Review RPG Codex Review: Might & Magic X: Legacy

[ben_reck]

spot-on review, especially about the combat mechanics and overworld shortcomings.

the game never met a pressure plate it didn't like.

you want a dungeon-crawler, you go Japanese and handheld, as has been said. Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survior's next for me or maybe EOIV.

bit disappointed by the itemization as well (relics excluded). drops were generally a drag. I do miss the color-coded treasure chests of early MM games. A tiny gold box! Oooh! What's inside?

when I play it a 2nd time, I'll go random roll and stockpile accordingly for the last dungeon. it was, I must admit, pretty tough at times and I regretted not having prepped some more (finished at 29-30).

game had some occasional charm. I liked the pre-final boss' antics. I also noticed some curious, new circus-like sound effects in the last areas. But the high production values at the end seemed discordant with the main meal.

 

[Sceptic]

I just happened to never see any of the rare brands on weapons like stun or relentlessness in my game, even on something like a low-tier weapon no one in the party could use. For whatever reason they made those so rare that the only way you are likely to see one is by looking in shop inventories over and over, and you have to know they exist in the first place to bother.

I think the real problem with these is not the rarity or the randomness, but as I pointed out in the review that they are so much more powerful than the other modifiers, even moreso since some of the other modifiers are so useless. I agree with you that this does imbalance the system, especially since there were no equivalent super-powered modifiers in MM6-8. Thanks for the heads up about Dispel, for some reason I didn't realise Stun also counted as a magic effect; I thought Paralysis did, but I already had that Water spell that dispels it.

For me, the end result is that I got the first honest-to-God oldschool attempt at an RPG in like a decade. Not a halfway failure or comprised result like Shadowrun, not a "well" or "maybe" or "it tries, but", but something we can definetely discuss in the frame of the games it was trying to follow. It also has a ton of good elements which makes it fun to play for those of us who liked the M&M series. These two things are the criteria many people put up for success of M&MXL.

Agree with you on everything, but I have to say that, for me, MMXL does qualify as "it tries, but". There are 2 reasons why I still recommend it so highly (despite my own endless bitching in the megathread): a) the buts are not huge insurmountable problems that indicate Limbic completely missed the point and will never get the series, and b) the games does enough things well, and enough things close enough to the older games, to be enjoyable in its own right. And sure you could argue that we should settle for nothing less than perfection, but at this point I'd rather have a TB tile-based game that's good rather than look forward to the next Mass Effect or Call of Duty.

Review is very informative, although I significantly disagree with some of its points, but much of it reassured me that attempting to reinstall the game and getting further than the point I dropped it last time is futile.
In other words, gaem is shit, review is doritos

Shame about that, I was hoping you'd be willing to give it another shot. Can't really fault you though, as the flaws that put you off really are there. Funny you should mention Doritos though, since the review came up I found out that Ubisoft is in fact not based in Canada (I had assumed Ubisoft Montreal was their head office) but in Frace, which means the joke I was so proud of in the intro is now completely nonsensical

Thread gets 1132 pages. Well that usually means I sure as hell should try the game

Mass Effect 3 is a must-play, get to it

 

[Xi]

Well, I wouldn't put myself in the same category as Excidium if I was a person who'd spent thousands of dollars on Kickstarters.

I spent thousands of dollars on Pillars of Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenera as well, as you probably don't recall since it's inconvenient—hey-o, let's just focus on the Wing Commander one.

Also, 1.) I'm not exactly putting myself in the same category, just observing; and 2.) Ex is from Brazil.

How long has Bryce been back?

Edit:

Sceptic, just demand plain tickets and go kick his ass. Settle the debate with a good ass kicking.

 

[Blaine]

You went from "BULLSHIT THEY'RE NOWHERE NEAR ON PAR WITH 1-5!!!" to "that's probably correct if you're just comparing it to the series"

As I've clarified several times already, I had the entire subgenre in mind when I made the statement you're referring to—the comparison to 1-5 simply compounded my annoyance and weren't my entire focus (though among the five, I really only had WoX in mind). Your refusal to accept or comprehend this perfectly reasonable clarification in a bid to "discredit" me is incredibly unreasonable.

If we're going to proceed in the direction of selective perception and unreasonableness, then as far as I'm concerned, you and your fellow apologists are backpedaling with "O-oh, we only meant the Might and Magic games, not any other g-games in the subgenre, h-heh heh." As I've pointed out, nowhere in the review was it stated that the Might & Magic series was the only basis of comparison when judging MMXL's qualities. In fact, the review kicks off with a mention of "turn-based blobbers," and general references to the subgenre are made throughout.

1: Myself, the review, and pretty much all of the Codex agrees with this measurement of the game's qualities.

I really don't give a shit about appeals to common belief. There are hundreds of Codex regulars, few of whom are actually represented in this thread—and some of the people on "your side" haven't even played the damned game. "You're outnumbered!" is an incredibly dumb argument coming from any Codexian, as we are all grossly outnumbered by console 'tards but have no qualms dismissing their druthers.

There are also several other participants in this thread who feel the game's mediocre or even bad... not that that should matter.

and you call bullshit on that claim for whatever reason.

I did and still do call bullshit on the level design being "quite good" in the context of the entire subgenre, yes. It is however on par with MM1-5 taken as a whole (but is subpar compared to WoX).

You call it shit.

I never said that; now you're putting words in my mouth. I've called the game itself "mediocre," which means "of moderate quality."

Spoiler

Out of curiosity, just how much did Ubisoft pay you guys for this review? Are we game journos now?

 

[Lhynn]

wow, 4 5 pages and all i got was:

- "M&M dungeons were good when compared with the rest of the series"

- "Yes they were, but still not very good"

- "indeed"

Anyway, i liked the game, definitely a good sign for things to come, i dont get why theres this obsession in the codex to classify anything that isnt a shinning example of the genre into "just another piece of turd".

Actually i do get it, yall suck.

 

[Grunker]

stuff about the review being fine, the game being a mixed bag etc

1: Myself, the review, and pretty much all of the Codex agrees with this measurement of the game's qualities.

I really don't give a shit about appeals to common belief. There are hundreds of Codex regulars, few of whom are actually represented in this thread—and some of the people on "your side" haven't even played the damned game. "You're outnumbered!" is an incredibly dumb argument

You stupid fuck, you can't even read straight, you're feel so slighted. "this measurement" refers to the segment I quoted i.e. your own fucking words. As in "we agree on the substance, we disagree on what to call it." Now read my post again:

Jesus christ Blaine, you can be a holier-than-thou fucking prick sometimes. You went from "BULLSHIT THEY'RE NOWHERE NEAR ON PAR WITH 1-5!!!" to "that's probably correct if you're just comparing it to the series" within the space of 2 fucking pages, yet the self-righteous crusade continues.

The review itself is fine, but I find his general assessment of the game as "excellent" a bit over the top. I personally don't consider the game bad, but merely mediocre. I was expecting a little better than what we received, and had the dungeons and/or overworld been more complex and challenging, I'd have been pleased. Early reports from Codexians who'd gotten access to the full game had me excited.

Unfortunately, the game received mixed reviews (to be expected even if it had been pure incline, but Ubisoft is a big publisher, so that matters), and I wonder whether that room for improvement will ever be filled or an additional sequel attempted. It's too early to tell. Hopefully these fan-made dungeons will encourage them to step up their game.

1: Myself, the review, and pretty much all of the Codex agrees with this measurement of the game's qualities.

2: Our claim now remains that your expectations were too high and too unreasonable and you call bullshit on that claim for whatever reason.

3: That's all that is at stake here. In terms of quality, you, me, and everyone you're arguing with roughly agree and have done so since you started this debate in the other thread. The only debate that's left is a semantic or goalpost related discussion of what sticker you'd like to mark that quality with. I call it good and sufficient. Sceptic calls it ambivalent but excellent. You call it shit. Different folks.

For me, the end result is that I got the first honest-to-God oldschool attempt at an RPG in like a decade. Not a halfway failure or comprised result like Shadowrun, not a "well" or "maybe" or "it tries, but", but something we can definetely discuss in the frame of the games it was trying to follow. It also has a ton of good elements which makes it fun to play for those of us who liked the M&M series. These two things are the criteria many people put up for success of M&MXL. That it has many problems is certainly to its detriment and keeps me from using words like brilliant or excellent, but then all Codex favourites have major issues. Certainly Might & Magic as a series have always had major fucking gameplay troubles.

Seems that you, like Roxor, half-way expected Wizardry (though Roxor paradoxically liked Shadowrun).

So nobody has really challenged this:

I've called the game itself "mediocre," which means "of moderate quality."

except maybe said it has some really good shit and some really bad shit (as opposed to being mediocre, but again we're arguing semantics...). Oh, and pointing out that this is true of most of the Codex top 50 we just got done. Yet you soldier on with the non-argument.

See, Sceptic already said it:

There are 2 reasons why I still recommend it so highly (despite my own endless bitching in the megathread): a) the buts are not huge insurmountable problems that indicate Limbic completely missed the point and will never get the series, and b) the games does enough things well, and enough things close enough to the older games, to be enjoyable in its own right. And sure you could argue that we should settle for nothing less than perfection, but at this point I'd rather have a TB tile-based game that's good rather than look forward to the next Mass Effect or Call of Duty.

 

[felipepepe]

So nobody has really challenged this:

I've called the game itself "mediocre," which means "of moderate quality."

except maybe said it has some really good shit and some really bad shit (as opposed to being mediocre, but again we're arguing semantics...). Oh, and pointing out that this is true of most of the Codex top 50 we just got done. Yet you soldier on with the non-argument.

Don't bother, some people are brainwashed by review scores ranging from 7-10, and think that 5 (a.k.a. mediocre) is the same as calling something absolute shit.

 

[Blaine]

You stupid fuck, you can't even read straight, you're feel so slighted. "this measurement" refers to the segment I quoted i.e. your own fucking words. As in "we agree on the substance, we disagree on what to call it." Now read my post again:

I can't read straight? You're one to talk. In the passage you quoted, I refer to the game as "mediocre"; in your third list item, you state that I "call it shit." Either you failed to properly read the very passage you were responding to, you don't understand the definition of the word "mediocre," or you're just too preoccupied with misrepresenting my opinion to wait a few posts before doing so.

You're quite right, I made an error—when I read "this measurement of the game's qualities," I for some reason thought you were referring to Sceptic's review and simply reacting to my quoted passage, rather than responding directly to it. Perhaps that's because you didn't seem to have actually read what I wrote very carefully, perhaps I had a brain fart, or it could be that trying to juggle all this back-and-forth one-upmanship got confusing there for a moment.

So nobody has really challenged this:

Actually, my opinion is a bit different. I personally believe that most aspects of MMXL are mediocre, while a few are above average/good, and another few (like the level design) are below average/bad. End result is a mediocre game overall, with a few genuine strengths and a few horribad weaknesses. The one weakness I truly detest is, of course, the level design. The only strengths I personally noticed were relatively satisfying character creation, numerous viable party compositions, and decently nuanced/challenging combat (sometimes; it can devolve into trash mob elimination). Lore, dialog, itemization, enemy/encounter design and placement, boss encounters, puzzles, pacing, quest structure, and so on I found to be mediocre. Yes, I know lore and dialog aren't supposed to be emphasized in dungeon crawlers, but I'd prefer that what is there be presented well.

So in actuality, we don't agree. A game is almost always more than the sum of its parts, and I don't feel that the whole of MMXL merits a comparison to Codex darlings simply because the Codex darlings were also imperfect.

Still and all, yes, the underlying conflict as I see it is that some of you are putting a positive spin on a mediocre game, whereas I'm much more interested in focusing on how it can and should be improved, and badmouthing its simplistic level design. If no one complains, nothing will change (and realistically, I doubt more than a tiny minority are annoyed by the simplistic level design, which is even more annoying).

Don't bother, some people are brainwashed by review scores ranging from 7-10, and think that 5 (a.k.a. mediocre) is the same as calling something absolute shit.

You realize you just described what Grunker did to a T, right? I actually do understand the meaning the word and used it properly, as everything I've wrote pretty clearly indicates.

 

[Grunker]

Actually, my opinion is a bit different. I personally believe that most aspects of MMXL are mediocre, while a few are above average/good, and another few (like the level design) are below average/bad. End result is a mediocre game overall, with a few genuine strengths and a few horribad weaknesses. The one weakness I truly detest is, of course, the level design. The only strengths I personally noticed were relatively satisfying character creation, numerous viable party compositions, and decently nuanced/challenging combat (sometimes; it can devolve into trash mob elimination). Lore, dialog, itemization, enemy/encounter design and placement, boss encounters, puzzles, pacing, quest structure, and so on I found to be mediocre. Yes, I know lore and dialog aren't supposed to be emphasized in dungeon crawlers, but I'd prefer that what is there be presented well.

I agree with all of this, except the degree of your hatred towards the game's level design. I dislike it, but I don't hate it.

So in actuality, we don't agree. A game is almost always more than the sum of its parts, and I don't feel that the whole of MMXL merits a comparison to Codex darlings simply because the Codex darlings were also imperfect.

"So no we don't agree... because how you feel about those things is what determines how you feel about the game." Eh... yes. Did you miss the part where I said we agreed on the substance but disagreed on what to call it?

We see the same flaws, the same strengths. For you, that product is "mediocre", for me, that product is "best and most honest attempt we've had in a decade."

 

[Excidium]

What the hell is the difference?

 

[Abelian]

What the hell is the difference?

vs

 

[Blaine]

I agree with all of this, except the degree of your hatred towards the game's level design. I dislike it, but I don't hate it.

I'd say that also describes our differences of opinion about Grimrock, except it's the comparatively simplistic character-building/combat mechanics and DM two-step that you hate, while I merely dislike them (would prefer turn-based, wouldn't mind a more complex set of game mechanics).

We see the same flaws, the same strengths. For you, that product is "mediocre", for me, that product is "best and most honest attempt we've had in a decade."

There have been numerous other dungeon crawlers attempted this decade, such as Legend of Grimrock, Paper Sorcerer, and a bevy of Japanese turn-based blobber dungeon crawlers. Describing MMXL as "the best and most honest" among them... well, that's down to a difference of opinion, I suppose.

I'd personally call Etrian Odyssey IV the best attempt this decade, if not a great success, but that's only my opinion. I realize that Japanese and Western games are often compartmentalized for the purposes of "where the industry's going," but developers like Limbic could stand to take a page or two from people who're producing complex and challenging contemporary dungeon crawlers.

 

[Mortmal]

The review is so incredibly positive so full of superlatives its frankly suspicious, it sounds more like an advertisement, "must buy and must play" thats the kind of thing you keep for the top 10 classics level of quality .

Is it the best and honest attempt in the decade ? Not in the level design department where nintendo DS rpgs beat it easily etrian odissey(all of them not only 4) ,devil survivor etc...If its possible on a mainstream console for kids, i dont see why we cant have bigger and better dungeons .Generation XTH as bigger maps as well , pretty much everything japanese now that i think about it.Ah its weebo shit ! Instant kneejerk reaction from the codex, but they still make the best blobbers nowadays. Till grimoire maybe...

Yes men are nefarious to my hobby . Its a good thing to complain about it, we complained a lot about shadowrun shallow and rushed main campaign and now look at dragonfall DLC, its so much better.

 

[Infinitron]

FFS Blaine, you went into this thread with guns blazing, accusing Sceptic of lying and the Codex staff of "supporting the decline". What are you doing now, trying to save face?

Sceptic doesn't even want to argue with you. I don't see the point of this

 

[Excidium]

So, Infinitron, have you finally got around to actually playing the damn game?

Yes men are nefarious to my hobby.

 

[Infinitron]

Go post some asses, Excidium.

Its a good thing to complain about it, we complained a lot about shadowrun shallow and rushed main campaign and now look at dragonfall DLC, its so much better.

...except that our Shadowrun Returns review was exactly like this one. Full of criticism, yet ultimately positive because Roxor liked it.

 

[Grunker]

...and Mortmal demonstrates he hasn't read the Shadowrun review

 

[Mortmal]

Go post some asses, Excidium.

Its a good thing to complain about it, we complained a lot about shadowrun shallow and rushed main campaign and now look at dragonfall DLC, its so much better.

...except that our Shadowrun Returns review was exactly like this one. Full of criticism, yet ultimately positive because Roxor liked it.

"must play must buy" vs "It’s more of a fast-food kind of deal than an actual full-scale game." both getting equivalent users metacritic scores., 6 point more for shadowrun.

Darth roxxor review was a lot more harsh, it was deserved, , thats the kind of things i prefer to read .

 

[felipepepe]

Don't bother, some people are brainwashed by review scores ranging from 7-10, and think that 5 (a.k.a. mediocre) is the same as calling something absolute shit.

You realize you just described what Grunker did to a T, right? I actually do understand the meaning the word and used it properly, as everything I've wrote pretty clearly indicates.

Au contraire, you're calling it mediocre when you clearly mean it is shit, "decline" and all that. First it was shit next to Xeen, then Sceptic absolutely destroyed your arguments, so now it is "mediocre" compared to the WHOLE genre, which is funny, because M&M mostly had mediocre dungeons compared to Dungeon Master, Wizardry, etc... you're just backpedaling, trying to save face.

 

[Abelian]

The review is so incredibly positive so full of superlatives its frankly suspicious, it sounds more like an advertisement, "must buy and must play" thats the kind of thing you keep for the top 10 classics level of quality.

But... Julien Pirou is French. Liberté, égalité, fraternité?

 

[Excidium]

Don't bother, some people are brainwashed by review scores ranging from 7-10, and think that 5 (a.k.a. mediocre) is the same as calling something absolute shit.

You realize you just described what Grunker did to a T, right? I actually do understand the meaning the word and used it properly, as everything I've wrote pretty clearly indicates.

Au contraire, you're calling it mediocre when you clearly mean it is shit, "decline" and all that. First it was shit next to Xeen, then Sceptic absolutely destroyed your arguments, so now it is "mediocre" compared to the WHOLE genre, with is funny, because M&M mostly had mediocre dungeons compared to Dungeon Master, Wizardry, etc... you're just backpedaling, trying to save face.

Yeah, wait a second right there. I know it is very convenient for the Ubisoft Squad that Blaine unwittingly made the discussion focus entirely on dungeon design (which was never of consistent quality in MM series so it elicits the typical response) but MM as a series always thrived on the good pacing and sheer variety of content, which MMX woefully lacks. So yeah, it does have comparatively simplistic dungeon design but it IS mediocre in the other qualities that always made MM dungeons stand out from other CRPGs.

 

[Blaine]

Au contraire, you're calling it mediocre when you clearly mean it is shit, "decline" and all that. First it was shit next to Xeen, then Sceptic absolutely destroyed your arguments, so now it is "mediocre" compared to the WHOLE genre, with is funny, because M&M mostly had mediocre dungeons compared to Dungeon Master, Wizardry, etc... you're just backpedaling, trying to save face.

You're seeing what you want to see, and haven't been reading carefully. I came in guns blazing calling the level design shit (haven't budged one iota on that), then accused those defending the level design for any reason of being agents of the decline. The defenders then moved on to carefully nitpick the way in which I chose to trash the level design, specifically my reaction to the "on par with MM1-5" bit—because when you mix 1-3 in with 4-5, the "on par with 1-5" statement is accurate. I acknowledged this as a mistake immediately. As I've tried to make clear, the comparison to MM 1-5 was only part of my reaction. Refuse to believe it or label it "backpedaling" if you insist.

Did I lodge my complaints in a manner resembling a bull in a china shop? Perhaps. The level design is still shit.

It's people who assume I'm trashing the entire game and who haven't read the entire conversation (that would be you) who need get their shit straight. As far as the entire game is concerned, I've only ever referred to it as mediocre. I did so in the Shoutbox numerous times before the review was posted, and when the conversation in this thread turned to judging the game as whole, again, I opined that the game as a whole is mediocre.

 

[Infinitron]

"must play must buy" vs "It’s more of a fast-food kind of deal than an actual full-scale game."

Well, MMXL is in fact a better game than SRR so

both getting equivalent users metacritic scores., 6 point more for shadowrun.

Darth roxxor review was a lot more harsh, it was deserved, , thats the kind of things i prefer to read .

Sceptic's review says that MMXL fails to recreate one of the most important (if not the most important) elements of the Might & Magic series in his opinion - the fully open overworld. If you guys weren't so fixated on the ZOMG LINEAR DUNGEON MAPS you might have noticed that. Together with his criticism of the combat system he really gave the game a beating.

And you know what, believe it or not, the fact that he's not saying the game is "P. SHIT, FUCK YOU UBISOFT FOR RAPING MY CHILDHOOD" means that his criticisms are more likely to be listened to. Have I mentioned that this review has been sent directly to the game's developers?

 

[Blaine]

Sceptic's review says that MMXL fails to recreate one of the most important (if not the most important) elements of the Might & Magic series in his opinion - the fully open overworld. If you guys weren't so fixated on the ZOMG LINEAR DUNGEON MAPS you might have noticed that. Together with his criticism of the combat system he really gave the game a beating.

I noticed it, and quoted it as well.

Yet the overall tone of the review, and even the overall assessment ("excellent") of the game reek of positive spin. It reminds me of those IGN or Kotaku reviews occasionally cross-posted to the Brodex where they shit on the game for the entire review, but do so in a somehow cheerful fashion and then give it a 9/10.

There is no doubt about it: MMXL is an excellent game and the best turn-based blobber for the PC since forever

It's a fucking ringing endorsement in the introductory paragraph, give me a fucking break.

 

[Sceptic]

The review is so incredibly positive so full of superlatives its frankly suspicious, it sounds more like an advertisement, "must buy and must play" thats the kind of thing you keep for the top 10 classics level of quality .

You've only ever bought and played 10 games in the last ~40 years? What will you do if an 11th good game comes out now, try to get a refund on whichever one has just been pushed out of your top 10?

Is it the best and honest attempt in the decade ? Not in the level design department where nintendo DS

Stop reading right there. I specifically kept saying "CRPG" instead of plain "RPG" because I knew this would come up. I don't have a console, the last one I had was an Atari 2600 and since then I know next to nothing about them or what gets released on them. All I know is that there HAVE been some great games on them, because some people whose opinion I trust very much have said so. However I can only talk about what I know first-hand, which is the PC, and since I made it pretty obvious that I am only talking about PC-only releases

Yes men are nefarious to my hobby . Its a good thing to complain about it, we complained a lot about shadowrun shallow and rushed main campaign and now look at dragonfall DLC, its so much better.

Did you actually read the review? Or did you just read the last 2 paragraphs and called it a day?
(I guess the review really is too long if self-proclaimed grognards can't be bothered reading more than 5% of it...)
I complained about a lot of things and pointed out specific ways in which they could be improved.... so that whatever comes out next turns out much better.
The comparisons to SRR are always entertaining TBH. Roxor and I completely disagree on MMXL, but his review of SSR and my review of MMXL are actually pretty similar in terms of conclusion (if not in verbosity or adverbity)

Sceptic doesn't even want to argue with you. I don't see the point of this

Problem is there's nothing to argue with. Blaine himself admitted that he didn't meant what he said AND that what I said was "probably accurate". So uh.... what are we disagreeing about again? I really wish there could be something there to have an argument - it's why I moved Gozma's quotes from the megathread, because they were interesting points even if I didn't agree with ALL of them. And I wish Roxor would get more involved, because he likes the review even though he completely disagrees with the conclusion, so it's clear we both see the same flaws but don't place them in the same context when judging the game as a whole.

All this is an amusing reminder of the conversation we had in the content forum about the review being too schizophrenic. Clearly I was wrong since some people just latch onto the positive aspects and forget the thousands of words where I criticise the game for what it does wrong.

Anyway there is one thing Blaine said that I feel I must address.

Clearly, this review focused only on comparing MMXL to other games in the series.

Actually yes it is. This is the main reason I wanted to write this review, and I suspect also why many of the staff thought I should. Many, many Codexers like the series but I don't think it's an exaggeration to say Luzur and I are the ones who love it the most. It's my favourite series ever bar none. The only reason the UI section is so long is because I wanted to draw so many comparisons to the old games' (and be thankful someone else was here to edit and cut it after I was done - I wanted to put in so much more!). Every single paragraph mentions one of the old games and draws a parallel to them. In some cases the entire paragraph is about the old games as a setup. Clearly, this review is focused on this comparison. This is also I think the major, major difference between it and what any mainstream review will be about, and it's why I'm proud of it despite some of its flaws.

Edit: Funny, you quoted that endorsement from the opening, and then failed to notice the EXACT NEXT sentence.... which IS setting up the entire review's focus on comparing to the old games.