SoRHunter wrote:First things first: I've read this whole thread from the beginning and didn't shy from any Big Wall of Text. I just point you to the title of the tread:cjlee wrote:A goodbye to HOMM! Heroes VI has ended my love for this game
This whole stuff is to show why cjlee is disappointed with the series he loves - it is not to generalise why nobody should like it.
The title, yes. But look at his conclusion:
""""I am not predicting a failure for Ubihole. On the contrary, I believe Ubihole will make a profitable game. This standard of gamemaking is exactly what is in demand nowadays.
But it won’t beat HOMM III. It won’t make a real difference to the gaming world. It will be played now, but 5 years from now, it’ll be outdated. It is a well crafted quality game that will probably draw favorable ratings and command good sales. But it doesn’t hook. It doesn’t offer a really exciting new world to explore. No good stories; no compelling tales. Nor is it rooted in existing fantasy worlds. How do you expect a strong following to develop?
I’ve played so much Heroes in the past 16 years. Except for unusually difficult maps of the kind benbird or Salamandre write about, I have finished practically every famous map or user made campaign from Heroes II to V. Except for the Shadow of Death campaigns (Draco’s and Adrienne’s) which I felt were boring, I have generally finished all campaigns, usually on several difficulty settings. I have my black dragon and archangel scores.
Heroes VI should offer enough to many gamers for the next 3-5 years to ensure a decent multiplayer fan base. But it isn’t compelling enough for me to start playing, and I can tell it is definitely not compelling enough for many mapmakers to spend all that time working on new maps for it. Look at the plethora of maps for Heroes III and IV and you realize that, despite their flaws, these two games truly offer a lot that will keep gamers coming back and mapmakers exercising their creativity.
In the end Heroes VI will probably get a very modest independent mapmaker base, much like Heroes V. If you want to compete with others at the Conflux on Ubihole’s official maps, do go for Heroes VI. If you like playing through a great fan-made custom campaign or scenario, I suggest you wait for Heroes VII. Or stop gaming, as I have done. """"
Bolded parts are definitely not "this is why I stopped playing" but rather "this is why I won't play it, and you all shouldn't unless you want to play a mediocre game". The implication that playing HVI is playing that is pretty clear and has nothing to do with the personal involvement suggested in the title.
SoRHunter wrote:Please, don't insult me. I did read everything.
I am not insulting you at all. Here's the start of your initial post:
SoRHunter wrote:Mhorhe wrote:Your post is far too long to break down and analyze by section, especially since most of my comments are focused on one thing - most of your grievances are, well, kind of petty. And most of the rest are pure personal preference, which is neither good nor bad.
This is the fundamental flaw in your argumentation: it all boils down to personal preferences, so your take on HoMM VI is as good as cjlee's.
What you called "the fundamental flaw" in my argumentation is included in the very paragraph you quoted to demonstrate my fundamental flaw. It is, furthermore, clearly stated in other parts of my initial post, I'll list them here again:
"That's of course, MY personal preference, so not anymore right or wrong than yours, but it doesn't make or break the game for anyone else. "
"You might not like it - again, personal preference - but that doesn't make it BAD. "
"The short version of it all is that you don't like it, because it's not like the olden days and you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it doesn't make it a bad game by any means."
How, then, do you expect me to believe you've read what I had written? Since you're saying exactly something I had said, and yet bring it up as a fundamental flaw?
SoRHunter wrote:Whenever I read a review, I know that I'm getting an informed opinion. Nobody can't simply abandon the framework shaped by culture and habits in order to give an "immaculate" view on the game - one way or another, "personal preferences" will show. It's only human.
Mhm. Yes. True. And now, please show me where I attacked that?
The very reason I went through my entire history with Heroes, the ups and downs of it, was exactly that - a history of my own experience with the game. I was saying that, FOR ME, 1<2<3>4, 3~=~5, and 6 is great. That's why I still don't understand why you need to point out for me that IV was a good evolution for some. Of course it was, and I never contested any of that.
When reading a review, you have to accept that it's written subjectively (in fact, in case of official reviews, I'm thinking a whole lot of subjectivity..) For instance, a reviewer unfamiliar with Warhammer 40 k might call Space Marine a clone of Gears of War. It doesn't mean that I should accept that as fact.
SoRHunter wrote:This is a forum - a place to voice one's opinions and to promote discussion. It's just polite to read and comment on the ideas that are presented, even if those "are wrong for a whole variety of reasons". Just point them (as you did)!
Finally, the "Silly" stuff had a smiley with it. It was meant to provoke thought.
It rather more felt like an implied accusation than to provoke thought especially since we seem to be on the same side here and I'm not exactly sure why we're arguing.
As for this case, the reason I said "for a whole variety of reasons" and not simply listed them is 2 fold - it wasn't on the topic of the current debate, and I simply didn't feel like doing it. I've already written extensively on the basis of the OP, and the author or anyone else has not attacked those points base by base. But fine. I'll do a bit of writing here then, especially considering the below quote:
SoRHunter wrote: You pointed flaws in cjlee's arguments, naming it "personal preferences" while counter-arguing with your own "personal preferences".
I didn't point flaws in cjlee's arguments when they were personal preferences, I just called them personal preferences and said that they're right or wrong depending on the person not universally. We should really get this point straightened out, it's the 4rd time I'm writing it.. unless you can quote me with where I said personal preference was wrong for someone else and right for me, I think that's settled.
If I leave aside the personal preference parts, there are a few petty things that really shouldn't be a complaint. One is the "they made this game for money!" argument which I addressed and which is, honestly, a frequent one on boards.
Another is the Town Portal change. Which makes perfect sense from the balance view point.
Another is the "they didn't take into account some creatures would be helpless on their own!11!!!!" Which is.. He was talking as if the other Heroes all had creeps grouped up by efficiency, every time, all the time. Do I really need to say anything more here?
Another is the "Marksmen dilemma" Basically, what bothers the OP is that Marksmen cause friendly fire while being called Marksmen. If they had been called Magogs, it would have been fine.. because. It also bothers him because the upgrade is "useless".
What I said about the upgrade still stands, I'll not re-write it here. There is zero reason to complain about Marksmen if friendly fire doesn't bother you on Magogs. And if friendly fire bothers you, by all means, it should bother you on every ranged unit in the entire Heroes series! After all, firing fireballs, arrows, bolts of lightning or whatever in a packed melee is going to hit your own side, too...
And finally, the riflemen vs stealth bomber and humans vs ants VERSUS core vs champion creatures and the reason why it's wrong.
Reason number 1 I stated - balance. If you're going to make an Azure Dragon the equivalent of a human and the core creatures the equivalent of ants, then there is little to no reason for the Core creatures. Because you'd need tens of thousands of "ants" to take down the "human".
The only way to keep balance between core and champion would be to make the champion dwelling SO expensive, you'd probably never see them in a game. I'm talking MILLIONS in gold, and THOUSANDS in resources. Because if you don't do that, everyone will rush to their specific champion and thus the game would be that much poorer.
Reason number 2 the comparison itself is wrong. In real life terms, 1 000 riflemen vs a stealth bomber is like comparing apples and oranges. Both have their place and role, and both can do something the other one cannot. A stealth bomber can catch the riflemen in the field and flatten them with nothing for them to do - this is what the OP chose. But the riflemen can catch the stealth bomber at base, kill its crew, take it over, shoot its tires. A stealth bomber can execute a mission of precision bombing, but it can't take an embassy by storm and release some hostages. Etc etc. You never send a stealth bomber to do a rifleman's job, and viceversa.
By contrast, creatures in the Heroes game DON'T take different roles. Well they have shades (ranged, tank, melee etc) but their role is one and the same - kill the opposition. A Champion creature isn't a stealth bomber, it's a veteran rifleman with state of the art equipment and superlative training, while a Core creature is.. just your average rifleman.
Reason number 3 comparison between things in the real world and things in a game make little sense, especially when it's a game involving fairies and dragons and wizards. The real world is shaped by a set of rules, and a game by a whole other set.
Well maybe not a whole variety of reasons, but 3 good ones at least