After reading everyone reminisce about the glory days of Master of Magic (1995), I decided to pony up the $5.99 at GOG.com and give it a try. Until this week, I had never played MoM. Heresy! I know. Back then I was playing the crap out of Final Fantasy I and II (US) and loving them. Computers weren't on my list of fun until '97 or '98 (Diablo/Civ 2) and certainly not in 1995.
Therefore, I find myself today playing a game in DOS markedly similar, in ways. to every other 4x or TBS game I've played in the last 10 years. In many ways FE seems, in beta 1, close to MoM with all the faults everyone cries about. Hero stack of doom? I had one before the first 200 turns:
(I got that Dragon as the first Hero to recruit and never looked back; I made that ring for ~1500 MP)
This unstoppable stack trounced every AI Wizard's (and neutral) city when I felt like it; which was often. The AI is also pretty ineffective on normal and hard, remind anyone of anything? The only thing this stack couldn't destroy was 2 Sky Drakes and 8 Phantom Warriors guarding a Sorcery Pool on Myrror. Regular units only really feel particularly useful to guard cities and in the early game. Once this stack is leveled and fully enchanted it can pretty much do anything. (They all have awesome items/artifacts I made and have flight/eldritch weapon/holy armor cast.)
Furthermore, there is just as much "city spam" in this game as there is in any other game:
(Most of my cities are on Myrror, which I didn't feel like taking a pic of because it is a pain to get in and out of DOSbox everytime.)
What I do like about this game is Heroes coming to you because of your fame or not coming because of your lack of it. Said fame influencing the quality of said Heroes. The all inclusive cities. The monster lair/magic nodes exploration. The item/artifact creation mechanic, which is arguably the best thing about the game. It is a satisfying payoff when you have to wait 10-20 turns just to get a custom designed ring you made for your Hero and even more so when you see your enemies driven before you.
Overall, yes, this game is worth the $5 I paid for it but not much more. I've played and won several games already and they don't feel all that unique on subsequent playthroughs. I make a custom Wizard and take the best traits, why play with an inferior one? The magic system is pretty unique but it also feels similar to FE, in ways. In fact, a lot of this game does.
Just as I do with many video games from my "early days," I let nostalgia and novelty cloud reality. I think this is also happening when, often, people draw parallels to MoM and FE. Ultimately, to each their own.
Fair points, but you also have to acknowledge that hte power of "new and shiny" diminishes as we get older, while the power of nostalgia grows. It's why many members of every generation swears the music they listened to when they were in their early twenties is the greatest thing that ever existed.
I'm 61 now, so I guess I was 44? Back when I was 14 or 15, the best strategy game around was chess -- the old-fashioned kind, against classmates.
I have played again MoM, just to be sure about what I remembered.
There are many good points in the previous posts here:
FE has some pretty good score on the last item ; we may expect it to be better in the first (the beta already is given the state of MoM's AI).
What is yet cruelly missing is the second point which makes FE feel a bit tasteless :
None of these seem outside of FE reach. It's nevertheless an awful lot of stuff that's missing.
Yves
Man, honestly? People think so highly of MoM because it was produced almost twenty years ago. I can't think of any game produced that far back that could be feasibly released today. Not SpaceQuest, not Ultima, not Panzer General, not even DOOM, could be released as a finished product today. I'll sit on anything else I was going to say, but I think you need to bear in mind how long it's been before you start bashing MoM. Some of these posters literally weren't even born yet. Every genre has covered a lot of ground in that time.
edit; What I mean to say is that it may only be worth $5 today, but that's true of almost every game released back then. Nostalgia isn't making MoM look better than it was; modern games are making it look worse.. because modern games plug the holes that existed in older titles. They have more powerful hardware to build on, software to build with.. that doesnt make them better, it makes them more recent. View things in context, that's all I'm saying. MoM was better in relation to it's peers than WoM was in relation to it's peers. Ideally FE will outperform them both, but that remains to be seen.
Maybe this is just me but I would much rather have Dominions 3 style battles where you have no control over what your units and heroes do once you enter a battle. You set up the spells your heroes are allowed to cast and how agressive you heroes and army actually are. All you can do then is watch as your armies clash and hope your plan was better then the other sides.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you are saying that I would like WoM if it was the only TBS ever made, then I have to agree, for the same reason that someone dying from dehydration will accept a drink of even brackish water.
But if you are trying to say that I would have been just as enamoured if WoM had been released back when I was in my teens instead of MoM... then a big fat resounding NO WAY!
WoM is a more modern game with more modern graphics but it in comparison to MoM it has little depth, unbalanced mechanics and lacks fun. In terms of gameplay and fun it compares poorly with other good contemporary strategy games of the MoM era like Master of Orion 1 and Civilization 2.
FE however is a different story and looks much more promising.
EvilRon: You're doing it wrong.
FrogBoy: I'm not sure which MoM you played, but the one I still load up every 1-2 years and play several games from start to finish I generally have to remake several times due to the AI trouncing me early with huge stacks of enchanted armies where I have no chance of winning.
Maybe you only play the game when you get a perfect starting setting, and you're alone on Myrron or something. Or maybe you load the game every single time there is even a chance a city is going to be destroyed, but clearly we didn't play the same game if you never lost to the AI (on the highest difficulty, of course). MoM2 was not made due to internal problems at Microprose from what I remember, not because it wouldnt have been succesful. MoM2 would of course have had better AI and better balance I am sure especially since it would have had the main thing that MoM1 lacked; multiplayer.
I also heavily disagree with this nostalgia factor. Yes of course nostalgia plays a factor, but the basic foundation of MoM's core is why the game was so freaking good and what no other game has successfully mimicked. I had hoped Elemental was going to be the one to do this, but It doesn't seem likely at this point for me but who knows.
I am currently playing the original Master of Orion (and a little MoO2) like I do every year or two and it again reminds me of just how great the core foundation of that game is and how no other game has successfully mimicked it. Microprose really was a special company in the 90's, much like Strategic Simulations, its a shame they didn't continue.
Well, there is a bit about rose tinted glasses and what not, but I've been playing MOM with insecticide's patch that tends to solve some of the AIs shortfalls and other issues and, well, it wasn't pretty for me.
The original AI was lackluster, yes, but given what has been done with just some extra patching (well, a lot of it) sows that there was a lot of potential in the game, otherwise there would have been no fixing it and it should be.
I will fully admit bias towards MOM, but here is the thing...if I was that jaded by my opinions of the game then, why would I still play and enjoy it today? There was no epiphany for me that the game was inferior to subsequent releases. If anything, I realized how much is missing from games made since. That isn't to say there haven't been great games released since then in the genre (Civ IV, King's Bounty series, Disciples 2 to name a few)
I don't always want a big challenge from AI. Sometimes I just want to win and feel awesome while doing so. If the games loses personality and replayability, because of all the time dedicated to a strong AI, I would consider that a step backwards. We can all agree that AI and balance isn't MOM's strong suit, but I would argue for some people that isn't a deal breaker. If the original devs had spent more time on that, over spells, heroes, units and the mechanics around them, would we have a classic game at all? Just playing devil's advocate a bit. My point is, I would rather play a broken MOM than E:WOM and AI and balance have nothing to do with it.
Exactly. It wasn't the AI or the balance that makes MoM such a great game. Those things aren't what makes the game challenging, either. I realize that, if you survive the first 20 or so turns, it is nearly impossible to lose. That's not a problem. It is the world(s) that creates the challenge and maintains the interest -- the battles for the nodes and ruins and towers, the wizards, the races, the units, the schools of magic and the heroes. The wizards are truly unique with their own strengths and weaknesses and their own playstyle, and you have an idea of what you're going to have to deal with when you meet them on the map. I knew that I was in for a struggle if I met Jafar or Tauron in the late game -- Jafar constantly killing my spells, Tauron raising volcanoes all around my cities. Each race was unique, sure they share some low-level units, but even most of those were different from one race to the other because of the racial bonuses. The unique units to each race were interesting and fun. Who doesn't love hammerhands or wyvern riders or griffins or paladins, even dragon turtles and stag beetles? Choosing your magic books when creating a custom wizard would completely define your gameplay -- the powerful summoned creatures of the nature school, the powerful buffs of life, direct damage spells with chaos, the speed and deception of sorcery, death's fear and decay -- and let's not forget the retorts.
FE is moving in the right direction on many of these things. The world is an opponent. The wizards and factions are becoming more diverse and specialized. I'm not a big fan of customized units, but this seems a valuable feature; though from my perspective, it detracts from the faction distinctions. We need more spells to define the magic schools and make them discrete.
The main area where we are left wanting in FE, when compared to MoM is with heroes. Heroes were memorable in MoM; and while they become very powerful in FE, they are not memorable. I have finished two games of the beta, and I am hard-pressed to remember the names of any of my heroes, other than the sovereign. I remember being really excited in MoM if I managed to recruit Warrax the Chaos Warrior or Roland the Paladin or Allora the Elven Archer (the sky drake killer). If you pick up Fang early in the game as the OP did, you were in pretty good shape, as well. Any of the heroes could be powerful, some were always powerful. There was enough randomness in their traits to keep it from being repetitive. Most of the time I picked up Mystic X, he would become very good. Once, his traits were aligned perfectly and he became the most powerful hero I ever had in the game, greater than Torin, even.
Clearly, I could go on and on. It is my favorite game of all time. I still pick it up and play a couple of times each year, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The point, though, is sure MoM had some problems with AI, buggy spells, et cetera; but what it did well, it did very well. It was extremely immersive. WoM did not have that, at all. FE doesn't, yet; but I'm hopeful.
EDIT: I would like to note that I like a challenge. If SD can make FE as immersive as MoM and still make it very challenging and even brutal, like X-Com, I would probably stop going back to MoM, except for nostalgia.
BastWorshiper! Could not agree with you more. I echoed the same feelings about heroes here if at all interested: https://forums.elementalgame.com/417120/page/2/#3077700
I should clarify that I have nothing against a good challenge with AI, it just isn't the end all, be all to me. If the game is solid AND has great AI, that's a definite win as well.
Right. There's a reason why I dearly remember MoM and not all the dozens of games I've played (or tried) at that time and later.
MoM captured the magical, the adventurous, the wondrous that we players were looking for. FE, for the most part, still feels like a Glorified Spreadsheet - and with this I mean: the underlying game mechanics come first, while their meaning (if any) come after. As a result, I can't shake the feeling that I'm playing through a spreadsheet instead of living an adventure. While MANY things were changed for the better in FE, we're still far, for me at least, from preventing such a feeling from becoming increasingly dominant as the game progresses. Alas, feedback of this kind is not what the developers are looking for right now.
FE will end up being a decent (or even good) game I think, but at this point I can safely say that it won't be the real MoM's successor I was hoping to play one day.
Well, we must be playing different MoMs then, because I sincerely do not feel the way you guys feel about this game.
First, let's establish that v1.4 (insectidice) is a non-developer mod and thus cannot truly be considered part of the game for review's sake. Would you review Civ4 more favorably with FFH2? M&B:W with Floris? E:WoM with heavenfall's mod?
Second, statements like "You're doing it wrong" are divisive and derisive; using examples coherently better helps your argument. Let's keep it civil.
Third, I don't think the enemy wizards feel any different, I go to war against all of them or they me and I usually crush them anyway. They all seem to cast the same spells every time and there is generally little interaction between us, textually. As for wizard creation, there doesn't seem to be all that much choice, in actuality:
Why Bother?
There is no real point to taking half of those. I've never had trouble researching or saving up mana. As for spell picks, since you can research or find what you need why waste your picks here? Instead choose famous, charismatic and warlord/artificer/myrran and Hero dominate your way to victory. Just 2 books in life, for heal, is all I ever choose. The rest is history from there. Plus, you usually end up getting (often the same) channeling Heroes that can use spells for you in combat, thus even less dependency on the wizard's abilities.
As for the exploration, it really does not seem that different from FE. Scout the locations with fodder before you send your Heroes to it and you generally know what you can do. I never bother with more than one or two settlers because the AI spams cities ad nauseum and they are always less-than-heavily defended thus they do all the work for you.
As for the spells, I can appreciate there are a decent amount but I use less than half. I generally do not think the other half are even worth the research and either toss my RP into the end game spell or as low as possible to up my MP and SP.
Finally, I again maintain the item creation system was ahead of its time and is truly awesome. In four games, I've seen the same Heroes, magic items, and usually the same wizards. Subsequent games just don't feel as unique to me as you all maintain. When I play a Turn Based Strategy game, I do want there to be strategy (I am not saying FE requires that much at this moment, either). Saying the AI is deficient but it's ok just doesn't cut it for me. I'd love to know what these core game mechanics are that are so amazing and that I am missing. Please remember, let's keep it civil.
Well put. Nostalgia clouds our vision somewhat.
MoM was a very fun game but it had its problems.
I honestly think that FE stacks up pretty favourably right now. There is still a lot of work to be done, of course, so there shouldn't be any swelled heads over at Stardock.
Darklands on the other hand. Now there was a classic.
Actually there was tons of strategy in wizard creation. I still like the "No Picks" semi-exploit that allowed you to rush towards the Spell of Mastery. There were a lot of strategic choices. There were a lot of spells, races and buildings that seemed like junk... but when combo'd in the right way were just incredibly powerful. Read this and go to section 7. You don't need to strategies to beat the AI, but they are there and they are effective.
Right now FE is lacking those strategic choices. It is just Melee Champion and Mage Champion super stacks. It needs to up the meaningful choices to be more interesting.
EviliroN, if you choose the same things everytime, it is no surprise that you don't see much variability from game to game. Actually, I don't have the mod for MoM. I'm playing with Microprose's last patch (1.3-something).
I have learned that there are different kinds of gamers. You seem to be one of those that just wants to get to the end as quickly and efficiently as possible. Your goal is simply to win in the most complete and crushing way possible. Am I right? There is no judgement here, of course. (By the way, if you want to win in less than 50 turns, you can choose to be draconian with all life books; and just rush your opponents with flying swordsmen with planar travel and heroism.)
For others, like myself, the journey is the most important part. Honestly, most games I play (excluding MoM), I never finish. I reach a point where I'm in complete control and then I start a new campaign with different parameters. I try to avoid obvious exploits and make house rules to make the games more challenging. My goal in MoM, these days, is to get the highest score I possibly can. I allow the AI to expand to their hearts' content and only keep them in check with banishments until I've explored every node, ruin and so forth on the map. Then, I finish the game with the Spell of Mastery, usually with only one AI city left.
There may be problems with diplomacy in MoM, but there is value to trading spells. There is no value to diplomacy in FE. I never talk to the opponents, unless they initiate discussions. Then, it's just to agree to take their money and agree to whatever pact (which I'm not required to follow, as far as I can tell) or tell them no and go to war. Your research choices in MoM will affect your near-term gameplay. Research in FE just seems a formality, and you don't need any of it. I know the heroes in MoM; I cannot even remember the names or skills of any of the heroes in my current game in FE. Here comes that word, immersive, again. I feel that I'm part of the world in MoM; I feel like I'm playing a game in FE.
Choice and strategic choice are not the same thing. The mana points thing in MoM required you to make choices about what was most important to you, especially at the beginning of the game when mana points were in short supply: spell selection (research), safety net and active spells (mana reserve) or spell skill (which kind of speaks for itself). In FE, at every point where there is a choice I have more resources than resource requirements, or the choice doesn't really make any difference in my capabilities. The city level-up choices are neat, but they don't really mean anything. They don't require or even help specialize cities. They make little difference in the short-term and no difference in the long-term. For resource requirements, games need to take a Darwinian approach to force strategic choices. Resources should effectively limit, not your options, but the number of options you can choose. I should be forced to choose one thing at the expense of something else. Currently in FE, worst-case scenario, I have to wait a couple of extra turns before I can have my cake and eat it, too.
QFT
I read through most of the posts--there's some good stuff in there.
I'm a HUGE MoM fan--it was a game I played when it was released (my first computer was an Apple IIe if that says anything). Simply put, it was groundbreaking. Just think Castle Wolfenstein, Wizardry, Imperium Galactum (no--Master of Orion was NOT the pioneer of 4x space games) and so-on. Someone had created a whole new type of game to play, and man--it was incredible. It was released in 1994, required DOS 5.0 (remember having to tweak your base 640k of ram with himem and such???), required a 386 processor and 4 mb of RAM. You know--about **1000 times** less that it requires for games today. The game also used hundreds of times less storage space for the game data (around 16 MB I think). But... look at the depth and breadth of the game. All of the different races, all of the different spells, the countless strategies, the mini-games inside of the game, and so-on. Every single spell was viable, and any number of them were completely unique. You could craft magical items, buff your heroes, SUMMON your heroes, hire mercenaries and summon about any creature you could imagine (at the time!). All of this on 4mb of RAM and 16 MB of hard drive space???? And you had to code this to run on every single kind of PC with who-knows-what kind of generic memory, ISA and EISA expansion cards and no-name motherboards on the planet, put together by someone by moving dip switches to keep your IRQs and DMAs out of conflict. There was no general driver database, absolutely no "plug-n-play"--you lose your 1.44" floppy with your modem drivers, and guess what? That modem is a useless piece of silicon. DOS is NOT going to detect what kind of drivers that modem needs! As for your sound card (if you had one), you've got to set that thing up for every single game you play. And... make a boot disk for most every game (see base 640k RAM, above).
With the above specs, I don't know how anyone can criticize anything about the game. Sure--the AI wasn't Einstein--but the imagination and creativity... the BREADTH of the game--heck, just the concept of this new kind of game--was simply awesome.
When I found out Stardock had bought the right to MoM, I was elated due to their track record. I assumed it was going to be MoM *to a tee*, but with an updated AI and snazzy graphics (and utterly crash-proof). To this day I still feel that if Stardock had followed this template, they would have had a mega, mega hit on their hands.
I was crushed with EWoM--it had various components that just didn't work seamlessly together. It seemed completely disjointed--that what you did here had no effect there. Sort-of like some Indie games you've probably played... various parts don't end up making a "whole". The magic system was terrible, and the crashes... oh my gosh. FE is a *much* better game overall, and it's starting to seem that the parts do, indeed, make up a whole. Everything can affect everything else to some degree. There is just *so much* more that could be done, such as nodes being guarded, creation of magical items, more diverse use of mana generated (mana was EVERYTHING in MoM... you'd do about anything to grab and keep a node), and so-on. Many of the spells in FE are still just about useless. My custom hero fills the bottom of the screen with spells, and I use two of them. Rush to get fireball and blizzard, and you have all that you need. You can summon only one creature worth having (earth elemental), and so-on.
As for MoM, given the time and system resources avalable then, it was earthshattering. After all, why all of the big press when Stardock bought the license to it? WHY would Stardock buy the license to it? Why is everyone, almost 18 years later, still using it as a yardstick at all??
I guess that's my frustration. With almost two decadesa and a thousand times the computing power later, I bought a game that falls short of the "yardstick".
Well, count me as among those who still play - and enjoy - MoM. One of the problems with WoM (and FE to a lesser extent) is that SD has chosen a bland, ugly, uninteresting world as the backdrop - which renders 20 years of graphics improvements less impressive than should be the case. FE has at least filled (overfilled possibly) that bland ugly world with monsters. MoM was a brilliant, if flawed game. So far WoM and FE only share that latter trait. There is a great amount of discussion on Heros and MoM did this better. Some of my FE heros have like 15 traits but overall these are 'invisible' to me. I am sure my guys are much better fighters for that but where is pathfinder, wind mage etc that literally changed the way you played the game when you got one of these guys. Brax, the most vanilla of tanks, plus High Elves gave you a pathfinding imbued stack early in the game when it really mattered (especially for roadless HEs).
Units are the same: each race in MoM had units with unique/powerful/interesting traits. FE allows me to give units traits - which convert units from vanilla all the way to french vanilla. MoM units go from vanilla to rocky road (or whatever): first strike, magic immunity, etc. MoM gave you a chess set to play with; WoM and FE give you a set of pawns with graded capabilities to play with. But MoM gave the other wizards chess sets as well (which they didn't necessarily do well with, this was an AI limit) but also there was such a variety of enemies in the ruins, nodes, etc. From the bland to the still brutally tough at the end game (great wyrms, shadow demons, sky drakes, etc). Nothing like going into a battle with your A Stack and finding that there are air elementals in there that you can't see, let alone target. Come back after you've researched true sight. FE has a much more limited set of monsters and a hugely lower tactical combat challenge with them. Sure many of them are beyond your capabilities until well into the game, but once you get there, they are just bigger pawns.
FE remains hugely inferior to MoM in magic spells: tactical combat, unit/hero buffing, terrain, global, etc. No idea what the OP is talking about wrt all opposing wizards being the same. Get one of the death or chaos guys against you and their global spells wreak true havok on your empire. Same for magic items (although FE has moved a long way in the right direction from WoM) and, especially, magic item creation.
FE does have quests, perilously few until the later game, but even one would be more than MoM, so WoM/FE get a big tick for this one.
Don't know if anyone has played BotF (Birth of the Federation) another Microprose game with a great tactical combat engine but pretty limited in some ways. Well some fans have cracked the code and have developed an editor tool which allows you to make some changes and identified key bits of the code so you can use a hex editor to custom the game to your own preferences. I'd kill (or pay money) for such a tool for MoM. There are save game editors which do some of that, but not as much as I would like. So Microprose, in a short but glorious existence, developed Civ, MOO, MoM, BotF, all of which I am either still playing the originals or descendants of. Nothing would make me happier than posting in some forum in 20 years about why FE was such a great game and how I am still playing it.
BTW--not bashing Master of Orion above. It was an awesome game that completely set the tone for 4x space games (and, I feel, was mastered by Stardock!). I'm a shameless Microprose fanboy. When I was in school at North Carolina State University, I took a part-time job delivering copiers. One day I noticed I was delivering one to "Microprose"... couldn't be the same company. I had NO idea they had an office anywhere in North Carolina, the planet Earth or even this dimension, for that matter. Sure enough, it was them. I felt like I had a private pass backstage for some huge rock band. After stuttering a bit and setting up their copier, I starting talking to one of the guys about how awesome their games were, and one hour later when I was heading out the door a guy stopped me and gave me a big box with my name on it. Inside? A brand-new boxed copy of every game they had made to date.
A fan, indeed!!! I still can't believe they're just history now. Stardock--please don't let this happen to you!
Now that is a cool story Jonathan
Yeah, they should have released MoM with just that stuff and scrap the rest. Options? Nah, min/maxers/powerplayers don't use them.
EviliroN: I've also been playing it with the last patch Micropose put out (although I wouldn't mind trying out this 1.4 patch).
I'm not really sure what your beef is when it comes to wizard customization. There are always going to be stronger options to take in similar circumstances. That doesn't mean having those other options is bad, or necessarily mean bad game design. I would rather have too many options, including ones I would never personally choose, because they are weaker or don't cater to my playstyle.
I will give you the fact that the AI is bad at using spells, although that is a pretty common issue in any game of this type. Spell balance is also pretty weak in some areas (crack's call was the worst) There are also a lot of unique spells, several types (global enchantments, unit enchantments, summons, tactical only spells)
Game mechanics wise I would say the following are strong:
Magic system (nodes, mana/magic producing buildings, faction bonuses, magic power allocation into mana, research and skill)
Factions/Races (Lots of different units types, faction attributes that affected several areas of gameplay: city growth, magic production, unrest levels, unit abilities like flight, water walking, buildings that were available)
Unit/Hero Abilities (Level Scaling abilities like Might, Agility, Constitution, Blademaster, life stealing, first-strike, healer, magic immunity, pathfinding etc, illusion, wind walking, poison, firebreathing, thrown weapons, luck to name a chunk. Also, a large part of the heroes have randomly occurring attributes meaning they have much different power potentials each game)
Randomized Map (I believe MOM was the first game to have fully randomized maps. There are always very different configurations, although sometimes that didn't work out so great. This also includes the randomized lair, etc encounters.)
City/Resource System (Decent variety in building types and resource types. Neutral cities provide a good level of early game challenge, although sometimes there weren't very many and lacked in race variety.)
This is not exhaustive, but I'm running out of steam at the moment.
As for strategy, you can prioritize spell research/mana/skill with your magic powerbase and spell research choices, races give you several play options (burn Klackons with fire!), wizard customization, randomization of spells available, prioritizing building order, city founding based on surveyor, securing access points between the different planes and choke points, securing cities with specific races.
Also not exhaustive, but I think demonstrates some significant strategy options.
BTW--for those of you who have never played MoM and are curious, you can download it *for free*. The game was made public domain some time ago. Of course, you'll have to use DOS-Box to play it. Certainly not as good as a snazzy all-in-one installation, but it's actually pretty easy. If you want a hassle-free installation, pay $5 to get it at good ole' games (it still uses Dos-Box, but sets all that up for you in one simple installation package). Let me see if I can find the link to download it for free (probably a few of them). If so, I'll edit this post with the link.
K--here's a link. Click on the "Download" at the bottom-right of the page (not the "Download Now" in the middle--that takes you to a pdf reader).
http://www.bestoldgames.net/eng/old-games/master-of-magic.php
Seems like lots of places to get it (abandonmania, etc., etc.), but this one didn't require registration.
You can pick up dos box almost anywhere--just Google it.
There was even a group who began a labor of love to recreate the game (before it became freeware). They were going to redo the game but with better graphics, etc. I hate that it was never completed. It's on that site where I first learned that Stardock had acquired the license to MoM.
BTW--Eviliron--it really was an awesome experience!
Thanx, Anglophile. So true.
And when you got a power like True Sight, you actually gained freakin' TRUE SIGHT! Nowadays it would be something like "Keen Sight: add + 3% to ranged attacks". More Spreadsheet Blandness.
And thanx to JonathanEngr for reminding us all the actual computational power that was available at the time. It boggles the mind that concepts like those that were introduced in MoM are apparently impossible to reproduce today. It really makes you wonder WHAT happened.
I really, really hope our talented Modders are reading this thread. So many brilliant insights.
Yes, you make some good points mastroego.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
