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

×
I mean, you have 6 characters, each of them can equip up to 18 different items (there are 22 gear slots actually, but there is inventory limit).

Each item can have up to 3 different affixes on top of 22 tiers of materials. I attached screenshot of 1 such item with 3 affixes.

This game was released 5 years before Diablo, so I wonder why people say that Diablo was the first game with complex loot system?

I really feel as if Might and Magic series have totally spoiled me. I keep comparing modern games to them, and MM games feel so much more superior in most departments except graphics.
Attachments:
There are a few quirks of MM3's loot however. For example:

* IIRC everything can be made of leather. This includes things like long swords (can you picture a leather sword) and leather armor (so you get "leather leather armor", whatever that means).

* Some materials (like wood) negatively affect the AC of non-weapon equipment. This means that if you have a piece of equipment whose base form has 0 AC, and it is made of a material like wood, it will actually *lower* your AC (which is bad in this series). Hence, a wooden ring will lower your AC. In the (poorly programmed) Super NES version, this can cause your AC to underflow.

* The relative frequency of spells on items seems wrong. Spells like Implosion, Divine Intervention, and Recharge Item appear on items far more often than spells like Lloyd's Beacon, Walk on Water, and Power Cure (though the latter is at least available in a reliably buyable items). By the way, unlike in MM5, items of Recharge Item can be recharged, and can even recharge themselves.
Try Nahlakh (1994) and Natuk (1999) by Tom Proudfoot.
8 characters to equip and different pre- and suffixes makes thousands of possible items to find, most of them random. Monsters also use items if generated with them.

And the tactical combat is so much better than the M&M games.
Well, it became more polished in MM6+. Though gear in later games can have only 1 affix unless it is artifact or relic, and there are much less tiers of items.

Negative tiers of gear (like Wooden and Leather) is rather a feature than flaw. It is like cursed or flavor items in other games.

And getting items you want in MM3 is quite tricky, I agree. For each 1 good item you get 10+ weird, useless or outright bad items, but it was always the case in games with complex loot systems.

And I see nothing wrong in items of Recharge Item (I wonder if it is considered cheating to use it to produce gold). MM games were famous for having some ridiculously weird and overpowered features. MM7 was the most hilarious in that aspect with its Well of Wishes - you just keep clicking on well to continuously get gold, experience and skill points to your heart's content.
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Try Nahlakh (1994) and Natuk (1999) by Tom Proudfoot.
8 characters to equip and different pre- and suffixes makes thousands of possible items to find, most of them random. Monsters also use items if generated with them.

And the tactical combat is so much better than the M&M games.
Hmmm I never heard about those games, I will check on those. Still, MM3 was released in 1991, Nahlakh 3 years later. Also you can have 8 heroes in MM3 too, but I prefer not to use hirelings.
Post edited June 28, 2017 by Sarisio
One weakness of MM3 was that once you got Obsidian stuff, it was hard to find better items. And you could get full sets of Obsidian stuff long before the end.
I much prefered MM2 with it's pluses, alignments and all kinds of different chests with loot, and different monsters dropping different chests, and you could always find better loot. MM2 also had the best tactical combat of the the DOS era M&M games, so it's easily my favourite of that era.

And do try Tom Proudfoot's games. They are some of the best CRPGs ever made IMO, if you like CRPGs that is all about character development, items and tactical combat.
Post edited June 28, 2017 by PetrusOctavianus
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Try Nahlakh (1994) and Natuk (1999) by Tom Proudfoot.
8 characters to equip and different pre- and suffixes makes thousands of possible items to find, most of them random. Monsters also use items if generated with them.
I tried one of these (I forget which) many years ago, and found it interesting for a while, but I found that many of the tactical battles didn't actually require clever tactics. For example, I would get my band of 8 characters into a battle, where I spent time carefully positioning them and using abilities and spells... except it was just some easy enemies, that we could dispatch with little effort. Seemed like a lot of time spent for not much purpose. I also remember that the places I explored weren't that interesting, just some tunnels filled with some fights. Some fights were more challenging and therefore more interesting, but it seemed like it was mostly about getting into fights over and over (each of which takes a very long time) and collecting slightly better equipment.

Having said that, I wasn't well versed in tactical RPGs at the time, and I may be partially confusing it with another game, Helherron, which had similar large party tactical battles. Maybe I should go back and try Tom Proudfoot's games again. Should I play them in order (Nahlakh and then Natuk)? How different are they? Are there interesting developments in the world / story as one gets farther in the game, or is it mostly just fighting?
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Try Nahlakh (1994) and Natuk (1999) by Tom Proudfoot.
8 characters to equip and different pre- and suffixes makes thousands of possible items to find, most of them random. Monsters also use items if generated with them.
avatar
Waltorious: I tried one of these (I forget which) many years ago, and found it interesting for a while, but I found that many of the tactical battles didn't actually require clever tactics. For example, I would get my band of 8 characters into a battle, where I spent time carefully positioning them and using abilities and spells... except it was just some easy enemies, that we could dispatch with little effort. Seemed like a lot of time spent for not much purpose. I also remember that the places I explored weren't that interesting, just some tunnels filled with some fights. Some fights were more challenging and therefore more interesting, but it seemed like it was mostly about getting into fights over and over (each of which takes a very long time) and collecting slightly better equipment.
That sounds like Natuk, which has it's fair share of "trash combat", where you may as well just turn on Quick Combat.

Having said that, I wasn't well versed in tactical RPGs at the time, and I may be partially confusing it with another game, Helherron, which had similar large party tactical battles. Maybe I should go back and try Tom Proudfoot's games again. Should I play them in order (Nahlakh and then Natuk)?
I always recommend playimg games in chronological order.

How different are they?
Are there interesting developments in the world / story as one gets farther in the game, or is it mostly just fighting?
The main differences are:

Nahlakh uses an improve skills by use system, while in Natuk you get XP which you use to improve stats and skills

Nahlahk has no random encounters whatsoever, no "trash combat" that I can recall, and in general has fewer but bigger and harder battles. No random encounter means that there are a couple of severe difficult spikes.

Natuk is more geared towards the OCD player and you can grind and build your character to your heart's desire if you want to. Also, it's less over the top than Nahlakh where you would fight armies of spiders, birdmen, dragons and aliens (I think they were supposed to be aliens). Natuk has a more traditional bestiary, and only one dragon (excluding some hatchlings).

Economy systems are different. In Nahlakh selling prices drop and buying prices increase globally for each game day, so the more time you spend going back to town to sell loot the less the profits.
In Natuk selling prices simply drop each time you sell an item. And being Orcs you don't buy stuff; you steal or loot it. Or buy if you can't role play orcs.

In both games you can never have enough money. You can spend gold on trainers to increase stats and skill, or on enchanters to enchant and recharge items.

There's really not much story in Nahlakh; Natuk is better in that regard. Natuk also has some Choices&Consequences. Killing people like store owners and tax collectors, will have consequences
Natuk also has one of the best endings of any CRPG.

Along with Disciples of Steel they have the best tactical combat of any CRPGs before (and probably after) Jagged Alliance 2 IMO. The magis system is also excellent.

But they are really not games for the "I play games for the story" crowd.
Thanks for all the details! I may try Nahlakh at some point. Having googled them both now, I can confirm that Natuk is definitely the one I tried. I didn't realize they looked so different. And I've never even heard of Disciples of Steel. Should I track that down too?

I'm curious if you've ever tried Helherron, and if so, what you think of it. Its combat is very similar to Natuk, but I eventually tired of it because of all the trash mobs. I have a feeling I'd like it better if I tried it now though.
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: But they are really not games for the "I play games for the story" crowd.
I often play games for their story, but I also like certain types of games for their systems / emergent stories, like (traditional) roguelikes. And I enjoy the Might and Magic series more for exploration, puzzles and combat than for story. I'm not very well versed in tactics and strategy games but I'm trying to broaden my horizons. I enjoyed Master of Magic and the original X-COM a lot, so I'm now motivated to try some deeper tactics games and see how I like them.

Anyway, thanks again for the explanations, and sorry for derailing this thread!
Definitely track down Disciples of Steel. Easily one of the best CRPGs I've played: far better most so called AAA titles.
It's more rounded and unlinear than the Proudfoot games, with better exploration, NPC intereaction and quest and level design. Very good combat system and good encounter design (scales to area), and quite good item system as well, with more hand placed loot.
Downside is poor town design (might as well have been menu towns) and shop UI.

I'm not sorry to derail the thread; Disciples of Steel and the Tom Proudfoot games deserve all the attention they can get!
It's impressive how games made by one or two persons can be so superior to most games with bigger budgets and distribution.
avatar
Sarisio: I mean, you have 6 characters, each of them can equip up to 18 different items (there are 22 gear slots actually, but there is inventory limit).

Each item can have up to 3 different affixes on top of 22 tiers of materials. I attached screenshot of 1 such item with 3 affixes.

This game was released 5 years before Diablo, so I wonder why people say that Diablo was the first game with complex loot system?

I really feel as if Might and Magic series have totally spoiled me. I keep comparing modern games to them, and MM games feel so much more superior in most departments except graphics.
Compare that + the amount of skills and stats to Dragon Age Inquisition. You will see how much rpgs have been dumbed down for casuals in the last few years.
avatar
Waltorious: I'm curious if you've ever tried Helherron, and if so, what you think of it. Its combat is very similar to Natuk, but I eventually tired of it because of all the trash mobs. I have a feeling I'd like it better if I tried it now though.
Haven't tried Helherron yet, but I'm looking forward to eventually play it some years time (it's quite a bit down on my play list).
It seems to be more popular than the Proudfoot games.
avatar
Stig79: Compare that + the amount of skills and stats to Dragon Age Inquisition. You will see how much rpgs have been dumbed down for casuals in the last few years.
I haven't played the Dragon Age games, but I do enjoy many modern RPGs as well as older RPGs. Yes, even Skyrim. They're very different, and certainly have simpler systems, but they're still a lot of fun.

I can understand your sentiment but I'm not sure it's entirely fair. The Might and Magic games were considered AAA at the time, but the market was much smaller then. I'm guessing total sales were a tiny fraction of what modern games like Skyrim are getting. So back then it was mainstream, but now a game in that style is niche, even if it sells the same.

There's some merit to the complaint that these more mainstream games supplanted the older style of RPGs and no one made them anymore, but recently independent developers have been picking up the slack, and we're even getting veteran developers making "throwback" RPGs (which I haven't gotten around to playing yet). So actually, I think the last few years have been good for complex RPGs, compared to the decade before that.

avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Haven't tried Helherron yet, but I'm looking forward to eventually play it some years time (it's quite a bit down on my play list). It seems to be more popular than the Proudfoot games.
That may be because it's freeware, and more recent. It looks like the Proudfoot games are free now, but they were originally shareware.
Post edited July 01, 2017 by Waltorious
avatar
Stig79: Compare that + the amount of skills and stats to Dragon Age Inquisition. You will see how much rpgs have been dumbed down for casuals in the last few years.
avatar
Waltorious: I haven't played the Dragon Age games, but I do enjoy many modern RPGs as well as older RPGs. Yes, even Skyrim. They're very different, and certainly have simpler systems, but they're still a lot of fun.

I can understand your sentiment but I'm not sure it's entirely fair. The Might and Magic games were considered AAA at the time, but the market was much smaller then. I'm guessing total sales were a tiny fraction of what modern games like Skyrim are getting. So back then it was mainstream, but now a game in that style is niche, even if it sells the same.

There's some merit to the complaint that these more mainstream games supplanted the older style of RPGs and no one made them anymore, but recently independent developers have been picking up the slack, and we're even getting veteran developers making "throwback" RPGs (which I haven't gotten around to playing yet). So actually, I think the last few years have been good for complex RPGs, compared to the decade before that.

avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Haven't tried Helherron yet, but I'm looking forward to eventually play it some years time (it's quite a bit down on my play list). It seems to be more popular than the Proudfoot games.
avatar
Waltorious: That may be because it's freeware, and more recent. It looks like the Proudfoot games are free now, but they were originally shareware.
Well something is off when Fifa 17 has way more skills and stats than an AA rpg.

But Skyrim was a fantastic game. Not disputing the quality of new games. Just saying they are becoming too dumbed down.
avatar
Stig79: Well something is off when Fifa 17 has way more skills and stats than an AA rpg.
Ha! Fair enough. I do like a stat-heavy RPG, and there aren't many these days, but it's been good to see e.g. Pillars of Eternity, Divinity Original Sin, and Wasteland 2 doing well, not to mention less famous titles like Underrail and Age of Decadence finding audiences.

Please note that I haven't actually played any of those yet (although I did buy myself copies... so little time to play games these days!) so I'm not sure how well they live up, but my interest in them was the promise of an old-school design with more stats and skills.

My hope is that we can have both complex games and simpler games coexisting. I think the big-budget games will continue to be simpler, because they have to sell so many copies to be profitable, but the examples above suggest that smaller audiences can support more complex games too.

Also, we have GOG to supply all those classic games, many of which I missed the first time around, so I at least have plenty to play!
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Haven't tried Helherron yet, but I'm looking forward to eventually play it some years time (it's quite a bit down on my play list).
It seems to be more popular than the Proudfoot games.
I'm working this weekend and bored during downtime so I started googling a lot about Nahlakh, Natuk and Helherron. I was surprised to discover that Helherron is being actively updated again! The last update was a couple of months ago, and there's a thread at RPGCodex where the developer is discussing another update planned for July.

Apparently this fixes some annoying outstanding bugs and makes it run well on modern Windows systems, and adds a few features and tweaks. It may be quite a bit different than the last time I tried it, which was probably around 2008 or so.

So if there are any Nahlakih and Natuk fans looking for a similar game, it might be worth a look:

http://helherron.co.nf/


EDIT: The developer posted a roadmap of planned updates to the game here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/helherron/comments/66w8no/roadmap/
Post edited July 02, 2017 by Waltorious