Broseph]

inb4 someone posts that bike vs. tricycle pic

This one?

This one's better at exploration.

 

[Scroo]

 

[MisterStone]

Why M&M isn't a "poor man's Wizardry"

Its not a poor man's Wizardry, becaus it's a poor child's Wizardry.

M&M series has consistently been characterized by cartoonish generic fantasy garbage with no balance or coherent world design. Its like the 1st ed DnD campaigns we ran at age 9.

 

[Jaesun]

I never understood the whole elitist thing around Wizardry and M&M. Why look down on M&M? Why not just enjoy both series and thus have a ton of awesome blobbers to play?

E-Peen.

 

[octavius]

Combat in the M&M games is simple and easily resolved precisely because if it was more complex, it would stand in the way of the fun of exploration

Broseph's assessment is correct.

M&Ms minimalistic combat does exactly what its supposed to do, which is providing a fun gameplay experience without distracting by slowing the game down unnecessarily with bothersome and tedious combat. What some (naturally combatfags, stripped of what they like most) may consider to be overtly simplistic and dumbed-down, others may consider to be minimalistic-elegance. Count me among the latter.

No, Broseph is only correct if talking about MM 3-5. MM1-2 is just as tactical as Wiz 6-7, especially MM2. MM6-9 is harder to compare since they are real time and no longer tile based.

Generally Wizardry has better combat, though, and better character development.
But M&M has better exploration and a much better loot system.

 

[cvv]

But M&M has much better loot system.

I haven't played the older Wizardris (1-5) but W7 and W8 have one of the best loot systems ever created (personally I find it far superior to everything else before and after but that's just me). Loot systems of the MnMs I've played were very good but nowhere near the sophistication, variety and item stats as W7 and W8.

 

[Broseph]

Combat in the M&M games is simple and easily resolved precisely because if it was more complex, it would stand in the way of the fun of exploration

Broseph's assessment is correct.

M&Ms minimalistic combat does exactly what its supposed to do, which is providing a fun gameplay experience without distracting by slowing the game down unnecessarily with bothersome and tedious combat. What some (naturally combatfags, stripped of what they like most) may consider to be overtly simplistic and dumbed-down, others may consider to be minimalistic-elegance. Count me among the latter.

No, Broseph is only correct if talking about MM 3-5. MM1-2 is just as tactical as Wiz 6-7, especially MM2. MM6-9 is harder to compare since they are real time and no longer tile based.

Generally Wizardry has better combat, though, and better character development.
But M&M has better exploration and a much better loot system.

I'm playing MM1 now - the combat is tactical and very good, but it still goes by faster than the later Wizardries since you don't have to wait for animations to resolve. So it's still quick and doesn't get in the way of exploration, at least until you get into fights with some larger groups of monsters.

 

[octavius]

But M&M has much better loot system.

I haven't played the older Wizardris (1-5) but W7 and W8 have one of the best loot systems ever created (personally I find it far superior to everything else before and after but that's just me). Loot systems of the MnMs I've played were very good but nowhere near the sophistication, variety and item stats as W7 and W8.

Hmm...i must have played a different W7 than you. Care to explain excactly what was good about it? I seem to recall non-unique monsters never dropping anything interesting, for example.

 

[buzz]

 

[cvv]

But M&M has much better loot system.

I haven't played the older Wizardris (1-5) but W7 and W8 have one of the best loot systems ever created (personally I find it far superior to everything else before and after but that's just me). Loot systems of the MnMs I've played were very good but nowhere near the sophistication, variety and item stats as W7 and W8.

Hmm...i must have played a different W7 than you. Care to explain excactly what was good about it? I seem to recall non-unique monsters never dropping anything interesting, for example.

I'm sure you didn't play a different W7
As I said, the loot system is great simply because it's complex, sophisticated and chockful of variety and quirkiness. I don't remember anymore what non-unique monsters drop or don't drop but that alone is not what makes a loot system great.
Creating a good loot system is apparently very difficult since most games do it wrong. MnMs did very good job at that but compared to W7 I think we're back to the tricycle meme again.

 

[Dorateen]

Another type of openness shared between Wizardry and classic Might & Magic is player-driven narrative. That there is little to no hand-holding and telling the player what to do and where to go next. I’m not talking just about freedom of exploration, but also the liberation from a central overbearing directing of the player’s course of action. That is a freedom to be cherished, and not one easily achieved in cRPGs.
For this reason, the high point of Might & Magic Legacy for me was Act III. Sure, we had our mission from the governor. But most of the time spent ranging across the peninsula discovering every side quest possible, and relishing the sheer adventure of it all.

 

[DarKPenguiN]

-Neither of those games have shit on Oblivion.

 

[Broseph]

-Neither of those games have shit on Oblivion.

 

[Monstrous Bat]

inb4 someone posts that bike vs. tricycle pic

This one?

No, this one.

 

[Excidium]

Combat in the M&M games is simple and easily resolved precisely because if it was more complex, it would stand in the way of the fun of exploration

What a load of crock

 

[Broseph]

holy shit, I made Excidium start posting again