It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
The return of an 8-bit legend!

The Lords of Midnight, a unique classic mash-up of RPG, strategy, and interactive fiction, faithfully recreated for modern systems, is now available on GOG.com for only $5.99

The land of Midnight is in danger. The name of the villain menacing the realm is whispered in every homestead with fear and fascination: Doom... dark, Doomdark, Doomdark! Only the Lords of Midnight, the valiant knight protectors of the folk, can stand up to the accursed Whitchking. It will be no easy task, though. The lords will ride the four winds, looking for allies, recruiting their armies, and bringing light to wherever the shadow of Doomdark falls. Forging their legend with their every step, they would become the champions the land needs. Should they fail, all will be lost. Don't let them fail.

The Lords of Midnight was originally released in 1984. What you see here, is a revamped version of the exact same game, retaining its gameplay and graphical style, just adding some more intuitive interface and high resolution graphics. At its core, however, this is the exact same game that enthralled the imagination of many gamers almost three decades ago. The turn based game mixes elements of an adventure with a robust, well-written storyline, an epic wargame in which you manage and command large armies, and a role-playing game with much focus on exploration of the game's incredibly detailed landscape. Your main quest--defeating the evil Witchking Doomdark--is no easy task, and completing the game in any of the possible ways will prove a challenge. Let one of the oldest, yet greatest stories ever told in a computer game unfold before you!

See how deep, addicting, and fun computer games already were 30 years ago. Get The Lords of Midnight today, for only $5.99 on GOG.com!
avatar
Smannesman: Interesting release, but $5.99 is a bit much for just this ancient game.
If it included Doomdark and the Citadel it would be a fair price IMO.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: It's not the original game. The developer (who recently died) and another guy called Chris Wild spent untold hours getting this game (which was made for the Commodore 64 and not a PC or iOS) to run on modern machines.

People don't do the work for 'free' you know, just so gamers can get things for a couple of bucks.

Personally, it's not my type of game at all, and I'll never buy it or play it but......it's definitely worth the 6 bucks.

With these classic games more people need to look at it as they MUST be sold for a certain price as that price pays for the many many many hours it takes updating the game so it will actually run on your modern machine, it pays for the servers on GOG that you download them from, it pays for PayPal or credit card fees every time someone buys the game, it pays for office space and staff salaries and on and on and on and the developer would like a 'small fee' :)

I don't think some gamers on GOG have any clue how expensive it is running a website, updating games, paying PayPal, paying rent, electricity etc blah blah blah. It's like some people live in a vacuum with no idea about the real world and want everything for 'almost free'. The 'me me society' again :(
So we should all pay what the manufacturer feels is fair for a Pontiac Aztec because it took a lot of work, effort, and cash to produce? I fail to see how our evaluations of value being different mean I am concerned only with "me, me, me". Totally agree that this statement is more insulting than any other in response, be it in support of or not.

Regarding the game, in for a half price sale. I dont think I would play this enough to warrant the 6 bucks. 3 I can handle...
avatar
Sargon: I think it is a bit strange to talk about how much value for money a game has for you if all you know about it is what you gleam from the screenshots?
avatar
BadDecissions: I have the information GOG provides me to try to make me buy their. Since you can't rent PC games, one is always making buying decisions from limited knowledge. I could, of course, be completely wrong. But whether I'm right, and wouldn't get enjoyment for my money, or wrong, and would, that will still be the basis of my buying decisions--whether (as far as I'm able to predict), the game will give me value for my money. Not, for example, how difficult it was for the developer and Chris Wild to get it to run on PCs.
Yeah sure, but why complain about it when you don't know?
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: It's not the original game. The developer (who recently died) and another guy called Chris Wild spent untold hours getting this game (which was made for the Commodore 64 and not a PC or iOS) to run on modern machines.

People don't do the work for 'free' you know, just so gamers can get things for a couple of bucks.

Personally, it's not my type of game at all, and I'll never buy it or play it but......it's definitely worth the 6 bucks.

With these classic games more people need to look at it as they MUST be sold for a certain price as that price pays for the many many many hours it takes updating the game so it will actually run on your modern machine, it pays for the servers on GOG that you download them from, it pays for PayPal or credit card fees every time someone buys the game, it pays for office space and staff salaries and on and on and on and the developer would like a 'small fee' :)

I don't think some gamers on GOG have any clue how expensive it is running a website, updating games, paying PayPal, paying rent, electricity etc blah blah blah. It's like some people live in a vacuum with no idea about the real world and want everything for 'almost free'. The 'me me society' again :(
avatar
muttly13: So we should all pay what the manufacturer feels is fair for a Pontiac Aztec because it took a lot of work, effort, and cash to produce? I fail to see how our evaluations of value being different mean I am concerned only with "me, me, me". Totally agree that this statement is more insulting than any other in response, be it in support of or not.

Regarding the game, in for a half price sale. I dont think I would play this enough to warrant the 6 bucks. 3 I can handle...
There is a difference between complaining that you think a game is too expensive and just waiting until the game has the price you want and then buy it. The first says that the game is not worth the price it sells for, for customers in general. The second just says that this price is the right one for you.
Post edited August 13, 2013 by Sargon
high rated
Wanted to post my support of this release of a Classic, this was before my time too. I read up the reviews and went to wikipedia. From all signs this looks like a Good Old Game.

Congratulations to GoG for reeling in a catch like this which fits 100% on their shelves.
This might be a good game or it might not, but what's up with the ugly colour palette? I know it's a remake of a 1984 game, but this looks just... ugly. If at least it had some sort of classic pixelated look or something retro, but this looks just wrong. Old games din't have such graphics because it was "retro" and cool, they had such graphics because it was the best they could do with the tchnology. It was more about the feeling they were trying to evoke. Using such old graphics in this day looks just like pointless and lazy retro pandering.

It doesn't have to be AAA budget production values, but people are expectign some sort of minum standards. I'm sure if the game looked more ambitious people wouldn't be complaining about the price. The game looks cheap in every aspect and that's dragging the overall impression down. Looks do matter.
Post edited August 13, 2013 by HiPhish
Nice to see the release of an updated version of a classic! The colors are a bit strong, unfortunately, but I do hope this sells reasonably well.

I do kinda wonder how the "dry" summers, and the inconsistent release schedule of older titles, affect those interested in purchasing old games here. (Does GOG miss out on sales of older titles because some people stop visiting after such a "dry spell", or do most of the sales come from people who just happen to hear about this release from a far-off source?)

I wonder if GOG could do more to advertise (like putting a Twitter icon beneath the Facebook icon on the gamecard).
If my backlog was not so gargantuan I would get it.

For some reason the style reminds me of King of Dragon Pass, though I'm sure that's just superficial.
avatar
HiPhish: This might be a good game or it might not, but what's up with the ugly colour palette? I know it's a remake of a 1984 game, but this looks just... ugly. If at least it had some sort of classic pixelated look or something retro, but this looks just wrong. Old games din't have such graphics because it was "retro" and cool, they had such graphics because it was the best they could do with the tchnology. It was more about the feeling they were trying to evoke. Using such old graphics in this day looks just like pointless and lazy retro pandering.

It doesn't have to be AAA budget production values, but people are expectign some sort of minum standards. I'm sure if the game looked more ambitious people wouldn't be complaining about the price. The game looks cheap in every aspect and that's dragging the overall impression down. Looks do matter.
The game does scale though. I purchased it and tried it out a bit, and there's no stretching (at least that I can tell).
I just realized I had credit on itunes account because my sister bought me an itunes gift card last xmas so I got it for my ipod. It's great so far but the touch areas seem a little hard to activate. Not sure if all ipods have dodgy touch screens or if it's just mine.

I'm amazed at some of the comments though. It seems the "good old games" that some people are a fan of are very narrowly-defined.
Post edited August 13, 2013 by graspee
avatar
Crosmando: The game does scale though. I purchased it and tried it out a bit, and there's no stretching (at least that I can tell).
I'm not talking about the technical stuff, but the aesthetics. Look at the screenshots section and tell me the first screenshot doesn't look like placeholder art. Now look at Eador: Genesis instead:
http://www.gog.com/game/eador_genesis
This game looks so much more ambitious, and it's an indy game as well.
avatar
BadDecissions: When I pay $5.99 for a product, I expect to get $5.99 of value back again. That's it. That's the deal I make with GOG when I buy their games, I give them money and they give them value for their money. And this game does not look like value for my money. If Bloodygoodgames feels that kind of thinking means I'm part of the "me me me culture" then I will have to live with her contempt. Also, without this game, because it doesn't look like value for my money.
Rightly so. But value is a highly subjective concept. this game could have( and as it seems has ) value for money for some.

I have anyway mixed feelings about this title.

On one hand, I'm happy to see this release. Revived classics is something I'd like to see more often.
Could someone please revive Sword of the Samurai , Annals of Rome or some good wargames ?

On the other hand I'm not likely to buy it. Just like I didn't buy Zork. Not that I don't like early classics, but this one doesn't tempt me. It's a matter of taste after all...
Post edited August 13, 2013 by Phc7006
avatar
HiPhish: This might be a good game or it might not, but what's up with the ugly colour palette? I know it's a remake of a 1984 game, but this looks just... ugly. If at least it had some sort of classic pixelated look or something retro, but this looks just wrong. Old games din't have such graphics because it was "retro" and cool, they had such graphics because it was the best they could do with the tchnology. It was more about the feeling they were trying to evoke. Using such old graphics in this day looks just like pointless and lazy retro pandering.

It doesn't have to be AAA budget production values, but people are expectign some sort of minum standards. I'm sure if the game looked more ambitious people wouldn't be complaining about the price. The game looks cheap in every aspect and that's dragging the overall impression down. Looks do matter.
I don't think it looks cheap, I think it has a great style. And I'm very happy that they didn't choose to go for the lazy cartoon\parody or horrible World of Warcraft looks that are so popular with fantasy game developers these days. I can understand that some find the palette a little strange. It would probably have looked a little nicer with a different selection (but same amount) of colors, but then it would not have been as close to the original in its looks. The high resolution is nice and makes the drawings seem closer to the pictures and symbols of old drawings and manuscripts. This is a very suitable style for the pseudo-medieval setting of most fantasy games.

I think there is such a great lack of originality in the looks of today's fantasy games so I really appreciate those that look different. Modern fantasy computer games may be the genre with the least amount of visual creativity.
high rated
avatar
popa352: I know some people aren't too happy about this release, but there are many who joined this site because of their "Good Old Games", so let's not complain? I for one am not interested in this game, but I am happy to see that "Good Old Games" are still being released.

If you don't like it, don't buy it! Then leave it at that. (No price complaining!)
I agree. I came to GOG because they sell old games that work on new machines and since they now seem to want to be just another indie games shop site I'm glad for second best things like what looks like a true to the original remake of a old game that I've been interested in for a long time.
This is one of very few games that have interested me for some time on GOG and I'm hoping this means GOG is going back to its roots. At least somewhat.

Going to buy this when I get this months salary. :)
avatar
Silverhawk170485: Will also the Mac version released here on GOG?
avatar
cyboff: If you are familiar with Wineskin, just use WS9Wine1.6X or WS9Wine1.7.0X as engine, set screen options to use Mac driver, install GOG's setup file and run :D
If not, hope it will help "mac guys" in GOG to release such wrapper sooooon :D

I am just playing it like this without a problem...
I know that the game can be emulated with Wine but I just asked because there is a Mac version existing. So why emulating it when there is a fully compatible version? ;-)
Great release!
Though it's only authentic if I get hopelessly lost. :)
avatar
cyboff: If you are familiar with Wineskin, just use WS9Wine1.6X or WS9Wine1.7.0X as engine, set screen options to use Mac driver, install GOG's setup file and run :D
If not, hope it will help "mac guys" in GOG to release such wrapper sooooon :D

I am just playing it like this without a problem...
avatar
Silverhawk170485: I know that the game can be emulated with Wine but I just asked because there is a Mac version existing. So why emulating it when there is a fully compatible version? ;-)
Wow, I didn't know that :D Then there is BIG BIG QUESTION for GOG :D WHYYYYYYYYYY?