Kotaku preview

[LongDarkBlues]

http://kotaku.com/5616648/might-and-mag ... t-be-magic

The line between role-playing game and strategy game blur even further with Might and Magic Heroes VI, bringing the ageless conflict closer to "the Blizzard standard."

Might and Magic is a series of computer role-playing games. Heroes f Might and Magic is a series of computer strategy games. So what is Might and Magic Heroes VI?

I sat in on a brief demo of the game at GamesCom yesterday, and the impression I came away with was that this is the classic strategy game with a stronger focus on role-playing than ever before, hence the slight name change.

The core change is an end to predetermined hero powers and skills. You choose your own path in Might and Magic Heroes VI. As you level, you determine the powers and skills you'll be using to dominate the competition. You can even choose an advanced class later in the game, further defining the role you'll play in battle.

Combined with the racial abilities introduced in Heroes of Might and Magic V, the system allows the player to play the character they want to play, instead of being constrained to a certain path.

The game takes place 400 years before the events in the other Heroes titles, focusing on a single family. The king has died, leaving five brothers and sisters to struggle for control of the throne, each grasping for power in a completely different way in order to gain a leg up on their siblings. One seeks out holy power, becoming a divine knight. Another chooses the path of the necromancer. Still another forges pacts with demons to achieve their goals.

Players begin the game by creating a character, choosing its sex and whether it will lean more towards might or magic. After that, they'll have thirty levels of progress to further define their role.

Each faction has their own unique units with unique play styles, directing towards what the presenter called "the Blizzard standard." Take StarCraft II, for instance. The Terrans play differently than the Zerg, who play differently than the Protoss. Such is the case for the factions in Might and Magic Heroes VI.

I witnessed the Necromancer in action. Necromancer characters and units siphon power and life force away from their opponents. The longer a battle lasts, the more powerful they become, so it'll be to the Necromancer's advantage to draw out battles.

Visually the game is a real treat. The overland maps are lush and filled with little details that will have players exploring every corner, looking for secrets.

One major change to the overland map is that cities will now change the way they appear on the map when you upgrade them. Rather than having to click on the city to see what fortifications it has, you'll be able to look at it and know if it's been upgraded to near-impenetrability, or if it's little more than a series of thatch huts.

When a player captures an enemy city, they'll also have the choice to convert it into one of their own, another new feature in this installment.

The battle maps themselves are gorgeous, with creatures more lifelike than ever before. No longer mere pieces on a board, the combatants have tons of animation to them, giving the impression of a living, breathing army.
Might And Magic Heroes VI Might Be Magic
The battles themselves will have more variety this time around. Tides will slowly rise on some battlefields, changing the area as the match goes on. Differing goals, including defending objects and killing specific units will abound.

And there will be boss fights. At the end of the demo we were shown a giant blue water snake looking creature attacking via a cut scene, and then it was all over.

Again, this is a great deal like the Heroes of Might and Magic fans have come to love, but with enough extra added depth to keep the role-playing fans satiated until Ubisoft gets around to making the next Might and Magic RPG.

Might and Magic Heroes VI is due out on PC early next year from Ubisoft and developer Black Hole.

Changing battlefields and specific combat targets? Yes, please. And totally custom Heroes? Unexpected, but could be fun.

[Corelanis]

I'm pretty sure this guy has never played a HoMM game before here's why.

The core change is an end to predetermined hero powers and skills. You choose your own path in Might and Magic Heroes VI. As you level, you determine the powers and skills you'll be using to dominate the competition. You can even choose an advanced class later in the game, further defining the role you'll play in battle.

Unless you actually make up new powers as you level we got that already.

Each faction has their own unique units with unique play styles, directing towards what the presenter called "the Blizzard standard." Take StarCraft II, for instance. The Terrans play differently than the Zerg, who play differently than the Protoss. Such is the case for the factions in Might and Magic Heroes VI.

I hope everyone here sees whats wrong with this as I would so get banned for making my comments on it from the swearing and spitting.

The custom heroes sound like a campaign feature as do boss battles.

The battles themselves will have more variety this time around. Tides will slowly rise on some battlefields, changing the area as the match goes on. Differing goals, including defending objects and killing specific units will abound.

Again more campaign stuff but sounds fun nonetheless.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go swear and spit till I feel better. blizzard standard my...

[LongDarkBlues]

I'm pretty sure this guy has never played a HoMM game before here's why.

The core change is an end to predetermined hero powers and skills. You choose your own path in Might and Magic Heroes VI. As you level, you determine the powers and skills you'll be using to dominate the competition. You can even choose an advanced class later in the game, further defining the role you'll play in battle.

Unless you actually make up new powers as you level we got that already.

I think he's just saying that there won't be a choice of two skill upgrades when you level up, but that you will put points into whatever you want.

[parcaleste]

If they do something like the King's Bounty/Diablo "tree" after the Great Skill System we had in HV, this will be a HUGE downfall.

So far this game sounds more and more like thee devolution of the series...

[LongDarkBlues]

Man, fuck this forum. What a bunch of miserable short-sighted stuck-in-the-past whiners you are.

[Corelanis]

I think he's just saying that there won't be a choice of two skill upgrades when you level up, but that you will put points into whatever you want.

Ah I hadn't thought of it that way.

If they do something like the King's Bounty/Diablo "tree" after the Great Skill System we had in HV, this will be a HUGE downfall.

Yes it would be I can see many downsides to a system like that such as some skills being completely absent from a hero skill tree while its in another factions hero skills,or they could all have the exact same trees which could get boring. There's also upsides to it could mean almost completely unique skill trees with only things like enlightenment, sorcery, and luck type skills being shared ones that benefit all factions mostly equally. Once again the devil is in the details as they say. I have to say I'll kinda miss the randomness if the take it out it made me try things I normally wouldn't have.

[parcaleste]

I don't know where you came from @LongDarkBlues, but so far this game sounds like nothing to do with the real Heroes game. I guess even with H4. Why should you totally bury all the good things from the previous episode(s) instead of make them better with all the suggestions of the community? I know there is plenty of crap out there, but a lot of really nice "stuff" has been talk for and have been ask for since like 10 years. For God's sake - H3 is playable even today and is getting more and more updates/upgrades with each and every month. Don't we all want to have a new Heroes game that we could play in 15 years like we play H3 today and not forget it in several months?

[Corelanis]

Man, **** this forum. What a bunch of miserable short-sighted stuck-in-the-past whiners you are.

Yes other peoples opinions always get in the way of a good time.

Don't we all want to have a new Heroes game that we could play in 15 years like we play H3 today and not forget it in several months?

Yes, yes I would. For reference could you define a real heroes game. Mine is towns that produce creatures that are lead by heroes that fight each other with the name Might and Magic on the box.

[MattII]

I'd add 7 resources and special town buildings to the list as well, since we've had them for 5 and 4 games respectively.

Oh, and you can get stuffed LongDarkBlues, if you don't like our opinions go elsewhere.

[vicheron]

Man, **** this forum. What a bunch of miserable short-sighted stuck-in-the-past whiners you are.

Yes, how dare we expect the sixth game in a 15 year franchise to be similar to previous games. Games need innovations to grow. Look at what happened to Starcraft 2, it plays so similar to Starcraft 1 that no one likes it. It only sold 1.5 million copies in 2 days. Same thing with chess, they haven't changed their rules in 500 years and now no one has even heard of it.

[OliverFA]

I have to agree with the majority of comments here. Specially with Corelains about the "Blizzard standard". How they dare to use an RTS company as "standard" for an TBS game? I could understand the "Micropose standard", the "Firaxis standard", the "Stardock standard"... But even better. What about the NWC standard? I think that's the one that is really important!

I also agree with Parcaleste. This game sounds so different! This would be ok for a HOMM clone. But not for a HOMM game! Oh wait, it is not called HOMM anymore

There are literally thousands of suggestions that the community made during all those years. and some of them are very popular. There is even a consensus that implementing them would be great for the series. Why not to implement them? Why change things just for the sake of changing? As Vicheron points, this game is the successor of a lasting series. If we buy HOMM6 we want it to play like HOMM games. If we wanted another TBS fnatasy game we would buy something without the HOMM name. Sorry, I mean the MM:H name :-P

Also I am getting more and more convinced that they are simplifying the game to appeal to a bigger audience. They are creating a watered down version of the game.

I will say it again. There is nothing bad about evolving the game. HOMM4 did it successfully ( the problem was about budget, not about game design). Civ 4 did it successfully. Even HOMM5 did it in a lesser degree. What is bad is changing the essence of the game. Changing it until it is no longer the same game. Yes, it has heroes. It has creatures, but it is not HOMM...

Well, we can still hope that Katauri develops HEROES VII... Katauri did a very good job on evolving Kings Bounty premise while still keeping faithfull to the core gameplay. Ubi should learn from them... But maybe if Katauri developed HOMM VII, Ubi would place so many restrictions over them that the game would not be very successfull...

[parcaleste]

... For reference could you define a real heroes game. Mine is towns that produce creatures that are lead by heroes that fight each other with the name Might and Magic on the box...

I think OliverFA did answer your question here:

... If we buy HOMM6 we want it to play like HOMM games. If we wanted another TBS fnatasy game we would buy something without the HOMM name...

As for me, it's not only the heroes with the army, building castles around. It is also the thrill of the skills you get, how will turn up you hero at the end. The skill system of HOMM was (is) unique (as far as I have played this kind of games, KB and Disciples are using, more or less, the Diablo skill system) why should you kill it, and just after the great BOOST it had with the last game? Also the initiative, might have been pissing off at times imba for some creatures, but overall it was also something that I really enjoyed. The turns of the heroes in battle was also done with a nice touch. Why you should kill such a nice improvement? Isn't it the point of sequels to be better than the prequels?

I want to say something else about HoMMV - I really enjoyed and I knew I will like the game since the first reports/reviews. I have to say with MM: H I like what I am seeing like graphic, but everything else, well, so far horrifies me.

[vicheron]

About initiative, Heroes 4 already had initiative, except it was called speed. Speed affected the order in which units had their action but they were still limited to one action per turn and there were spells and abilities that affected speed. That seems to be what Heroes 6 is reverting back to.

[Magelord]

Here now, We all wouldn't be here typing opinion's about 6 if Homm5 was all that bad. I may be in the minority and an R.A. Salvatore fan but I thought Homm5 was awesome!

Now back on topic for myself as it were. No Warlock faction? WTF? A simplistic point I know but it is my most personal note with which to demonize MMH6! I was never a fan of multi-Human class empires and that choice variety to play other fantasy empires is what drew me to HoMM1 and the Astral Wizard forums of long ago!

In the end I can still keep playing my copy of Homm3 and 5 (as these are my fav's) and wait till HommVII comes. But before I vilify the game any further I would prefer to see what they do with it. I still don't understand the comment "play 5 out of the 10 factions/races" that I have read elsewhere so we will see.

^^ my two cents................Long live Black Dragons!!!!!

[MattII]

About initiative, Heroes 4 already had initiative, except it was called speed. Speed affected the order in which units had their action but they were still limited to one action per turn and there were spells and abilities that affected speed. That seems to be what Heroes 6 is reverting back to.

That wasn't initiative then, and H3 had that as well. Pity really, initiative could have been a better system, it's just that its implementation in H5 was bad.

[vicheron]

About initiative, Heroes 4 already had initiative, except it was called speed. Speed affected the order in which units had their action but they were still limited to one action per turn and there were spells and abilities that affected speed. That seems to be what Heroes 6 is reverting back to.

That wasn't initiative then, and H3 had that as well. Pity really, initiative could have been a better system, it's just that its implementation in H5 was bad.

Except that it was initiative and H3's speed was not the same as H4's speed. In H3, a creature's speed determined how far they can move and when they can move. The creatures with the highest speed moved first and they could move the most distance.

In H4, speed only affects when a creature moves. Movement affected how much a creature can move. They're two different stats. A creature can have a high speed but low movement like White Tigers or they can have a low speed but high movement like Bone Dragons. White Tigers could move before Bone Dragons but Bone Dragons could travel a larger distance each turn.

[klaymen]

Waaa waaa waaa, new Heroes game and you don't praise it, FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!1!

Fixed it for you. Now your whine at least sounds more funny.

And I agree with Corelanis. Blizzard standards.....are Ubisoft guys so desperate for money that they try to dumb down and rape everything they have?

[OliverFA]

As for me, it's not only the heroes with the army, building castles around. It is also the thrill of the skills you get, how will turn up you hero at the end. The skill system of HOMM was (is) unique (as far as I have played this kind of games, KB and Disciples are using, more or less, the Diablo skill system) why should you kill it, and just after the great BOOST it had with the last game?

Yes. It's something I can't understand either. First is a unique system that no other game has. And second, it is so intimately identified with the game, that just by seeing the hero level up screen the words "Heroes of Might and Magic" will come to your mind.

It has a con because you not always get the skill you want, but it also has a pro, because it allows heroes to have access to skills that they would not be able to get in a non-random system. For example, a magic hero can have access to the defense skill with a 2% chance, meaning that most of the times magic heroes won't have the defense skill but that they still can get it. If it was a completely non-random system, the defense skill would have to be forbidden for magic heroes.

It also provides heroes a variety that sounds nice. Not all of them have the same skills even if they are developed by the same player.

Isn't it the point of sequels to be better than the prequels?

In my opinion, it is. To be better. Not to be different. If the next game in any franchise puts more effort in being different than in being better, then it either means that the developers made a mistake or that the previous formula gave all it could give.

HOMM formula has a lot of room for improvement. I am not saying it is bad. I am saying it can be even better. KB/WoG/and HV expansions have demonstrated how the formula can be improved without spoiling the game core. The game core does not change in those games, but the improvements are so important that it ends playing different (and most times better). Developers should just implement some of the community most demanded wishes and/or solve some of the most addressed criticism. Just to name a few:

- Trying to introduce heroes in battlefield
- Adding experience to creatures
- Introducing upkeep system (so we have something to do with resources in the endgame)
- Developing even more the cities building plan (and not devolving it!)
- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)
- Introduce movement points for creatures (no more hero chains)
- Introduce leadership system (like in KB, effectively limiting army size or reducing its effectivity)
- Introduce bosses (big single creatures with lots of HP and huge statistics for final battles)

and many more

The biggest criticism to H5 was that it was too conservative. (However, I have to say the expansions addressed this "too conservative" problem with H5. Expansions gave some nice additions, like the necromancy system.) But even people who made this criticism (me included) understood that it was no time for big bets. Now (it seems that) they are falling in the other side. They are making it too different. Can't we get a middle point?

But as always. I'll be very happy if once we get to know more about the game, I discover that I am wrong ;-)

[MattII]

Except that it was initiative and H3's speed was not the same as H4's speed. In H3, a creature's speed determined how far they can move and when they can move. The creatures with the highest speed moved first and they could move the most distance.

In H4, speed only affects when a creature moves. Movement affected how much a creature can move. They're two different stats. A creature can have a high speed but low movement like White Tigers or they can have a low speed but high movement like Bone Dragons. White Tigers could move before Bone Dragons but Bone Dragons could travel a larger distance each turn.

Oh, right. Sorry, haven't played H4 in a long time. I still think H5's way was better though (or should have been better) since it finally broke the 'once per turn' limit the previous games had had.

In my opinion, it is. To be better. Not to be different. If the next game in any franchise puts more effort in being different than in being better, then it either means that the developers made a mistake or that the previous formula gave all it could give.

Except that better is a matter of personal opinion, what one person considers better another considers worse.

HOMM formula has a lot of room for improvement. I am not saying it is bad. I am saying it can be even better. KB/WoG/and HV expansions have demonstrated how the formula can be improved without spoiling the game core. The game core does not change in those games, but the improvements are so important that it ends playing different (and most times better). Developers should just implement some of the community most demanded wishes and/or solve some of the most addressed criticism. Just to name a few:

- Trying to introduce heroes in battlefield

This is one big area of disagreement, some consider it a good idea, others a terrible one. Personally I'm open to it, but it has to be done better than in H4.

- Adding experience to creatures

Similar to the above, a contentious issue.

- Introducing upkeep system (so we have something to do with resources in the endgame)

Only above a certain level, you really don't want to run into upkeep too soon.

- Developing even more the cities building plan (and not devolving it!)

I can go along with this, although I'm not altogether sure how you'd do it.

- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

- Introduce movement points for creatures (no more hero chains)

If you're talking about creatures moving without a hero, I'd have to disagree, although I'd be up for the idea of being able to raise some very weak heroes (captains) on the spot to get around this.

- Introduce leadership system (like in KB, effectively limiting army size or reducing its effectivity)

I agree there needs to be some form of leadership, but I disagree that limiting army size is the way to do it, I'd prefer to see a larger army get reduced movement if it gets above a certain limit (the limit being determined by the level of the hero)

- Introduce bosses (big single creatures with lots of HP and huge statistics for final battles)

Oh, you mean like the dragons they introduced in H3:AB?

[ThunderTitan]

Oh, right. Sorry, haven't played H4 in a long time. I still think H5's way was better though (or should have been better) since it finally broke the 'once per turn' limit the previous games had had.

1 creature always moving 2 times for each one time another does was really the wrong way to implement a linear initiative system... especially with retaliation working just as always.

- Trying to introduce heroes in battlefield

This is one big area of disagreement, some consider it a good idea, others a terrible one. Personally I'm open to it, but it has to be done better than in H4.

Meh, the more i tihnk of it the more i realise that they'll never be able to balance it even a little bit (and not lead to cheese like Imm. Pots) without limiting creature numbers in some way (like Disciples or KB).

- Adding experience to creatures

Similar to the above, a contentious issue.

That would only ever make sense as a campaign only feature... Blizzard standard mofos.

- Introducing upkeep system (so we have something to do with resources in the endgame)

Only above a certain level, you really don't want to run into upkeep too soon.

Could even work with only gold, making trading more important in the endgame too...

- Developing even more the cities building plan (and not devolving it!)

I can go along with this, although I'm not altogether sure how you'd do it.

Well with being able to convert towns they could easily bring back H4's alternative unit buildings and just allow converting the building alone for a cost.

That would also help with having what to spend resources on in the end game.

- Introducing an irregular upgrade system (some creatures one upgrade, some two, some alernative upgrades, some no upgrades...)

Totally irregular I'd disagree with, but if you introduced a certain regularity to it (say, each faction gets three creatures with no upgrades, two with only one, and two with alternate), I could go along with that.

That totally negates the point of having more diverse factions...

- Introduce movement points for creatures (no more hero chains)

If you're talking about creatures moving without a hero, I'd have to disagree, although I'd be up for the idea of being able to raise some very weak heroes (captains) on the spot to get around this.

No, he just meant that if you max out a units movement points transferring it to another hero would also mean that hero can't move either, regardless of whether or not the creatures can move on their own.

- Introduce leadership system (like in KB, effectively limiting army size or reducing its effectivity)

I agree there needs to be some form of leadership, but I disagree that limiting army size is the way to do it, I'd prefer to see a larger army get reduced movement if it gets above a certain limit (the limit being determined by the level of the hero)

I for one would like my TBS games to be distinct from one another pls.

Making bigger armies move slower could work...

- Introduce bosses (big single creatures with lots of HP and huge statistics for final battles)

Oh, you mean like the dragons they introduced in H3:AB?

Oversized version of regular units with better stats would work too... and it would cut down on the number of dragons... it's not DRAGONS & MAGIC you know.