It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
advancedhero: I actually like the armies of enemies in 6. Heck, mm 2 had up to 255, so why not? The Temple of Baa was so epic to me.
avatar
dtgreene: 255? The original Bard's Tale had an encounter with 396 of them! Also, MM2 only allows the first 10 enemies to attack.
Depends on the enemies' attack type. If they frenzied all of them would attack, for example. I still hate those Crazed Natives...
For me 6 is the best i give it 92% but 7 is pretty good too i count for 85%.

8 is not so good 70%

and

9 is worst of whole series i give 60%

Somebody have another opinion ?
My favourites are MM 4/5 (World of Xeen) and MM 7. And the worst? I'll leave MM 1 and MM 2 out since they are just not competitive anymore. So it would be MM 9. MM X isn't that bad actually, in my humble opinion.
Downloaded the 6-pack on Saturday and I've been having a ton of fun revisiting M&M I. I played 1, 2, and 6 extensively when they were released. Despite the passage of time, M&M I held up great for me. It's like I'm 14 again.
MM6 is the best, and as it brought its revolutionary graphics, and was not part of a cycle of yearly released and rushed games of mm7-9. (But 7 and 8 are still good)

I will say mm8 is the worst, being the good, but rushed game after mm7.
avatar
GabesterOne: MM6 is the best, and as it brought its revolutionary graphics,
Which has dated far worse than the graphics of World of Xeen.
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Which has dated far worse than the graphics of World of Xeen.
It has dated much better than any other early 3D game. In other words, it aged well :)
avatar
GabesterOne: MM6 is the best, and as it brought its revolutionary graphics,
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Which has dated far worse than the graphics of World of Xeen.
love the art in mm4-5, but mm6 age alot more nicely for early 3-d games, than games like Menzoberranzan, under mountain, and etc.
avatar
Sarisio: It has dated much better than any other early 3D game. In other words, it aged well :)
It's not true 3D and it did give me motion sickness when I first tried it. It's like the Build engine: good once you get used it.

I agree MM6-8 engine did age well, especially if you compare it to some other true or pseudo 3D of its time,but I'd second PetrusOctavianus. The 3-5 engine felt much better.
avatar
ZFR: It's not true 3D and it did give me motion sickness when I first tried it. It's like the Build engine: good once you get used it.
Well, it is true 3D as it allows traversing maps at different heights, on/under the bridges, and most of dungeons consisted of multiple floors. You could jump (at different heights), move at angle and such (even fly).

Example of pseudo 3D is Doom or Wolf3D, where there is only one level of height, there can be nothing below or above it, so game basically operates within 2 dimensions but makes it look like it is 3D.
avatar
Sarisio: Well, it is true 3D as it allows traversing maps at different heights, on/under the bridges, and most of dungeons consisted of multiple floors. You could jump (at different heights), move at angle and such (even fly).

Example of pseudo 3D is Doom or Wolf3D, where there is only one level of height, there can be nothing below or above it, so game basically operates within 2 dimensions but makes it look like it is 3D.
For a game to be true 3D all objects (with the possible exception of tiny particles like bullets) must be in 3D. If a game uses 2D sprites for enemies, objects... etc instead of real 3D objects then it's pseudo-3D. Freedom of movement is not relevant.

Which is why Duke Nukem 3D is pseudo 3D (walk around a chair or a dancer to see why) even though you could move in all 6 directions, while Duke Nukem Manhattan project is true 3D in spite that you mostly move only left and right and up and down.
avatar
ZFR: For a game to be true 3D all objects (with the possible exception of tiny particles like bullets) must be in 3D. If a game uses 2D sprites for enemies, objects... etc instead of real 3D objects then it's pseudo-3D. Freedom of movement is not relevant.
About sprites you are right and that is probably one of reasons why it aged well. Early polygonal models were rather ugly even in their current time (people with square heads and square shoulders? ugh...).
avatar
Sarisio: Well, it is true 3D as it allows traversing maps at different heights, on/under the bridges, and most of dungeons consisted of multiple floors. You could jump (at different heights), move at angle and such (even fly).

Example of pseudo 3D is Doom or Wolf3D, where there is only one level of height, there can be nothing below or above it, so game basically operates within 2 dimensions but makes it look like it is 3D.
avatar
ZFR: For a game to be true 3D all objects (with the possible exception of tiny particles like bullets) must be in 3D. If a game uses 2D sprites for enemies, objects... etc instead of real 3D objects then it's pseudo-3D. Freedom of movement is not relevant.

Which is why Duke Nukem 3D is pseudo 3D (walk around a chair or a dancer to see why) even though you could move in all 6 directions, while Duke Nukem Manhattan project is true 3D in spite that you mostly move only left and right and up and down.
What about games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time, in which some objects (like trees) are actually sprites, but most of the objects you interact with are actually 3 dimensional?

I believe Super Mario 64 was like this as well.
avatar
Sarisio: About sprites you are right and that is probably one of reasons why it aged well. Early polygonal models were rather ugly even in their current time (people with square heads and square shoulders? ugh...).
Yes. They look much more beautiful than early 3D models. But the flip side is they can cause motion sickness if your brain gets used to games with real 3D objects and then when you play a game with 2D sprites the object always faces the same way no matter how you walk around it.
avatar
dtgreene: What about games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time, in which some objects (like trees) are actually sprites, but most of the objects you interact with are actually 3 dimensional?

I believe Super Mario 64 was like this as well.
I don't know. Never played them so I can't comment. Depends on how important these are.
Even real 3D games use some 2D sprites for objects that are too small or too far away (no one expects real 3D clouds in the sky). If the trees are just background decoration I'd say it can be classified as a true 3D game. If you can walk around them and they're just sprites I'd say it's pseudo-3D.
Post edited October 08, 2015 by ZFR
avatar
ZFR: I don't know. Never played them so I can't comment. Depends on how important these are.
Even real 3D games use some 2D sprites for objects that are too small or too far away (no one expects real 3D clouds in the sky). If the trees are just background decoration I'd say it can be classified as a true 3D game. If you can walk around them and they're just sprites I'd say it's pseudo-3D.
I understand what you mean, but polygonal world with sprites is still true 3D as long as it fully supports 3 dimensions instead of faking one of them (like in Doom). Some people also use pseudo3D term to describe grid-based games like Might and Magic I-V, but I wouldn't say that it is entirely correct too, as grid games can operate with 3rd dimension by ways of stairs, pits and such. They are just their own way of 3D entirely :)

I just had a mistake to launch Might and Magic VI just to recheck some things. After messing with Neverwinter Nights 2 I now remember why I never finished it, so Might and Magic VI will use the time I wanted to allocate for playing NWN 2:)) I want to replay MM VI sooo much!
Post edited October 09, 2015 by Sarisio