If I want to give the Might and Magic series a try, which game should I start with?

[Jeivar]

My home didn't have a computer when I was a kid in the late 80's/early 90's, so I never got into many of these older series. I suddenly find myself curious which of these oldies holds up without personal nostalgia being a factor. Are they still playable, with a minimum of frustration?

[Thomas Cardew]

My home didn't have a computer when I was a kid in the late 80's/early 90's, so I never got into many of these older series. I suddenly find myself curious which of these oldies holds up without personal nostalgia being a factor. Are they still playable, with a minimum of frustration?

Heroes of Might and Magic 3 hands down. Ideally the GOG version, maybe using the HD mod but that's not really required. Do not waste money on the Steam HD remake, it is a FAR inferior product. The graphics/mechanics on some of the earlier ones are a little to clunky without nostalgia carrying you through. The hand drawn graphics of 3 still hold up today and it's arguably the pinnacle of the series.

[AdmiralCheez]

Heroes 3 was a solid game! I still play it every once in a while, and it has been consistently installed on my computers since pretty much when I first got it.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Might and Magic (the RPG) or Heroes of Might and Magic (the TBS)?

If you mean Might and Magic, then MM7 is probably your best bet, although 6-8 are all largely the same gameplay-wise and are all at least decent. 6 has a bigger world than 7 but less plot, 8 is a bit short.

Heroes 3 as others have mentioned is a good place to start for the TBS. Heroes 2 I have seen recommended but haven’t beaten myself. Heroes 4 is rather different as far as gameplay goes but the vanilla campaign has some excellent stories in it.

[noob]

Might and Magic (the RPG) or Heroes of Might and Magic (the TBS)?

If you mean Might and Magic, then MM7 is probably your best bet, although 6-8 are all largely the same gameplay-wise and are all at least decent. 6 has a bigger world than 7 but less plot, 8 is a bit short.

Heroes 3 as others have mentioned is a good place to start for the TBS. Heroes 2 I have seen recommended but haven’t beaten myself. Heroes 4 is rather different as far as gameplay goes but the vanilla campaign has some excellent stories in it.

I second this: Heroes 3 and 2 are very good turn per turn strategy games.
If the poster meant might and magic(the rpg) then they could try might and magic 6 which is probably the best one of the series(Cool 3d world and none of the awfulness of the next might and magics which were more and more buggy messes with lowering scenario quality heck might and magic 7 have lower quality graphisms and those who uses 3d models have graphisms that aged even worse)
Older might and magics have tons of cool content too but they are grid based and with much lower quality graphisms (and less varied awesome stuff to do for the adventurers).
If you want a long gruelling experience in might and magic 6 try a 4 knights party and if you want to mess around and have an easy game try clerics and mages (the ratio you use depends on your own preference but usually 1 cleric 3 mages or 2 clerics 2 mages are good ratios but if you prefer you can do 4 mages or 4 clerics).

[Cespenar]

Assuming it's M&M and not Heroes, I'd say 6 or 7. Probably 7 because it has Arcomage as well, so it's two games in one.

[factotum]

I'd say 7 for M&M as well. I think the graphics problems noob is talking about were due to MM7 supporting 3D accelerators, whereas MM6 did not--because of the limited capabilities of the 3D accelerators at the time (we're talking a 1999 game here!) and the fact they didn't want to rewrite the 3D engine from the ground up, this meant that different classes of the same type monsters were all represented using the same sprite but with a different coloured "wash" on top, whereas in MM6 each different class was a unique sprite. I believe you can run MM7 in software rendering mode, though, in which case it looks pretty much the same as MM6 did.

If we're talking the turn based strategy then add another vote for HoMM3. I actually liked 4, but I almost feel like I'm alone in that whenever the subject comes up--3 is better, though, especially once you add the Shadow of Death and Armageddon's Blade expansions.

Ones to definitely avoid: Might and Magic IX and any HoMM game from 5 onward.

[noob]

I'd say 7 for M&M as well. I think the graphics problems noob is talking about were due to MM7 supporting 3D accelerators, whereas MM6 did not--because of the limited capabilities of the 3D accelerators at the time (we're talking a 1999 game here!) and the fact they didn't want to rewrite the 3D engine from the ground up, this meant that different classes of the same type monsters were all represented using the same sprite but with a different coloured "wash" on top, whereas in MM6 each different class was a unique sprite. I believe you can run MM7 in software rendering mode, though, in which case it looks pretty much the same as MM6 did.

If we're talking the turn based strategy then add another vote for HoMM3. I actually liked 4, but I almost feel like I'm alone in that whenever the subject comes up--3 is better, though, especially once you add the Shadow of Death and Armageddon's Blade expansions.

Ones to definitely avoid: Might and Magic IX and any HoMM game from 5 onward.

Heroes of might and magic 4 was a quite unique rpg that had turn per turn strategy game elements with it.

Assuming it's M&M and not Heroes, I'd say 6 or 7. Probably 7 because it has Arcomage as well, so it's two games in one.

If you have windows 95 or windows 98(or windows XP or are willing to seek and install old windows things like VB4 runtime utilities and other things like that) and already have might and magic 7 I can possibly give you a standalone archomage with tons of extra cards(if I get the owner permission)

[Jeivar]

To clarify, I am simply thinking of plain Might and Magic, the first-person RPG series.

[Cespenar]

If you have windows 95 or windows 98(or windows XP or are willing to seek and install old windows things like VB4 runtime utilities and other things like that) and already have might and magic 7 I can possibly give you a standalone archomage with tons of extra cards(if I get the owner permission)

I did manage to find an unofficial standalone Arcomage some years ago, and it somehow worked on win 7 as well. But thanks anyway.

[Winthur]

Of the original Might & Magic RPG series, I actually find 3-4-5 to be decently palatable if you enjoy first-person turn-based dungeon crawlers. They're on the easier, more dynamic side compared to something like Wizardry, and you're less likely to be completely wrecked by attrition. I think they are decent if you're familiar with something like Etrian Odyssey. As archaic as they might be, I think they're one of the easier ways to get into early 90s gaming. The gimmick of M&M4-5 - being two separate games tied together by a World of Xeen expansion, letting you travel between each game's worlds' as you please, converging into an ending that is unlocked after beating the M&M4 and 5 storyline - makes it a really cool journey. I also really like the spritework.

M&M3 is also worth considering on some level because M&M7 directly continues a certain thread that occurs in M&M3, although considering how barebones the plot of 3 really is, you really aren't going to miss much; the related M&M7 characters will simply explain that stuff to you. This isn't Trails of Cold Steel.

That said, M&M 6 or 7 directly tie to the lore of the more popular "Heroes" spinoff and feature more freeform exploration, culminating in flying over villages and casting Armageddon, so they're easily the more "mainstream" way to go, more easily recommended.

M&M1&2 are much closer to Wizardry, and considerably more cut-throat to play than the comfy standard of Isles of Terra. M&M8 is a good game, but it has had even shorter development time than 7 and the gameplay is very much unpolished, though it's still not bad. M&M9 is not worth talking about in any context other than a riff-laden review by a retired African warlord.

M&MX Legacy is a throwback to the 3-4-5 games, in terms of mechanics. It's decent enough, but it's also not enough to be some sort of a modern classic. It's okay.

[Thomas Cardew]

To clarify, I am simply thinking of plain Might and Magic, the first-person RPG series.

My mistake, when I was a kid we always referred to the Heroes games simply as Might and Magic so that's where my brain defaults. I'll agree with everyone else and say 6 or 7 for the RPG series.

[noob]

There is someone who made a m&m 6,7 and 8 mod but it is a rather low quality mod so playing the individual games is probably better.

[Sloanzilla]

I loved 2.

You'd fight some guy and get a +31 iron helm.

[Zombimode]

There is no reason not to start with MM6. MM6 marked a new generation of MM games that continued to MM7 and MM8.

If you like the general gameplay and presentation of MM7 you will like MM6 as well, so why not start there?

[Driderman]

There is no reason not to start with MM6. MM6 marked a new generation of MM games that continued to MM7 and MM8.

If you like the general gameplay and presentation of MM7 you will like MM6 as well, so why not start there?

Yeah I agree, MM6 was a landmark in the series and MM7 was even better in many ways, so start with 6 and enjoy 7 even more

[Cespenar]

As much as I like 6, there's a reason to play only 7 if you aim just to have a taste of the series and not want to have a deep dive into it. Each particular game is quite long as it is already.

Though if you really have a craving and plan to play a lot of it, I agree, 6 would be the place to start.

[noob]

7 did have one flaw: the fact you literally had to waste time for a few months before advancing the main plot.
Some m&m7 players literally told that they just went to an inn and slept the whole time because it was annoying to have to do things that did nothing to advance the plot and a starting party is already very strong(with the wells).
Also the well that gives tons of stuff in m&m7 was gamebreaking as soon as you got the protection from death spell(not that it matters much since the heroes are quite strong even without that).

[Gnoman]

The first 2 might and magic games are extremely difficult and mandate manual mapping (unless you just look it up) and a fair bit of grinding. To make matters worse, the objectively better Mac versions are harder to get.

3 and 4-5 (which are two halves of the same game) are semi-real time outside of combat but retain the grid movement and turn-based combat of the earlier games. There are interface issues (particukarly the mid-90s hatred of giving you actual numbers).

6-7 are ones I've never played, because of their real-time nature jarring with being oarty-based for me.

[noob]

The first 2 might and magic games are extremely difficult and mandate manual mapping (unless you just look it up) and a fair bit of grinding. To make matters worse, the objectively better Mac versions are harder to get.

3 and 4-5 (which are two halves of the same game) are semi-real time outside of combat but retain the grid movement and turn-based combat of the earlier games. There are interface issues (particukarly the mid-90s hatred of giving you actual numbers).

6-7 are ones I've never played, because of their real-time nature jarring with being oarty-based for me.

You can go turn per turn when you want to in m&m6 it is even often a good idea if you are trying to think to the best course of action rather than just pressing the attack(or the quick spell) button while running around.
I mostly walk around then go turn per turn as soon as something that can be fought is found(I however dislike the whole cheesy flight dodge being still allowed in turn per turn but you can just decide to not use it and stand still and take the hits like a true turn per turn user).

[factotum]

You can go turn per turn when you want to in m&m6 it is even often a good idea if you are trying to think to the best course of action rather than just pressing the attack(or the quick spell) button while running around.

I actually found it better to just hit the attack button while in real-time mode--especially if all your party have bows (not really possible in MM6 because certain classes can't use them, but not an issue in MM7) then you just get a withering rain of arrows coming out and I found it a lot easier to keep hitting the enemy while back-pedalling to stay out of their range.

[Cespenar]

IIRC, against many enemies on open terrain, the strafe-arrow tactic worked well, but in dungeons it was more efficient to turn-base it.

[Gnoman]

You can go turn per turn when you want to in m&m6 it is even often a good idea if you are trying to think to the best course of action rather than just pressing the attack(or the quick spell) button while running around.
I mostly walk around then go turn per turn as soon as something that can be fought is found(I however dislike the whole cheesy flight dodge being still allowed in turn per turn but you can just decide to not use it and stand still and take the hits like a true turn per turn user).

My issue was more conceptual. I can accept a party moving in lockstep in a grid environment as an abstract thing. When you start getting something closer to how a Elder Scrolls game controls, having your party all as one instead of being scattered about hurts my brain.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I actually found it better to just hit the attack button while in real-time mode--especially if all your party have bows (not really possible in MM6 because certain classes can't use them, but not an issue in MM7) then you just get a withering rain of arrows coming out and I found it a lot easier to keep hitting the enemy while back-pedalling to stay out of their range.

Spoiler: MM6 late game spoilers

Show

You want the laser weapons - IIRC every class in MM6 can use them once they’re available. And Haste if you can get it. Watch your enemies melt before you.

For the tougher foes it’s also possible to get them stuck on the terrain. Dunno how viable that is with the turn-based, I mostly viewed turn-based mode in MM6-7-8 as an annoyance because I kept activating it by accident.

And I know of at least one place where you can take out some pretty nasty monsters just by staying out of their agro range, then leaving something heavy on the attack key and walking away IRL.

[factotum]

For the tougher foes it’s also possible to get them stuck on the terrain. Dunno how viable that is with the turn-based, I mostly viewed turn-based mode in MM6-7-8 as an annoyance because I kept activating it by accident.

I think the only time I used it was to access the secret NWC dungeon in MM6.

Spoiler

Show

From memory, you can get a secret Fly scroll from the wall of the bank in New Sorpigal. You can use that to fly up to the steeple at Buccaneer's Lair, and clicking on that will that teleport you outside the Shrine of the Gods in Dragonsand, which you then need to run inside and click on the thing in the middle. Your chances of being able to do all that in real-time mode are pretty minimal!

[noob]

My issue was more conceptual. I can accept a party moving in lockstep in a grid environment as an abstract thing. When you start getting something closer to how a Elder Scrolls game controls, having your party all as one instead of being scattered about hurts my brain.

I think it is for good reasons that they stay very tightly grouped: as some people said "do not split the party"
There is actual pits, teleporters and so on that would be deadly if the adventurers did not stay very very grouped.

[BaronOfHell]

I think it is for good reasons that they stay very tightly grouped: as some people said "do not split the party"
There is actual pits, teleporters and so on that would be deadly if the adventurers did not stay very very grouped.

I would have liked if my knight could take aggro somehow or at least my casters didn't have to follow her/him into melee.
It doesn't have to take from the game though, it only means you have to think about your characters in a different way, and the way the game works does allow for it, in my opinion.

this meant that different classes of the same type monsters were all represented using the same sprite but with a different coloured "wash" on top

I recall there was also an occasional size difference.

[Corlindale]

I haven't played the old games, but the real-time ones are some of my favourite games ever, so I would definitely recommend trying them out. I still replay them often and find they hold up very well.

In my experience people tend to pick either VI or VII as their favorite, and I can see valid reasons for each. I think VI has better atmosphere and feels more epic in size, but VII has improved on a lot of things regarding the actual gameplay, and I think its plotline was a bit more interesting. Also had more classes and more meaningful differences between classes, regarding who could achieve which levels of masteries in each skill. Overall, I think VII is the better game, though they are both extremely good (VII is certainly in my top three games of all time).

I would probably recommend starting with VII, as I think it's a bit easier to get into. Also, sometimes I think the epic scale of VI ends up working against it, as the gigantic areas full of gigantic dungeons can feel a bit grindy to actually get through. VII was better at pacing it out with a mix of long and short areas - and lategame it also offers an alternative means of progressing through some of the more annoying areas through the invisibility spell. Also, Arcomage.

If you like VI and VII, I would also recommend VIII. It's generally the same gameplay, but feels smaller in scope and isn't quite as good. Also the balance is very out of whack, you can get some ridiculously overpowered characters extremely early on. But still a fine ride if you liked the others.

We don't talk about IX. No one talks about IX.

[noob]

I haven't played the old games, but the real-time ones are some of my favourite games ever, so I would definitely recommend trying them out. I still replay them often and find they hold up very well.

In my experience people tend to pick either VI or VII as their favorite, and I can see valid reasons for each. I think VI has better atmosphere and feels more epic in size, but VII has improved on a lot of things regarding the actual gameplay, and I think its plotline was a bit more interesting. Also had more classes and more meaningful differences between classes, regarding who could achieve which levels of masteries in each skill. Overall, I think VII is the better game, though they are both extremely good (VII is certainly in my top three games of all time).

I would probably recommend starting with VII, as I think it's a bit easier to get into. Also, sometimes I think the epic scale of VI ends up working against it, as the gigantic areas full of gigantic dungeons can feel a bit grindy to actually get through. VII was better at pacing it out with a mix of long and short areas - and lategame it also offers an alternative means of progressing through some of the more annoying areas through the invisibility spell. Also, Arcomage.

If you like VI and VII, I would also recommend VIII. It's generally the same gameplay, but feels smaller in scope and isn't quite as good. Also the balance is very out of whack, you can get some ridiculously overpowered characters extremely early on. But still a fine ride if you liked the others.

We don't talk about IX. No one talks about IX.

I wish sometimes 4 and 5 were redone in a more modern way or that we got another m&m that was in the style of 6,7,8.

[Zombimode]

We don't talk about IX. No one talks about IX.

Why? I mean it's not the best RPG ever but there are a lot of games that are way worse then MM9.

I'ts an OK game that has it's own little charm.

I would rather play MM9 then, say, Tower of Time.