Welcome Visitor [sign up] news downloads walkthroughs forums about  
Welcome to Celestial Heavens! - all things Might and Magic
sections
 
my account
Username
Password
  Forgot password?
  Home
  Sign up
  Submit Map
  Contact Us
 
my account
  Academy Guide 3.1
  Artifacts
  Creature Abilities
  First Month Utopia
  Hero Screen
  Inferno TotE Guide
  New Sylvan Strategy
  Screenshots
  Skill Wheel
  Spells
  Story
  Unofficial Guide
 
my account
  Hammers of Fate
  Tribes of the East
 
my account
  Academy
  Dungeon
  Fortress
  Haven
  Inferno
  Necropolis
  Sylvan
 
my account
  Maps
  Mods
  Patches
 
my account
  Forums
  Equilibris Mod
  LotA
  Thunder Maps
  Wake of Gods Mod
  More Links
 
my account
  Interviews
  Map Reviews
  Special Features
 
my account
H7: Would you prefer 2D or 3D townscreens?
2D
3D
I don't care.
game selector


News  → Good Bye Nival?

Nival is no longer involved in the development of Heroes of Might and Magic VI, according to a wild rumor on the official forum. Vague hints seem to point to a new developer from Hungary, but it could take quite a while before we get any additional information about the situation.

I think Nival did a good job, considering the expectations that came with the Might and Magic name. But they lost much of their initial support from fans with each patch that was released... or delayed.
Comments

astral76minor at 2009-03-22 00:14 wrote:
Still it wasn't balanced...

Then what Heroes game in the series was the most balanced? Perhaps the one with only six factions and the least amount of creature slots? Just like chess, it only has certain components and from a minimalist standpoint, I think H2 was the most balanced in the series when it comes to certain maps. Enough of that....

As for the future of H6, I sure hope they make a really good map editor and put the "intelligence" back in AI. Fan-based creation would help. Might and Magic would be fun if they returned back to the old turn-based battles and avoid this MMORPG junk like WOW.

For now, I'll consider Elemental - War of Magic until Heroes 6 is released. Hopefully the developer of H6 will listen to some of the fans out there.
Edited on Sat, Mar 21 2009, 20:25 by astral76minor

Thelonious at 2009-03-21 16:00 wrote:
Still it wasn't balanced...

Anyway, were going far off topic again.

Right now, I don't think the community cares whether there is a new developer or not, as long as HoMM VI is a good game. (and perhaps a new might and magic game gets made)

astral76minor at 2009-03-20 23:02 wrote:
Heroes 2 was far more simple, so depending upon the map design it was balanced since they never added more creatures like in the other games in the series. The more different creatures, the more the balance gets thrown off and so forth.

ThunderTitan at 2009-03-20 12:38 wrote:
>which was balanced. <


:lolu:

astral76minor at 2009-03-19 22:10 wrote:
Back in 1997, Heroes 2 was relatively less complex, yet at the same time, had a unique, addictive type of gameplay which was balanced. Ever since Heroes 2, the balance of the game series has swayed a bit. Heroes 3 still kept a unique gameplay similar to H2. However, H4 and H5, in my opinion, threw off the balance of the gameplay and took away the unique spirit of the series.

Though, after many have played H5, how would they feel about playing H2 or H3? It is this phenomena which keeps CH interesting and real. I personally, donít feel like playing H3, yet at the same time, many people on CH are making maps for it. These people, who design and playtest maps, really keep the balance and the spirit of Heroes alive regardless of any game edition in the series.

The earlier points in this post were relative to how many people had to manipulate H4 & H5 in order to make it have more of that nostalgia and spirit which the older Heroes games had. In my opinion, and to some (a fact), it is this dedicated following of mapmakers and modcrafters which gave the Heroes series a glimmering light closer to the original spirit of the game. So it possibly was left to the mapmakers, maptesters, and modcrafters to bring new light to the series (for as long as we have a following) in a world doomed by capitalism and socioeconomic upheavel by companies who could care less about creating a fan-based game.

Thelonious at 2009-03-19 09:41 wrote:
No HoMM IV certainly wasn't a recreation, but a lot of people felt HoMM IV was bad because of the story, certain gameplay elements and it not being finished and the change in style (If you look at HoMM I to III the style of the graphics is very much the same, albeit with updated colors increased resolution etc.)

Thus form a producers end it wasn't a wierd decision to go back to HoMM III because all HoMM players liked HoMM III whilest not everyone like HoMM IV.
They did take it quite far though and tried to break the copying of the game by changing various aspects of the game, not all of those changes were for the better.
In the end this resulted in a group of fans which were slightly disappointed by the game since they had lost on several fronts with HoMM V. This however isn't a real issue as gameplay can be improved as I hope they do for HoMM VI.

The thing is without the ability to make your own maps and an affective AI the game sucks. Take those away from HoMM IV and it becomes the worst of the series (and I'm not saying that because I like HoMM III over IV).

What your saying about multiplayer is just how you precive it. If Ubisoft invests in HoMM VI and the creator (who ever that is) creates a good AI then the series will turn towards singleplayer aswell. If they create a good mapmaker then that effect will be increased.

astral76minor at 2009-03-18 23:32 wrote:
I don't quite agree with you there: a lot of people didn't like HoMM IV, and for a good reason, it wasn't finished and I wouldn't say that is was in line with the series.

A lot of people did not like H5, and it was a re-creation. Heroes 4 was not a re-creation, it simply progressed into a new fashion but kept the old objects and styles of play. To further the issue, the AI in H4 was better than H5. The point is that H4 and H5 were not finished. 3D0 went downhill with H4 and Ubisoft went FURTHER down with H5.

H5 is only good for certain maps and is preferably played with humans. H4 can be played well with the AI and humans. I contend the point remains that some of the true feel of the game was lost in H5 and H4. However, we must also remember that H2 was 3D0's top-seller of 1997. None of them deserve a 10/10 rating. The true spirit and feeling of the game started with Heroes I and II and somewhat with III. Nonetheless, some fans are never content and certain games deserve a chance depending upon how they are played. I think all the games in the series deserve a chance, only upon how the maps are made and how they are played out (whether AI or human). Again, when people get serious, human players are required to play almost any of the games in the entire series.

Like it or not, the game is moving more toward the multiplayer environment. The element that must remain is turn-based strategy. Few games today feature this critical element. Without this, Heroes is lost.
Edited on Wed, Mar 18 2009, 20:18 by astral76minor

Thelonious at 2009-03-18 21:10 wrote:
At least with 3DO we had H2-H4 and they actually progressed with the map editor and game features. Why was their a delineation in progress with H4 to H5? Alot of the gaming features in H4 were not included in H5 (i.e., certain creature abilities, spells, tactical abilities, etc). Is reinvention the way these companies simply make games? It is almost like with the movies in the theaters, most of the sequels, always degrade in quality and integral components.

I don't quite agree with you there: a lot of people didn't like HoMM IV, and for a good reason, it wasn't finished and I wouldn't say that is was in line with the series.

Also I do think HoMM V added some good ideas, but it lacked HoMM feeling (most possibly because the story was abandoned as well as art style) The loss of a good mapmaker didn't help to ignore that. Also the AI was criticized for lacking any intelligence at all...

astral76minor at 2009-03-12 21:01 wrote:
The fact that Heroes has to be handed down the line to two companies just to keep the series going leaves me doubting whether it will be fan-based or just another reinvention. Perhaps both. I really think alot of hardcore mapmakers get neglected in the process. We end up dealing with whatever they give us. At least with 3DO we had H2-H4 and they actually progressed with the map editor and game features. Why was their a delineation in progress with H4 to H5? Alot of the gaming features in H4 were not included in H5 (i.e., certain creature abilities, spells, tactical abilities, etc). Is reinvention the way these companies simply make games? It is almost like with the movies in the theaters, most of the sequels, always degrade in quality and integral components. I say we start a Union, lol....

Thelonious at 2009-03-12 12:42 wrote:
Ok those features only seem fair.

The thing is that everybody is more content with an easy be it with some 'more advanced' features; the hardcore mapmakers will complain that in some way they can't do everything they'd want, but they can do enough to make good maps so they won't complain that much.

You were right about 3DO and Ubi, they just didn't allow themselves enough time to make a decent mapeditor (just look at the loads and loads of disabled objects in the HoMM IV editor and crippled functions...) while it does create more durability for their product.

Back on topic though:
I don't know whether the change of company is any good. It could be a disaster for 2 reasons:
1) the new company can't make/has no experience with TBS games
2) Ubisoft doesn't communicate with the new company on all the mistakes/history of the previous games.
It could be a good thing though:
A new company with more experience could make a better game than Nival if they cooperate not only with Ubisoft but also with fans.
I thought it was great that Fabrice involved the fans in certain ways, but I don't know whether Nival ever cared to listen to him or check older games (not just for the feel, but for the art aswell).

jeff at 2009-03-10 22:38 wrote:
@ Jeff: It's hard to create a map editor which allows simple editing and advanced at the same time. Most likely you'll see an editor which allows everyone to make maps, or only some people. While I agree that the editor isn't good, I must stress that if it would have been more accessible, it would have failed to include some more advanced options and it wouldn't have been loved either.

First I do not accept that an editor has to be easy or powerful or such an editor would be hard, but if so, so what. The experimenting I did with the H-V editor only placing new objects on the map during the game, being able to scrap dwellings and a few minor capabilities were all I saw that really would have given the H-IV editor the features I wanted. Those should not have been that hard to incorporate by the people that was working the code. I am sure there are others and this is not an attempt to reopen the editor discussion, the mapmaking guild has had those discussions already. More to the point is, itís not my problem to develop that type of editor, its UBIís. If they canít then they should hire someone who can. The fact is I do not believe the editor was ever a priority, it lengthens the shelf of the game, and I do not believe UBI really wants fan playing H-V for as long as they have been playing H-III or IV. They want them to have put it aside and buy the next game, whatever itís called.

astral76minor at 2009-03-09 23:19 wrote:
Very true, it is hard to make a fan-based game. With H5, we'd have to remake many things in it just to approach some kind of advancement. And with all the opinions out there, I just think making a game that truly deserves a 10/10 rating is flat out impossible.

As for the H4 editor, hell yes, I loved it and did not need much advice at all! The H5 editor, though, took many hours to adapt to. But in the end, it proved to be full of many options if one has the patience.

As for a modmaking team or even a patch, cross your fingers on H5.
It may take years for a team to develop anything.

The new game out on beta called "Elemental" seems like the next best step in turn based strategy until H6.... I only wonder if it has a LAN function instead of that darn gaming server.

Thelonious at 2009-03-09 11:17 wrote:
or even if Equilibris got involved with H5 and made the necessary mods.

Not likely their not doing anything these days (or so it seems) Just like MMT which is also dying.

Fan based stuff is good; but it'll never make a crappy game truely great. Though it can do a LOT of good.

As for the editor of HoMM V; just gimme the HoMM IV editor please.

Though:

@ Jeff: It's hard to create a map editor which allows simple editing and advanced at the same time. Most likely you'll see an editor which allows everyone to make maps, or only some people. While I agree that the editor isn't good, I must stress that if it would have been more accessible, it would have failed to include some more advanced options and it wouldn't have been loved either.

astral76minor at 2009-03-06 01:06 wrote:
The map editor in H5 is a beast to explore. Thanks to many people in this forum, a friend and I have succeeded in making a map far better than the older H4-H3 series. Yes, scripting is a pain, but if you can get the advice off the forums some of the mapmaking is even better than the predecessors. Try making an impossible size map from scratch, then spend almost a year trying to make it nasty. Maptesting is also the issue. Many thanks go to the people of CH for helping ALL OF US make maps for H5!!!

On the other hand, we found the H5 map editor troublesome, although certain people on CH helped alot. System requirements were also an expensive issue. It took a Xeon X3360 to make the map editor run efficiently. It was almost like upgrading, just for the game. Some of us share this passion. But look at all the other games that fly by at 80-120 FPS. Much needs to be said.

In this declining American economy, some of the best prices came in the past 2 years for computer parts. Now may be the time to upgrade your computer systems for H5 and the future. Future-proofing a system is a tough task too. The law of supply and demand indicates the American computer parts market is good for some equipment, but not all. To run H5 effectively on an impossible size map with underground and normal graphics settings, go with the best Core 2 Duo or higher. The AMD Opteron is the best for FSB and FPS.

Again, many thanks to certain people on CH for making H5 a better experience in mapmaking!
Edited on Thu, Mar 05 2009, 20:28 by astral76minor

jeff at 2009-03-05 23:44 wrote:
H5 is a great game, especially if one is a map maker.

Ok maybe darknessfood is right about you, your opinion of the game aside, anybody that thinks that map editor is better than the one in H-IV is either one who loves line by line editing of a program or is delusional. I will agree H-V editor has capabilities that were wished for in H-IV, but it is ridiculously difficult for most of us to use, very limiting in its campaign capability and its system requirements exceeded many peopleís computers.

astral76minor at 2009-03-05 00:18 wrote:
I played H4 for 5 years. Now I have played H5 for 2 years plus. I generally wish that our ideas (from all of us) would be included in future patches or even if Equilibris got involved with H5 and made the necessary mods. I hope a team gets involved and continues making H5 even more enhanced for players with the features that made the game series addicting. There is nothing wrong with improvement as long as the game balance remains. Perhaps, Equilibris Team?

And to settle the argument, H5 is a great game, especially if one is a map maker. It also is way better to play against real people since the AI in my opinion still lacks the ability to manage the right set of artifacts, mix the right creature stacks, not fiddle with the caravans (wasting a turn), build the castle correctly for the enemy, and use the right skills for fighting the enemy.

In addition, the Heroes of Axeoth mod did make the AI less prone to running away even though he had a good stack. So this helped in making the AI more of a fighter and made some maps very challenging.
Edited on Wed, Mar 04 2009, 20:09 by astral76minor

jeff at 2009-03-04 13:42 wrote:
You miss the point that they wanted to bring the HoMM3 feeling. So your quotes are kinda thrown away...

No I don't think he did, they brought the caravans back perhaps realizing that some aspects (not all) of H-IV should have been included. Then again that may be giving UBI more credit than they desire.

darknessfood at 2009-03-04 03:37 wrote:
You miss the point that they wanted to bring the HoMM3 feeling. So your quotes are kinda thrown away...

astral76minor at 2009-03-04 03:16 wrote:
Now it is time for us to cast Town Port-o-Pottie and do our doodie for this thread!

astral76minor at 2009-02-27 23:30 wrote:
Building on the features of H4 for H5 would have shown progress. For example, in H4:
-The hero can fight directly in battle and can die as a very good fighter
-Creatures could be moved by themselves across the map
-The portals allowed you to pick a destination
-The water elementals increased in magic power, unlike H5 (i.e., Pit Spawn)
-The computer is less confused with caravans in H4
-Town gate allowed a destination selection (H3 was it?)
-Even if your hero dies, the creatures could still finish the battle

I'll add more to the list, however I am sure we all know what could have been in H5 from the previous sequels.

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-27 22:36 wrote:
I think that releasing H4 in late alpha/early beta is hardly trying .

darknessfood at 2009-02-27 14:00 wrote:
>Heroes 5 was a pain for the programmers and Ubisoft got there money so that settles it. If Ubisoft actually cared as much as NWC and 3DO did, then we'd have an advanced version of H4 for H5
<br>
<br> 3DO didn't really *care* about the Might and Magic franchise actually... Here are some examples:
<br>Warriors of Might and Magic
<br>Legends of Might and Magic
<br>Heroes 4 + expansions
<br>Might and Magic 9
<br>Heroes Chronicles
<br>The first King's Bounty remake

<br>etc.

I don't think that " trying to bring new life to the series" is not caring about the series...
ywhtptgtfo at 2009-02-27 06:12 wrote:
>Heroes 5 was a pain for the programmers and Ubisoft got there money so that settles it. If Ubisoft actually cared as much as NWC and 3DO did, then we'd have an advanced version of H4 for H5

3DO didn't really *care* about the Might and Magic franchise actually... Here are some examples:
Warriors of Might and Magic
Legends of Might and Magic
Heroes 4 + expansions
Might and Magic 9
Heroes Chronicles
The first King's Bounty remake
etc.

Asheera at 2009-02-27 02:11 wrote:
Problem with Vista is that it didn't exist when H5 came out, and I doubt they would really want to change the core game code. So that's why there may be incompatibilities.

astral76minor at 2009-02-26 21:42 wrote:
Heroes 5 was a pain for the programmers and Ubisoft got there money so that settles it. If Ubisoft actually cared as much as NWC and 3DO did, then we'd have an advanced version of H4 for H5. I just think Ubisoft just took the money and said their work on H5 was "as good as it gets." If a patch for Tribes of the East is ever released this year, I sure hope they include an AI fix as well as a Vista 64 fix. Some people may call troubleshooters the people who whine. But some "troubleshooters" only want a better game for their hard earned money.

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-25 09:09 wrote:
Pleasing all the fans is an impossible task

Until the mind control chips come out at least...

Corlagon at 2009-02-24 18:42 wrote:
Anyway, regardless of the setting , the "whining" would be kept to a minimum if Heroes V had delivered a good, unique and non self-contradictory storyline , but it didn't. The old universe was unique while Planet Ashan is anything but, so choosing it as a setting was a large step backward in my view.

Avonu at 2009-02-24 16:18 wrote:
There aren't something like impossible tasks, they are only tasks hard to do (or something like that).

Asheera at 2009-02-24 14:06 wrote:
"and they'll always be whiners..."

QFT

Pleasing all the fans is an impossible task

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-24 09:45 wrote:
the 1st part was sarcasm...

and they'll always be whiners... doesn't change the fact that there was little reason for the change or the WH rip-off.... except that they wanted to get rid of teh Sci-Fi elements... which sucks because they made M&M stand out...

ByteBandit at 2009-02-23 22:39 wrote:
Yeah... just look at how confusing H3 was.... as for inconsistencies... that happens with every sequel ever....

Yep. And if the old universe were brought back, and they DID get it right, people would still whine about it, saying 'they forgot this...', or 'they did'nt need to add that...' And so on.

Corlagon at 2009-02-23 18:34 wrote:
I can't believe there are people out there who can get their heads around Metal Gear Solid's storyline and not Heroes III's. I guess far fewer people care for the campaigns if they're not full of static cutscenes and complemented by a convoluted timeline awash with cosmic lizards. :devil:

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-23 08:39 wrote:
Yeah... just look at how confusing H3 was.... as for inconsistencies... that happens with every sequel ever....

ByteBandit at 2009-02-23 01:55 wrote:
Angelspit wrote regarding the old universe:

"new fans would have been confused and old ones would have been offended by any inconsistency."

You know? This is probably true given the gap between the release of HoMM IV and HoMM V. I almost forgot them by then too. And I would've just been glad to see the series continue at this point. And besides, if the old universe were included, there would still be arguements about its purity-good and/or bad.

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-20 08:09 wrote:
Yeah... that's a nice dream...

astral76minor at 2009-02-20 00:41 wrote:
The new developer from Hungary should spend time making a multiplayer campaign mode for H6. This is something that would bring the game to a new level since most games that sell now are made for multiplayer madness. In addition, besides single player mode, I ultimately agree that H6 would be nothing without an excellent map editor. All in all the old lore of H2-H5 should be preserved. Ubisofts issues with H5 had to do with patience and complexity. Their programmers simply did not have the resources to make all the necessary patches. Heroes 5 is an unpolished work, and in H6 let's never go through this kind of hassle again.....

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-13 08:22 wrote:
How unusual... that almost never happens.. :rolleyes:

CloudRiderX at 2009-02-12 20:45 wrote:
Someone who hasn't been participating in this conversation just popping in to let you know the focus of the discussion has gone slightly off topic relating to the post.

Have a nice day!

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-12 10:27 wrote:
>>Yes cant disagree that alot of dialogues and text is sometimes cliche and sound pathetic, but overall storyline wasn't that bad.<<

So it was only the story itself, that was bad, not the ideas...

The problem with the dragons is the same problem H3 had... dragon overload...

Also, the immortal guy in H4 wasn't bad... he was a well intentioned extremist... http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist

Actually someone should add him on the page.

As for Lysander, it's funny how i just read this this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7881652.stm so him being related to them isn't that unlikely... especially when it comes to nobles (can you say inbreeding?)

And i was under the impression that AB wasn't new, it was just disassembled a long time ago.

tress at 2009-02-11 21:51 wrote:
Tbh dont really remember if fighting gelu was objective, was long time ago, but anyway that's quit a flaw in storyline in my eyes.

When you're exploring Antagarich in MM7, you don't see Gem Ponds and Learning Stones all across the land, because it's a Might and Magic game, not Heroes.
I have zero problems that mm maps in no way represent homm maps(no learining stones and such), after all its for game play purpose, ( although wasn't happy that for some odd reason bracada from snowy mountain theme turns into desert theme much like homm5 wizard version) and it suggest that story writters dont really burden themselves with task to perfectly fit homm and mm storylines perfectly together(there is alot of that, bracada is just an example- another one would be that according to storyline warlocks are almost exclusvly male(while sorcerers were female) and in homm 3 Sephinroth(according to her bio) was exclusivly only warlock female while in mm7 all warlocks are females).
While map features might not be conisdered as something to watch by character bioses should be considered as part of lore and inconsistency between homm3 and 4 for same heroes isnt really good. Also i understand that when nwc made homm1 they didnt thought much for a plot and just used same character appearances as in old mm games but still using lord hart from hmm1 to hmm3 and yog(who were suposed to be born in other far far land and at least should be wizard at that time) without reasonable explanation(gem at least got youth fountain) could also be considered as inconsistency
As for old mm games, I really liked that they kept to same story for five games and managed to refer to them even in 7. Only thing i disliked was that same character names and appearances were overused(sandro,yog, in mm4-5 and then in homm1, while obviously they are meant as different characters)

As for homm5 - Dragons as gods, dont see anything bad there. There is alot of ppl in this world that are really sure that someone made earth and people in just a few days. That part of ubisofts storyline isnt anything that should be frowned upon imo. Yes cant disagree that alot of dialogues and text is sometimes cliche and sound pathetic, but overall storyline wasn't that bad.

Corlagon at 2009-02-11 21:12 wrote:
Well he does in last chapter of chronicles. Tarnum confiscates it from him to destroy both of them.

Not if you don't fight him. Wouldn't have been better if he didn't have the Blade at all, eh? It's flawed to consider scenario design and gameplay elements like the hero bios part of the storyline. When you're exploring Antagarich in MM7, you don't see Gem Ponds and Learning Stones all across the land, because it's a Might and Magic game, not Heroes.

The old games didn't have more inconsistencies than these ones. MM7 linked to MM3, Heroes I linked to MM1, etc etc, and they did it quite well. Geez, even MM7 mentions the main villain of MM1. Whether there are inconsistencies isn't a matter of opinion, it's one of fact.

For things to be inconsistent they would have to contradict something and Heroes IV simply didn't do that, it only expanded. Magnus may have been good in MM7 but his "transformation" is clearly explained in the H4 story. The text is there.

But by no means am I trying to force anyone to like or understand the original universe. Hey, if your taste can reasonably handle a story about dragons hatching in space and creating creatures for no reason, coupled with lines like "Yes. Yeees! I have done it! Me!" and "What perfect timing. I was just about to put the kettle on", Ashan certainly is the ideal setting for you. :P

tress at 2009-02-11 20:42 wrote:
But he never lost it, so how's that inconsistent?
Well he does in last chapter of chronicles. Tarnum confiscates it from him to destroy both of them.( not to mention 2 sword thing is cliche as hell by itself, even more considering that world destroying artifact was just freshly made while other was ancient blade...)
And plot and spell system was half stolen from MTG(world destroying-incidentally MTG world moved from chapter in really similar way and really at the same time, not to mention spell schools.)
Well story ubsioft mm vs nwc mm world- that's matter of taste. After homm3 sod (chronicles and hmm4...)apart from half dead story i didn't like any of them. Some were simply butchering old characters(magnus) and giving us and pulling new ones that are supposed to be related to old ones out of thin air(lysander). I wont even comment addons. There was hardly any plot.
Old games had way more inconsistencies imo than ubi version, Ofc ubi created world wasn't without flaws(not even close) but imo story writers tried to make more serious game.
Personally i think if ubi would buy mm world after hmm3/mm7 and rebooted it then to new concept i would be unhappy, dropping homm4/mm9 world was good choice.It was already notable that different ppl worked for homm4 plot( even alot of remaining heroes bios were lot different than mm3 versions.) and mm9 plot apart from nearly easter egg appearance of prince and animal named cult didn't even suggested that its even mm game so dropping it was good choice.

Corlagon at 2009-02-11 19:59 wrote:
It had MANY inconsistencies( like how Gelu regained sword at hmm4 start)

But he never lost it, so how's that inconsistent? I never understood why some have problems with H4's storyline. On the contrary, it didn't have any inconsistencies whatsoever, aside from one confusion in Gauldoth's campaign on the Kreegans. MM9 was different but its plot was almost unrelated so it didn't contradict or "screw" anything.

Besides Dark Messiah's plot was a joke. To me, rather than being more serious it was simply more gory. There was already "darkness" and "seriousness" in the setting, just reread the narrative in the campaigns of Armageddon's Blade and SoD. It beats DM's blood-and-guts atmosphere any day. But unlike Heroes IV, Heroes V's plot certainly didn't seem to take itself seriously in any way to me :P

And while there were about thirty original universe games, there've only been two Ashan games yet I can point out ten major storyline inconsistencies in Ubi's storyline straight off the bat.

tress at 2009-02-11 18:11 wrote:
Getting rid of the old universe was understandable. It would be easier to get a degree in medicine than mastering the old Might and Magic lore: new fans would have been confused and old ones would have been offended by any inconsistency.
Yeah, right. :P
No one have any serious problem if Ubisoft only create new world with new story. But scrapping all previous universe and lore for doing that?

Personally i believe that rebooting mm world was a good thing. 3do/nwc really screwed their own lore with hmm4/mm9. In fact they partially rebooted their own lore with destroying old world to get rid of old lore and be able to create new one from near blank page. Also MM universe didnt really had solid lore to begin with. It had MANY inconsistencies( like how Gelu regained sword at hmm4 start) and countless other. Personally i think that creating Axeoth was crude workaround to make reboot. What ubisoft did was partialy same. Even more they made mm lore more serious. Tone in Dark messiah was much darker than in any previous games.

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-11 12:43 wrote:
''That's the worst source ever... as reliable as a poll here when it comes to that.''
I am afraid it is not,in fact it is as an ordinary poll as
it is.
Edited on Wed, Feb 11 2009, 14:31 by Edwardas 3

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-11 10:55 wrote:
>>Whatever we might think or not the pull on official game site<<

That's the worst source ever... as reliable as a poll here when it comes to that.

Lepastur at 2009-02-10 22:26 wrote:
"It would be easier to get a degree in medicine than mastering the old Might and Magic lore:"
-> I'll be calling Harvard Medical School tomorrow morning.

"new fans would have been confused and old ones would have been offended by any inconsistency."
->Better than the way it is now, then - both new and old fans are confused and offended by inconsistencies at every turn. :P

rontfl lol You're the master, Corlagon! X-DDD

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-10 21:23 wrote:
Where do those statistics come from?
There's link in opening post to the thread with the pull on the first page

Corlagon at 2009-02-10 21:10 wrote:
It would be easier to get a degree in medicine than mastering the old Might and Magic lore:

I'll be calling Harvard Medical School tomorrow morning.

new fans would have been confused and old ones would have been offended by any inconsistency.

Better than the way it is now, then - both new and old fans are confused and offended by inconsistencies at every turn. :P

Avonu at 2009-02-10 19:22 wrote:
Yeah, right. :P
No one have any serious problem if Ubisoft only create new world with new story. But scrapping all previous universe and lore for doing that?

Well, on the other hand:
People destroy what they don't understand - or something like that - and Ubisoft is perfect example of this. :P

Angelspit at 2009-02-10 19:06 wrote:
Getting rid of the old universe was understandable. It would be easier to get a degree in medicine than mastering the old Might and Magic lore: new fans would have been confused and old ones would have been offended by any inconsistency.

HodgePodge at 2009-02-10 19:01 wrote:
Where do those statistics come from?

Somehow I get the feeling that most those that voted against Nival are those that didn't like H5's setting and the butchering of the old universes, but that wasn't Nival's 'fault' at all, but Ubi's.
I'm all for ditching Ubi too. :-D

Asheera at 2009-02-10 13:53 wrote:
Where do those statistics come from?

Somehow I get the feeling that most those that voted against Nival are those that didn't like H5's setting and the butchering of the old universes, but that wasn't Nival's 'fault' at all, but Ubi's.

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-10 11:29 wrote:
Whatever we might think or not the pull on official game site
shows that : 13% of players absolutely wish for Nival to continue,40 % hope that Nival can continue for they have learned something;14% say no to Nival,but not criticize it much and 32% absolutely hate Nival
and it means big no.So 53% for Nival to continue with sixth installment
and 46% don't wish them to continue.
With 1/3 (32%)of players categorically against Nival shall Ubisoft to take risk and go on with Nival ? I mean that is kind of a lot of copies unsold ,right? But new players grow up all the time and they might not know a thing about 5 or 3 and 4 but still like whatever 6 would be?
Everything as we see bases on commercialization nowdays,that is why it was so different with JVC,the creator of series, for he was not only
a profit-maker ,he was eventually a fantasy fan and enthusiast ,so his work included something from the gamer'soul not only buck-making .....
Edited on Tue, Feb 10 2009, 06:31 by Edwardas 3

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-10 07:43 wrote:
f it didn't, the problem is, that game performance won't get better with technical development.


Eh... i'm pretty sure that it will... even 1 core is better then most older processors... sure, it's not as much as it could, but there's limit on how well the game can work anyhow... and i'm pretty sure it's already reached it.

Jolly Joker at 2009-02-10 07:29 wrote:
I find some comments here pretty insulting as well.
The game wasn't made to please a handful of long-time fans. The long-time fans have the advantage of knowing the basics of the game, but someone who does not, will spend 50 $ and learn THE GAME over a long time, since it's not an easy game. It wouldn't make much sense to complain about that - that the game is difficult, I mean.

The trouble is, that you should be able to play the game halfway well, because otherwise inevitably the maps you make will suck. This is true for long-time fans as well. Just because you know H3 doesn't mean you can make a nice map for H4 and the same is true for H5.

If you like a game, but don't want to invest the necessary learning time to master it, you can of course complain, but aren't you a bit lazy as well? If you want to make maps for a complex game, the same is true. Added user-friendliness for the editor would have been nice, but there were other priorities.

I agree, though, about the high hardware specs necessary. The more complex and detailed the map, the more the game experience as such will suffer due to a performance deterioration. That's a real flaw. As far as I know there was a multi-core update planned, but I don't know whether that actually happened. If it didn't, the problem is, that game performance won't get better with technical development.

So the bottom line is, that neither the game as such nor the editor are optimized.

Clearly one is worse than the other. If the game will not capture you for longer than a month - who needs an editor? If the game is cool, but has no editor, it will suck as well, but for different reasons. If the game is good, but the editor is not easy to handle, that's clearly better than the two before. Of course that's not optimal.

That's why I think, it may be a chance when the game goes to a small developer. If the developer is smart, they won't hire double their usual staff to make a game of a scope they never handled in any way. A smart small developer will try and produce what they can deliver in the time agreed upon.

I hope for a somewhat H2-ish game with half of the H5 creatures and a completely revised system. It makes no sense to alter the game basics dramatically AND add to the scope as well: H4 had a lot less creatures and towns then H3 as well. Add an optimized code for smooth running, no matter map size and details, a working MP and Duel feature (yes, Duel mode should be kept) and an ADEQUATE editor, and I'll be happy.

Asheera at 2009-02-10 00:42 wrote:
Don't know, I'm not that informed about those Heroes 5 news before its launch, but if they did say they'll give an editor, I agree that was pretty lame to not do what they said.

Corlagon at 2009-02-09 23:05 wrote:
If the devs don't want to give you an editor at all and say this before, it's not their fault you buy the game expecting a map editor and then being disappointed, just because you ignored their message.

Didn't an original HV release promise a map editor was included? And there wasn't one until five months later?

Storm-giant at 2009-02-09 22:50 wrote:
Disagree with you, Ash, If something is added during the serie and the each single HOMM fan agrees that it's great(I highly doubt anyone don't like the old editors), it should be keept(and improved if possible). In fact, the editor is a part of the game(and not an external tool), since HOMM is an TBS game played on maps , the editor is a must, with it anyone can make maps so they give replayability to the game, which is a main thing in HOMM, imo.

I belive that any HOMM game should came with at least a basic editor(like heroes III one), other thing is the one which was used by the devs to create the game, the more features the better, but as long as it has the minimum features you can expect.

Cheers

Asheera at 2009-02-09 22:31 wrote:
"You are entirely wrong Asheera. An easy fan friendly map editor has been part of the series since the heroes 2 expansion pack. That is part of what you pay for...when you buy a heroes game you know there will be fan maps."

So just because that was in the past means that it has to be every time from now on? Well, I disagree here. And also, about the fact that you know there will be fan maps, that's not a given. If the devs don't want to give you an editor at all and say this before, it's not their fault you buy the game expecting a map editor and then being disappointed, just because you ignored their message.

Of course this wasn't the situation with H5 (they did release the map editor), but you get my point. Now, I do get disappointed when the devs release a crappy editor that has only 30% of the original editor's capabilities (obviously meaning that it's not the editor the devs used themselves), which happened with Spellforce 1. At least Nival released the H5 editor they used themselves (yes, you need to change that value in the config files to give it its full potential, but it's still the same executable Nival used)

PhoenixReborn at 2009-02-09 21:52 wrote:
Ok so the game has always had an editor so the point still stands. Looking back did I take Asheera's point out of context?

I'm surprised at the level of dissatisfaction with changing developers. I'd think a fresh start was welcome. I mean this in both cases.

Avonu at 2009-02-09 21:13 wrote:
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/7505/homm1ii0.png

I remember creating "maps" in HoMM1 so I think editor always have been in H1. But I am not 100% sure.
BTW - this is from my DOS/Win95 version of HoMM1 (another one is only Windows version).

EDIT:
Stupid me: look for features on this page.

PhoenixReborn at 2009-02-09 21:05 wrote:
Well my copy of H1 didn't have a map editor. Nor do I remember getting the editor until I got PoL. Could be a faulty memory on my part.

Jonas at 2009-02-09 20:33 wrote:
I didn't intentend to insult anyone, it was just my opinion about the tote-editor. Sorry if I did. :(

I had absolutely no knowledge about programming before i started to use the editor.

Thanks to all good map-makers at this place :-D I thought I had no use of the editor, but the maps don't last forever. So I just jumped in.

The thing is that the need and purpose of the editor, and even the game, different from us all. For me, a single player fan, the events in a map is more important than good fightings and even sometimes a good storyline. Because the tote-editor is less predestined than H4, it makes it more flexible. You can do almost anything with it. The backside of it is that it takes time to make a good (my opinion) map and that the bigger part of the work is done in what's not visible when you play the map - the script.

If you want to make a MP-map the needs are probably different - balance between players etc.

Anyway, whoever gets the new project H VI, I hope they keep the LUA based script, now when I have got a grip of it :proud:

Avonu at 2009-02-09 20:17 wrote:
An easy fan friendly map editor has been part of the series since the heroes 2 expansion pack.
From H1 (Win version)

Corlagon at 2009-02-09 19:55 wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure we got a map editor with the vanilla H2, as well as H1. Maybe not easy or fan-friendly, but it was there and it worked ;)

I do agree though that the HV editor has everything, and I'm satisfied with it, but I wouldn't have been about two years ago when I couldn't mod. There were so many more options than in HI-IV that it was intimidating. I guess that's also part of the problem. You don't need everything to make good, long-lasting maps; you only need a map editor. This thing is a bloody construction studio.

PhoenixReborn at 2009-02-09 19:50 wrote:
You are entirely wrong Asheera. An easy fan friendly map editor has been part of the series since the heroes 2 expansion pack. That is part of what you pay for...when you buy a heroes game you know there will be fan maps.

Asheera at 2009-02-09 19:21 wrote:
Yes, you payed for the game, not for the editor. The map editor is already a bonus. But a more user-friendly editor would be nice, I agree (although I don't have problems with the H5 one, except sometimes when it corrupts the maps)

Storm-giant at 2009-02-09 19:00 wrote:
HV editor sucks, as it discourage newbies to make maps, unlike heroes II/III/IV. And thats a failure, imo, I still remenber Heroes IV editor as the best(of NWC), extremely easy to use and the scripts were half-predone, and heroes 3 had the time-events. It's true that HV editor can do so much things, but still isn't friendly to user, and you need to learn to make scripts, and you don't pay to learn , you pay to enjoy the game as HodgePodge stated.

HodgePodge at 2009-02-09 18:49 wrote:
I think most people have judged the H-V(tote) editor as a piece of crap because they haven't given it a chance. I did that too. But now, after two month working on my first map, I realize this editor is not tremendous, but close. Ok it's not user friendly in the beginning, but you get used to it (like in most computer related case 8| ). It's all about giving it time, and of course, you need a brain too...
I find your comment insulting! I didn't pay $50 for a game to spend two months trying to figure out how to use the Editor. Funny, I know nothing about computer programming but was able to figure out how to use the H4 Map Editor in very little time. Even trying to open an already existing map with the H5 Editor was a chore too unpleasant to screw around with. No thanks.

Jonas at 2009-02-09 14:14 wrote:
I think most people have judged the H-V(tote) editor as a piece of crap because they haven't given it a chance. I did that too. But now, after two month working on my first map, I realize this editor is not tremendous, but close. Ok it's not user friendly in the beginning, but you get used to it (like in most computer related case 8| ). It's all about giving it time, and of course, you need a brain too...

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-09 11:04 wrote:
>>Well I was not the one to bring up the comparison with Warcraft 3<<

Yes you where, because you misunderstood what i said.


>>Also, that 'being old' argument is no excuse. Just look up at Neverwinter Nights which was released the same year as WC3. Compare the trees if you'd like.<<

BINGO...


>>but most have a good design.<<

I'm sure the ppl at GW apreciate ur praise. (meh, i've always disliked the artists work even before H5, so i'll pass this time)
Sir Dabbler at 2009-02-09 00:59 wrote:
Jeff; Ditto on everything you said.

Asheera at 2009-02-09 00:42 wrote:
I agree that H5 runs too slow compared to how it looks. Bad engine optimization I guess, so let's hope the new company is better at this (and making a fast AI while not losing any of its 'intelligence' for this process)

jeff at 2009-02-09 00:33 wrote:
I agree H-V had good graphics but at a cost, since just about everything moved it caused system requirements to be unnecessarily high. My few attempts with its editor were continually frustated by the slow computer performance caused by the highly detailed objects constantly in motion. No I don't use old computers, I replace them frequently. So my system was always well above the stated requirements. When I judged the H-V contest Psycobabble held just before he left a few of the nicely decorated maps were just painful to play because the high number of objects caused all aspects of the game to run slowly. They must balance that better if H-VI is to succeed.

darknessfood at 2009-02-08 22:59 wrote:
Indeed.HoMM V just had a certain style. A bit cartoonish (so perhaps the comparison of Asheera wasn't THAT bad).It had a pretty good style if you ask me :)!

Asheera at 2009-02-08 15:10 wrote:
Well I was not the one to bring up the comparison with Warcraft 3 :P

Also, that 'being old' argument is no excuse. Just look up at Neverwinter Nights which was released the same year as WC3. Compare the trees if you'd like.

Warcraft (including WoW) just has silly graphics, and not just because it is old. It's just how it is, beats me why.

But this is getting off-topic :P

Metathron at 2009-02-08 14:56 wrote:
Warcraft III is four years older than HoMM V, so that doesn't really speak in favour of the latter.

And yes, I thought WC3 had good graphics; not at first, though, it was an acquired taste. So, by extension, I quite liked the HoMM V (adventure map) graphics.

Asheera at 2009-02-08 13:59 wrote:
Matter of taste I guess, I agree some models look ridiculous (like the Peasants) but most have a good design.

And in no way you can compare H5 graphics with Warcraft 3. H5 has much better graphics, let's compare the trees for a start, hmm? :P

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll221/Asheera_Moonblood/W3Tree_vs_H5Tree.jpg

(left WC3, right H5)

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-08 13:04 wrote:
>>It's just a hypothesis.<<

Fixed that for you...


>>Despite great gameplay and graphics,<<

:lolu: Gameplay was OK, but the graphics... i bet you thought WC3 had good graphics too.

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-08 12:58 wrote:
Why HoMM 5 was not set in traditional HoMM universe it would be
nice to meet old rascals type Crag ?

ByteBandit at 2009-02-08 10:28 wrote:
I also believe sentimentality may have played a minor role in the game not being a complete success. Despite great gameplay and graphics, I think the dismissal of past legendary heroes (i.e. Sandro, Crag Hack, Lord Haart and so on) may have rubbed true loyalists of the game the wrong way. I have no evidence to prove it. It's just a theory. But hopefully the game will continue to push new ground in the future, but retain older values as well.

HodgePodge at 2009-02-08 07:30 wrote:
STILL, it's H IV you prefer and like and defend. Why? Because your preferences are so that subjectively the shortcomings of H IV don't matter to you nearly as much as those with H V (did someone say editor?).
Yes, I said EDITOR! Or should I say LACK of a user-friendly Editor. I could've put up with just about all of the sh!t shoveled at us by Ubival with H5 Ö except for the horrible Map Editor.

All of the so called 'shortcomings' could've been overlooked if Heroes V had a decent, user-friendly Map Editor. That's why I prefer Heroes IV, the magnificent Map/Campaign Editor makes Heroes IV much more fun to play.

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-07 20:49 wrote:
I read the commentaries about *bad job* on HoMM IV ,get sad and play it never the less again and again.
I tried to skirmish in HoMM V but way too long AI turn made it impossible .Empty maps ,lack of neutral mobs I could ignore ,but waithing 5 minutes every turn is no go.
So before VI is released it wud be 3 and 4 for me.

jeff at 2009-02-07 18:31 wrote:
STILL, it's H IV you prefer and like and defend. Why? Because your preferences are so that subjectively the shortcomings of H IV don't matter to you nearly as much as those with H V (did someone say editor?).

Agreed

darknessfood at 2009-02-07 17:36 wrote:
3DO indeed did a lousy job on the HoMM IV expansions. I think (like Avonu said) they needed the money bad.
Ubi's HoMM V wasn't bad at all, and the expansions were more than a mere "let's cash in". They did have more gameplay, and such. I'm only dissapointed that they didn't support the game very well, with patches and stuff...

Avonu at 2009-02-07 09:34 wrote:
With H IV 3DO did a lousy job. NWC knew their game and tried something else on one hand, but 3DO did their best to butcher it. The bottom line was - technically - a bad game at release. No MP. No AI. Exp packs were designed to make a fast buck only.
I don't think Ubi did a worse job than that.
Yes, they did.
3DO was on edge of bancrucy IIRC, so for them selling games was "to be or not to be".
Ubisoft on the other hand realeased HV without map editor, with only a handful of maps to play, with Artificial Idiot and without some features which were annouced to be in HV (simultaneous turn - remember anyone?). Not mention that this game was buggy even after first patch (and still no editor included).
Did they have to released HV so quickly? No, they could afford to wait some time to polished this game. Did they do that?

Jolly Joker at 2009-02-07 08:53 wrote:
However, the bottom line is, it's all strawman arguments anyway. Why?

With H IV 3DO did a lousy job. NWC knew their game and tried something else on one hand, but 3DO did their best to butcher it. The bottom line was - technically - a bad game at release. No MP. No AI. Exp packs were designed to make a fast buck only.
I don't think Ubi did a worse job than that.

STILL, it's H IV you prefer and like and defend. Why? Because your preferences are so that subjectively the shortcomings of H IV don't matter to you nearly as much as those with H V (did someone say editor?).

For others it's the same thing. If the game serves your preferences well, great, if not, to hell with the guilty parties.

jeff at 2009-02-06 23:32 wrote:
I guess Jeff meant that Ubi has some responsibility about Heroes V,

Ahem, I wasn't going to comment again, but here goes. In part you are right, sorry but Iím an ex-military officer and it was drilled into us you can delegate authority, but you canít delegate responsibility. How does that apply here, simple as owner of the franchise it was UBIís responsibility to ensure the quality of the product, not Nival. Nivalís mistakes are UBIís mistakes. UBI had the ability and the responsibility to fix anything they felt was broke. If it was not fixed then they did not feel it was broke. Any argument defending UBI falls short by the fact they are the owners itís their responsibility alone to ensure ultimate product quality. The fact I prefer H-IV to H-V has nothing to do with it. Iíve moved on, I point to H-V players dissatisfaction with the product (example: patches that break as much as it fixes) and when Fabrice just prior to tribes release makes the comment we didnít know fans were unhappy with the H-V editor shows a complete lack of connection with the fan community. UBI has shown itself not to care until after the fact, unless that changes I stand by my previous statement.

It does seem this is starting to go way off topic, perhaps the mods will close it if it continues to evolve into a 4 v 5 debate.

Pitsu at 2009-02-06 18:44 wrote:
I will leave the former topic for now and comment the last post only.

Additional material that causes imbalances or dislike is fine only as long as it can be turned off. Like many things in WoG. A good example could be the unfortunate user made map that causes minotaurs and ghost dragons have enormous hit points in H5. It is just few monsters out of so many, but how many people wonder what the heck is that. And unless you can prevent any random town to be conflux in H3, it may ruin a map even though no player chooses it as a starting town.

Coming back to NWC-Nival-3DO-Ubi and game quality, then it might be good to remember that although NWC was the developer until H4 WoW, its shortcomings are related to the publisher 3DO. For me H2 is the favorite. Somewhere during H3 development NWC lost its independence to 3DO, and from soon thereafter i see degradation in both, HoMM and MM games. Thus, even if original NWC would come together and express willingness to work again on HoMM, its outcome would depend much on Ubi. Even more, since it is Ubisoft that picks the new dev. team, game's quality must be mostly Ubi's responsibility.
MER at 2009-02-06 18:24 wrote:
@Ppl saying H5 is better than H3 because its more popular:
It is more popular at the moment because it's new, every new game in the beginning has popularity. The question is, will it be still popular in 9 years as H3 is now. If yes, then OK, H5 is at least as good as H3. But i highly doubt that will be the case.
Example: when Warcraft 3 came out in 2003 everyone jumped on it thinking it'll surpass Starcraft. And for several years it was the more popular of the 2 games. However now WC3 scene is essentially dying (im not talking about DoTA) whereas Starcraft is still flourishing after 11 years. The case with H3 and H5 is the same IMO, it's just a temporary moment of fame for H5.
Edited on Fri, Feb 06 2009, 13:27 by MER

Asheera at 2009-02-06 17:04 wrote:
Well I know what you mean, something like this (both games in the examples have the same gameplay mechanics)

Game A has six towns, two very imbalanced.
Game B has five towns, all of them very balanced.

Yes, Game A has more content but imbalance doesn't count, so it's actually only 4 quality towns. The other has 5, so it is better.

However, if we have:

Game A with six towns, all of them very balanced.
Game B with the same six towns, but has two more which are imbalanced.

In this case I wouldn't consider Game B worse than A, since it doesn't lack anything A has. It has more content, but since it is not quality (imbalanced), it shouldn't be considered a lot better either. But I don't get it why say B is worse than A when it just has more content? Apart from Hard Disk space, it has no disadvantage, even if the extra content is crappy.

Corlagon at 2009-02-06 16:34 wrote:
I think we can both agree that imbalance usually lessens a game's quality when it can be avoided.

Asheera at 2009-02-06 16:18 wrote:
Why play with Conflux if you don't like it and think it's broken then? At least it doesn't make it 'worse', but maybe some people enjoy conflux, therefore making it 'better' for them.

Corlagon at 2009-02-06 16:15 wrote:
Well, the H3 Conflux was more content, but it didn't make the game any better in terms of balance. Content =/= quality.

Asheera at 2009-02-06 16:10 wrote:
@Pitsu: If the majority of people listen to that pop-hit because they like it, and not because they want to 'give it a first try' to see how it is (and perhaps be disappointed), then yes it should be considered better than the symphony these days (who knows in the future?)

Obviously this is the majority -speaking, and in no way relates to the 'best'. Taste is completely subjective, which means you can't ever say what music is best since it depends on the individual. However, you can say what music is the most popular, based on the majority's taste. Again, this doesn't mean it is the 'best' way. Example: If the majority of people are impatient and like RTS more than TBS (which is a true story if I'm not wrong), does it mean that games like HoMM are inferior to Warcraft 3? For me, most definitely not.

So bottom line is, can we please stop saying which Heroes games suck and such? I never said such a thing actually. I even understand people that like Heroes 4, and if there was some other "new" company making it (like Nival did with H5), I wouldn't have said that the company sucks for making such a game (if it's not full of bugs - that's another story :P) I mean, some players like H4 more than other HoMM games, who's to say they are wrong? The majority? By this logic, we shouldn't play TBSs since the majority likes RTSs more.

So H5:TotE was a great game, at least for me, and many other players like it a lot. Nival aren't a very bad company (since the game doesn't have many bugs, especially after TotE), and H4 was also a good game, since some players enjoyed it, though less popular.

So predicting if you'll like H6 with ANY developer is impossible, since it is subjective and the developers won't please anyone. As it has been shown with H4, there is a chance that not even the majority will be pleased. However, what we should really hope for is a company that is good at programming to not create a slow/dumb AI or fill the game with bugs.

@Corlagon: No, I meant the same game, with the same mechanics, but more content. If it has different mechanics you can't simply compare them that easily.

Corlagon at 2009-02-06 16:04 wrote:
That's simply not fair a comparison.

You're so right. Far less people had the internet back when Heroes III was released.

more content -> better, no doubt)

I'm pretty sure there is doubt... that makes Heroes III instantly the best in the series, despite its flawed Conflux and about 50 redundant spells.

Pitsu at 2009-02-06 14:55 wrote:
@Asheera
By the same logic any pop-hit that has over last weeks been played more often in radio than a centuries old classical symphony should be "better" than the symphony. It is fair to compare only such two pieces, which have similar enough background. ToTE is 1 year and 3 months old, SoD is 9 years. IMO ToTE and H5 are still too new for a fair comparison without considering the time factor.

PhoenixReborn at 2009-02-06 14:40 wrote:

Alright, perhaps you can translate me the last, 2 months old, news piece from ToH?
A slow going heroes5 finally has 5000+ games played in ToH, which is nice to see.

That's as rubbish as the statistics on the popularity of heroes 4 now. Quite simply I can turn on my msn and instantly have 4 or 5 people asking me for matches (I do suck at the game).

I don't understand why TOH stopped supporting the older games.

Some people still play H2 online. What are we arguing about again?

Asheera at 2009-02-06 13:55 wrote:
@Pitsu: "Alright, perhaps you can translate me the last, 2 months old, news piece from ToH? I mean comparison of that 5000 with the statistics of old seasons found at ToH History."

You are right, and as I said, H3 may have been more popular than H5 at its time, when H5 didn't even exist. That's simply not fair a comparison. Products should be compared in the same timeline, when both exist.

Just because Windows 95 was splendid at its time compared with other Operating Systems doesn't mean it is better than XP. XP didn't probably have the huge success Windows 95 had at its time, but it is still way better.

Let's take a simple comparison (fictional, these are not actual Heroes games): There is Heroes 1, and there is Heroes 2. Heroes 1 is the first TBS with complex graphics ever made (let's say there were only text-based games before). People simply love it at its time, it's one of the best game ever made. Then Heroes 2 comes out, which only adds some towns and creatures. It is most definitely not as 'attractive' as H1 was when it was first released since it just adds more content, nothing revolutionary like graphics (when there were only text-games), but it is still better (how couldn't it be? more content -> better, no doubt)

And in conclusion, the fact that H5 is more popular these days than H3 means that it is better overall (I mean overall, obviously, since tastes differ - I understand people who prefer H4 over any other heroes games, not saying they have weird taste or anything - just pointing out which version of Heroes is the 'best' overall)

Bandobras Took at 2009-02-06 13:54 wrote:
>>and those guys where former Bioware.


Slight correction -- those guys were former Black Isle.

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-06 11:51 wrote:
Small dev = Ubi walking all over them... i mean look what happened to KotOR 2, and those guys where former Bioware.


@Asheera

Yeah... i thought so... ppl don't talk about the older game as much... i wonder why.

Jolly Joker at 2009-02-06 11:28 wrote:
Switching to a smaller company may lead to a complete desaster, but it could be a chance as well.

With 5 HoMM games underway there will always be those who'll miss something or dislike this or that.

A small developer may actually try and go back to the basics, making a smaller, TIGHTER game, if you know what I mean, concentrate on BASICS, some changes in the game that were actually "forgotten" when they did 3 and overdone or not done the right way when they made 4, to come up with a satisfactory way to balance the might with the magic.

You know, the pearl you always look for - the compact, but immersive game that screams for a successor that simply delivers MORE.
In short, maybe a small developer would actually have the guts to make a comparatively small, but completely overhauled game.
A new Heroes 1 so to speak; a point from which to start anew.

Pitsu at 2009-02-06 07:04 wrote:

I even think H5 is more popular than H3 these days (don't know how it was H3 before TotE was launched) - just check the activity in the HC forums, ToH, and such things.

Alright, perhaps you can translate me the last, 2 months old, news piece from ToH? I mean comparison of that 5000 with the statistics of old seasons found at ToH History. Without participating there myself, i must be missing something. Here is the quote:

A slow going heroes5 finally has 5000+ games played in ToH, which is nice to see.

Lepastur at 2009-02-06 02:11 wrote:
I guess Jeff meant that Ubi has some responsibility about Heroes V, due to their marketing targets and their sales strategy. All bad from Heroes V are not Nival's fault, because the one who gives the project's charge is also guilty somehow. Now Ubi are seeking cheapness over quality, as always did, and by this way any game is doomed.

PhoenixReborn at 2009-02-05 23:17 wrote:
Unfortunately since UBI still owns it I donít think it will matter who picks it up, it is doomed.

There is no reason to think that. It's a complete unknown.

jeff at 2009-02-05 23:10 wrote:
"What evidence do you base that on?"

Is that a joke? :P I even think H5 is more popular than H3 these days (don't know how it was H3 before TotE was launched) - just check the activity in the HC forums, ToH, and such things.

Sure H3 may still have been played more, because it's old (and has some years in advantage), but I'm saying that H5 TotE is doing pretty well.

Again that proves nothing, the few times Iíve gone to the UBI board over the last few months, you might as well stick a fork in it; while the old 3DO boards were very active right up to the time the plug was pulled. So forum activity is not now nor ever has been a proof of popularity. It just shows how active a small portion of the over all player population can be. Sales can even be deceiving as I and many H-IV fans bought H-V, but it has killed many of our interest in the franchise. H-IV did the same for others, we really donít need to go down this road again there are far too many threads and posts on this topic. Arguing it again is not going to change my mind or any H-IV or H-V fansí minds. So can we please move on and hope whoever takes over for Nival does a better job. Unfortunately since UBI still owns it I donít think it will matter who picks it up, it is doomed.

Asheera at 2009-02-05 19:13 wrote:
"What evidence do you base that on?"

Is that a joke? :P I even think H5 is more popular than H3 these days (don't know how it was H3 before TotE was launched) - just check the activity in the HC forums, ToH, and such things.

Sure H3 may still have been played more, because it's old (and has some years in advantage), but I'm saying that H5 TotE is doing pretty well.

Angelspit at 2009-02-05 18:15 wrote:
Bad idea. Or you should dig out the old RT from somewhere and count the H4 threads from there.
Unfortunately, it's very dead.

Pitsu at 2009-02-05 18:04 wrote:
You could start by looking at the topics and posts numbers on this fourm.
.

Bad idea. Or you should dig out the old RT from somewhere and count the H4 threads from there.

PhoenixReborn at 2009-02-05 17:59 wrote:
You could start by looking at the topics and posts numbers on this fourm.

None of it matters, heroes 6 will be something new again.

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-05 17:31 wrote:
H5 is still way more popular than H4.

What evidence do you base that on?

Bandobras Took at 2009-02-05 14:10 wrote:
>>And yes I know H5 is very similar to H3, and the fact that it is more popular than H4 proves my point that most people are simply nostalgic and won't accept any major change in terms of gameplay.

No, it proves nothing of the sort. I like H5 better than H4 because combat is on the whole more balanced, the unique racial abilities are cool, and the skill system is funner.

It has nothing to do with whether the game plays like H3, H2, or even the first Heroes game. Inicidentally, Heroes 2 represented an even more major change in gameplay than Heroes 4, yet the fans accepted and endorsed it.

Yurian Stonebow at 2009-02-05 13:57 wrote:
*this nostalgic Heroes III die-hard fan remains to be more than happy with the aforementioned game, and will keep even making new maps for the NWC masterpiece*

Asheera at 2009-02-05 13:36 wrote:
@Caradoc: What's your point? H5 is still way more popular than H4. So NWC with their all-mightiness made an even crappier game even after working on three heroes games before.

There will always be some nostalgic people who will never accept anything different in terms of game mechanics than H3, that doesn't mean the developers will make the same game over and over again. Just accept and try something different, otherwise just play H3.

And yes I know H5 is very similar to H3, and the fact that it is more popular than H4 proves my point that most people are simply nostalgic and won't accept any major change in terms of gameplay.

Pitsu at 2009-02-05 11:00 wrote:

How many? Like 2 out of 10 which, actually, never gave a real try on the game?

I think he meant people who had given a very real try to the NWC HoMM games (and game editors) and did expect something at a similar level.

parcaleste at 2009-02-05 09:22 wrote:
... they ignored that and put out something that disappointed many eager customers.

How many? Like 2 out of 10 which, actually, never gave a real try on the game?

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-05 08:37 wrote:
Let's not ignore Ubi's part in it, shall we...

Caradoc at 2009-02-05 05:55 wrote:
What's all this about "it was their first try at Heroes"? No excuse -- they clearly did not understand what made the game popular. The botched beta made it clear that some poor design decisions had been made from the start. Had this been the first version of Heroes, the developer can be forgiven for not getting it right. But these guys had FOUR previous versions to look at plus an active player community to consult, but they ignored that and put out something that disappointed many eager customers.

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-04 17:06 wrote:
Pls, critical reception is nothing compared to sales... and 2 expansions that added more then just a few neutrals and some other crap (looking at you H4, SoD was another time) = good enough sales.

darknessfood at 2009-02-04 15:28 wrote:
No, aparently Ubi did...
Sir Dabbler at 2009-02-04 11:49 wrote:
'In discussions' to me means that HoMM 6 would seem to be moving forward; but could still fall though. Why would you wait this long before taking up 'discussions'? And did we fans ruin Nival's chance for HoMM 6?

Asheera at 2009-02-03 15:00 wrote:
I seriously doubt a third expansion...
skortzy at 2009-02-03 14:31 wrote:
I was also hoping for some kind of third expansion with the naga. But, hopes and chances are slimmer and slimmer :(

Avonu at 2009-02-02 22:10 wrote:
Yeah, and we all playing patch 2.2 right now. :P

Asheera at 2009-02-02 21:40 wrote:
That's what people were saying before 3.1 as well, and yet it was released. Very late, but still...

Infiltrator at 2009-02-02 21:34 wrote:
I really see the HoMM5 patch happening.. yep.. no doubt about that one..

darknessfood at 2009-02-02 13:13 wrote:
Yeah, and probably some sort of DLC as well. You can still wait for a loooooooong while...

Asheera at 2009-02-02 13:08 wrote:
They'll still need to work on patches, etc. (Almost) no game is flawless from the initial release.

darknessfood at 2009-02-02 13:05 wrote:
No. I don't think this is going to happen...

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-02 13:03 wrote:
It is going to be out soon ,exactly enough to get contract from
Ubisoft

darknessfood at 2009-02-02 12:40 wrote:
No, they can't. They are working on Overlord 2, and a Overlord spin off...

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-02 12:36 wrote:
Or they could simly get Triumph studios the devs who made AoW series,inspired by MoM and the nearest to HoMM series.
ywhtptgtfo at 2009-02-02 09:03 wrote:
Can anyone link me with the official confirmation? The one provided is not pointing to the right place.

Asheera at 2009-02-01 23:52 wrote:
Let's hope so. Those Arcane Archers need a serious nerf. :P

Grumpy Old Wizard at 2009-02-01 23:50 wrote:
Too bad Nival got axed. Now another company has to start learing from square one. I wonder if Nival is still going to do another patch as promised.

HodgePodge at 2009-02-01 22:16 wrote:
Back in the 18th century, piracy was much higher.

:D
ÖÖÖÖ :rofl: ÖÖÖÖ

Edwardas 3 at 2009-02-01 17:11 wrote:
Piracy soxs-they destroyed many genius designers.
Damn them
Edited on Sun, Feb 01 2009, 12:15 by Edwardas 3

Metathron at 2009-02-01 14:46 wrote:
We're talking about the 18th century. You gotta pay attention...

ThunderTitan at 2009-02-01 14:44 wrote:
Somalia is therefore the greenest country in the world...

Gaidal Cain at 2009-02-01 07:18 wrote:
Yes, and the world was a better place for it:
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

Metathron at 2009-02-01 02:03 wrote:
Back in the 18th century, piracy was much higher.

:D

Ethric at 2009-02-01 01:34 wrote:
Time will show, I guess :)

The piracy was much higher - main reason
What?

Sir Charles at 2009-01-31 18:19 wrote:
While I was overall very happy with the AI's in both H2 and H3, the one in H1 was by far the best IMO. Yes, it was simpler and therefore easier to program, but it was still the most efficient and difficult to beat. Seriously, when was the last time any of you went back and played an expert & Ingenious King of the Hill game for H1? You may be pleasantly surprised at the actual difficulty.

And just to clarify, my source wasn't Fabrice...but rather 2 Nival insiders (disgruntled ex-nivalers I'm guessing). Reliable enough to make me believe it at least. Take that for what it's worth.

Bandobras Took at 2009-01-31 14:40 wrote:


>>Acceptable? They did. I did. HoMM2 was always playable in singleplayer, and it still rocks.

Not to derail the thread, but I can't accept that when I've watched AI heroes in Heroes 2 spend over a week simply boarding and exiting a ship in the exact same place.



>>The HoMM II AI is extremely naive and predictable, and yet somehow it manages to never do extremely retarded things like keeping its strong walkers in place when there's an enemy strong walker in range., or not flagging its mines.

However, it does manage to do retarded things like ignoring walkers in favor of shooters.

Overall, I'd say H3 had the most acceptable AI, since they were essentially able to refine the Heroes 2 AI.

Edwardas 3 at 2009-01-31 14:16 wrote:
The piracy was much higher - main reason

Ethric at 2009-01-31 11:34 wrote:
A rumour on the internet? Well that settles it then ;)

A new developer for a new game could be interesting (it'll never be NWC, so it doesn't really matter who it is), but i suspect a new publisher could be a real boon. Except if it's an even worse one... 3DO v2: Trip Is Back 8|

If 3DO would have been patient & waited for H4 to be completed, they may not have gone bankrupt.
I don't it was as simple as that.

Yeah, 3DO would probably have gone under no matter what.

Edwardas 3 at 2009-01-31 11:13 wrote:
Don't know why but Northern American designers created the games I like most : Might Magic Universe ,Wizardry 8 and Jagged Alliance 2,yeah those two are Canadian.Maybe that crispy humor or cool designer style ?
But what is today don't they have good designers left in New World?

Metathron at 2009-01-31 01:50 wrote:
don't shoot me, never played H2

:|

No shooting, we promise.

Burn 'er!

Lepastur at 2009-01-31 00:07 wrote:
As far as I can remember, Heroes II IA wasn't genius, but it was able to make some challenge to human players on some scenarios and get fun in them. Furthermore, the single player mode wasn't ruined because of it as the Heroes V is, maybe also because the Editor Map was complete and allows you to make some things easily.

Asheera at 2009-01-30 23:04 wrote:
Maybe because the game is less complex?

(don't shoot me, never played H2, don't know if it's complex or not, but I was just guessing that since it's older)

Darmani at 2009-01-30 23:00 wrote:
The HoMM II AI is extremely naive and predictable, and yet somehow it manages to never do extremely retarded things like keeping its strong walkers in place when there's an enemy strong walker in range., or not flagging its mines.

MistWeaver at 2009-01-30 22:00 wrote:

>>Why? They've never had one before. ;)

Acceptable? They did. I did. HoMM2 was always playable in singleplayer, and it still rocks.

Bandobras Took at 2009-01-30 19:29 wrote:
fine with me. i think fans should get a HoMM game with an acceptable AI at least once per decade :P


-- Why? They've never had one before. ;)

darknessfood at 2009-01-30 15:12 wrote:
Indeed, they put a lot of cash into their own console, and it didn't got sold very well. People thought it was too expansive (and it was wasn't worth it, due to the fact the PSX came out, just like the saturn). The pricetag of nearly 700 US dollars (the introduction price) was just too much. By the time people could afford it, they have bought a PSX of saturn. Also, gamesells went down quite much. Army Men came out like every once in a while, and they had nothing, only the occasional MM game. The 3DO is what necked 3DO.

Angelspit at 2009-01-30 15:05 wrote:
If 3DO would have been patient & waited for H4 to be completed, they may not have gone bankrupt.
I don't it was as simple as that.
skortzy at 2009-01-30 13:49 wrote:
I think this only means we will only see the next Heroes game in 2010 or even later. :(

HodgePodge at 2009-01-30 04:41 wrote:
I think you should be weeping because 3DO failed at making money. If they hadn't crashed and burned, we might have gotten to see NWC's vision of H5.
No, I'm weeping because of 3DO's greed to the point of squashing NWC's creativity & rushing Heroes 4 out the door; causing it to not be up to its best potential and thereby causing sales to plummet. If 3DO would have been patient & waited for H4 to be completed, they may not have gone bankrupt.

Oh, so HoMM is now the town whore and Ubi is the pimp... well that does explain the stripper party.
That about sums it up in my opinion.

ThunderTitan at 2009-01-29 20:43 wrote:
Oh, so HoMM is now the town whore and Ubi is the pimp... well that does explain the stripper party.
discostu at 2009-01-29 20:16 wrote:
I think Nival did better than most people give them credit for. H5 could have been far worse IMHO.

Angelspit at 2009-01-29 20:08 wrote:
Or NWC failing because of 3DO's pressure, or because much of NWC was gone by the time they started working on H5.

Kristo at 2009-01-29 19:33 wrote:
I think you should be weeping because 3DO failed at making money. If they hadn't crashed and burned, we might have gotten to see NWC's vision of H5.

HodgePodge at 2009-01-29 18:47 wrote:
*sob* :S For me, no developer will ever match New World Computing. They really loved Heroes of Might & Magic. Too bad 3DO was only interested in making money. Sounds a lot like UbiSoft too. *weeps uncontrollably* http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb257/HodgePodge_Pics/Emoticons/crying.gif

Avonu at 2009-01-29 08:54 wrote:
>>>Notice how the entire dungeon faction is almost a carbon copy of R.A. Salvatore's imagining of the Drow?)

Someone needs to read more topics on this forum:
http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6952

IIRC storyline, factions and general lore was Ubisoft idea, Nival was responsible for units and cities desing.
ywhtptgtfo at 2009-01-29 03:38 wrote:
This just means they are rolling the dice again. If they pick people like Obsidian Entertainment to do Heroes 6, then I am pretty sure a lot of us would be screaming for Nival to come back.

But anyway... just as the cosmos of Nival's Heroes develops, it seems we are back at square 1 again. Well... hopefully they'd continue with NWC's Heroes 3 or Heroes 4 continuity (or perhaps Julien's LotA).

Deadguy118 at 2009-01-29 00:01 wrote:
Hopefully this means that we can have a good game of heroes without the developer needing to:
1.Patch it to death so that the online multiplayer is functional, an actual map editor is included, and a myriad of crash bugs are fixed... only then to:
2. Stop patching the game even though a large number of balance issues still exist and:
3. Not have constant and obvious plagerism from other fantasy settings (Remember how the Beta Treants were ripped from Warhammer? Notice how the entire dungeon faction is almost a carbon copy of R.A. Salvatore's imagining of the Drow?)

darknessfood at 2009-01-28 22:54 wrote:
True, and I don't like the idea of a developer making shooters, all of a sudden making TBS with rpg stuff in it...

Asheera at 2009-01-28 18:50 wrote:
No, Serious Sam was made by Croatians.

parcaleste at 2009-01-28 18:43 wrote:
:lolu: :lolu: :lolu:


Hmm, and which would be this Hungarian developer, any ideas? ...

Wasn't the guys that made Serious Sam from Hungary? Or I mix with Poland? Whatever, this sucks. I really enjoy the HV, I love the skill system, the heroes envolvment (spell?) in the battles and (some of) the creatures abilities.

Gotta say this is not a good news, but as we all know "it's all about the monnney". ;|

Angelspit at 2009-01-28 17:28 wrote:
MuadDib: "Hey Chuck, Nival is out and we're in discussion with a Hungarian developer."
Sir Charles: "Interesting, I'll go make some puns with the word "hungry" on the official forum..."
MuadDib: "No, please don't tell anyone."
*** The message could not be delivered because the recipient has left the conversation. ***

Asheera at 2009-01-28 17:00 wrote:
I only know that Chuckles is a friend of Muadib, the producer of H5 (pre-TotE?) so he probably knows some 'inside stuff'

Angelspit at 2009-01-28 16:15 wrote:
Chuckes = Sir Charles, long time community member, H3Trio contributor and The Genie's Lamp owner. I don't know who he got this information from.

Akul at 2009-01-28 16:08 wrote:
Really, some people here are opsessed with perfection. Taking into consideration that this was Nival's first try on making a HoMM game, they did a great job.

Also, the AI people tend to complain about is not an easy thing to make, even for the best programmers. Can you even imagine the pain of teaching a thing that knows only to count to teach to play a strategic game properly?
The AI of H5 is average, thus doesn't deserve to be commented at all. Good AI's are something to be overjoyed and send donations to their makers. Challenging and great AI do not exist.

Also, there is no doubt that Nival gained experience from making H5. If they continued to be programmers, we would have had good chances of them making a better game then H5. With a possibly new dev team, the chances are that we get a bad game are increased and the possibility of turning HoMM into a RTS series is existing as well. Some of developers that fought over HoMM liecense wanted to do just that.

With that said, if Nival is not going to make another HoMM game, I want to thank them for making a game that beat H3 for me and wish them luck with whatever future project they may have.

Darmani at 2009-01-28 16:03 wrote:
First of all.....who is this Chuckles and how would he know who's doing HVI?

Assuming this is true, part of me does agree with Kristo, but I find this overall good news. HV is the first Heroes game for which I have no desire to finish the campaigns. Being a person who could never start reading a book in the middle of a series, I never played HoF or TotE. Well, I did play the TotE demo, and found it highly disturbing that I was able to sit in my castle for 6 months with a single hero and still win in one of the scenarios.

Now, if only they'd just pick Katauri...
Edited on Wed, Jan 28 2009, 11:05 by Darmani

Edwardas 3 at 2009-01-28 15:09 wrote:
I love to play lots of skirmishes in 3 and 4 -something the very slow AI routine of 5 does not allow me to do-wasted money for me
So I am very happy :) - I hope the next developer would at least fix this issue.
Empty maps heroes can cross through in few turn ,no Nival get some expectably lil better visuals then 3 (year 1998 ) and took everything from 3 ,otherwise it was sloppy not good .
Bye Nival you outlived your usefulness! Given the accusations of Nival not paying their working teams and then firing them buying the products for which real workers got not paid of is support of un-fair trade!

Kristo at 2009-01-28 14:37 wrote:
Let's see, Nival didn't get it right on their first try. Most companies don't. So Ubisoft is going to hire another company to give their first try at Heroes. Have I gone mad, or is this a bleeping stupid idea?

The cynic in me says that what really happened here is that Nival told Ubisoft what it would cost to do H6 properly and Ubisoft told them to go jump.

CloudRiderX at 2009-01-28 14:32 wrote:
Thank the Lord. Get Katauri in on Heroes VI and we'll be cooking with gas.

Asheera at 2009-01-28 13:36 wrote:
I only know of Black Hole Entertainment, which made Warhammer: Mark of Chaos (yeah, a warhammer game :P)
MER at 2009-01-28 12:42 wrote:
Hmm, and which would be this Hungarian developer, any ideas? I dont know any popular game company from Hungary. 1C/Katauri are from Russia (would be the best choice IMO) and GSC are from Ukraine afaik.
Edited on Wed, Jan 28 2009, 07:45 by MER

Moragauth at 2009-01-28 12:35 wrote:
Aw, what a tragedy!

rofl

PhoenixReborn at 2009-01-28 05:04 wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens. I view it as a much needed breath of fresh air. I did enjoy h5 and I still play it sometimes. However I'm more than aware of flaws it has. I agree with those before, there's no point in listing them, or rehashing older arguments.

What comes now is a complete unknown and therefore I'm positive minded until we actually get it and can judge.

HodgePodge at 2009-01-28 03:01 wrote:
No tears shed here. I'm still fuming over H5's user-UNfriendly Map Editor that Nival thrust upon us.

jeff at 2009-01-28 02:52 wrote:
Well I find myself thinking so what, the first heroes product I didnít buy or ask for as a gift was Tribes and I still havenít regretted that decision. I am currently finishing up my last H-IV campaign and unless H-6 resembles H-IV in at least gameplay; yea, yea, yea speak to the hand Iím not interested in that old argument anymore I preferred it to H-V others didnít move on. H-6 must have a similar user friendly editor ala H-IV or I wonít be buying it either. I hate to repeat a fear I voiced several months ago, but it appears my heroes playing days are about over. At least Iím having fun helping BDJ on his latest mod.

Kalah at 2009-01-28 01:41 wrote:
If Nival aren't making H6.... who will?

Asheera at 2009-01-28 00:43 wrote:
Of course I wouldn't want that, and I truly hope it won't be a failure, but I said we need to be prepared for the worst as well so as to not be overly disappointed if it truly happens.

Or maybe I'm too pessimistic :P
Roman at 2009-01-27 23:29 wrote:
I think this is bad news. I like H5 and think Nival did a good job and did a particularly good job with TotE, by which time it had learned the intricacies of the Heroes franchise. A new developer, even if a good one is chosen, will probably mess things up until it goes through the same learning process that Nival already underwent.

Asheera, I hope you are joking about H6 being an even worse game than H4! :o That would suck big time.

MistWeaver at 2009-01-27 23:09 wrote:
fine with me. i think fans should get a HoMM game with an acceptable AI at least once per decade :P

darknessfood at 2009-01-27 22:49 wrote:
This is sad news. I think they did a pretty decent job on HoMM V and the expansions. It had the basics of HoMM 3, the best in the series. I wonder who is going to make HoMM 6. Let's hope that we don't get a stupid new team that starts to make their first game...

Infiltrator at 2009-01-27 22:47 wrote:
Good bye, and GOOD RIDDANCE!

Storm-giant at 2009-01-27 21:08 wrote:
Indeed not good news :disagree:
Even though I still prefer H3 over V, Nival did a good job, as it took some of the best parts of each HOMM, like H3 castle system(upgrades, and later they mix really well the Heroes IV alternative), Heroes have more importance in combat(if you run out of mana, or you don't want to use it you can still inflict damage) and so on. There are bad parts on HV too, such as the ultrauberslow AI(and cheating too), and the lack of varity of heroes(only 8 per faction!! :disagree: ).
I hope we get a good substitute of Nival(if they change it,of course)

arturchix at 2009-01-27 19:53 wrote:
These are not good news. Nival did a fairly good work with H5 and would've done the job even better for H6 but a new developer which will start everything from scratch?

Asheera at 2009-01-27 19:46 wrote:
I personally consider Nival did a great job with the second expansion. So if they were to continue on to Heroes 6 they would probably made a great game (ignoring stuff related to Ubisoft such as the plot :P)

Hmm, I don't really like the fact that we get a new developer. But let's hope for the best, that H6 will be an optimized game with a fast and intelligent AI, and free of bugs. But we should also be prepared for the worst, for a game that will appeal to the public even less than H4 :P

Note: You must be logged in to post comments.

Copyright 1999-2015 Celestial Heavens. All rights reserved.
site statistics