Frogboy Frogboy

New poll

▼

New poll

from Stardock Forums

Please vote on the new poll (Star Control vs. Master of Magic). It's actually kind of important to get an idea which of these two games people want to see remade. Please let others know about the poll so we can get a wide sampling.

Thanks.

1,859 views 84 replies
Reply #76 from Stardock Forums Top
Hey Genghis Hank:Philly! Home of the cheese-steak; a heart-attack on a roll.
End of quote


:d LOL

Hmmm, other side of the state. Still, nice to see another Pensylvanian here
Reply #77 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, sadly I missed the poll, but in case anybody's still listening... ;)

StarCon 4 would be cool... but then again, I expected the same thing from StarCon 3... ;p

Overall though, I'd have to say go with Master of Magic II... it has the wider appeal (i.e., a ready-made group of fans who've been drooling over the possibility for more than a decade), plus it would allow you to use most or all of the expertise you've gained from doing GalCiv, since it's such a similar style of game.

The tricky part will be distinguishing it from the Age of Wonders series, which many fans see as the inheritor to MoM (and, in all honesty, they come pretty close IMO).

Most importantly, I'd MUCH rather see you guys pick up the license than let Ata... well, let's just say 'a company with less talent and no ethics' screw it up...
Siege of Centauri
Reply #78 from Stardock Forums Top
@ Bard of Prey
AoW was a fairly nice game, but it didn't due Master of Magic justice at all. It played a lot more like Heroes of Might & Magic to me. Of course I was expecting MoM with updated graphics.

@ Frogboy
I'm sure the quality would be great regardless of whether you called the game "Elemental", "Master of Magic II" or "FoozSlayer 1000", but Master of Magic II might get you a few more sales from people who played the 1st one. Of course word of mouth / the electric grapevine might get you the same for Elemental.



~SDC~
Reply #79 from Stardock Forums Top
AoW was a fairly nice game, but it didn't due Master of Magic justice at all. It played a lot more like Heroes of Might & Magic to me. Of course I was expecting MoM with updated graphics.
End of quote


Interestingly enough, that comment comes up an awful lot... it seems to be what most people are expecting. I'm not sure it will ever happen quite that way.

For one thing, any group of developers who might be interested in revisiting the game are almost certain to want to put their own spin on things.

It hardly seems worthwhile to slap a new coat of paint on an ancient game, especially when you don't have the source code for the original... you'd wind up spending an awful lot of time, effort and money recreating something that could have been flat-out done better in the first place.

I'm also a bit skeptical of the idea that customers would really be happy with the product if it was merely MoM with better graphics... I think there's a nostalgia effect working here. We all remember MoM as an incredible game for its time, so we don't want anybody 'messing with the formula', but if I really think about it, the graphics aren't even close to the first thing I'd improve about the game... the AI was pretty awful, the interface and mechanics somewhat crude by today's standards, and there was hardly any game balance to speak of for starters...

All in all, one of the reasons I'd like to see Stardock take this on is that I think it might do better as something closer to 'GalCiv with elves' than 'MoM with better graphics'.

Just MHO of course, YMMV. ;)

P.S. The name recognition from the title will definitely draw more sales, but there's a catch... you run a much greater risk of making people very angry if it doesn't turn out well... and there are a lot of expectations out there already that have been fermenting for years.

Witness what's happened recently with other sequels starting with 'Master of'...
Reply #80 from Stardock Forums Top
What a MoM II needs is indeed more in the graphics and AI domain, but also probably more in terms of gameplay, for instance in the role playing department:
More management choices (buildings, but that's more micromanagement too), quests (not just the here's a cave should I go there type, but more elaborate, like do this then that), and diplomatic options.

AoW was quite disappointing for me, though I liked their siege model (you needed breachers), but then they got rid of it in AoW2.

A game that offers great possibilities, replayability and pitiful graphics in the tradition of MoMII is DominionsII. It's got spells, research, very few buildings (castles, temples, laboratories), lots of lots of different units, of spells, magical items. And more units. And it's moddable. But it doesn't have the 'building' and exploring feel of MoM (not that AoW had it). It also has special units that can be built only in certain sites, which would be a great addition to MoM (you already had that to some extent: could build mithril armed units only in cities that have mithril, but that's quite limited).

The trick with a MoMII is that absolutely all features of MoM would have to be in. I can't remember any that was bad (except maybe the control over tactical combat, but people might complain not to have it).
Reply #81 from Stardock Forums Top
AoW *was* Heroes of Might and Magic, with a magic system that had a VERY tiny bit of spice based on MoM. That was it. And I liked AoW. It being sold as a "MoM influenced/spiritual descendant game" was purely a rip-off by the publishers. They could have just as easily claimed that AoW's magice was inspired/spiritually descended from WotC Magic: The Gathering.

MoM was great for one reason... it was effectively the most in game customizable TBS game ever made. Between being able to "enchant" your units/heroes and create your own "artifacts" for your heroes, you could mod out the game to suit almost any playing style imaginable. Add in customizing your wizard, and the only thing you couldn't customize was the AI and the in game graphics. Sure, the AI was a moron... but that wasn't the point! You built/enchanted stuff to suit your play style and game needs! That's the point!

People either loved that, or they hated it. if they loved it, they loved MoM. If they hated it, they hated MoM. That's what made MoM special.

The second closest in game customizing is SMAC. And the AI is cheese in that game too. Why? Because it doesn't know how to handle all that customization. All those possibilities? Imagine if you had to front load (build in at design time) how to handle everything the players can do, when there's literally 10s of thousands of possible troop types, thanks to players being able to customize their stuff.

Heck, in MoM, the ultimate units were War Ships enchanted with Flying, Invisibility, and Spell Lock (with Spell Lock on it). 99 units of the ultimate long range attack... even if the enemy could fly and see invisible (as some major undead could), you still out distanced them, so you'd go circle the battle field and just crush them to death with your War Ships huge catapult launched boulders.

Flexibility is what makes strategy games better then their brethren... the more choices you can choose that can lead to victory, the more fun you have. Mom had the ultimate in the amount of choices you could make... that is why it's such a classic. Even with so-so graphics for its time, and AI that had trouble thinking its way out of a paper bag.
Reply #82 from Stardock Forums Top
Heck, in MoM, the ultimate units were War Ships enchanted with Flying, Invisibility, and Spell Lock (with Spell Lock on it).
End of quote


Strange, I always find that the ultimate unit in MOM was high level major heroes in pack :)
Reply #83 from Stardock Forums Top
@ Star Pilot

Hold the phone. You just hit on exactly what I didn't like in AoW, & it wasn't clear to me until you said it. I missed the exploration, enchanting, artificing, random worlds, & sandbox style of play that was MoM. AoW seemed really forced in comparison.

Thanks


~SDC~