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

×
Hello. I've recently found something interesting out.

In an old magazine for Computer Gaming World, someone by the name of Scorpia gave Might and Magic II: Gates to Another World a harsh review.

The response resulted in JVC getting back at the gaming journalist by having her as an enemy in Might and Magic III: Isle's of Terra.

I love this series so much by the way, but I'm really interested in seeing Scorpia's review to Gates to Another World and if anyone can help me find it, I would appreciate it!
http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_111.pdf

This gives a summary as well as the issue that the original review is in.
avatar
macAilpin: http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_111.pdf

This gives a summary as well as the issue that the original review is in.
The MM reviews are terrible, they spoil the endings of the games! I don't understand why would someone spoil the endings of games they're reviewing? Granted, I know most of them, but I'm surprised it's a regular thing to list in many of her reviews whether a game ends with a boss fight or not ("non-violently"). And in MM she outright says what happens.

Given that she thinks Darklands actually has an ending (it does not) and she wouldn't recommend Realms of Arkania 3 to anyone (okay, it was really hard as a kid but fun and I never got into the second town), I would take her reviews with a grain of salt. She does have a point in some of them though, I can see why people would think Darklands might get static after some time. Some really like the sandbox-y gameplay though.

To those who read the reviews at the time, do you think it was an overreaction on JVC's part or was the review really harsh for what the game was?
Post edited September 21, 2018 by Green_Hilltop
avatar
Green_Hilltop: To those who read the reviews at the time, do you think it was an overreaction on JVC's part or was the review really harsh for what the game was?
Well, her criticism in the end of article was rather non-constructive, she basically criticized the entire CRPG genre. And JVC made her very famous even if it is a bad kind of fame :P I think it was rather a joke from his side than something else.

But she also had a point in what concerned combat in MM2 but she didn't say why (perhaps because it wasn't a t hing back in the time yet). Encounters were ridiculous because of level scaling. As you level up you encounter increasingly more and more enemies (keep in mind that you could save only in town, so it was a big problem). Might and Magic III was a huge improvement in what concerns combat (no level scaling and no battles with 100+ monsters at the same time), but too bad that they removed combat log for MM III-V.
avatar
macAilpin: http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_111.pdf

This gives a summary as well as the issue that the original review is in.
avatar
Green_Hilltop: The MM reviews are terrible, they spoil the endings of the games! I don't understand why would someone spoil the endings of games they're reviewing? Granted, I know most of them, but I'm surprised it's a regular thing to list in many of her reviews whether a game ends with a boss fight or not ("non-violently"). And in MM she outright says what happens.
The reviewer did like to give away endings. Notice that also. She didn't like poorly designed games or monster slogs. Her reviews didn't coddle, which I like. But you are right--- an RPG is like a book and giving away the end is a crime.

But some of the Magazine's top games lists could stand today.
Post edited September 21, 2018 by macAilpin
avatar
Sarisio: But she also had a point in what concerned combat in MM2 but she didn't say why (perhaps because it wasn't a t hing back in the time yet). Encounters were ridiculous because of level scaling. As you level up you encounter increasingly more and more enemies (keep in mind that you could save only in town, so it was a big problem). Might and Magic III was a huge improvement in what concerns combat (no level scaling and no battles with 100+ monsters at the same time), but too bad that they removed combat log for MM III-V.
Huge numbers of enemies in MM2 was not really a problem if playing normally, and I only had a few fights with 100+ enemies last time I played. But if you grinded the Cuisinarts for dozens of levels it became apparent.
So increasing numbers of enemies was actually a rather effective anti-grind measure.

MM3 was a huge decline IMO, and so simple and easy that it might as well have been real time.
avatar
Sarisio: But she also had a point in what concerned combat in MM2 but she didn't say why (perhaps because it wasn't a t hing back in the time yet). Encounters were ridiculous because of level scaling. As you level up you encounter increasingly more and more enemies (keep in mind that you could save only in town, so it was a big problem). Might and Magic III was a huge improvement in what concerns combat (no level scaling and no battles with 100+ monsters at the same time), but too bad that they removed combat log for MM III-V.
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: Huge numbers of enemies in MM2 was not really a problem if playing normally, and I only had a few fights with 100+ enemies last time I played. But if you grinded the Cuisinarts for dozens of levels it became apparent.
So increasing numbers of enemies was actually a rather effective anti-grind measure.

MM3 was a huge decline IMO, and so simple and easy that it might as well have been real time.
That "anti-grind" (I dislike the term "grind", hence the quotes) is, IMO, bad game design. If you want to discourage heavy powerleveling, there are better ways, like making it impractical past a certain point, or making it so that you can't advance past a certain point until later in the game (or when you fight stronger enemies). Making the game more tedious for those who power level is not a good solution; instead of punishing powerleveling, make it give less of a reward. (A player should not have a harder time completing the game at a higher level than at a lower level; that's just bad game design.)

There's also the question of whether you want to discourage powerleveling in the first place. Sometimes, powerleveling is fun. (I note that, for example, the Disgaea series capitalizes on this; you can reach level 9999 in those games, and if that isn't enough (and it won't be enough if you want to defeat Baal, who is originally "only" level 4000), there are other ways of increasing your stats, like using the Item World to upgrade your items.)
avatar
dtgreene: Making the game more tedious for those who power level is not a good solution; instead of punishing powerleveling, make it give less of a reward.
I found the battles getting tedious around the time my party's levels were about mid-late teens, so it's just not affecting only players that powerlevel / grind.

I agree with Scorpia's review, the battles lasted too long and became a chore. I think MM1 handled the level scaling much better.