There are quite a few very nice new features in ToTE which were non-existent in H3. To name a few:
- alternative upgrades
- class specific skills
- skill trees
- caravans
OTOH there are some features I miss in H5:
- maps feel smaller than in H3 and do not have that many towns
- there's only one hero type per race
- H5 has not that many maps 'built-in' as in H3
- H3 expansion packs integrate better: H3 Complete offers all 3 single player campaigns within one game. H5 ToTE contains only the 3rd campaign. And even if you buy the other H5 games, they'll act as separate games, which sucks.
All in all: both are really good games (even if H5 could use some more polishing)
Warning (in case you are interested): While H5 and H3 are similar games, H4 differs from them very much. Not everyone liked it... (I did, but not so much as the other part of the series. And yes, I've played all of them, starting from H1 :-))
HOMIII Complete (not Wake of the Gods) vs. TOTE
- ThunderTitan
- Perpetual Poster
- Posts: 23270
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Now/here
- Contact:
Right, and that's never been done before...Wolfsburg wrote: Last, the creatures are very particular to each faction and have their own stunning set of abilities
Jeez, why not stick to the skills only, they where enough...
Plus, with so many creatures there's bound to be overlaps in abilities...
Next time quit while you're ahead.
That said, TotE is the richer game for reasons already mentioned and having mastered HoMM3 doesn't mean you will be good at HoMM5 as well.
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: €
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: €
- Kareeah Indaga
- Archlich
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
I can't believe it!
Come on guys, how can you consider Heroes 3 a better game? It didn't had any diversion at all. All races were equal (which is not bad) and similar (which is very very bad). All towns had a might and a magic hero. All heroes could learn all abilities (except Leadership for Necromancer). Creatures stood on their own, there was no connection to the hero (like, for example, Academy creatures benefiting from their hero because of Artificer ability, etc).
In Heroes 5 some armies are weaker than others and you should exploit your hero's race-specific strengths to overcome this. And each race has its own style of playing. Some are good for rushes. Others are better in late game. In Heroes 3 they were all the same. There are caster units and there is a big difference between same tier creatures. In Heroes 3 the Necromancer had the Death Knight, but guess what? The Wizard had the Death Knight too, the only difference was that it was named Naga and it used a different graphic model. And the same was for the other races.
Making all races the same is not a good way to balance a game. And I would dare to say that it is better having a bit of IMBA than a game where all races are just clones.
I think that if you like to kick the computer's ass, then yes, Heroes 3 is nice. But if you want a really strategic game, Heroes 5 wins all the way!
Note that I am talking about custom games, not campaigns. If we consider campaigns too, Heroes 3 standard was awful, the campaign was sooo easy I was thinking about shooting myself of boredom while I was playing it. The expansions however were good.
In Heroes 5 some armies are weaker than others and you should exploit your hero's race-specific strengths to overcome this. And each race has its own style of playing. Some are good for rushes. Others are better in late game. In Heroes 3 they were all the same. There are caster units and there is a big difference between same tier creatures. In Heroes 3 the Necromancer had the Death Knight, but guess what? The Wizard had the Death Knight too, the only difference was that it was named Naga and it used a different graphic model. And the same was for the other races.
Making all races the same is not a good way to balance a game. And I would dare to say that it is better having a bit of IMBA than a game where all races are just clones.
I think that if you like to kick the computer's ass, then yes, Heroes 3 is nice. But if you want a really strategic game, Heroes 5 wins all the way!
Note that I am talking about custom games, not campaigns. If we consider campaigns too, Heroes 3 standard was awful, the campaign was sooo easy I was thinking about shooting myself of boredom while I was playing it. The expansions however were good.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests