Antosius wrote:All i wanted to say was that heroes 4 were unbalanced - there were to many new features and thats what made it "not true heroes".
HII was unbalanced,yet it was "a true heroes" game.What exactly defines a true heroes game?It had the most important thing a heroes game needs:Heroes you could level up,interesting and unique factions and creatures,very nice skills you could level up,nice artifacts.Only the gameplay differed.So you didnt like it.Fine,but that doesnt mean the game was bad,just that it didnt appeal to you.
Antosius wrote: The game has allready found his place and style, if they wanted to make something totaly new then they should create a new game and call it different... There are not many turn based strategy games out there but heroes 4 for me looked like trying to clone them all
O please!It was one of the most innovative game I played!Unlike HV,that ripped off everything from HIII(well,not everything,since they failed to implement some of the more useful things).
Antosius wrote: - the technology tree was stolen from Disciples, the battle system looked like from some other game ( i cant remember the name of it now, smth like "warlords"~ i think) and so on...
So what?If you think of anything "new" these days,it will always be simmilar to something that already existed.There is no true innovation.Besides,implementing good things from other games isnt always a bad thing.
Antosius wrote:And the things like when you kill lets say for example 100 peasants in one hit with your 1k peasants and they still retaliate made the game and all tactics in it terrible...
Oh really?It is much more logical and tactical to slaughter a huge army with no losses at all?Sim retal is one of the most tactical things HIV implemented.
Antosius wrote:Ah and by the way , letting hero to fight in combat was also stolen from Disciples. (But the different is that in disciples your hero is usefull there.)
Next time play a game for more then 10 minutes before you bash it.