My quick review

The new Heroes games produced by Ubisoft. Please specify which game you are referring to in your post.
User avatar
Romanov77
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 273
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

My quick review

Unread postby Romanov77 » 17 May 2006, 10:20

I already posted this on the official site.

I just got the game, so let me do a quick breakdown after I played a couple of hours

First, the bad sides:

1) As many already confirmed me, the game on some maps runs choppy.
I have a p4 1800 mhz, 1024 RAM and a GeforceFX 5200 256mb, and my pc is 100% spyware/virus free and can run games with much higher requisites, like Doom3, Quake4 or Call of duty 2.
I surpass all the requisites and I was able to play the demo PERFECTLY on low quality.

Now, with the retail, I still get very good performances on low quality for the first and second Haven campaign scenario and some of the single player levels...but for some other scenarios I get horribly performances, even if I turn everything at lowest (even tried 640-480, same choppiness, uglier quality)

Clearly the game can be optimized.
Some maps are just too choppy, no matter of what is on the screen.
This might not be noticeable by user with powerful machines, but its a HUGE issues for people that could run the demo perfectly, and now gets a choppy retail.

So...please optimize!


Good Sides:

Graphics: Even on very low, are pleasurable
Skill system: Same as Demo, so good.
Town system: you get used afterwhile, its good
Sound: Gorgeous, both effects & music



About the AI, I cant say nothing, I just played the first 2 scenarios of the campaigns which were script-driven, and took a quick look at the various scenarios.

I have to say that Im glad that I purchased it, but until the system resource hogging present in some maps isnt fixed, I wont enjoy it...
And with the passing of strange eons, even death may die.

H.P. Lovecraft - gentleman, writer and dreamer.

Khelavaster
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 80
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Khelavaster » 17 May 2006, 10:26

Just a guess - I think the choppiness is more severe in "green" maps. Underground runs fine and desert runs decent, so I'm blaming the trees.

btw, I have a Geforce 6600 GT 1Gig RAM and the choppiness is enough to be disheartening, definitely hurts the game experience. Setting the graphic options to the minimum doesn't help a bit either.

Khelavaster

User avatar
Romanov77
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 273
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Romanov77 » 17 May 2006, 10:30

Khelavaster wrote:Just a guess - I think the choppiness is more severe in "green" maps. Underground runs fine and desert runs decent, so I'm blaming the trees.



Khelavaster

Yeah, I noticed...underground and desert is fine!

Also, some of the maps with trees runs fine too....others are just too choppy.

The choppiest is the sea scenario avable for Necropolis...


Man, this is plain wrong, and need to be fixed.
The demo played so nicely...im so depressed :S
And with the passing of strange eons, even death may die.

H.P. Lovecraft - gentleman, writer and dreamer.

Khelavaster
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 80
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Khelavaster » 17 May 2006, 10:42

The whole settings thing stinks of a rush job and was clearly unfinished. To date I still don't know what "No eyecandies" accomplishes, and why the tooltip contradicts the option.

The game needs optimization badly, or at least an "Advanced" options page -like any other modern game- where you can finetune performance (turn off tree animation, for example.)

Khelavaster

User avatar
Orfinn
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3325
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Norway

Unread postby Orfinn » 17 May 2006, 11:07

Romanov77 wrote:
Khelavaster wrote:Just a guess - I think the choppiness is more severe in "green" maps. Underground runs fine and desert runs decent, so I'm blaming the trees.



Khelavaster

Yeah, I noticed...underground and desert is fine!

Also, some of the maps with trees runs fine too....others are just too choppy.

The choppiest is the sea scenario avable for Necropolis...


Man, this is plain wrong, and need to be fixed.
The demo played so nicely...im so depressed :S
The chopping may be caused if you lower the cam too much or if the elevation of the terrain is too high with plenty mountains etc.

User avatar
Romanov77
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 273
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Romanov77 » 17 May 2006, 11:40

I can confirm that the chppiness is not relevant to the zooming level, since it remains the same (only increase if I MAX zoom out)

This means that something must be done...maybe on trees..
And with the passing of strange eons, even death may die.

H.P. Lovecraft - gentleman, writer and dreamer.

User avatar
Sikon
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 542
Joined: 22 Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Unread postby Sikon » 17 May 2006, 13:06

Have you tried the "turn off eyecandies" checkbox?

User avatar
Wolfshanze
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 407
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Florida, USA

Unread postby Wolfshanze » 17 May 2006, 15:03

I can confirm that the choppiness is not relevant to the zooming level... (my video card is a) GeforceFX 5200 256mb
I hate to tell you Romanov77, but the GeForceFX 5200 256MB is NOT a gamer's video card. It's the LOWEST-END card of a rather BAD "FX" line from NVidia.

The FX 5200 was designed as a low-cost budget card for non-gaming businesses and grandmas. It was NEVER designed to be a "gaming" card! The 256MB on the card is also a total waste of memory and NOTHING beyond a marketing gimmick to fool people into thinking the card actually puts it to good use (which it doesn't). Heck, you'd get much better gaming performance out of a 128MB FX-5700 then you would out of a 256MB FX-5200. Don't let the memory fool you, it's NOT USED on the FX-5200.

I'm a certified computer technician, and let me tell you this... I can confirm that the choppiness on your system IS related to your FX-5200 graphics card... you have a non-gaming business card in your system, not a gaming card. Considering the FX-5200 currently sells for LESS then HOMMV, I think it's fairly safe where we can point the finger at in your system, and the old term "you get what you pay for" definately applies to video cards... if you go cheap with a video card, you'll get cheap performance, and the FX-5200 is one of the cheapest cards on the market.

I have a GeForce 6800GT in my system... the game runs smooth as silk on high resolution with max details, all eye candy on and anti-aliasing enabled. The ONLY time it slows-down is the well-known "eye-level" look... but overhead, it runs as smooth as can be with everything on max!

It's your crummy video card... spend more money on your video card then you do on HOMMV and you'll get better performance on all your games. I'd recomend AT LEAST a GeForce 6600 (preferably GT if you can afford it). Never buy the bottom-of-the-line X200 cards from NVidia (like 5200 or 6200)... those cards are always targetted at non-gamers (and for a reason).

User avatar
theGryphon
Spectre
Spectre
Posts: 716
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby theGryphon » 17 May 2006, 15:38

What's this eye-level look btw? Is it most zoomed-in or zoomed-out or in between? What is the best performance zoom level? Thanks...
I believe in science and that science can explain everything.
Because God has made it all work in such a beautiful way...

User avatar
Pol
Admin
Admin
Posts: 10056
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Location: IN SOMNIS VERITAS
Contact:

Unread postby Pol » 17 May 2006, 15:44

Wolfshanze wrote: I'd recomend AT LEAST a GeForce 6600 (preferably GT if you can afford it).
Hmm.., go directly to 7xxx line, is seems to be much better anyway. AGP versions are planned to be still supported, so comming soon ;)
"We made it!"
The Archives | Collection of H3&WoG files | Older albeit still useful | CH Downloads
PC Specs: A10-7850K, FM2A88X+K, 16GB-1600, SSD-MLC-G3, 1TB-HDD-G3, MAYA44, SP10 500W Be Quiet

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Unread postby ThunderTitan » 17 May 2006, 16:00

Wolfshanze wrote: I'd recomend AT LEAST a GeForce 6600 (preferably GT if you can afford it).
The game still lags with a 6600 GT and 512 RAM if you meve the camera too fast. And it also slows down the longer you play. And when a cut scene is loading. Lags worse during campaign maps then normal ones too. The game need to be optimized.
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
Wolfshanze
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 407
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Florida, USA

Unread postby Wolfshanze » 17 May 2006, 16:23

Note I did say "AT LEAST" a GeForce 6600... compared to a $30 GeForceFX 5200, ANYTHING would be a dramatic improvement for him, including a "lowly" 6600. He's complaining about slowdown on every level of zoom, and with a FX5200, perhaps he's not rolling in dough, so I made a minimum recomendation that is affordable. Of course a GeForce 7800GS would be nice, but that's throwing a lot of money at the problem.

Bottom line, he's got a crummy $30 video card (which costs less then his game), and he's complaining about video performance. He needs to invest a few bucks and step it up.

As for the "Eye-level" problem... you can zoom the game in and out, AND you can change the perspective from a top-down look to a more "side" view of the action (which for a lack of a better term I call "Eye-Level"). On the adventure map, when on "eye level", the game can slow-down even on the fastest of systems... this mostly happens on sylvan/woods type maps, and not-so much underground or in desert.

Nobody who owns an FX5200 or worse should complain about video performance though... invest more in your video card then you do on the game and that will help tremendously! ;)

User avatar
theGryphon
Spectre
Spectre
Posts: 716
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby theGryphon » 17 May 2006, 16:38

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I observed that too I mean in the Demo even though I have a very nice GPU (a Quadro FX Go1400 @256MB).
TT pointed out to something very crucial: the game slows down considerably when played long. I didn't even play longer than 6 hours because I've been busy. In a couple of days I'll be free like a bird and would like to play the game for 24 hours straight :)
I have a near-high-end system (I guess): Pentium M @2GHz which is supposed to match P4 @2.5GHz, and 2Gig of RAM. So, please everyone should admit that the game needs optimization.
I believe in science and that science can explain everything.
Because God has made it all work in such a beautiful way...

User avatar
Romanov77
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 273
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Romanov77 » 17 May 2006, 16:54

Wolfshanze wrote:
I can confirm that the choppiness is not relevant to the zooming level... (my video card is a) GeforceFX 5200 256mb
I hate to tell you Romanov77, but the GeForceFX 5200 256MB is NOT a gamer's video card. It's the LOWEST-END card of a rather BAD "FX" line from NVidia.

The FX 5200 was designed as a low-cost budget card for non-gaming businesses and grandmas. It was NEVER designed to be a "gaming" card! The 256MB on the card is also a total waste of memory and NOTHING beyond a marketing gimmick to fool people into thinking the card actually puts it to good use (which it doesn't). Heck, you'd get much better gaming performance out of a 128MB FX-5700 then you would out of a 256MB FX-5200. Don't let the memory fool you, it's NOT USED on the FX-5200.

I'm a certified computer technician, and let me tell you this... I can confirm that the choppiness on your system IS related to your FX-5200 graphics card... you have a non-gaming business card in your system, not a gaming card. Considering the FX-5200 currently sells for LESS then HOMMV, I think it's fairly safe where we can point the finger at in your system, and the old term "you get what you pay for" definately applies to video cards... if you go cheap with a video card, you'll get cheap performance, and the FX-5200 is one of the cheapest cards on the market.

I have a GeForce 6800GT in my system... the game runs smooth as silk on high resolution with max details, all eye candy on and anti-aliasing enabled. The ONLY time it slows-down is the well-known "eye-level" look... but overhead, it runs as smooth as can be with everything on max!

It's your crummy video card... spend more money on your video card then you do on HOMMV and you'll get better performance on all your games. I'd recomend AT LEAST a GeForce 6600 (preferably GT if you can afford it). Never buy the bottom-of-the-line X200 cards from NVidia (like 5200 or 6200)... those cards are always targetted at non-gamers (and for a reason).

Dude, let me point some things:

1 )I dont give a *youknow* about the fact that my videocard is old.
I know, but I cant do anything, because Im not rich.
I barely could afford the game.

2) This is not one of those retarded games that sucks lots of memory (among other things), this is HOMM.
Plus, my videocard is supported

More Important:
3) The demo runs FINE even at Medium setting
The Retail MUST do the same, otherwise it would be a cheap trick by nival & ubi.


4) The fact that YOU can spend lots of money into a videocard, isnt an excuse for Nival to develop a resource hog unoptimized game that runs bad on older systems

Im not asking too much...
Give us an option to make trees less detailed..maybe even static
And with the passing of strange eons, even death may die.

H.P. Lovecraft - gentleman, writer and dreamer.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23270
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Unread postby ThunderTitan » 17 May 2006, 17:52

Wolfshanze wrote: As for the "Eye-level" problem... you can zoom the game in and out, AND you can change the perspective from a top-down look to a more "side" view of the action (which for a lack of a better term I call "Eye-Level"). On the adventure map, when on "eye level", the game can slow-down even on the fastest of systems... this mostly happens on sylvan/woods type maps, and not-so much underground or in desert.
The game work for me at max settings, it only starts lagging if I use the zoom function in any way. It also slows down over time. Faster at high and slower at low settings. I probably need more RAM. But that doesn't excuse the crappy zoom lagging.
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
Campaigner
Vampire
Vampire
Posts: 917
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Campaigner

Unread postby Campaigner » 17 May 2006, 18:08

I figured that more people had that "slow down over time syndrom". I got a Barton 2500+@31xx (195x11), 1GB DDR 400MHz RAM and a Radeon 9700 Pro @ 351/321 and I can play at max everything except antialiasing and it's smooth as silk. Ofcourse I can't pan the view....

GF5200....lol! :rofl: You actually exspected decent performance with that..? :rolleyes:

2. Memory usage isn't what's important in this game, it's core and memory speed of the card which the GF5200 do not have.

3. If you use the same view and graphical settings as you did in the demo then you're right, it should play equally good on the same map.
But I think you've been hussled :tongue:

User avatar
Wolfshanze
Marksman
Marksman
Posts: 407
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Florida, USA

Unread postby Wolfshanze » 17 May 2006, 18:45

Romanov77 wrote: Dude, let me point some things:

1 )I dont give a *youknow* about the fact that my videocard is old.
I know, but I cant do anything, because Im not rich.
I barely could afford the game.

2) This is not one of those retarded games that sucks lots of memory (among other things), this is HOMM.
Plus, my videocard is supported

More Important:
3) The demo runs FINE even at Medium setting
The Retail MUST do the same, otherwise it would be a cheap trick by nival & ubi.


4) The fact that YOU can spend lots of money into a videocard, isnt an excuse for Nival to develop a resource hog unoptimized game that runs bad on older systems

Im not asking too much...
Give us an option to make trees less detailed..maybe even static
Okay... 1st, my name is not "Dude".

2nd, you WERE complaining about the game not running as smooth as you want it to... in fact, you're STILL making such comments.

3rd, you're using a video card that is over three years old, and was cheap then, and cheaper now. It was also NEVER intended as a gaming card.

4th, it's 2006, not 2003. The system requirements state was is NEEDED TO PLAY the game... not needed to play the game smoothly with eye candy.

5th, when has ANY game company posted minimum or even recomended specs that actually meant smooth gameplay? Every game company low-balls the system requirements... if you don't know that, then you don't understand gaming publishers.

6th, it's not UBI-SOFTS responsibility to make a 2006 game run smooth for non-gaming computers from 2003 or older (which is apparently your system). A top-end game in 2003 (think Doom-3) wouldn't run smooth on your system. Your FX5200 was a low-ball card three years ago. I think if you want to continue gaming in 2006, you MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER your video options or give-up trying to play a brand-new game in 2006. At least if it bothers you as much as you infer.

If you want to play games, you need to have a GAMING card. Your cash-flow problems are not my problem, Ubi-Soft's problem or anyone on this forum. I don't care how much money you do or don't have, nor should you care what I have or don't have. You came on this forum, complained about how the graphics run on your system, and YOU HAVE A NON-GAMING VIDEO CARD FROM 2003. It wasn't a good card in 2003, and it sure isn't a good card now.

The game RUNS on your system... that's what Ubi-Soft promised. What's amazing is that with your system, you come on here complaining it doesn't run smoothly to your satisfaction when you have the system you do.

I recomended some REASONABLY PRICED video cards that don't cost an arm and a leg... OTHERS were talking about GeForce-7s, NOT ME. If you want to spend more on one game then you do on your own video card, I don't think it's wise to complain about video performance.

You have a 3-year-old, sub-par, non-gaming card (it fit that description three years ago). Don't lash-out at others simply because we have more current hardware. I was simply stating a FACT, that your video card needs updating if you want to play this game more smoothly.

***IN OTHER NEWS***

It would seem this game does have a minor memory leak. It does slow down the longer you play!

User avatar
Sikon
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 542
Joined: 22 Dec 2005
Location: Russia

Unread postby Sikon » 17 May 2006, 18:54

Slowdowns are mostly unrelated to memory leaks.
And please, watch your attitude, both of you.

User avatar
Romanov77
Assassin
Assassin
Posts: 273
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Romanov77 » 17 May 2006, 18:56

Campaigner wrote:
3. If you use the same view and graphical settings as you did in the demo then you're right, it should play equally good on the same map.
But I think you've been hussled :tongue:
In fact this is driving me nuts...I based my pre-order on the demo feedback on my machine.

Afterall, there's only just 1 problem...trees. Shouldnt be difficult to implement a lower definition for them...I remember that in Homm4 you could even freeze them...perhaps it can added in the patch....

Wolfshanze...
Sorry if I sounded rude, it wasnt my aim...im just frustrated.
I felt a bit insulted...but non matter, I felt wrong. Pardon me.

I know that my videocard sucks...I didnt belive I could run this game too, until I downloaded the demo...

Its just a simple matter that can be solved...Im not the only one with old videocard....the old homm fanbase has slower machines than other gaming communities....I know of many players that played Homm3 on OBSOLETE platforms....
Its just some trees...some trees.


Hell, I can play Dawn of War which has higher system requirements without extreme slowdowns...probably because in the grim far future there are no trees :D
And with the passing of strange eons, even death may die.

H.P. Lovecraft - gentleman, writer and dreamer.

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Unread postby DaemianLucifer » 17 May 2006, 19:15

@Wolfshanze

This is a turn based strategy,so its graphics shouldnt be its primary concern.It should be able to run smoothly on low end computers(though without eye candy).And our money problems actually are ubisofts concern,since we wont buy a game we cannot play.


Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 39 guests