Majesty 1 & Majesty 2 comparison

[Munin]

When looking back at the first game, I did find some things quite innovative and fun in this new game but also found some features missing from the first game.


What striked me was the limited amount of temples you can build here, mostly because I did like the feature of unlimited undead armies in majesty 1 (the undead Krypta temples). That and the missing aspect of bonusses from eleven and dwarven buildings (elves give extra houses that generate more gold in M1). So that was a major downside for me in this latest version of the game.


The thing that was much more interesting in M2 is for me the party aspect, that allows you to make your mages survive for much longer. Only annoying aspect I found here is that you have to do it manually, instead I would prefer the idea of just putting preset parties in place so the next time a wizard, ranger, warrior and rogue meet in the tavern they should automatically form a party. This to me seems far more enjoyable then handpicking them which is more something for micromanagement games, while the fun part of Majesty is that you don't have to micromanage that much (because it s a sim game).

 

[Spiderman]

elves give extra houses that generate more gold in M1

Elves in Maj1 just gave an extra gold bonus to Marketplace and existing houses - they didn't add houses themselves.

 

[BroodingMonarch]

OH ITS ON NOW

No but seriously, I'd just be rehashing my opinions from another recent thread so in summary I'll say that I like them both very much but neither was ever that great. Neither would make it into my top twenty favourite games of all time or anything. It's like there's the seed of something brilliant in the concept but its never been realised properly. I'll do a list of Majesty and Majesty 2 pros and cons my angels.

Majesty

Pros

- It was the original so has the nostalgia factor that no other game can ever have.

- The heroes did more of their own thing. People call this the "sim" element but it was never that deep as I've said. Least it was there.

- Distinct AI behaviour and not just in the sense that certain heroes could plant stuff etc. Paladins are eager to fight evil and rogues will do anything for money for example. This really influences how you play the game and what heroes you choose.

- You can have themed settlements. Like recently I decided I'd have a right dump of a town so I started off with some gnome hovels and only got "dirty" heroes like the followers of Fervus and rogues. Other times I go for a noble approach and have Paladins and followers of Agrela. You get the idea.

- I love, love, LOVE the extent of customisation options in the game especially when you throw in the Northern Expansion. All those lovely random events to choose from. Superb.

- Really excellent music.

- The game is damn hard. I never did finish The Northern Expansion.

Cons

- Heroes are far too pro-active to the extent that often you never need to use flags. This is by far the worst element of the game to me and cripples my enjoyment on all but the largest of maps. Some people like it, I guess it depends what you want from the game. But I think it would be best if the whole flag setting mechanic the game is based on served some purpose.

- Dated technology. It's not that I'm a graphics whore or anything but basically you have two choices, zoomed in where you can see a handful of buildings on screen if you're lucky or zoomed out where you can see much more but it's all obscured and hideous.

- This could fall under the dated technology con too but basically the game is far too fast (and always was, it's not a matter of it being used on too powerful a PC) but if you change the default speed settings at all then character animation becomes jerky and unpleasant.

- Because heroes are so pro-active there comes a point in every game where there is nothing left for you, the player, to do. You've researched everything and your heroes are whizzing about all over the place doing their thing and destroying the lairs. Your participation is no longer required even though this is technically speaking a game, something you're meant to interact with.

- It's impossible to sustain a trading post on the freestyle maps or anything else built away from your main base. This is where you pray for a defence flag.


Majesty 2

Pros

- It's a wonderful joy to play. I often think to myself that it's rather like a casual game in the sense that it's damn addictive and very pretty but play it too much and you'll quickly get sick of the routine.

- The flag system works brilliantly. You actually need to use flags in this game unlike in the prequel.

- The new Lord system is brilliant. Being able to take beloved heroes through the campaign with you is a stroke of genius.

- The new party feature is great and as I've said before, makes me wonder why it wasn't always a part of the series. It's entirely logical.

- There are some really excellent scenarios in the main campaign and the expansions. Some truly epic battles to be had.

Cons

- Unlike in the original game, there really is no room for developing a themed settlement. In every map you're just going through the motions and rebuilding exactly the same stuff. Yeah you could develop themed settlements if you want but it would only be because of restrictions you placed upon yourself and experimentation of that nature in Majesty 2 more often leads to failure than anything else.

- Almost zero cutomisation options. The randomisation feature they patched in is nice but it hardly compares to the endless combinations of settings you could have in the prequel.

- The heroes no longer have personalities. Maybe rangers are more likely to do exploration quests and things like that but that's as far as it goes really. Paladins should be eager to defeat evil, rogues should be prepared to risk everything for cash etc etc.

- What few sim elements their were previously have been removed entirely.



So yeah like I said before, ideally Majesty 3 would be a combination of the best elements from both prequels.

 

[Spiderman]

It's impossible to sustain a trading post on the freestyle maps or anything else built away from your main base.

This is the only one I have to disagree with, usually a Guardhouse right next to a Trading Post is enough to hold off an enemy until the more aggressive heros either seek out the foe on their own or you place a reward flag on the foe to draw Rogues or whoever's near.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Ballista is better for that purpose, but then you need dwarves instead of Elves.

 

[unmerged(139034)]

- The heroes no longer have personalities. Maybe rangers are more likely to do exploration quests and things like that but that's as far as it goes really. Paladins should be eager to defeat evil, rogues should be prepared to risk everything for cash etc etc.

- What few sim elements their were previously have been removed entirely.

And THAT is the heart of the problem, this game was packaged and sold as "A Fantasy Kingdom Sim", when in reality it's a dumbed down RTS game with Tower Defense elements. Just because you don't directly point and click your heroes around doesn't make this a Sim game. The game just isn't Majesty, it's like a Majesty themed spin off and definately doesn't deserve that 2 on the end of it's title.

As for trade posts in Majesty, I found it quite simple to maintain them provided a decent investment. The trick is getting your heroes out there with an explore flag until a couple of upgraded towers are built, then throw up an inn or garden to visit for good measure, or maybe put a guild next to it.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Still, a defense flag would indeed be welcome in the original, yeah...

 

[Alfryd]

- The game is damn hard. I never did finish The Northern Expansion.

Most of the quests are fairly simple- you can muddle through them easy enough, though you might have a lot of casualties. The two Master quests were brutally difficult, though. Vigil for a Fallen Hero, in particular, was far too reliant on luck in order for the player to win (which is a shame, since I liked the premise of the quest. It just had really crappy mechanics, insofar as making it 'difficult' turned it into a game of russian roulette.)

- Heroes are far too pro-active to the extent that often you never need to use flags...

As I've mentioned elsewhere, you're actually complaining about one of the pros. There's no way to remove this 'proactive' element without heroes ceasing to feel like independant characters. The flags *do* serve a valuable purpose, as you will rapidly find in any multiplayer context.

"Their only reason is your command, and as a result, all their performance and all their dialogue are artificial. No-one believes what they do or say. ...Believe it or not, the characters of a play are supposed to be real people. They are supposed to do things for reasons of their own."
-Lajos Egri

- Because heroes are so pro-active there comes a point in every game where there is nothing left for you, the player, to do...

I don't see how this is different from any RTS title where you clear the map, accomplish objectives, and then 'win', having nothing further to do. In majesty, you can at least continue to place flags on ratmen and trolls and wandering monsters and stuff. It's not *much*, but it's something.
Besides, how would not-being-proactive alter this? Once *you* clear all the lairs from the map, there is *also* nothing for you to do. If you just want an endless supply of sword-fodder to hack through, lords know there's no shortage of freestyle settings that will happily spawn monster invasions at regular intervals for your enjoyment.

 

[unmerged(169164)]

That is not what is meant. And it is very different.

It is about total control vs guidance.

In other RTS, if a player wants to farm a certain situation, he can as he orders the units to victory: they dont act without him ordering them to.

Majesty is about guidance and supposedly, players share the same objective as the heroes and should not complain when the heroes accomplish the goals by themselves.
The player is supposed to cheer when the heroes do their things and enjoy being there to fill the gap, to bring the needed input.

Still, certain players live this self reliance as competition, a challenge on the absolute control they enjoy in other games.

In early games, heroes can clean the map without your inputs and at their own pace. If you plan to farm a lair, the plan might be destroyed by heroes who find that it is the right time to destroy the lair.

As much I would like to see Majesty revived, this aspect of the game should deter any project. No audience for it.
Majority of players want to control a process of winning a map from alpha to omega and not just place judiciously and timely the correct inputs here and there, now and then to correct a nearly self sufficient process.

 

[Spiderman]

In early games, heroes can clean the map without your inputs and at their own pace.

What do you mean by "early games"? The beginner ones?

 

[unmerged(169164)]

The beginner scenarios indeed.

 

[Spiderman]

So I'm not sure I'm understanding the rest of your post clearly - are you saying that's a bad thing?

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Expert maps too (Think Brashnard)... it just takes a good while longer...

 

[AFnord]

Most of the quests are fairly simple- you can muddle through them easy enough, though you might have a lot of casualties. The two Master quests were brutally difficult, though. Vigil for a Fallen Hero, in particular, was far too reliant on luck in order for the player to win (which is a shame, since I liked the premise of the quest. It just had really crappy mechanics, insofar as making it 'difficult' turned it into a game of russian roulette.)

I actually found the master quests to be a real cake walk... at least compared to Legendary Heroes (I don't know why, but I had to do more than a dozen attempts on this mission before I finally finished it, as for the mastery quests, one was finished on the first attempt, and the other one was finished on the second attempt).

 

[Spiderman]

Expert maps too (Think Brashnard)... it just takes a good while longer...

So are you saying that all you have to do is put down guilds/Temples and buildings and do research and the heroes will "solve" the quest/map on their own? I have my doubts... sounds like a good excuse to play some more Majesty!

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Barbarians love taking down dens (as do Solarii and Paladins) so yeah, eventually all of them will be taken down 'naturally'

As for Vigil of a Fallen Hero, it wasn't completely down on luck. So that's a sad excuse. Of course if you loose your key personal during the first strike you probably should restart though. My record is 12 days (pretty sure that's the World Record), which requires the right use of flags to do... so skill-less? Nope...

 

[unmerged(169164)]

So I'm not sure I'm understanding the rest of your post clearly - are you saying that's a bad thing?

It seriously impairs the possibility of seeing Majesty revived.

Majesty is a game in which the player helps the heroes to accomplish quests. The player is subordinated to the heroes' decisions. The player influences the heroes to victory.

The majority of players prefer games in which they are helped by heroes to accomplish quests. The heroes are subordinated to the players' decisions. Heroes are mere tools and are ordered to victory.

That is the major difference I underlined: players prefer to be at the center of the universe, nothing should tick without them deciding it should tick. No maps should be finished before they decide it etc...

 

[Spiderman]

Barbarians love taking down dens (as do Solarii and Paladins) so yeah, eventually all of them will be taken down 'naturally'

But a lot of those heros aren't available in the beginner quests. As for the advanced and expert quests, a lot of them have monster waves in the beginning - I know one of them has hordes of minotaurs coming at you - without the use of the Wizard Guild and the Lightning Storm spell, I doubt you'd survive. That's why I'm questioning the premise that the heros can clear the map if all the player does is build and research.

ChienAboyeur: It would be interesting to know the percentage of players overall who prefer the "sim" aspect more than the "rts" aspect. What you say is true overall though, that unless a company is very wealthy and can afford it, sequels are usually determined by sales, which would encompass both crowds. But I guess the question is, would bringing back or making the sim aspect more the focus raise sales or drive away players today?

 

[unmerged(169164)]

I would not reduce it to a sim feature.

Victoria 2 raised the same issue, received the same backlash. Players complaining about independent populations.
If I understood well, in Victoria 1, promotions were made manually, which grew into a burden. Victoria 2 corrected this by featuring independent populations growing their own needs and promoting by themselves.

A lot of posts revealing that players are uncomfortable with that. This compells to change direction in terms of plan everytime the populations needs thwart the achievement on the plan.

Most players want to be THE star of the game. The puppeteer manipulating puppets on strings. Nothing moves without the player's decision.

Games like Majesty, Victoria 2, Children of the Nile and a few others include elements that give the player a director's seat. The actors know their part, can give a representation by themselves. The director gives a global coherence. He intervenes here and there, corrects this or that but the stage can live without him.

Games taking the road of the director's act, for what I know, have already drawn the same reproach: heroes encroaching on the player's divine rights.

That is why I dont think there is a sufficiently large customer base for games including these kinds of elements.

 

[DorthLous]

It's not the same. If anything, the portrait you are drawing is that players dislike change, not lack of control.