6. Might & Magic
Designed
by: Jon Van Caneghem (original designer, creator, producer)
Influenced
by: Old-school D&D and Wizardry.
Series:
Nine games, plus the spin-off "Heroes of Might & Magic" (itself a
revision of New World Computing's King's
Bounty) and some other side games.
Legacy:
Difficult to say. Of all the classic
RPGs, Might & Magic is the one entered most shamefully into obscurity.
Might & Magic is a
series that's fallen into disuse lately, which is a great shame because, in
many ways, it is the most faithful homage to the old-style,
exploring-for-its-own-sake D&D campaign ever sold as a computer game.
First
off, it is highly non-linear. Each game's dozens -- maybe even hundreds -- of
quests and tasks tend to be scattered around the world in a semi-scrambled
fashion. Players are left to their own devices as far as figuring out what to
do and what level they should be at to do it.
I must remind the reader that this is a style of game that relies on the
use of unlimited game reloading, so players can recover when they unpreparedly
run into that group of Cuisinarts while less than level 200. Usually the player
has no clue an area is out of depth for him until the monsters wipe him out.
Once
granted this quirk, the M&M games
are marvelously open-ended and wondrous experiences. They remain one of the few games to
adequately express one of the most unique joys of the old-school RPG
experience: that of unabashed powergaming. Might
& Magic II has a magic space in one of its caverns that grants all the characters,
one time only, a thousand free max HP.
Might & Magic
The
series does have a story but it tends to be fairly... I suppose the word I'm
looking for is "crazy". For
example, in the World of Xeen games,
the players are quested by the Dragon Pharaoh to save the world from the two
evils of Lord Xeen and Alamar.
Along the way they beat up elemental lords, fall
out of cloud worlds (probably multiple times), befriend a bunch of
palindrome-talking monks, collect Mega Credits with which to pay for building a
castle, stop a witch who likes turning kids into goblins, and many other
things; these are just the top of my head. Most of these things can be done in
any order, and there are literally dozens of other things to do in the game.
In
Might & Magic II the players meet
Lord Peabody (after rescuing "his boy, Sherman"), travel in time to
prevent a fight against an undefeatable Mega Dragon, sack innocent orc
villages, and at the end must solve a cryptogram within in a time limit.
These
kinds of things could have felt like a massive series of fetch quests, but Might & Magic is too varied for this
to become too noticeable by the player. The game allows players to spend time
wandering around and getting into trouble however he wants.
It's not uncommon
to have accomplished a half dozen quests before the player even knows someone
in the game wants them done, and so ends up getting rewarded the moment the
quest is officially granted. I'll tell you right now that I don't consider this
to be a bad thing at all.
One
of the most interesting design choices made by designer Jon Van Caneghem is the use of
two types of currency, the usual gold pieces, and gems. Awards of both areas tend to rise as the
player explores harder and harder areas, but they also both tend to ultimately
be limited in number.
They're not always hard-limited, but there comes a time
towards the end of many (if not all) of these games where all of the areas have
been explored and there's no more to be found, even if there are ways to
continue to earn experience points. The thing is that gaining a level requires
both experience and gold, and while experience is the limiting factor in the
early stages of the game, it is the player's gold reserves that more often
limits towards the end.
Gems
are an even more useful type of wealth that is used up in casting the more
powerful spells. All of the revival spells, particularly, cost gems, as do
spells that can permanently enchant items and perform other tasks that would
break other games.
Tying this magic to a second type of wealth, and allowing
scarcity to limit the supply of that wealth, helps Might & Magic's spell system to avoid some of the limitations
that magic in other games suffers from.
They're supposed to be wizards after all; what's
the use in having a wizard if you don't get to bend the rules sometimes? Might & Magic's chief innovation is
in allowing just this sort of thing to happen, while keeping it within the
balance of a larger game.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I do feel that Western rpgs carried a bit more weight in the early days. Only going by my personal memories, Steve Jackson's Car Wars was HUGE amongst my peers (maybe it's because I'm from Detroit), and the other TSR boxed rpgs like Star Frontiers and Marvel Super Heros were pretty popular as well in the early 1980's, even though their influence is not as obvious as D&D.
That's the entire reason I loved FFVII - it seemed so bizarre. Like in a dream, things just happened.
I love realistic games more than most people I know, but still it wouldnt be FF if it had a rational plot :)
Sorry about that, but your research doesn't hold up to reality.
"I make no secret the fact that I consider this one of the most pernicious aspects of CRPG gaming, that permanent disadvantages acquired during the course of play cannot be used by a designer because the player will simply load back to the time before the disadvantage occurred. "
I doubt many players indeed keep their own characters dead, and the fact that you can save and restore easily in Wizard-like games makes that pretty improbable. Games like Etrian Odyssey let you retire a character in exchange of another with a bigger level cap, which could be counted as "permanent death". Even in games where characters aged and died (Rise of the Phoenix, a strategy game for SNES, for example) I would usually reset and try again until none died at year's end.
A pity MUDs are not mentioned (not even as World of Warcraft predecessor).
"The leeching-off of RPG elements into the greater field of video games has helped to encourage a strange definition of terms: because so many games could be considered role-playing games now, the CRPG genre is now being defined by those elements that other genres are least likely to steal."
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement. The reason for this, is that what defines an CRPG NOW, is actually something rather specific, even if the industry as a whole hasn't fully realised it:
I as a consumer and a player, along with many others I know, and some of the websites which are involved as much with the players as-well as the industry, have reached a consensus about what an CRPG actually is, today. The only real problem I've found, is that a lot of people have trouble truly understanding what that consensus is, what it represents, and it's ramifications for computer games in general. In fact, such has been some of the discussions and arguments I've been part of, that essentially the whole of the introduction I'm currently writing for my paper, is taken up precisely with just this one issue, because I think it's that important for people to understand. After all, you can't have a paper discussing CRPG's without people fully understanding what an CRPG actually is, right now.
The fact is, is that most of what made CRPG's what they were, isn't really all that important in the overall field of computer games. What's happened is that we've since focused on what IS important, and started to distil it down to the fundamentals. Or at least tried to. Like I said, I've had quite a few arguments and disagreements along the way. However, at the end of all that, I feel I now fully understand what it is we're dealing with, which is where my paper comes in.
I'm still currently writing, (and re-writing!) the introduction, precisely for this reason, but am unsure of what I should do with is when I've finished, (since I feel the introduction should stand on it's own quite well, even if it is just the first part of a much longer paper). I'd like to submit it to Gamasutra (when done), but am unsure as to how?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darklands_(video_game)
Phantasy Star series - one of the first RPGs with parties made of defined story characters, one of the first games with a female protagonist, sci-fi/fantasy hybrid back when most games were high fantasy, generation system with branching story paths based on marriage, death of the female lead way before FF7 did it, comic book style cutscene predating CD cutscenes.
Shin Megami Tensei series - recruit monsters on your team long before Pokemon did it, modern/occult/cyberpunk/post-apoc settings, stories & characters based on world mythologies, multiple storyline paths, mix of life sim elements in later games (Persona 3/4).
Shin Megami Tensei: Honestly? It's a series I don't yet feel qualified to write about. There's so MUCH there, much of it in languages other than Japanese, and I try not to write on something unless I've had at least some personal experience playing it.
I've said in the past that these lists are not consider to be the 20 "most" anything, they're here to provide background for modern game designers, and to illustrate particularly useful design examples. I stand by that, although I'll admit a couple of the games this time kind of got away from that. If you want more info on these games, the best source on them (and indeed, many other games) that I've found is Hardcore Gaming 101. Go there. Read. I sincerely doubt you'll be disappointed.
But yes, it is true, it predates Pokemon, which I pieced together after I turned in the article. I'll see about correcting that soon.
Phantasy Star: Oh, I dearly wanted to write about the classic Phantasy Star games this time. Maybe later.
Mother: The thing about Mother is that it's simultaneously utterly by-the-numbers Dragon Quest in a modern setting, and at the same times something unique and wonderful, especially starting with Mother 2/Earthbound.
Darklands: It's another case of not having gotten around to playing it yet, which is a form of research that cannot always be completed in a timely manner, and not just because of matters of play time. I'm sure I'll be writing about it eventually in some form. (And I've just started looking into Traveller on my own....)
To Darren Tomlyn: It sounds like it could be an interesting paper! Whether Gamasutra picks it up or not, I'd like to read it when it's done, if it's okay with you.
To Roberto Alfonso: Actually, it's a funny thing. Wizardry (and Bard's Tale too, I seem to remember) are special in that they DON'T allow you to return to old saves. If a character is lost forever ("buried"), it's impossible to restore using in-game means. And if you turn off your computer to avoid a battle, when you return to the game you'll find your party is still in the dungeon, and you'll have to "restart an out party".
On players not being willing to suffer with permanent character death, this is one of those things where, ultimately, it is up to the designer. I myself respect a game with permanent death if the game is designed taking it into account (and that *doesn't* mean the game has to be any easier), but I understand that there are players who don't think about it that way. But that is the thing: designing a game around the idea of permanent death and endless reloading produces entirely different kinds of games, and since the latter is 99% of RPGs it means a great swath of RPG design space is being left farrow. To extend the metaphor, it is time, I believe, that the plow is taken up once more.
MUDs: I agree it's an absence, but with only 10 games to cover in each category there were unavoidable exclusions.
Tom Newman: It sounds like I would have liked your gaming circle.
Truly and always one of the MOST innovative made JRPG
titles in Japan.
However, you didn't cover either Ys or Phantasy Star. These two franchises were far more influential to Japanese RPGs than Final Fantasy was when all of them first began 20+ years ago. That's why they continue to be rereleased, followed, and mimiced to this day. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Final Fantasy was not that popular compared to Ys or Phantasy Star. Frankly, I'd prefer that it had stayed that way because I think that both Ys and Phantasy Star (especially Ys I&II and the original Phantasy Star I&II) are far superior RPGs, including offering strong heroines as both PCs and NPCs, as well as (for Phantasy Star) offering a hybrid fantasy/sci-fi setting, a theme I used for my own campaign worlds (I combined AD&D and TSR's Gamma World rule set, and got the idea from Terry Brooks' "Sword of Shannara").
One other point that's probably worth repeating (and that I've said several times elsewhere) is that WoW is not that huge when you consider the actual global market. 11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II, for example, and it isn't that much more successful than Guild Wars' 6 million accounts (especially since GW doesn't charge a monthly subscription). Blizzard has succeeded in making people think that their game is the standard, but in fact it is just one fish in a very large pond, and there are other offerings that have far larger user bases.
Bard's Tale II lets you return to old saves. That's the only one I've played extensively or recently, though, so I can't comment on any others.
"11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II"
All of these need to be considered in the appropriate context, though. 11 million is "Current paying subscribers" for WoW. How many of Maple Story's players still play, ever played for a significant period of time, or ever paid any money? Their 70 million would have to be compared to the total number of accounts ever created on WoW (including trial accounts) which may compete with or even surpass it.
Likewise, from all of my research, Lineage II's 17 million is the total number of accounts ever created (I don't think it ever exceeded 3-4 million concurrent users). My main source was mmocharts.com, which appears to be defunct, so I'd like a current source on this. I think that the lineage series overall has made more money that WoW, but I don't think it ever matched its subscriber numbers except during WoW's first year, which means that WoW will shortly overtake it in total profit if it hasn't already..
Likewise, Guild Wars 6 million is total number of box sales (including their 2 expansions). WoW's total sales of original game and expansions are WAY more than that.
Where is Traveller?
Where is The Fantasy Trip, and GURPS?
Where is Paranoia?
I think you list is: "Here's D&D, and here's a whole bunch of electronic games which regurgitated D&D."
In any regard, this was a good read, as were your previous articles which I reviewed prior to reading this article. Thank you for publishing them!
There are two points that I was making that seemed to be missing in your reply. The first point is that these companies state their own numbers rather than being tracked by any sort of independent organization; therefore, we must go with what they report regardless of who the company is. Blizzard's statements are no more valid than NCSoft or any other company. We certainly cannot take the reports of one of many miscellaneous sites as having higher validity as a reference than the actual companies who offer the numbers in the first place. The second point is that gaming is a global medium, not national or local. WoW is big in the English market largely due to Blizzard's hype and promotion, but that's about all that can be said for it. Ten years ago, Everquest was the biggest in the English market, but the same observations still applied (many people did not play even amongst hardcore RPG gamers, etc). Many people do not play WoW, particularly in other countries where other tastes in styles and mechanics are preferred. In a reply in another article, one person here (I think it was Tommy) stated something to the effect that, "anyone who wants to play an MMORPG has chosen WoW." Obviously, this is an inaccurate statement and rather misleading about the nature of the overall global market for MMORPGs. The same thing happens with other types of games and genres, so it's not too surprising, but we should be more critical (and inclusive) when we report about the industry as a whole.
As I said, WoW is merely one fish in a very big sea, and it is not the largest fish as far as users if the entire global market is considered. People tend to think of their own standards as being universal, but that's usually not the case when the bigger picture is considered. In fact, much of research is inherently ethnocentric due to language barriers and basic business competition (companies not allowing independent tracking, for example).
Where did I say that the numbers coming from the companies weren't accurate? I said that the numbers from the companies refer to different things. The number of people who have ever created a free Maple Story account compared directly to the number of CURRENTLY PAYING WoW subscribers does not tell you which game is bigger, more popular, more profitable, etc.
Until a company other than WoW gives a number that can be reasonably compared, I'm going to assume that WoW is, in fact, the biggest fish in the ocean, if for no other reason because no other company will actually tell us useful numbers. They inflate them by keeping the terms vague (which means that they probably refer to every account ever created, since that's a valid interpretation of their words).
That being said, I do think that you have a valid point that people in U.S. focus too much on WoW and fail to realize the size and popularity of other MMO's. I just think that you need to consider exactly what the numbers that you read refer to instead of linearly comparing the largest number you hear from each company.
I'm repeating things here, but Megaten and Phantasy Star are the most obvious omissions (Nowadays there are LOTS of Megaten games over here too). There's also Crystalis (serving as a connection between Zelda and other action RPGs such as Seiken Densetsu and the Soul Blazer series), Star Ocean (as part of the Tales legacy) and Castlevania (which dovetails with Tales series, especially the recent ones). In addition to Shining Force, Fire Emblem also inspired the Super Robot Wars series. And I'm not a JRPG expert; I'm sure I'm missing a lot more.
Given your desire to emphasize the "RP" portion of "RPG", I'm also surprised you didn't even give a nod to RPG "morality systems," the duality of which mostly derives from the early DnD "Law/Chaos" system, either directly (Ogre Battle, Megaten, and Baldur's Gate), or indirectly (KotoR)
What I miss is aggregation of decade long leaders and leaders thought for what they defined as RPG game.
That could be nice to build conclusion to where are we going.
Especially in times where lider of the Millenian period - Bioware - now is as gigantic and strong as SSI was a decade earlier, simiar thing is with a monolith long-living Bethesda which evolved even from the past times many companies and product lines didn't survive. From the other hand RPG still bring new players with innovative ideas not afraid that rpg is one of the hardest video game to produce.
This way of thinking can be helpful to make "RPG 101 - how not to fail for the future".
Anyway, Albion was a PC game made by ex-Thelion programmers who made game of the era for Amiga called "Ambermoon". I presume you thought on about that title when thinking Amiga. Nevertheless both Albion and Ambermoon are games which sentimental rpg-gamer can come back playing even now (if possible).
Another really cool example of Wizardrish/M&M mixed gameplay is Ishar serie. Many players also remember that one very well
@Dave: I think you have things back-to-front, as regards WoW and Guild Wars. Guild Wars, with 6 million accounts, but no subscription, is nowhere near as successful, financially, as WoW with 11 million accounts all paying a subscription fee / pay to play plan. I do agree that WoW is just one fish in the pond, but to run with the analogy, it's actually a Kraken with a thousand tentacles, right now.
Nice to see at least one nod to Azure Dreams though, that was fantastic.
Excellent article among your many. Like many posters, I would have loved to see some mention of my pet game. In this case, the fantastic, yet incomplete Alternate Reality series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_(video_game_series)
Surely you would have seen this in the C64/128 release lineup?
The issue I see in my dealings with games producers is the lack of respect and value producers see in forms of gaming such as pen and paper roleplay, and often disregard it.
Its a shame, but in many causes appears to be the reality and achilles heell of some development studios today.
The World of Asian RPGs: http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,25/
The World of Western RPGs: http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,31/
They mostly deal with the history of RPGs and list a bunch of games, instead of going too deep into specific ones. One thing about the Asian RPGs article is that it also includes some Chinese RPGs, which is certainly a very interesting read.
Fantastic article! It introduced me to a world of RPGs (from both sides) that I had not even heard of. Time to start exploring :-)
E.A.W.