Giantevilhead

The spirit beacon bug might actually be useful since the monsters don't respawn by themselves so there's a limited amount of experience in the game, not to mention a limited amount of items/gold. I finished the game, did all the quests I could find except for two, abused the respawn bug to kill a lot of respawned monsters (including three or four bosses), and I had the experience bonus NPC with me for like half the game, but I still only ended up at level 38. I don't think it's actually possible to get the level 40 achievement before DLC's get released without cheating.

I believe there are two bugs at work. One is that monsters sometimes get respawned when you use fast travel, especially with the spirit beacon spell. The other bug is that if you kill a respawned boss creature and then spirit beacon away, the boss creature will respawn and aggro you as soon as you get into the world map. This happened to me once where the minotaur boss near Karthal respawned and I fixed it by going back to the minotaur boss and killing it again. So find the boss monster you fought on the world map before you used spirit beacon. If it has respawned then kill it and that should fix the bug.

They should do a Community game or at least a: game

I'm certainly willing to cut the developer a lot of slack, especially for all the pointless lore stuff they had to shove in and even for most of the bugs. I'll lay the blame at Ubisoft's feet for that. And I do enjoy the game but too often, it's like I'm watching the remake of a movie, albeit a (mostly) competent one. Whereas with the previous games, every new game felt like a sequel, at least up until 9. Also, I should point out that this was an early access game. People actually brought up the issues I mentioned and they made a lot of good suggestions on how to improve the game during the early access period, which lasted several months. However, it seems that the developer did not listen to a lot of the feedback.

Well, the devs specifically targeted World of Xeen (M&M 4&5) as the games to pattern this after, so it's no wonder that stuff in M&M 6 and onward wasn't in this game. I agree there is plenty of room for improvement, but I think that for a first effort in this series and this type of game for a relatively unknown developer, they did a pretty good job. Which makes me all the more eager to see what they could do with the series now that they have some experience under their belt. But that doesn't make any sense since the later M&M games improved upon a lot of the gameplay and features that were in the older games. For example, they added a lot of simple improvements like more map markers and extra information in your journals like the locations of trainers. In fact, this game has features that weren't added until M&M6, 7,and 8 but they're incomplete. For example, the skill mastery system was introduced in Might and Magic 6, and in that game, some spells gained more abilities based on how high the spell school's mastery was, but this game does not have that. Similarly, hirelings were introduced in M&M6 and in that game, quest related hirelings do not take up your regular hireling slots, but quest hirelings take up your regular hireling slots in this game. Also, this game is missing features that were in older M&M games too. For example, with the Lloyd's beacon spell, which was introduced in Might and Magic 2, every character can have their own beacon so you can set up a make shift waypoint fast travel system where you can have one character set a beacon in town and one character set a beacon near a dungeon to easily travel between the two places. In this game, your entire party can only have one beacon, which only makes it useful as a simple town portal spell.

Yeah, the mix of 3D models and sprites did not work well for those games.

The game was fun but it had lots of problems. I like the classes. The combat is good. I like all the monsters, even though they were just copied from Heroes 5 and 6, and Dark Messiah since the old M&M games did that too. There's a lot of freedom to wander around and do whatever you want once you get past the first act. However, they went a bit too far with the "old school" thing. There are a ton of features that Might and Magic 6, 7, and 8 had that this game doesn't. Heck, it's missing a few features that Might and Magic 2 had. There's no chest or stash to store your stuff. Spells don't get additional abilities on higher levels like in M&M 6, 7, 8. There are fewer skills than in M&M 6, 7, and 8. The loot isn't as good as in M&M 6, 7, and 8. In fact, even though I enjoyed the game, playing it made me want to play Might and Magic 7 and 8 again.

So Ser Jorah Mormont finally came to his senses and realized that he wasn't a knight anymore. Good for him.

He has a thousand monkeys on typewriters. You know, interns.

I think it's more of a matter of looking at behaviors as continuum between extremes and the way they interact/conflict with each other. For example, having passion and ambition can be good since you're striving to achieve more and accomplish your goals. However, if you're too ambitious, you may ignore other concerns like reason or mercy and end up hurting others to achieve your goals. Similarly, not being too ambitious can be good since it can be easier to look at things more objectively and not let your passion cloud your judgment. However, if you have no ambition at all, then you're just sitting around not doing anything with your life or you're letting other people make decisions for you.

I don't see the point. Why would you keep a legendary sword that is just the same as a normal mundane sword without any enchantments? Especially when a regular +2 sword is much better in battle. I'll take the +2 item over a mundane legendary item without enchantments any day. Because possession of the weapon gives the wielder political power and the ability to sway the populous and boost morale.

I think it would be cool if there were legendary weapons that were just regular weapons without any kind of enchantment but have symbolic power that means a lot to a certain culture/civilization.

Alternatively, For he who fights and runs away May live to fight another day; But he who is in battle slain Can never rise and fight again (without a diamond worth 5,000 gold and a 9th level Cleric).

That's really just a matter of not blocking off areas based on your character level. Most older RPG's are like Baldur's Gate, Might and Magic, Wizardry, etc., are like that. They don't stop you from going into an area filled with level 20 monsters if you're only level 4. However, if you're clever, you can navigate some of those areas and defeat much more powerful enemies or steal their loot. For example, in the Might and Magic games, if you had the invisibility spell, you can try to sneak into very high level dungeons and steal some of the loot.

When you die in certain situations or against certain enemies, boss types mainly, there should be a dialogue option where you give a final word or a curse against your enemy.

I don't see what is wrong in a high fantasy to have bikini plate mail wearers. You see everyone already is supernaturally strong. Why would a sexy strong free woman NOT wear one When she knows she can best orcs bands in combat and put anyone down that talks smack. It's subjective I suppose but if you want my opinion on it, it's because it looks incredibly silly. It isn't even really subjective. Plate mail exists to protect the body from incoming attacks. Leaving large open holes in plate mail so you can show off some skin is incredibly stupid, even in high fantasy. You might as well not even bother wearing armor at all. Well there's always the "magic" argument. Which has it's problems too. This argument requires a couple things. A) A creator who feels it vitally important that his suit of magic armor for women affords both complete protection for the wearer and the ability to show off her **** on the battlefield. Not saying the will isn't there, of course; just because a male wizard has a high intelligence score doesn't necessarily mean he's always thinking with his brain. But in practical terms, such an enchantment seems more like something out of a bad parody of high fantasy than anything else. And of course a female wizard might make such a thing, as well. But, setting aside the possibility she's a lesbian, that seems less likely. B) A female wearer who does not object to marching onto a battlefield looking like a stripper. Not saying such wouldn't exist somewhere, but I would suspect your average female warrior in a quasi-medieval world would have a hard enough time being taken seriously without taking such an approach. No, I'm pretty sure bikini plate mail is a primarily male fantasy. Really, is there any such explanation that would not be a paper thin excuse to keep the female characters barely clothed? I can't think of one. Certainly 'A Wizard Did It' wouldn't help much. The problem is that the logic is not universally applied. For example, most male characters who have super strength still have huge muscles even though their strength comes from a supernatural source rather than their muscles. However, most female characters who have super strength are just kind of toned and almost never have big muscles. If you apply the same logic to both sides, either both supernaturally strong men and women should have big muscles or they should look like regular people. Even without magic, male fighters who wear nothing but a loin clothe like Conan, look like they're really tough and strong. On the other hand, female fighters who wear chain bikinis rarely even look like athletes. So chain bikinis wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem if you actually made the female characters who wear them have similar physiques to male characters who wear very little clothing. And heels never make sense, no one who needs to walk more than half a mile should wear them.

A cipher diplomat/mediator who subtly manipulates people's memories so they begin to forget why they hate each other, ensuring that unpredictable and rash emotional responses do not interfere with negotiations.

The way that I often deal with why long lived species aren't able to master every skill is that it's related to how their memory works. The more experience someone acquires, the more difficult it is for them to keep everything straight. As a result, they have to spend a lot during their youth learning how to organize their memories so they don't constantly get distracted by nostalgia or driven insane by regrets, obsession, guilt, etc. And because of how their memory works, they tend to be very selective about what skills they learn since they don't want to "clutter" their minds. Also, I make it so that many long lived races have to go through long periods of meditation/hibernation in order to rejuvenate/reorient their minds where they can cleanse away unwanted/unresolved memories/feelings and relive desirable memories so that they don't get distracted/burdened by those memories when they're trying to live their lives. In fact, that's my explanation for why vampires need to sleep for decades, or centuries at a time.

Our language retains vestiges from times when we understood less about the world. For a long time, people did believe that fire was a living thing or had some kind of agency behind it. Much of our morality is shaped by our ignorance. We place responsibility or blame on the last chain on a causal link that we think we can explain. For example, we blame a person for committing a crime and assume that they chose to commit that crime knowingly. However, we rarely delve deeper and ask why that person is the way he or she is or the deeper reasons behind their choice. We assume agency originated only within that person.

And people are not just judged by what happened but what might have happened. In real life, if you made the choice to hurt to kill someone for the greater good, people are not just going to accept that there was no other way. People will ask you and you will ask yourself if there was another way. In real life, both options are "what" options because you can never be certain of the outcome of any event. In either scenarios, you cannot be absolutely sure that the trolley will kill those five people if you don't sacrifice the one person. Even in the scenario where you can switch the track, you can't know that those five people won't get out of the way before the trolley hits them. You might be able to stop the trolley, you might be able to signal to those five people to get out of the way, other people might see the trolley and get those five people out of the way, etc. So the pertinent question is not just, "would you kill one person to save many" but "can you live with yourself if you made decision" and "what if you were wrong?" Logically, you might be able to tell yourself that it was the only way but you'll still ask yourself all the "what if" questions about what you or others might have done to prevent this tragedy. And even if you can be absolutely certain that there were no other ways, can you live with the fact that someone died as a direct result of your actions? If that person's family blames you and holds you responsible for that person's death, can you accept it and deal with it? And what if right after you switched the track, those 5 people saw the trolley and managed to get out of the way and you killed that one person for nothing? Can you live with yourself then? What would people think of you? Should you be punished for your actions? This is the problem with these hypothetical scenarios. It makes it all too easy to ignore all the complexities of real life. It sets you on a track to ignore or overlook other potential solutions. If you go into a situation with the starting assumption that someone must die so that others may live then you won't be looking for solutions where no one dies. In real life, the desired goal would be to prevent such no win scenarios from happening in the first place.

The problem with all the philosophizing about morality is that people set up imaginary scenarios that may not be applicable in real life. For example, in the trolley example, the scenario is set up in such a way that you know for a fact that you can sacrifice one life to save 5. However, in real life, you cannot know that for sure. That's one of the reasons why people won't sacrifice the fat man to save 5 people even though they would switch the trolley's track so that it runs over one person instead of 5. It's much easier for people to accept the idea that flipping the switch will change the trolley's track and save those 5 because we can easily envision it in real life. However, it is more difficult for people to imagine that the fat man can stop the trolley in real life. No matter how much you are assured that will happen, there is that doubt that the fat man won't stop the train and you'll just be murdering him for nothing.

Every Might and Magic game after 3 had this and it wasn't just for health. The portrait changed based on various conditions like insanity, paralysis, weakness, poisoned, etc. The new Might and Magic game by Ubisoft will also have this feature.

Let your disappointment in the lack of animation be soothed by the knowledge that your stronghold will be built upon the bleached bones of your enemies by tortured souls bound to your will through the vile rituals of unspeakable evil.

Everyone needs a quiet corner in which to sip steaming chamomille tea and read about new and improved torture and dungeoneering techniques. Nonsense. Nothing sparks the imagination more than seeing your former foes battered and broken before you as they sing praises to glorify your greatness as recompense for their folly of opposing your will.

Why would you want a house when the halls of your keep will echo with the anguished cries of your enemies as your dungeon master weave symphonies from their screams?