If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Review - Might and Magic X: Legacy

7thCircle7thCircle Proofer of the RealmRPGamer Staff
edited March 2014 in Latest Updates
There are many things that can go wrong when rebooting a series that crashed well over a decade ago. There are also unexpected, new things that can go wrong when Uplay it. See how the pros and cons work out in this review.

Review
The lesson here is that dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions.

Comments

  • Rya_ReisenderRya_Reisender Solipsist Snowflake Full Members
    edited March 2014
    For me the grid-based movement is actually the biggest pro of the game next to the really good strategical turn-based battles.
  • ArticianArtician Onion Kid Full Members
    edited March 2014
    Good review. I had much more fun with the game after I turned the graphics all the way down.
    And I don't mind the grid-movement either, even though it's painfully obvious the only reason this game exists at all is due to the success of Grimrock.
  • TintagliaTintaglia Member Full Members
    edited March 2014
    I had no technical issues and I played the game on highest settings on a 5-year-old PC. The latest patch probably fixed most problems.

    That's really the issue with releasing games too early; even if you can patch later, the review scores stay the same.
  • 7thCircle7thCircle Proofer of the Realm RPGamer Staff
    edited March 2014
    Tintaglia wrote: »
    I had no technical issues and I played the game on highest settings on a 5-year-old PC. The latest patch probably fixed most problems.

    That's really the issue with releasing games too early; even if you can patch later, the review scores stay the same.

    There was one major patch released between when I played it and when I wrote the review. I didn't want to be unfair, so I read the patch notes to decide if I should delve back into the game some before reviewing it. According to Ubisoft, the patch didn't address the technical issues. It just added more options for turning down graphics settings related to performance problems.

    It's always been true for PC games that release reviews can quickly become out of date if a game is aggressively patched. I think if someone is on the fence and reads reviews that complain about patchable drawbacks, they can easily check out forums or official patch notes to see if those drawbacks have been addressed in the meantime. That's what I do. In this case, the MMX:L probably would have had a higher score from me if it ran smoothly.
    The lesson here is that dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions.
  • TintagliaTintaglia Member Full Members
    edited March 2014
    7thCircle wrote: »
    It's always been true for PC games that release reviews can quickly become out of date if a game is aggressively patched. I think if someone is on the fence and reads reviews that complain about patchable drawbacks, they can easily check out forums or official patch notes to see if those drawbacks have been addressed in the meantime. That's what I do. In this case, the MMX:L probably would have had a higher score from me if it ran smoothly.

    That's certainly fair enough, one can't base a review on assumptions that technical glitches will be fixed. It's just too bad that most people will only care about the scores when trying to figure out which game they should buy. It's not a problem with only PC games either; Elminage: Original got terrible score mostly because the translation was abysmal. It was later fixed with a patch and became a much better gridder than the metacritic scores would make you believe.

    BTW, with PC game reviews it is customary to let the readers know the test machine specs when complaining about performance issues. It does little to help readers to know your computer couldn't run a game properly if they don't know how it compares to their own hardware.
  • smacdsmacd Full Members
    edited April 2018
    deleted.
  • Phillip WillisPhillip Willis Certified Polygameist RPGamer Staff
    edited March 2014
    I think specs are meaning a little less these days. Don't get me wrong...if you don't have a beefy rig, you are going to have issues running Bioshock Infinite on ultra settings. But running a turn based RPG? Even a pretty one...where 60 FPS really isn't a requirement...well, that should not require a nvidia titanium card with 16 gigs of RAM. :P

    I was running a Windows XP machine (may it rest in peace) with a few gigs of RAM and a 6 year old graphics card, and I was able to run everything at medium or better at my monitor's native resolution. We're just not advancing as fast as we used to.
    Co-Host on RPGBacktrack. Follow me on Twitter and sub to my blog if you would like!
  • OcelotOcelot is not declawed Full Members
    edited March 2014
    jcservant wrote: »
    I think specs are meaning a little less these days. Don't get me wrong...if you don't have a beefy rig, you are going to have issues running Bioshock Infinite on ultra settings. But running a turn based RPG? Even a pretty one...where 60 FPS really isn't a requirement...well, that should not require a nvidia titanium card with 16 gigs of RAM. :P

    I was running a Windows XP machine (may it rest in peace) with a few gigs of RAM and a 6 year old graphics card, and I was able to run everything at medium or better at my monitor's native resolution. We're just not advancing as fast as we used to.

    It's my understanding that the big issue with this game is whether your OS is 32 or 64-bit. My sister was almost unable to play on XP 32-bit, but when she finally tracked down a 64-bit disc she was finally able to enjoy the game. I don't know if they've started supporting 32-bit OSs yet, as of when she was communicating with tech support they were just shrugging and saying that 32 bit isn't supported.

    Editorial note: You folks who are still hanging on to XP should really try Win 7. It's a solid OS with excellent gaming support, and I imagine it should last for a good number of years until Microsoft decides to be PC user-friendly again.
    Becky Cunningham, Happy Snappy RPGamer Alum
    Twitter: BeckyCFreelance
  • TintagliaTintaglia Member Full Members
    edited March 2014
    smacd wrote: »
    As for the specs, I definitely agree that it would help to post specs. Though on the other hand if there are performance issues and the machine at least meets the minimum specs, I think its completely valid to complain.

    It certainly is a valid complaint, but it's still not the information a reader needs from the review. The reader doesn't need to know if the game runs well on the reviewer's PC, they need to know if their own PC can run it. The review says nothing about the computer it was played on and how it compares to the system requirements, so saying there were perf issues is not useful to the reader. I suggest taking this to account in future PC reviews.

    Ocelot wrote: »
    It's my understanding that the big issue with this game is whether your OS is 32 or 64-bit. My sister was almost unable to play on XP 32-bit, but when she finally tracked down a 64-bit disc she was finally able to enjoy the game. I don't know if they've started supporting 32-bit OSs yet, as of when she was communicating with tech support they were just shrugging and saying that 32 bit isn't supported.

    This would explain why I'm not having any trouble on my rig.
  • OcelotOcelot is not declawed Full Members
    edited March 2014
    To be fair, if the game attempts to render everything anew with every step as 7th mentioned, that's poor optimization no matter how you look at it. Good for you if your rig is strong enough to compensate, but it's a valid general complaint against the game.
    Becky Cunningham, Happy Snappy RPGamer Alum
    Twitter: BeckyCFreelance
  • Phillip WillisPhillip Willis Certified Polygameist RPGamer Staff
    edited March 2014
    Ocelot wrote: »
    It's my understanding that the big issue with this game is whether your OS is 32 or 64-bit. My sister was almost unable to play on XP 32-bit, but when she finally tracked down a 64-bit disc she was finally able to enjoy the game. I don't know if they've started supporting 32-bit OSs yet, as of when she was communicating with tech support they were just shrugging and saying that 32 bit isn't supported.

    Oh wow...very good to know. Thank you so much!
    Editorial note: You folks who are still hanging on to XP should really try Win 7. It's a solid OS with excellent gaming support, and I imagine it should last for a good number of years until Microsoft decides to be PC user-friendly again.

    I'll second this emotion. I recently upgraded myself when my XP computer died (as I mentioned above). I share concern with those worried about compatibility, especially for retrogaming. The good news is that 75% of the retro PC games I owned are now available on Steam or GoG (Which I would buy when on sale). Looking them over, my vast GoG library is all pretty much Win 7-8 compliant now. Many of my steam games have been patched or have work arounds, though not as much as the GoG ones.

    For those few that are not (and the ones I still have on disc), I paid a little extra and got Win 7 Professional, which has a virtual XP dealie. I'm hoping that it works where other things fail.

    And if I have a few that just don't work in the long run, it won't be the end of the world. The trade off is that I get to enjoy Direct X 11 (and games like Bioshock Infinite that I could not play in XP). I'm sure I'll keep our podcast listeners apprised on my Windows 7 adventures. :)
    Co-Host on RPGBacktrack. Follow me on Twitter and sub to my blog if you would like!
  • TintagliaTintaglia Member Full Members
    edited March 2014
    Ocelot wrote: »
    To be fair, if the game attempts to render everything anew with every step as 7th mentioned, that's poor optimization no matter how you look at it. Good for you if your rig is strong enough to compensate, but it's a valid general complaint against the game.

    Look. I'm not telling you that you shouldn't complain about performance issues. I'm telling you that this information is useless to the reader if they don't know what kind of hardware/OS those performance issues were experienced with. This is relevant information and it is a basic thing to mention in PC game reviews. I'm not telling you this to be nasty towards your reviewer or contest your scores, I'm trying to help you improve your PC game reviews. There's no need to get defensive about it.
  • OcelotOcelot is not declawed Full Members
    edited March 2014
    I wasn't trying to be defensive, I'm not even in reviews here and the decision whether to post specs or not isn't my department. :) I was simply making the argument that the information is in fact useful even absent specs. Poor optimization is poor optimization.
    Becky Cunningham, Happy Snappy RPGamer Alum
    Twitter: BeckyCFreelance
  • Rya_ReisenderRya_Reisender Solipsist Snowflake Full Members
    edited March 2014
    Just the game runs stable on a 64-bit machine. It only has a few ingame bugs, but many of them have been fixed with the last two patches.
    32-bit owners could only play Act 1 properly on release, the patch done a bit later made Act 2 playable for 32-bit systems. Not sure if it's fully fixed now with the recent patch.
    Also DLC was recently released that adds a new Act to the game. Deluxe Edition owners get it for free.

    It's okay to complain about the poor optimization, I would do so too, but I agree that the review gives the impression that the game is generally not running really well, while it was running perfectly fine on 64-bit system from the beginning. It IS the developer's fault that they didn't say 64-bit OS in the recommended system requirements I guess.
  • Confessor RahlConfessor Rahl Member Full Members
    edited March 2014
    I put incomprehensible amounts of time into IV-VIII. Such an awesome series, I will certainly have to pick this one up ASAP.
    "Back when FF9 was coming out. People were rejoicing because it was actually a fantasy game and not a sci-fi game like 7 and 8. It's hilarious in modern context, with everyone wanking themselves to dehydration at the thought of a FF7 remake."
Sign In or Register to comment.