Pursuant to my comment over here, and following Zubon’s idea, I wanted to take a nostalgic look at Master of Magic, and with any luck, discern some game design principles that might be useful for designers today.
Ah, the MicroProse days. Master of Orion was one of the first games I spent a lot of time in. (The other being Star Control 2, another brilliant game that I’ll write about another time.) Later, XCom: Terror from the Deep was fantastic (difficult and frustrating at times, but the core concept and gameplay were excellent).
At its heart, Master of Magic is a 4X game, an expansive strategy game based on the 4 “X”s: — eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate. It borrows themes from Magic: The Gathering and gameplay mechanics from Master of Orion, throwing in a fair bit of Civilization and shades of D&D. In other words, it uses time-honored gameplay and fantasy world elements. There were no earth shatteringly new concepts in MOM, but the game pulled elements together into a very enjoyable whole.
This “review” covers elements of the game, and how they are relevant today. First, the 4X concept:
eXplore
MOM and the MOO games have random geography. Each game plays differently based on how the world is formed at the game’s start. There are a few factors to tweak to push the replay value even beyond the randomizer’s ability to provide new challenges, such as more powerful mana nodes (magical power sources) with concurrently more powerful guardians.
- This sort of randomized replay is great for players who want to test out different ideas. There’s a huge amount of replay in this game. Much of it is based on the choices that you make to start with; your magical focus and your race. There are a huge number of possible combinations. It must be said that the balance isn’t perfect, so some “builds” will be stronger than others, but even “weaker” choices will provide for unique challenges.
MOM has a dual world design, similar to the shadow world of The Legend of Zelda, a Link to the Past. There are towers that facilitate travel between the dark and light planes, but there are no guarantees of similar geographical features otherwise. Eventually, players may learn spells that allow their units to jump between planes outside of the towers (which are usually guarded by beasties). The dark plane is populated by meaner enemies and richer rewards.
- The dark/light duality is one that has been explored in many games in many ways. Here, it’s a way to provide a second front to fight on, as wizards typically start out in the light world. The choke points of the towers can provide for tactical blocking… at least until a wizard learns to jump planes without them. The increased power of the dark plane makes for a more interesting end game, as powers and costs escalate. It’s a nice pacing mechanism, and it provides for a second surge of exploration later in the game. Being the first wizard to start exploring and exploiting the dark plane is a great strategic edge.
Players start in a town of a race of their choice, controlling a wizard with chosen magical specialities, including different schools of magic and a variety of “talents” that modify different aspects of the game, like starting out on the dark plane, or being more charismatic, and thereby more attractive to heroes. Units must be sent out into the wild world to peel back the shroud of the unknown, possibly meeting heroes who can command your armies, neighboring wizard towns, neutral towns, or monsters.
- The initial choice of wizard spell school, talents and race make a big difference in the game. Again, the balance isn’t perfect, and there are some outstanding abilities as well as some real clunkers, but it’s fun trying out the different options, finding synergy between the mortal armies, magical abilities and talent modifiers. Giving players options is almost always a good thing, and in a game like this, it’s a huge part of the depth of the game. It’s designed to be played repeatedly, where a single world conquest may take a few hours or many days. Replay is vital in a game like this, and MOM has deep replay potential.
eXpand
Pushing the edges of the unknown is both an external and internal process. Even your capital city will eventually run out of room, so you must expand. As you explore the world, you can and should send out settlers to build new towns. Town locations are important for the resources they offer to your empire, and a settlement near a river’s mouth will offer different strategic choices than a mountain village.
- Expanding the mortal empire via settlers provides a nice “empire management” layer to the game. Long term success depends on planning ahead, and exploration and expansion are key to positioning yourself to take advantage of the late game. This is the stuff that strategy geeks love, since players are rewarded for taking the time to really think about their plans, and for managing to execute them well.
You should also research the magics of your chosen discipline, developing greater knowledge of spells and greater ability to use them. Mana nodes found in the world can be claimed to channel energy into your efforts. It is even possible to win the game through research and the casting of the ultimate spell of mastery.
- Alternate win conditions are welcome in games that offer as many other options as this one does. It would have been great to offer a third win condition like MOO2 (a political conquest in addition to the military or mastery track), but the fact that you can fight a defensive war and win from your own tower has a certain appeal to it. It definitely lends itself to different play strategies, which is a good thing. That said, more often than not, whenever I’ve played and actually cast the spell of mastery, I could have had a military win as well. The buildup to make the spell of mastery possible will often coincide with the military might to wipe the planes of your enemies. I’d have liked a bit more differentiation between the paths.
- Magical research over time is a huge component of the game. Spells your wizard learns can affect combat, empire resources, creature summoning, hero abilities, artifact generation and more. Research is often key in games like this, and MOM carries on the fine tradition.
eXploit
A budding empire needs resources. Towns are the primary source of the fuel for your conquest. Your most important infantry will come from the towns that you control, and the industry towns provide will sustain your armies as well as your magical efforts. The technology tree of town buildings provides for morale, magical research, military research and training, tax and trade income, defense and other tactical edges in the inevitable conflicts with neighbors. Smart city planning, including town location, will be key in building a self-sufficient empire.
- The midgame can sometimes get bogged down in the minutae of micromanaging an empire, for better or worse. It really does pay off to figure out ahead of time what your long term plans are. This sort of gaming is far removed from the twitch offerings of the FPS genre, and as MOM is turn-based, it’s even a step removed from the management of a typical RTS game. These 4X games are more leisurely affairs, where careful analysis and thinking are essential to succeed. It’s a different experience than the hyperkinetic games of the “mainstream”, and it’s all the richer for those who spend time seeking to understand the intricacies of the game.
eXterminate
Ah, combat. Every would-be conquerer will need to understand the art of war, even if it’s only as a means to defend yourself. Heroes shine in combat, as they are typically your strongest units, and can often confer benefits to other units in combat. They can also be equipped with magical artifacts (your wizard can create these, or they can be found or bought in the world) which push their abilities even further. Most will ask for an annual salary, but a few independently wealthy heroes will contribute to your war chest every year.
- Heroes aren’t vital to completing the game, but they do provide some great benefits. They will often make the difference in a tight fight, and often a team of heroes can move quicker than most other units, making for some great strategic options. Their abilities give greater depth to combat and strategic maneuvering than could be achieved with mere infantry.
Fantastic creatures also roam the lands. Everything from the undead zombies and skeletons to great dragons, hydras and djinns wander the world, and provide valuable experience (and sometimes useful loot or even magical tomes) for your armies when conquered. This is key, since your heroes have levels of ability, and experience can mean the difference between a dead hero and a legendary adventurer. Success hinges on building not only the resources of an empire, but also on building up the ability of your army. Some of these fantastic creatures can join your armies as a result of magic, but most will be challenges for your military units.
Speaking of military units, the bulk of your armies will be the stalwart souls you recruit from your loyal population. Controlling a race of Beastmen will provide different options from a Draconian warlord. Even mere humans can field some of the most dangerous units in mounted cavalry they call Paladins. Choosing magic spells and military units with complimentary strengths is one key to a successful campaign.
- This is perhaps where the game’s imbalances are most pronounced. Some races are flat out inferior in combat. Paladins slaughter pretty much any other unit, especially on the attack. They are expensive, but very powerful. It’s fun sometimes, but I’ll admit that it would have been nice to have more contenders to make things more interesting.
Combat itself is a tactical affair, played on an isometric grid. Opposing armies face each other, and must move across the field (or fly or teleport) and engage in ranged or melee combat. Wizards and some hero units can cast spells to affect combat, ranging from enchantments that buff your own units, hexes to punish opposing units, direct damage spells, or a host of status altering options.
- This is another place where the game could have used more polish. As it is, the game is still a great deal of fun, but things like flanking bonuses and terrain elevation and line of sight would have been great additions. The tactical combat is nice, but a relatively bare bones system compared to what it could be.
These 4X games are built for the thinking gamer, offering a wealth of strategic and tactical options. They are generally slow paced, and typically customizable. There is a great deal of play time packed into these games, and huge value for their cost. The classics of the genre, the “Master of” games, vigorously show that game play is still king in some genres. They are still very playable today, over a decade later, and provide much the same satisfaction as they did when they were new. Such lasting appeal is something that most designers aspire to. MOM is a classic game for good reason; it’s a lot of fun to play, and play, and play.
It’s even such a key to the genre that there are various projects to revitalize it for this newer generation of gamers. Stardock was angling to make a sequel, and while their desire in that seems to be frustrated, it is heartening that they have taken the design of MOM to heart.
Speaking of Stardock, for a modern 4X game, there really isn’t much (yet) to match the game play of MOM. There is, however, Sins of a Solar Empire, which I’ve heard much good about. One of these days, I’ll have to try it out. It would be interesting to see how things have evolved since MOO and MOO2. (I’m ignoring MOO3… that game doesn’t really belong to the Orion family, despite the name and license.)
There have been games in the MOM vein, like the Heroes of Might and Magic series, the Sierra Lords of Magic, or Warlords, but while those games have some charm of their own, they just don’t quite measure up to the playability of MOM, even with its warts. In a genre where game play reigns, Master of Magic is still in a class of its own.
For starters – wow, mega post. =O
I can only offer blank stares when people talk about games older than the N64 / PSX generation (unless they’re really famous or often discussed).
I only got into games at the beginning of the Xbox / GCN / PS2 / DC generation, though of course it was love at first sight.
I have trouble when someone tells me the wonders and magic of their favourite game from X generation or I read Top 100 Games of All Time lists. I go out and find the game, play it, and wonder what the fuss is about.
Without the benefits of hindsight or nostalgia, when I try to enjoy Deus Ex 1 or Ocarina of Time, I end up switching it off after 20 minutes and returning to my new games wondering how such a basic, clunky experience can be better than the updated, streamlined and improved sequels. Eg: I love Deus Ex 2, got it when it came out and still love replaying it. Deus Ex 1 I never played until after Deus Ex 2, and I can’t get immersed or get past how empty all the environments are, or how much text and stats I need to try and care about.
Point of the story: I like reading about someone’s experience playing an old game and why they loved it so much, but I can never relate to it and must avoid playing it lest I feel the need to tarnish their memories by ripping off their nostalgia glasses and sticking it next to its current-gen sequel / clone X.
It is very interesting though how concepts from older games have influenced the direction and growth of that genre though.
Our industry is young, and suffers from a heavy dose of selfcenteredness and shortsightedness. We tend not to learn from the past, and keep making the same dumb design decisions. Stardock wouldn’t have known how to make Sins good if they hadn’t played the earlier games and found out why they were great.
I know, to some degree the nostalgia factor is a detriment. Still, as a game designer, one has to be able to look at why things worked, and build from that, rather than try to reinvent the wheel with every hardware generation. If we don’t understand the old games (even if you don’t enjoy them, others did; learn from that), we won’t be able to move forward. Sure, we’ll have prettier graphics, but the beating heart of the game, the player experience, won’t improve.
Don’t worry about tarnishing others’ memories; only they can choose to do that. Don’t compare old games to their newer iterations. Look at games for what they are, and learn from their successes and failures. That objective viewpoint is worth more as a game designer than years of blind fanboyism. (Which I’m not accusing you of, AJ, but a lot of young scrubs in the field seem to think that a decade of playing Nintendo or xBox games qualifies them to make games. It does not.)
Absolutely, going back to the gameplay fundamentals established back before the added layers of complexity made possible by newer hardware is extremely helpful when laying the groundwork for a new game.
As you say, especially in sequels it is incredibly important to discover what made the series what it is whether it be mechanics, flow, narrative before adding the changes or building upon what was successful before. Just rereading my post I think I got a bit off-topic, haha.
Basically what I was thinking was how new games have different focusses compared to older games. While the brilliance of HL1 for when it was released was incredible, if you sat someone down to play it today after playing, say, Bioshock, could they really still feel the same magic?
That’s why for long-running franchises the aspects that defined the series must be kept for each iteration without trapping it in its timeframe that no longer suits the tastes of todays players. Eg: immersion had become a huge focus in the FPS genre now, overshadowing the focus in the 90s on speed. This is evident in Doom 1 to Doom 3, keeping the essence of the series (scaring the crap out of the player) while updating it with the advances of new mechanics possible due to hardware (eg: incorporating the use of shadows to allow monsters to appear from them). If Doom 3 was just as fast and bright as Doom 1 would it be as scary? No, and therefore would lose an essential aspect of the Doom franchise despite being more similar than the real Doom 3 actually is to Doom 1.
Hope that makes sense. =S
Oh, there’s definitely evolution in gaming. I suspect Sins does some things better than MOO did. Some old ideas were bad at the time, and are downright stupid if they were to be implemented now. That said, some ideas were good then, and should be understood and expanded upon (if not used outright) today.
For another example, the light cycle bit of the Tron game was a lot of fun, and has been replicated repeatedly. It’s pretty much the same core game in the light cycle part of Tron 2.0, but with some added depth. The core gameplay mechanics weren’t jettisoned for a new hexagonal or freeform grid, and there are no light sabers to swing from the side. It’s a nice update to an old game, using elements that made the thing work in the first place.
My main point is that we need to understand why the older games worked in order to improve on them. If our idea of “improvement” is gore, sex and shiny phong shaders with 5 MB textures, we run the risk of missing the point of games in the first place. The game has to be fun, first and foremost. Games can be fun in very prototypical streamlined forms, which is what a lot of retro classics represent.
Another example is the Gamecube PacMan where other players can play the ghosts. It’s fun mostly because the core concept of PacMan is a blast. Putting players in control of the ghosts is a great twist for even more fun, but it could be done with extraordinarily plain graphics and still be fun to play.
Yes, that’s pretty much what my convoluted posts are trying to say – great gameplay mechanics remain timeless, but the layers on top will often need changing as games evolve.
I’m looking forward to more studios experimenting with new ideas or even evolving common genres and old but proven gameplay mechanics as Mirror’s Edge has tried with the FPS genre. Hopefully the popularity of Live Arcade and PSN will allow developers to try low-risk low-budget attempts at new concepts or adding layers to previously successful mechanics without the huge finanial risk titles like Mirror’s Edge and LittleBigPlanet have if they fail.
A nice review/analysis. I have only played a little of MoM, crushed the AI and never really saw all the depth that is in this game, though I am not sure if I feel the need to go back to it. Still I am pretty excited about MoM2/Elemental: War of Magic, despite its uninspired name.
[…] love ‘mechs as much as any other Battletech geek, and I really like 4X strategy gaming (mmm, Master of Orion/Orion 2/Magic, Civilization), but I’m having a hard time seeing how this could work in an MMO setting. I […]
I suggest you should try King’s Bounty, it is basically Heroes of Might and Magic with more roleplaying elements.
Cracks Call was a 25% chance to destroy ANY land unit in MoM, hehe. I also loved Sorcery, to conjure expendable ground troops that packed a punch. 🙂
Sins of a Solar Empire is good, but despite all the candy and some new ideas, it is not nearly as complex as Master of Magic or Master of Orion.
You also mentioned X-Com, there were several re-makes and so on, but they all fell short of the Original. I liked UFO DEFENSE even more so than Terror from the Deep, basically the same underwater.
It is interesting that the old “Master” and “Star Control” titles were richer in regards of complexity and content than many contemporary games of the genre.
And no, no nostalgia involved here on my part, these old games offered more than modern games when it comes to concepts, ideas and features.
King’s Bounty is also only a remake of the original King’s Bounty, the somewhat different predecessor of the Heroes of M&M series.
Aye, Cracks Call was very nice. Sorcery’s summoned units were good, too, since their attacks bypassed armor. They were lousy on defense, but they hit HARD.
XCOM:TFTD was the first one I played in the series, and I went back and found that the original was just as good. I preferred TFTD because I liked the graphics and atmosphere a bit more, but as far as gameplay elements went, they were both great.
It is funny how the Good Old Games offered more gameplay. They really *had* to, since they couldn’t bank on glitzy graphics distracting the ADHD crowd. I miss that.
I do keep meaning to check out King’s Bounty. Thanks for reminding me. I’ve got Mount & Blade high on the list, too, albeit for different reasons. Oh, and I keep meaning to check out Battle for Wesnoth, a free hex-based strategy game. I’ve got retro gaming on the mind, something fierce.
[…] it blend? Master of Magic and Magic the Gathering? More specifically, what would MoM look like if your wizard were more […]
[…] X-COM is a brilliant game from the golden age of MicroProse games. (The era that brought us Master of Magic, MoO and MoO2.) Even stuffy “journalist” types think it’s a great game, better […]
[…] a paragraph of explanation, counting on fellow gamers to understand. A quick referral to “4X gaming” makes a lot of sense to an old school Master of Magic fan, but to someone outside the […]
[…] Old School Review: Master of Magic […]