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


Might and Magic: Heroes VI  → CH MM:H6 Review

by Kalah

Might & Magic: Heroes VI Review

September 2nd, 2012.


Kalah, Celestial Heavens Admin

Kalah offers the final review of the sixth instalment of the Heroes series, looking at the campaigns, gameplay, graphics and much more.

The Timing

Unlike reviewers like Gamespot, who had to do their work with what they had, I have the cheat sheet. I have the benefit of hindsight, having had the game for a year rather than just a couple of days. However, I have always believed that reviews should be based on what a game is, not what it has the potential to be. Therefore, the fact that game reviewers are forced to write reviews of games before they're released is far from ideal.
Here, then, is the review of the game based on what can be regarded as a final version. Our final review.

Campaigns
4/6 – Really not bad, but nothing legendary.

The story is really good. Murder, intrigue, betrayal, a civil war and family feuds – above it all, a greater threat looming on the horizon and long-term plans designed to face it. So where does it fall short? Well, the dialogue is one thing. It's ... not good. Do I have to say more? All right, I will: The writing is like it was done by a twelve-year-old. Or, if I'm being serious for a moment, by a non-English speaker... which is ironic, since the writing of the DLC, which was, is better. It's also quite out of place: a campaign series in which you can choose which part/faction to play first needs to base its dialogue around this fact. As it is, many things just don't make sense. There are also inconsistencies based on character developments. One of the exciting bits of this game is the blood/tear system, but the actions of the characters don't necessarily reflect which such school you belong to.

For a game placing such emphasis on the campaigns, I had expected more. I must admit I never played all of them. You may criticize, but the thing is: I would have played them all if they were good enough. You may say that I shouldn't make up my mind about them until I have completed them all, but really ... are the rest so good that they'll completely convince me? If that is so, I would submit that as a distinct weakness in itself. The fact that I only completed two thirds of the campaigns before moving house might have something to do with my never finishing the lot, but the fact remains that if they were really enticing, I would have wanted to keep playing. Instead, I started up a new round of Football Manager. What does that tell you?

Editor
1/6 – a powerful, useless tool.

When the game was announced and we were offered the chance to give advice on its features, I told Ubisoft from the very start, just as I have been banging on ever since: "Use us. Use the Community." Elaborating, I wanted the producers to use the various gaming sites for everything from news releases to information gathering and suggestions. In short, UbiHole decided to ignore this advice and I believe this contributed to many of the problems we have been experiencing.

For instance, the Community sites were unanimous in their request that the map editor should be prioritized. Ubisoft and the original developers chose to ignore this advice. This has yielded the result that the current state of the editor is so poor and the code so complex that the current developers are lamenting the fact that they can do little to correct it.

The Community of M&M fans are what drives the franchise forwards. The reason people still play (and buy) old Heroes games is the fact that the players have hundreds of maps at their disposal – also that it is possible to create mods. When H6 was made, work seems to have been put into creating ready-made campaigns for story line play, not build the game in such a way that players could develop their own maps and stories. The editor was designed as a powerful tool for developers, but is too hard to use for most people.

That's a problem. The Heroes series is based on longevity. A long life-span. People don't buy them just because they want to play the campaigns. They don't buy the expansions for the continuation of a story arch, but for the extra factions, units and artefacts added to the already well-functioning game. Heroes VI has the longevity of your average fruit fly. The choices made when designing the editor; the lack of user-friendliness, the lack of an RMG and campaign editor are to blame. The developers never understood – despite Communities screaming it at them – that we don't just want to play these games; we also want to add things to them.

Creative Director Erwan le Breton himself said that there are many players (a "silent community") who buy and play the game without actually playing a big part in the Communities. This is true. However, what kind of player is more likely to contribute to the quality of the series; someone who buys it because it's been well-advertised, plays the campaigns and then puts it on a shelf before moving on to something else, or someone who enters the forums with his/her opinions and wishes for improvement? Sadly, Ubisoft have made a game to suit the casual players, not those who want to spend more time developing the series. It took a steady storm of complaints to get the town screens changed. This was – no doubt – a change for the better, but who were responsible for getting it done? The "silent mass"?

Gameplay
2/6 – In some ways mysteriously enjoyable, but bugged, unbalanced and suffering from poor infrastructure for online play.

I have to say that once I got started with H6 a while after its release, I found it fairly enjoyable. I found it much better than H5; it ran better on my PC and the graphics and videos were a lot better. So why only a grade of 2? Frankly, the game places too much emphasis on the campaigns and the online experience. There should be more than that. The game should be such that you can start up a single-player game and play different maps when you want, but because the game was built around the campaigns, not much was done to ensure that players had the chance to do this. The game was also made with giving players an extra online experience in mind. The fact that this experience has been full of interruptions, such as servers going down (usually during the weekend), must be considered a huge drawback. Just as Gamespy concluded in their review: "the horrendous UPlay system's draconian requirement that you be connected to the internet at all times to play" became more of a liability to the game than the "added bonus" it was supposed to be. It gave the fans a reason to stay away from the game altogether, rather than encourage them to play it online. The Dynasty weapons too were malfunctioning.

The Conflux was coined a revolutionary move upon release. It turned out to be a fallacy. Not because the concept in itself is flawed, but because the infrastructure offered by Ubisoft failed to support it – just as I predicted last year. What I said back then was that Ubisoft had a poor track record in supporting online features, and that the Conflux was a good idea since it also meant you could play offline. That turned out to be wrong: the lack of online/offline savegame compatibility meant you couldn't really jump between the two at all. The Conflux sounded like a good idea ... but in the end, it failed to work in practice. It failed. Abysmally.

Also, the game was not properly balanced when released. Of course, that's to be expected. Even the great Master of Orion II was out of balance when released. It, however, was fixed. Heroes VI, after a year of patching, still is not. That's not good. It may not be noticed by the casual players, but for those who take it seriously and want to compete, it certainly is. When an amateur player like yours truly notices during simple campaign play, I'd expect that most people do.

Then there are the bugs, of which there were a lot: critical bugs in the Dynasty system; spells and special abilities (especially for creatures) not working; alt-tabbing and saving games causing the game to crash; campaign bugs; hotkeys not working ... the number of patches (8!) released so far and their respective sizes should be an indication of how big a problem this has been.

The AI is not much to speak of either. Stories abound on the AI not using its potential in battle, not flagging mines and cheating on the adventure maps. To most players, a mediocre AI is enough if you just want to play the game for its story and not have too many problems finishing it; it's a bit like playing on a low difficulty. For the more experienced player, however, a proper challenge is wanted. Given the lacklustre AI, most such players would rather play online against human players ... but given the lack of balance, that the online system doesn't work very well and due to the lack of maps to play, they can't.

Graphics
5/6 – Excellent.

I was really upset that the previous game never gave us value for money in this department. They introduced 3D, yes, but the resource requirements were so high that you could never really run it at 100% without ending up with a choppy game. I ended up really annoyed with this and eventually stopped playing altogether, wishing they had dropped the 3D thing so the game would run better. This time, I have no such problems, despite playing on the same PC.

Great landscape, beautiful creatures and scenery, good-looking artefacts and very nice animations are just some of the words I can use to describe the feel I get when looking at the screen with H6 in the drive. A slight drawback is (just as in H5) the cutscenes, which are rubbish. The less said about them, the better.



Music
6/6 – Considering the team responsible for it, you kinda knew it would be great.

The Rob King/Paul Romero duo is responsible for much of the series' music and the news that it would be them who would design the music for Heroes VI also, is some of the better news I have been able to post the last couple of years. Sometimes I just shut off the music in games because it becomes repetitive, but in some games, it gives something extra to the atmosphere of it all. The music of the Heroes games usually does just that – just think of the opera music used in town screens. The sixth in the series is no exception to the rule: the music is really quite good.

I just have to mention that I also have Tom Salta's "An Ancient Storm is Rising" on my stereo and I always find myself humming along when it gets to the middle theme.

The Conclusion
Rating: 3/6

The developers said back in June that the game has a lot of potential. However, it is not reasonable that a game's potential should be released a year after its original release. Seeing as the game is still suffering from serious flaws, I expect that this "potential" will in fact never be released.

To be fair, there are good points. The graphics are excellent, the music is good, the story not bad at all. The interface was poor but has been changed for the better and (as I said before) I judge the game as it is now, not as it was. In the end, though, the game's lack of balance, horrible online features and a complete absence of replayability became its downfall.

In short, Heroes VI was a game that could have been, but never made it because of poor design decisions, a lack of support and a refusal to involve the fans in anything important. The game's broken features, the lack of a functioning online system and lack of a good editor and random map generator ... are simply too much to ignore.

Comments
forgottenlor at 2013-02-17 10:24 wrote:
Good review. Obviously everyone is going to have a different take, but you and others make it clear what you don't and do like. I haven't bought the game, largely due to having an old computer. When I get a new one, I'll probably pick it up. I've played the entire heroes series. I did not like 4, which had terrible balance and the wierd heroeless unit mechanic. I enjoyed Heroes 5 much better, but I primarily like a decent story and playing through the campaigns. An editor and the like don't really interest me. So if Heroes 6 has a decent campaign I'll give it a try.

ttague2005 at 2013-01-14 15:36 wrote:
I still play Heroes 3 and 5. 2 and 3 were the best. Heroes 6 was the worst game I have played period. The AI was terrible. The game play was lousy. I simply cannot figure out how it ever got developed. Didn't anyone play the game during development or worst case before releasing it? It crashed often and the online requirement was ridiculous. The worst part was that I REALLY wanted to love this game. I played it often and patiently. I ended up regretting even wasting my time. Complaints and feedback never seems to be acknowledged by Ubi.

By the way - "the things I like about H6" are the graphics.

Angelspit at 2012-10-04 17:27 wrote:
camelotcrusade: Fan sites are enthusiastic and positive at the start. Then most of them die within a year or two. Over the years, those who remain get a little more mature, objective, and retain the original source of their enthusiasm (i.e. the early Heroes games) as a point of reference. So yes, CH is more like a grumpy old man than an impressionable kid. That's not a problem I'd say; the problem is that no impressionable fan site took over, the kids have nobody but old men to listen to. :)

Kalah at 2012-10-04 17:01 wrote:
@camelotcrusade: If you write a "what I love about H6" article, I'd be happy to post it here.

Artas1984 at 2012-10-04 15:38 wrote:
So H6 is a piece of trash, and even worse than H5? No surprise here.

I have come to conclusion that there is no such thing as Heroes community, because if it had been, we'd have good games released, not some garbage analogs, pretending to be Heroes. It looks as if Ubisoft is actually living in some other dimension, not where we live.

Jeff: you spoke my troughs - for some fans like us, mapmaking or modcrafting is the thing for which we still hang on to the franchise. I really think, that for Heroes 3 & 4 mapmaking and modcrafting were the true advertising and community gathering factors, instead of campaigns or internet play.

jeff at 2012-09-18 20:14 wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a "What I love about HoMM VI" article as contrast to all the moaning. And if you can't do that then how can you call yourselves a "fan" site??!

I can understand if you like the game you can become tired of all the criticism. However whether the staff here shows love for H-6 or not does not change the fact this is a "fan" site. There are staff members who have given at least tepid approval of H-6. The site is dedicated to the entire MM universe not just H-6. You imply perhaps unintentionally that everything UBI and 3DO/NWC has published in the MM universe has to be at least acknowledged as being somewhat good. It really doesn't work that way, and never did.

camelotcrusade at 2012-09-18 05:31 wrote:
Bravo to those standing up to the community vitriol. I like this site because it's a good source of news but I will add +1 to the ranks of people tired of the old, bitter and unforgiving "community."

The editors on this site aren't immune to it, either, sometimes you guys indulge in some real puppy-kicking.

What I'd really like to see is a "What I love about HoMM VI" article as contrast to all the moaning. And if you can't do that then how can you call yourselves a "fan" site??!

jeff at 2012-09-12 21:11 wrote:
Okay, fair arguments. I don't see arrogance in Ubisoft though, I just see close-mindedness. These are different things.

I can understand that view, and I agree with much of what you said. I need to avoid posting right after work as I can be a bit testy. :D

hellegennes at 2012-09-12 01:34 wrote:
Okay, fair arguments. I don't see arrogance in Ubisoft though, I just see close-mindedness. These are different things.

For future reference, note that I agree on many things with you and your current views on Heroes and its future. Hence I have no intention of offending you. I like your maps too, some of which I consider to be awesome. I would have liked for mapmakers to have a practical editor and have also commented several times on the fact that the game is in dire need of more maps, but that's a different issue and does not have anything to do with the quality of the game itself and how much fun it is.

jeff at 2012-09-11 22:04 wrote:
I have no intent to offend you and some of my remarks are more general and not specific to you (you can see which is which). But you're not a paying customer Jeff, you just WERE. It's your right not to buy any game, surely. However, your criticism of games you have not bought cannot be reliable.

I am sorry I can on occasion be thin skinned something I criticize others for so I need to watch that. However I will concede with regards to H-6 I am not a paying customer or owner for that part, but I do still buy games; so I am still a paying customer who chose as yet not to buy their product. If I go into a grocery store and decide the bananas look pretty bad and don't buy them but still purchase other items I am a paying customer. I did buy UBI's H-III/H-IV complete, since I bought H-5; so I am still buying.

You are basing your argument on the fact that I think there's arrogance in the statement "have given UBI two tries to continue the series" because it implies that Ubisoft is liable to work for you. These are your words, in quotes, not mine.

You are absolutely right I did say that, but my comments on their arrogance was based on the fact that Fabrice after Tribes was released was shocked people did not like the H-5 editor, and my interpretation of Erwan Le Breton comments about a silent majority and thereby the fan sites noise can be considered accordingly. I consider those signs of arrogance; could be wrong but I'm just saying..... By the way, if I buy their product; sorry they become liable to me for the quality of their work.

And although you know you are a no-market audience, you still base all your criticism on how Ubisoft neglects you as target audience. There are mutually exclusive.

Not sure what your point is here, no one wants to be ignored, but I don’t think I ever said I was their or a target audience, if so I know that’s not true. At best I am a small dying part of the market, but I will be a noisy one. I am passionate about what I like and I feel a good editor would only help their cause, but this passion does not imply ownership on my part in any sense, nor do I overestimate my importance, but as long as I care for the franchise I will voice my disappointment.

hellegennes at 2012-09-11 21:35 wrote:
I have no intent to offend you and some of my remarks are more general and not specific to you (you can see which is which). But you're not a paying customer Jeff, you just WERE. It's your right not to buy any game, surely. However, your criticism of games you have not bought cannot be reliable.

You are basing your argument on the fact that I think there's arrogance in the statement "have given UBI two tries to continue the series" because it implies that Ubisoft is liable to work for you. These are your words, in quotes, not mine.

And although you know you are a no-market audience, you still base all your criticism on how Ubisoft neglects you as target audience. There are mutually exclusive.

jeff at 2012-09-11 20:56 wrote:
First of all, I am not bashing out on Kalah, whose opinion I respect. But honestly, Jeff, many of you act like you own the series. Really? You have given Ubisoft the chance to prove their worthiness to you? Is the franchise yours? Was it ever? I understand what the term "fan" means and how much would you like the copyright owner to give you something you will love again, but they don't owe you that. And they're not scums if they don't. They're not even the ones who are at fault for NWC's demise, so you can blame them for destroying the series. If anything, they have tried to revive it and it could very well be in the trash if they didn't buy the rights back when 3DO went bankrupt.

First my comments of Kalah were referring back to cjlee sorry that was not clear. The rest, I find personally offensive as I have never pretended anything that you claimed there. As a paying customer I expect them to deliver what I will enjoy otherwise expect harsh criticism. Unlike several here I have paid for every game I play and do not download anything pirated. No one said they were at fault for NWC’s demise so I guess you just decided to throw that in, whatever!

Of course Ubisoft didn't try and revive the series because of their kind heart. But they are a company, mind you, just like any other. They care to make a good product because this will bring them money. Thus, anyone complaining about intentions and how much the company cares about the series, is really complaining about something that doesn't exist.

I do not remember making any suggestions about UBI’s intention other than to make money; if I did please reference it so I can correct that.

This doesn't change the fact that no game can be geared towards you, because you are a very specific customer who mostly cares about making maps, not playing the actual game. Hence, you are not inside the target audience and the company would be ill-advised to develop a game with you in mind.

I have never claimed otherwise and if you research my posts I have said pretty much the same thing. I am a small market and really do not expect UBI to try and satisfy my desire, but that does not mean I can’t comment on that desire.

Surely, everyone wants a good editor, but I myself am satisfied also if the company provides me with their own maps at regular intervals. You must understand that these game editors have become too complex mainly because of 3D. For the company to spend time creating a more user friendly editor means spending money which is debatable if its going to count towards their revenue from the game's sales.

First I doubt many really care about the editor, but it does pay if they have a user friendly editor look at the number of maps still being made for H-III and IV and compare it the H-5/6. People still buy (at a reduced price) H-III and IV it will be interesting to see how many are still buying 5 and 6 eight to ten years from now.


This community is wallowing in its own self-righteous despair. Nobody here wansts Ubi to make a good HoMM game, because that would actually make them happy.

I don’t’ believe that, though there are some that want UBI to fail and I can’t speak for everyone, but I for one (and believe most others) want them to make a great Heroes game. They are the owners and if they don’t it dies. I think most of the despair is caused by the concern another failure may spell the end. UBI itself stated they were not happy with the state of H-6, and few games recover after a bad launch H-6 may end up being an exception.

CloudRiderX at 2012-09-11 15:37 wrote:
I absolutely agree with hellegennes.

All I've seen on this site since H6's release is a crusade. It's a crusade against Ubi, Black Hole, or anyone else that doesn't fulfill expectations (which are most often unreasonable and poorly justified) 100% of the time.

This community is wallowing in its own self-righteous despair. Nobody here wansts Ubi to make a good HoMM game, because that would actually make them happy.

hellegennes at 2012-09-11 13:59 wrote:
First of all, I am not bashing out on Kalah, whose opinion I respect. But honestly, Jeff, many of you act like you own the series. Really? You have given Ubisoft the chance to prove their worthiness to you? Is the franchise yours? Was it ever? I understand what the term "fan" means and how much would you like the copyright owner to give you something you will love again, but they don't owe you that. And they're not scums if they don't. They're not even the ones who are at fault for NWC's demise, so you can blame them for destroying the series. If anything, they have tried to revive it and it could very well be in the trash if they didn't buy the rights back when 3DO went bankrupt.

Also, do not pretend that NWC wasn't at fault because it was 3DO that went bankrupt. If JVC hadn't sold his company, it would not suffer that fate. Surely, he couldn't have foreseen it, but that doesn't take away his accountability. People make mistakes.

Of course Ubisoft didn't try and revive the series because of their kind heart. But they are a company, mind you, just like any other. They care to make a good product because this will bring them money. Thus, anyone complaining about intentions and how much the company cares about the series, is really complaining about something that doesn't exist.

And Jeff, even though you've made some wonderful maps, this doesn't change the fact that no game can be geared towards you, because you are a very specific customer who mostly cares about making maps, not playing the actual game. Hence, you are not inside the target audience and the company would be ill-advised to develop a game with you in mind. Surely, everyone wants a good editor, but I myself am satisfied also if the company provides me with their own maps at regular intervals. You must understand that these game editors have become too complex mainly because of 3D. For the company to spend time creating a more user friendly editor means spending money which is debatable if its going to count towards their revenue from the game's sales.
Edited on Tue, Sep 11 2012, 10:00 by hellegennes

CloudRiderX at 2012-09-11 04:03 wrote:
"The reasons that those of us who think H-6 is rubbish still come here; is unlike many we still love Heroes the franchise..."

The only thing this community 'loves' is complaining.

First it was "Heroes 5 is great" and now its "Heroes 6 sucks."

This "community" (of people who all have completely different opinions on what makes a 'good' Heroes game and most of which I have witnessed provide no substantial reasoning for said opinions and merely condemn the game for its lack of [insert petty missing feature here]) has become a joke.

jeff at 2012-09-10 23:53 wrote:
@cjlee:
Okay, so what you're actually saying is that he should have marked the game even lower? Otherwise he is "working" for Ubisoft? Have we all gone mad? If the game is so rubbish that you all lost interest completely, what in the name are you still doing in here?

Let's be careful and not be so judgmental. Kalah does not pull punches toward UBI; this is not a company site. The reasons that those of us who think H-6 is rubbish still come here; is unlike many we still love Heroes the franchise and have given UBI two tries to continue the series and they have managed to mess it up royally. I will still come to this site primarily to frequent the MM, Hero I-IV, Equilibrius and Mapmaking guild forums, of yeah Campfire and News as well. I have not been on the H-5 forum in over a year :proud: , and mainly check the H-6 forum for news on the editor, and will stop once it is apparent nothing good is going to happen in that regard. The only thing ridiculous is the implication that we must at least tolerate H-6 to love Heroes and enjoy its community.

CloudRiderX at 2012-09-10 21:57 wrote:
H5 comes out -> "TOO MANY DRAGONS WORST GAME EVER"

H6 comes out -> "NO DRAGONS OR TITANS WORST GAME EVER"

hellegennes at 2012-09-06 09:58 wrote:
@cjlee:

Okay, so what you're actually saying is that he should have marked the game even lower? Otherwise he is "working" for Ubisoft? Have we all gone mad? If the game is so rubbish that you all lost interest completely, what in the name are you still doing in here?

Kalah at 2012-09-06 08:26 wrote:
I don't deny that there may be flaws in my review, but accusing me of being a pawn of Ubisoft is just ridiculous. Browsing through some of my criticism over the last two years should be enough to prove the contrary.
To answer your question (if that's what it is), the main reason for my not returning to play the game was not that the campaigns in themselves were bad - it was that the game's other features were either poor or unaccessible to me (since I didn't have Internet on my gaming PC).

cjlee at 2012-09-06 07:47 wrote:
Kalah, you aren't just a standard reviewer who has to follow 100 games and write articles on them all in the course of a standard workyear.

You are a forum moderator and an administrator (and whatever other titles and responsibilities you have) of a site nearly entirely devoted to HOMM alone.

Unless you are a paid grunt (I doubt it), it is normally assumed that you are also a HOMM enthusiast, and that you actually play the game. If you didn't like a campaign enough to finish it, it is very, very telling. That action (or lack of action) speaks volumes about how much you actually like HOMM 6.

I believe you overrated the campaigns at 4/6 and your actions show it. If you cannot find the time to play H6, one year after the release, it's obvious you actually think the campaigns are 2/6 but feel obliged to put a positive spin in order to maintain a cordial relationship with ubisoft. No blame here - I know you moderators/ administrators have to sound positive and constructive no matter how annoyed you may be with Ubisoft.

Edited on Thu, Sep 06 2012, 03:51 by cjlee

Kalah at 2012-09-05 20:48 wrote:
Not really. I see your point, though. But I did play through most of them, it's just that neither the story nor the gameplay impressed me much ... and if a game is not good enought in either of these respects to encourage me to keep going, it can easily be claimed that it is not necessary to go on. The grade is not very likely to change much.
Also remember that most reviewers do indeed play a portion of the game only.

Mozared at 2012-09-05 19:49 wrote:
Not sure if this has been said yet, but your argument regarding not playing the campaign is flawed. It's entirely possible and even quite realistic that you didn't play through the rest of the campaigns because the GAME wasn't as enticing. You may have loved the story but disliked the gameplay completely, which makes it unfair to pop up the argument 'if it were better I would've kept playing'.

hellegennes at 2012-09-04 17:01 wrote:
@Loco Blutaxt:

No. Just because I cried "stop *****ing" it doesn't mean that you should, if you don't want to. All I'm saying is that your arguments are rusty and you are just complaining more because you are getting old and less to the point. I am trying to make you realise that it's not just the game's fault that you can't enjoy it.
shield at 2012-09-04 15:30 wrote:
I have played through all of the HOMM series from the original back in 1995 to this newest one. My favorites were HOMM 2 and then 3 and the WOG add-on. Anyway, I played an "offline only" copy of this game when it first came out as I wasn't too sure about it. My biggest initial gripe was the town scenes had no animation. I revisited HOMM 6 about a month ago and saw with the latest patch that the town scenes had been redone.
All I have to say is I think the campaigns are fantastic and this game has captured my attention more than any other since HOMM 3. I'm dead tired at work today after playing it almost all weekend, and I'm a 38 year old fart with 2 kids. I think the storyline is ok, and this game is challenging at times when the AI sends multiple units to attack forts and towns simultaneously. I actually love the new spell system.
My biggest complaint is being limited to level 30 and finishing pretty much the 2nd half of the last campaign maps in "max level reached" mode, which takes some of the fun away. Also I hit the "Platinum" level pretty easily at what, 2 million exp points?
But seriously - the kids (age 3 and 6) watch a good deal of cartoons and play the Wii - it's tough for me to get into any video game anymore, and this one has captured my attention. I just get that "just one more turn" feeling with this one.
Also, it helps to try to achieve HERO rank on every map too. That's part of my own goal that helps make it interesting for me.

What makes this game really fun and challenging is beating superior forces with inferior troops, at least for me.
Shawn

Loco Blutaxt at 2012-09-04 15:21 wrote:
So let us old people talk about the weather?

hellegennes at 2012-09-04 13:05 wrote:
The hallmark of Heroes is neither dragons nor titans nor any other unit; it's heroes themselves. As long as there heroes in Heroes, it's a Heroes game! Granted that heroes add strategic depth to the game, it should be worthy of retaining the name.

And people should come to realise that not all parts of a series could ever be hits. There's no law for that. You could consider H6 as a miss if you don't like it that much, but please stop talking about downfalls and all that. Part of the reason you don't find it so attractive is because you are growing up. The first MM game I played was MM6 and I only discovered its existence through the little ad H2 had in its main menu (if anyone remembers that). After playing MM6, I played all the previous titles in the series but I found that they pale in comparison to MM6. Now, if you ask someone who has played the games in order, he would tell you otherwise. Why? Because he played those games at an earlier age, not because they are fundamentally better in any way. It's the "feeling".

tress at 2012-09-03 21:04 wrote:
>>>A strategy game without dragons and titans should not be sold under the license of the Heroes franchise!

Well homm 1 do well without titans. As for dragons... well I personally blame people who wanted to bash homm 5 so much that they had to invent reasons to hate it, one being "too much dragons"(not to mention homm3 had that way more with ab addon). Well they got their wish, top tier creatures are no longer dragons.
Ontourn&Cyberpunk at 2012-09-03 20:06 wrote:
As an non englich speaker , i can´t agree with graveig voting, it feels strong like building a trainsymulation in a reallife garage of an older person.
The option, creating parklike cypresion or 45° 90° straight liniar roads may by easier is in my opinion a compromise between new and acepted known.
There was voices they said stay close to fantasy art. i agree. I heard voices they said ,listen to the proud barbarians and the good dark elves, i agree !

I think a good game should be easy to handle. let the mod crafter go easier to work.
diszipline this gamegraphiix not to much. let us go cracy and orginalic. so many people love to experience.

Kalah at 2012-09-03 17:12 wrote:
I agree with those who said that my rating might seem a bit high; I actually felt like giving it a 2.5, but I also felt that a 3 would represent the mediocrity in a better way. I don't think it's too low; it gives a nice feeling when you're playing it and it can be entertaining, but in the end it's just not a game you remember in the long run.

@mr.hackcrag: I don't review many games, but you can find one that I have done on MoO2 on our reviews page.

Avonu at 2012-09-03 14:55 wrote:
>>>A strategy game without dragons and titans should not be sold under the license of the Heroes franchise!
Then we won't have any Heroes game at all. HoMM I didn't have any Titans (and had only one dragon) but still is Heroes game, isn't it? :P

Loco Blutaxt at 2012-09-03 14:32 wrote:
As I wrote in a German forum:
Heroes VI is not really bad - but it's not a Heroes game. A strategy game without dragons and titans should not be sold under the license of the Heroes franchise! It's a turn based strategy fantasy game that is copying Heroes as good as it can but the result is by no means as good as a heroes game.
All in all I would give it a 7.837 out of 13.7. ;-)

Torur at 2012-09-03 13:18 wrote:
I agree pretty much with the review in writing, but I think it is overrated. Music and graphics imo do not make the game a 3/6, but a merely a 2/6. The game simply fail to deliver on to many areas and the proclaiming of potential is nothing but empty words until seen proven.
And the fact that the game for me is the most boring game I've played in a long while, is also a huge reason for me not enjoying the game. It can't keep my attention for more than 15 min, and then I get bored.
Move on to 7, and lets hope for better days ahead. The ship has crashed and sunk, leave it!

MoNoXiDeBlue at 2012-09-03 07:14 wrote:
And now Ladies and Gentleman (sic) it's time for the Rhetorics, (otherwise known as "WAH") Go ahead, you first.

CloudRiderX at 2012-09-03 03:36 wrote:
@hellegennes
I would agree with you on 3/6 being too low. But there has been a lot of bias against the game since its inception, so I can't say I'm surprised, really.

savetara at 2012-09-03 01:28 wrote:
Great review. I agree with everything, but I still am glad that Ubisoft is keeping the series alive. It could juts end up an abandoned series. BUT BUT BUT..... If only they listened to the fans.... if only........
mr.hackcrag at 2012-09-03 00:47 wrote:
That was really good Kalah. Too bad you don't make the big euros. Where's are your other game reviews?

hellegennes at 2012-09-03 00:09 wrote:
Am I the only one who feels 3/6 is a bit too low? I would have given it 7/10, although I agree with almost all of the points in Kalah's review. The thing is that despite broken features and lack of replayability, it is a quite fun game and very addictive. Yes, I haven't played for months, but I did play for about 6 months, which is probably 15 times the amount of time one spends in playing a very good adventure game.

The points were I disagree with Kalah are dialogues and music. I think the music is very good but not of the same quality as that of H2. About dialogues, I am not bothered too much. I don't think it's such an important element as to destroy the experience the campaigns give you. Nevertheless, I think I too would have given the campaigns a 4 out of 6 (6.5/10 to be exact).

Avonu at 2012-09-02 21:44 wrote:
>>>Does anyone remember who published (...) Nuclear War? Are these guys in business anymore?
The same company which published Might and Magic I-IX and Heroes of Might and Magic I-IV. :D
For the second part of your question, I think you now know the answer.

Worms were created by Team 17 and according to Wiki, they're still alive.

cjlee at 2012-09-02 19:35 wrote:
As much as I feel Kalah overrated H6, I will give it 2/6 stars. The graphics and music are indeed well done, making it on balance slightly better than the kind of games which end up in the bargain bin within a few months.

I would have given H2 6/6, H3 6/6, H4 4.5/6, H5 4/6. It was indeed surprising to me that Ubisoft couldn't even live up to the lowered standards of H5.

Over the weekend, my friends and I got together again to game. As mentioned in one of my posts, in early August we officially decided to end our gaming of HOMM. Apart from the occasional afternoon when the LAN was down due to technical problems, this marks the first time in over 15 years that we have met in someone's house for an entire afternoon with no gaming of Heroes of Might and Magic at all.

15 years ago, we played Sanguozhi, Nuclear War, Worms, Street Fighter 2, Tetris, Counterstrike, MechWarrior and so on. These games became dated and inferior and we moved on. Now it is Heroes of Might and Magic that has become dated and inferior.

We're actually not that happy with Starcraft 2 because some of us don't have fantastic clicks-per-second reaction time. We really want a good turn based game. If Heroes VII is good, I believe Ubisoft can make a thousand bucks out of us easily. After all, we used to buy the originals, the expansions and the gold/ collectors' editions.

Ubisoft chose to head in another direction.

Does anyone remember who published Worms? Or Nuclear War? Are these guys in business anymore?

At the rate it is going, I don't think Ubisoft will be in business in 15 years. I strongly recommend that they sell their trademark to a toilet paper manufacturer. The trademark Ubisoft/ You-Be-Soft should be worth something. At least they won't end up like the Worms guys - you can't trademark a generic name like Worms and it doesn't sound good anyway.


Edited on Sun, Sep 02 2012, 15:41 by cjlee

MoNoXiDeBlue at 2012-09-02 17:49 wrote:
I enjoyed this review, even if Kalah didn't delve deeper into the Gameplay aspects. Music & Graphics were two of the attributes that saved this game from getting any lower than 3. Hell, I think 3 out of 6 is generous. As a gamer who has the entire series of HOMM, (who regularly plays ) I find myself less driven to play 6 as opposed to say 2, 3. The lack of map mapping and user friendly aspects have given this series a black (hole) eye.
Edited on Sun, Sep 02 2012, 13:51 by MoNoXiDeBlue

jeff at 2012-09-02 16:18 wrote:
As a non-buyer I can’t comment on the game’s playability or replayability. Even the graphics I would have to use only the pictures and clips that I have seen. For me his overall rating though probably fair would be far lower for me. I have made no secret that since I have moved from being primarily a player to mapmaker; the quality of the editor and campaign ability is all that is important to me. I only play the games long enough to understand what is needed to make a good map. Sadly H-5 and now 6 have failed miserably. I was one of the few that were extremely worried when UBI was the company that acquired the NWC properties, and they have only proven every one of my fears. The comments of Erwan le Breton are very insightful, UBI doesn’t care if the passionate fan who kept the franchise alive between H-IV and H-5 as long as the casual, perhaps one time buyer, purchases the game in sufficient numbers. This is a similar attitude Fabrice displayed when saying shortly after Tribes was released; that they had no idea fans were unhappy with the editor. Really where are your heads buried. Well I am one of those passionate fans and I did not buy H-6 because the lack of a good usable campaign editor. Unlike UBI I learned my lesson after buying and trying the H-5 editor. Sadly after reading this review I must conclude one is not coming. With the normal development time I may be too old by the time H-7 is released, that is assuming an H-7 is even going to happen, and they have learned their lesson and create a great editor. So my rating would have been the same as Kalah’s editor rating.

CloudRiderX at 2012-09-02 15:44 wrote:
I think the Gameplay segment was a little skewed.

You didn't talk about any of the game's actual gameplay - you claimed that you found it fairly enjoyable, but didn't say why. You then proceeded to harp on the problems with the online interface for the next two paragraphs.
You didn't address any of the game's mechanics (blood crystals, area of control, town conversion, skill trees) either.

Other than that, the review seems pretty reasonable.

markkur at 2012-09-02 15:18 wrote:
I did not buy the game so I cannot comment on the review but I do like the review's timing & layout.

Two things that I can comment on are why I did not buy the game and the Editor.
I would never buy a game that, because of bugz, if it had been a car, it would have had only 2 wheels. I, like the rest of the world had great hopes for the 6th installment but we were delivered a product that <imo> more resembled a brand new game that had not been well conceived. I don't gamble but the release looked like a bad bet regardless.

"Not well-conceived" highlights the Editor fiasco. I was very excited and spent time (again like many others) "brainstorming the best of the editors" and thought there was no way they would repeat the mistake of H5. Other than planning on the editor being a part of the release, things got worse. The editor in 5 seriously cut down the amount of folks making maps etc and from what I have witnessed (rather, is missing from forums) the editor in 6 has nearly eliminated fan-maps entirely.

I am still bewildered at this lack of understanding their own game. You're spot-on aboout the fans wanting to add to the game and also that they are needed because... The Heroes series is based on longevity

For whatever reason, they do not or will not support that dynamic.

Dave_Jame at 2012-09-02 14:42 wrote:
When considering the fact that I would not judge the editor (due to the fact that I do not use it) I would probably give it 4 out of 6 but after reading through your review I have to say I agree with almost everything in it.. it was nice to read.

Ya5MieL at 2012-09-02 13:25 wrote:
Nice review. I find myself sharing exact (or at least very similar) feelings in each category.

While i still hope that the game will get an extra star before the end of its cycle, the current state is mediocre indeed.

Note: You must be logged in to post comments.

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