The Best And The Worst

The new Heroes games produced by Ubisoft. Please specify which game you are referring to in your post.

Moderator: Moderators

mr.hackcrag
Dragon
Dragon
Posts: 1461
Joined: 05 Jul 2006

Postby mr.hackcrag » Feb 26 2011, 17:24

jeff wrote: H-V started down entirely different history, all of which is fine...


It would only be fine if it didn't suck. ;)

User avatar
Kalah
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 20015
Joined: 24 Nov 2005

Postby Kalah » Feb 26 2011, 18:08

You know someone thinks the last game was bad when their expectations for the next one are reduced to "it would be nice if it didn't suck".
In War: Resolution, In Defeat: Defiance, In Victory: Magnanimity, In Peace: Goodwill.

mr.hackcrag
Dragon
Dragon
Posts: 1461
Joined: 05 Jul 2006

Postby mr.hackcrag » Feb 26 2011, 18:34

Kalah wrote:You know someone thinks the last game was bad when their expectations for the next one are reduced to "it would be nice if it didn't suck".


If I hear "griffin eternal" or "holy griffin empire" or "holy eternal griffin empire" one more time, hackcrag is going postal.:flame:

User avatar
OliverFA
Scout
Scout
Posts: 164
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby OliverFA » Feb 26 2011, 20:20

Metathron wrote:
My point is they changed so much they should drop heroes from the name entirely and let the new game stand on its own merits and not use the heroes franchise to cling to survival.


I recall the same thing being said of HoMM IV back in the day. Did/Would you agree with them? I sure as heck didn't, and would say that this is not even remotely true for any of the games so far. Are the changes in HoMM VI really that radical as to transform the game into a whole other critter, or are they more along the lines of an evolutionary path? I think the latter. Bottom line: I don't care for the name change either but for different reasons (the words heroes, might, magic are still there, just rearranged a bit - certainly am not going to throw a hissy fit over that), and I don't care for the inclusion of old heroes either - If they're there - ok, if not - ok, as long as the game has depth, polish, variety and above all addictive turn-based game play I'm on board.



We won't be able to pass a definitive judgement until we have played the demo, but it's my opinion that H4 changes did not depart from the original formula. They evolved the formula without changing the essence. They were natural changes.

On the other hand, H6 changes come just for change's sake. Is it natural to have 4 resources instead of 7? No it isn't. Was natural to have heroes on the battlefield? Yes it was.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23263
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Feb 28 2011, 8:31

mr.hackcrag wrote:If I hear "griffin eternal" or "holy griffin empire" or "holy eternal griffin empire" one more time, hackcrag is going postal.:flame:


No worries... it's "Falcon Eternal" at this point in time... at the most you'll get a "Griffin Eternal" at the very end...


jeff wrote:I recall the same thing being said of HoMM IV back in the day.


I heard a lot of people say that H4 would have been enjoyed more by them if it wasn't called Heroes 4 and they didn't have the expectations they did because of H3...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
OliverFA
Scout
Scout
Posts: 164
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby OliverFA » Feb 28 2011, 9:39

ThunderTitan wrote:
mr.hackcrag wrote:If I hear "griffin eternal" or "holy griffin empire" or "holy eternal griffin empire" one more time, hackcrag is going postal.:flame:


No worries... it's "Falcon Eternal" at this point in time... at the most you'll get a "Griffin Eternal" at the very end...


jeff wrote:I recall the same thing being said of HoMM IV back in the day.


I heard a lot of people say that H4 would have been enjoyed more by them if it wasn't called Heroes 4 and they didn't have the expectations they did because of H3...


H4 was the first (and to the date only) game to deserve be called HEROES of Might and Magic. The rest games should be called Generals of Might & Magic. Or Cowards of Might & Magic, since they can attack but can't be retaliated.

MattII
Demon
Demon
Posts: 309
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: New Zealand

Postby MattII » Feb 28 2011, 10:13

OliverFA wrote:H4 was the first (and to the date only) game to deserve be called HEROES of Might and Magic. The rest games should be called Generals of Might & Magic. Or Cowards of Might & Magic, since they can attack but can't be retaliated.
Agreed, although I'd suggest the other games get called 'Empires of M&M'.

User avatar
ecsunotos
Conscript
Conscript
Posts: 232
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby ecsunotos » Feb 28 2011, 10:27

OliverFA wrote:H4 was the first (and to the date only) game to deserve be called HEROES of Might and Magic. The rest games should be called Generals of Might & Magic. Or Cowards of Might & Magic, since they can attack but can't be retaliated.


Interesting point....but the problem evolves that Hero will easily become a main target of enemy. In the begining, that'll be very annoying if our heroes easily be killed.
The other problem is heroes will almost obviously become super heroes later.
The dev just hasn't find an appropriate formula about that.

User avatar
OliverFA
Scout
Scout
Posts: 164
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby OliverFA » Feb 28 2011, 14:17

ecsunotos wrote:Interesting point....but the problem evolves that Hero will easily become a main target of enemy. In the begining, that'll be very annoying if our heroes easily be killed.

Of course, there are some issues that need to be fixed. But that's what designers are supposed to be paid for. I don't pay for a 3D engine. I pay for a game well designed. Heroes on the battlefield are like any other feature. Something that need to be tweaked.

There are at least two games who solved that problem. Disciples and Age of Wonders. I particularly like the Age of Wonders respawn-in-your-wizard-tower idea.

Elemental also has heroes on the battlefield. And I am sure it will work well when the full game gets fixed.

ecsunotos wrote:The other problem is heroes will almost obviously become super heroes later.
The dev just hasn't find an appropriate formula about that.

That already happens with heroes not on the battlefield. They become uberpowerful and with a small army can do a lot more than low level heroes. But in my opinion this is how it is supposed to work.

Anyway it could also be fixed. Designers would need to answer the question "How powerful we want a Level 20 hero to be?" Define the stats of the level 20 hero and then calculate the level ups acordingly.

Also, it would be interesting to provide the player with yet another choice. Do I get skills that turn my hero into a general? Do I get skills that turn my hero into a warrior? Or maybe I will take magic skills?

User avatar
Qurqirish Dragon
Genie
Genie
Posts: 1011
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Flying the skies of Ohlam

Postby Qurqirish Dragon » Feb 28 2011, 14:58

OliverFA wrote:
ecsunotos wrote:Interesting point....but the problem evolves that Hero will easily become a main target of enemy. In the begining, that'll be very annoying if our heroes easily be killed.

Of course, there are some issues that need to be fixed. But that's what designers are supposed to be paid for. I don't pay for a 3D engine. I pay for a game well designed. Heroes on the battlefield are like any other feature. Something that need to be tweaked.

There are at least two games who solved that problem. Disciples and Age of Wonders. I particularly like the Age of Wonders respawn-in-your-wizard-tower idea.

Disciples, however, is not stack-based, so that makes heroes just another unit with different abilities. The problem in Heroes is balancing a single hero against a stack of monsters in both the early and late game.

I haven't played AoW, so I cannot comment there.

Elemental also has heroes on the battlefield. And I am sure it will work well when the full game gets fixed.

Again, I haven't played it, but your comment sounds like you don't know, but have hopes about it. Is Elemental a unit-based or stack-based system?

ecsunotos wrote:The other problem is heroes will almost obviously become super heroes later.
The dev just hasn't find an appropriate formula about that.

That already happens with heroes not on the battlefield. They become uberpowerful and with a small army can do a lot more than low level heroes. But in my opinion this is how it is supposed to work.

Anyway it could also be fixed. Designers would need to answer the question "How powerful we want a Level 20 hero to be?" Define the stats of the level 20 hero and then calculate the level ups acordingly.

The problem here is it may turn out to be something like "At level 1, we need the hero to be at least X strong to be playable. At level 20, we don't want the hero to be more than Y strong, so the other units have meaning. Oops- X and Y are almost identical. Therefore, no hero growth!"

Also, it would be interesting to provide the player with yet another choice. Do I get skills that turn my hero into a general? Do I get skills that turn my hero into a warrior? Or maybe I will take magic skills?

If they have as many problems as they already do with two choices, how does adding a third help?
Matthew Charlap -353 HoMM map reviews and counting...

MattII
Demon
Demon
Posts: 309
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: New Zealand

Postby MattII » Feb 28 2011, 21:27

Qurqirish Dragon wrote:The problem here is it may turn out to be something like "At level 1, we need the hero to be at least X strong to be playable. At level 20, we don't want the hero to be more than Y strong, so the other units have meaning. Oops- X and Y are almost identical. Therefore, no hero growth!"
Doesn't this indicate that the fault then lies in the fact that the hero is the only way to make a force more powerful?

User avatar
jeff
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3713
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby jeff » Mar 1 2011, 1:34

ThunderTitan wrote:
jeff wrote:I recall the same thing being said of HoMM IV back in the day.


That is not my quote, but Metathron's. I come much closer to what OliverFA said

OliverFA wrote: H4 was the first (and to the date only) game to deserve be called HEROES of Might and Magic. The rest games should be called Generals of Might & Magic. Or Cowards of Might & Magic, since they can attack but can't be retaliated.
Mala Ipsa Nova :bugsquash:

User avatar
ecsunotos
Conscript
Conscript
Posts: 232
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby ecsunotos » Mar 1 2011, 5:12

Dus, the point is how to balance heroes strenght at the begining and at later game. So that heroes won't be killed easily at the begining and not to powerfull at the later ( w/ out army, a single hero can destroy a stack of horde blackies )

Then go to "don't" section :
-No multiple heroes in one army
-No Single Hero travelling w/ out army

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23263
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Mar 3 2011, 21:33

-No multiple heroes in one army


But that was super fun...


jeff wrote:That is not my quote, but Metathron's. I come much closer to what OliverFA said


Well this forum could use a auto multi-quote function...
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!

I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €


Image


Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests