|
| Thread: Game Development and Fan Nostalgia: What makes a good sequel? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
seddy
Known Hero
Spinner of delicious cupcakes
|
posted August 20, 2010 10:40 PM |
|
|
What makes a good sequel...
It kind of depends if the sequel acts as an
Expansion
Part of a series/trilogy/etc
Independent game
Direct sequel (continues directly from the previous title)
Other
For example, most sequels in the Sims genre acts as expansions. Assassins Creed games acts as both a direct sequel to each other and a trilogy.
HoMM and Warcraft could be seen as, for example, mostly independent games part of a series, where neither storyline, heroes/creatures or gameplay are exactly the same, but follow a pattern and shares similarities and a common base. Each game has something unique and gamechanging, but the overall feeling and concept is the same.
It varies from game to game, and style to style what makes a good sequel. If HoMM6 is more of a direct prequel (story wise and sequel otherwise) but still independent and following the style that has made the HoMM series so successful, the mix of strategy, exploration, lore, Role Play, etc.
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 20, 2010 11:17 PM |
|
|
I think comparing the HOMM series to Civilization is not exactly fair. There are way too many differences between the two series.
First of all, Civ is one of those "classic" games, it started out as an original project and is widely regarded to be one of the most influential games. As opposed to HOMM, which was a take on/combination of King's Bounty, Master of Magic and Warlords.
Then the subject matter is completely different, aside from both of them being turn-based. Civ is about human history, it that a much wider appeal than a fantasy world with "monsters". And it's because of the human history aspect that ties the creators' hands. They can't present the core of the game any different than in the first game, it still has to be prehistoric age, medieval, industrial etc. They can't rename any of the inventions, the units, the rulers etc. They can't claim something like "let's pretend what woulda happened if the Roman Empire never collapsed" whereas in Heroes it's still possible to make something like Black Dragon joining the Elves and explain them as some fantasy story twist (i.e. a mage cursing green dragons and turning their appearance to evil).
So that explains why Civ *has* to be the same game over and over again, with a much better graphics each time, and some accessories to gameplay like diplomacy, wonders, famous people, more detailed battles etc. In the end each sequel will be just a "remake" with a few new stuff added, because that's expected from its audience. Civ doesn't have to "compete" with other games because it'll always be the "first" game to do this and due to its nature, it will continuously be rediscovered by younger people.
HOMM is not that kinda game. I know there are a few vocal people who think HOMM3 is THE game and if there are sequels, it should be HOMM3 with up to date graphics, everything unchanged. But that is against to the nature of the game. It would get boring if it was always Troglodytes and Manticores in Dungeon, because they CAN change that stuff. They can make Dungeon into a Dark Elf town because it's possible to do that in fantasy. It's what fantasy is about, vs. "reality" that is represented by Civ.
But then you could say the monsters, heroes and stuff like that can change, but leave the gameplay mechanics alone. It's true some fans would want that, but every game has fans like that, it still doesn't make them represent the majority. A lot of threads in this forum make the impression that Fortress was the best thing that happened to HOMM and it should be brought back immediately, but it's not like every single fan misses it. It's the same about changes in gameplay, like someone said it in a recent thread, people were wishing the heroes would be involved in battle in HOMM, they wanted more RPG elements, because the trends went that way. Many games started to have RPG-like customization and impersonation, it was as popular as everyone jumping into 3D.
It's just not a "fact" that people disliked HOMM4 because of all the changes. Some wanted heroes in battles, the caravans, the fog of war, the choosing between creature dwellings, the spellbooks of creatures and so on. It's a matter of opinion whether those changes were good or bad, but it didn't make Heroes a "new" game, it just wanted to improve. Even if none of those changes existed, HOMM woulda still be ridiculed by the same people because of the bugs, the bad animation, the not-so-up-to-date engine, the lack of multiplayer in the original game, the lack of big story arc, merging Inferno with Necropolis and so on.
It might be shocking, but Heroes did have competition at the time, critics praised the creature upgrade tree of Disciples over the mechanical linear upgrading of HOMM3, or the conversion/destruction of enemy cities in Age of Wonders. Other games were improving the genre and like I said, HOMM was not the starter of it so it had to get on with the times. Unlike Civ, it's possible to do a game *like* HOMM but not be a copy of it, while Civ cannot be done without being a complete copy (remember 1999, when there were 2 "non-official" Civilization games because the rights of the title stayed at 2 different publishers, so both of them created a tuned-up version of Civ 2 to cash in?). And not even touching the subject of the HOMM3 expansions being a common laughing stock for making people buy the same thing over and over again without anything new...
Also, the people who want HOMM3 to be the template already contradicting themselves when they say "HOMM5 coulda been that, but was not executed well", that's a matter of perception too. Most complaints of HOMM5 was that the factions were almost identical to HOMM3, so yeah, a lot of people want the changes. More people lose interest with the same thing and move on, than people who keep on clinging to something unchanged. This is a well known thing in the entertainment industry, music artists come and go, tv shows get canceled, actors go into obscurity, they get older etc. It's not that different with video games. It's aimed to people who always want something "new" because they are the majority, and that's due to human nature.
I agree that turning Heroes into real-time would kill the series and that wouldn't be Heroes anymore, because that's what Heroes is about. Or to create a storyline based on human history events, only have humans fighting each other in actual countries and so on. But to put something like the number of resources to that level, or the questions of initiative or retaliation, or Dungeon being a mix of beasts or controlled by Dark Elves, is simply not reasonable.
OK I'll stop my rant now, concluding that no matter what, it's still going to be all about taste and HOMM will always have some changes that would upset some. And I won't get into the Final Fantasy series where the only similarities EXPECTED between the sequels are a few summoned monsters and a big yellow bird. 
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 12:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
More people lose interest with the same thing and move on, than people who keep on clinging to something unchanged. This is a well known thing in the entertainment industry, music artists come and go, tv shows get canceled, actors go into obscurity, they get older etc. It's not that different with video games. It's aimed to people who always want something "new" because they are the majority, and that's due to human nature.
There are limitations on how much you can change though. I mean, you wouldn't, for example try to go and knock the 'g' out of music because you wanted a new sound, or you wouldn't suddenly set a new series of Doctor Who based on a space station rather than on the Tardis.
Quote:
But to put something like the number of resources to that level, or the questions of initiative or retaliation, or Dungeon being a mix of beasts or controlled by Dark Elves, is simply not reasonable.
You go and show me where a reduced number of resources has been done before then. Oh, and don't mention Space Empires either (the number of resources jumped from 3 to 5 between III and IV), because those, like Civilisation, are a bunch of games under the same name, not an actual series.
Ultimately, this might be a good game or it might not, but it really deserves to be on its own, not part of the Heroes series. Might & Magic : Empires maybe?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 09:25 AM |
|
|
to my mind, a good game sequel takes what was good about the original and expands on it. it hones what was good to an expert level of sharpness and adds something else which will be able to mix it up. this goes for gameplay, design and story.
my big example would be the Spyro the dragon series, as Insomniac honed and perfected what spyro was through the various games.
spyro the dragon
+ good, solid controls
+ likeable characters
+ engaging and original worlds
+ fun levels
- some of the moves were completely useless
- each world had the same objective, not allowing much variety.
- bosses were piss-easy
- you die in f**king water
Spyro 2
+ Good solid controls
+ Likeable characterx2
+ Engaging and original worlds
+ with actual story elements behind them
+ fun levels
+ more useful moves, including the introduction of the hover move
+ you can swim... finally!
+ Bosses were challenging
- F**king moneybags pointlessly selling me moves that I could figure out on my own!
- some of the challenges felt too difficult and felt too cheap if you didn't win.
- towards the end... it sort of peetered out.
- the levels felt too disconnected, not really engaging in the over all story.
Spyro Year of the dragon
+ Good solid controls
+ Likeable Charactersx3 (I still love the eloquent and educated yeti, bentley)
+ Engaging and original worlds
+ with Actual story elements behind them
+ fun levels
+ More useful moves
+ Swimming
+ Bosses were challenging
+ the Challenge was brought back down to a reasonable level.
+ Kept a strong stride of creativity through out the game.
+ new playable characters allowed for different styles to be incorporated.
+ the racing levels were fun.
+ Levels felt connected, and felt like the world was being invaded by you're enemies.
+ you got to fight sheep in UFO's!!!!!
- some of the new playable characters had some really annoying levels.
- money bags is back. despite the fact he now has a reason to be back... he's back none the less. (I f**king hate that bear)
- the villian felt a little bit generic after the hammy awesomeness of the previous game.
I hope that states my views.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 09:56 AM |
|
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 10:56 AM |
|
|
that wasn't made by insomniac.
by then, they had sold the rights over, and universal just wanted to capitalise on the name.
what's really a shame is that Enter the dragonfly had some good ideas behind it. But it was so poorly executed, badly programed, ugly and almost unplayable. they managed to f**k up a game with robot dinosaurs in it.
a Hero's tail was them going in a new direction. And whilst it was playable and controlled very nicely, it had lost it's original sense of creativity and adventure, instead going for something bog standard and rather boring, compared to the other games. and the legend of spyro series was just them trying to ape god of war with little success, going for A-list actors (that turned in a good performance, mind) rather than the creativity and wonder of the games long history.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 11:06 AM |
|
Edited by Danny at 11:08, 21 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
There are limitations on how much you can change though. I mean, you wouldn't, for example try to go and knock the 'g' out of music because you wanted a new sound, or you wouldn't suddenly set a new series of Doctor Who based on a space station rather than on the Tardis.
Like I said, in a fantasy game the limitations are a lot smaller. You could actually argue that Heroes died after 3 because they killed Enroth & Erathia. It's a different game now because the story already changed. Yet most people are not hung up on this because it's "just" the story and most of the creatures are the same and nobody complains that it should be called something different because the world changed, do they?
Quote:
You go and show me where a reduced number of resources has been done before then. Oh, and don't mention Space Empires either (the number of resources jumped from 3 to 5 between III and IV), because those, like Civilisation, are a bunch of games under the same name, not an actual series.
I know it happened in Warcraft (the oil was dropped after the second game), I think in Total Annihilation too (the original had more resources but the Kingdoms only had Mana), I'm not sure but I thought people said Disciples did it too. I just don't see why resources became a crucial part of the game, you lose mercury, sulfur and gems, they had the same exact purpose: just randomly decided some of the level 7 creatures needed either one or the other one. So because all five of the tier 7 creatures need the same, it's a "brand new game" altogether? It's your opinion but it's really stretching it. It would be a whole different story if there was only gold as the resource, but you still have 1 out of the 4 rare resources...
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 12:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Like I said, in a fantasy game the limitations are a lot smaller. You could actually argue that Heroes died after 3 because they killed Enroth & Erathia.
No, Heroes died after H3 because H4 gameplay was too different and was glitchy as hell, not because the world changed (which they provided a reason for).
Quote:
It's a different game now because the story already changed. Yet most people are not hung up on this because it's "just" the story and most of the creatures are the same and nobody complains that it should be called something different because the world changed, do they?
Well I've heard a lot of people decry the story in H5, and I've heard a lot of people decry the factions as well, either because it was too similar to H3, or because it was too different, and they wanted H3 back. It was also slow and not particularly glitch-free.
Quote:
I know it happened in Warcraft (the oil was dropped after the second game), I think in Total Annihilation too (the original had more resources but the Kingdoms only had Mana), I'm not sure but I thought people said Disciples did it too. I just don't see why resources became a crucial part of the game, you lose mercury, sulfur and gems, they had the same exact purpose: just randomly decided some of the level 7 creatures needed either one or the other one. So because all five of the tier 7 creatures need the same, it's a "brand new game" altogether? It's your opinion but it's really stretching it. It would be a whole different story if there was only gold as the resource, but you still have 1 out of the 4 rare resources...
Seven resources allowed factions to drift towards one or another, increasing their diversity, whereas now, they're all going to cost more-or-less the same (since they've pretty much scrapped special buildings as well, or so they say). Oh, and the Warcraft analogy doesn't work too well since oil wasn't in W1. If they suddenly scrapped mines from Settlers everyone would sit up and take notice wouldn't they?
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 12:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, Heroes died after H3 because H4 gameplay was too different and was glitchy as hell, not because the world changed (which they provided a reason for).
Yet your example was about a tv show changing its storyline. You're being arbitrary about what's "too different". Who are you to decide Heroes will still be Heroes even if it has different protagonists and different world, but it cannot be Heroes if the heroes act like units?
I could easily say the mechanics changed because of the world, the heroes had to be more involved, creatures managed to roam on the map etc.
Quote:
Seven resources allowed factions to drift towards one or another, increasing their diversity, whereas now, they're all going to cost more-or-less the same (since they've pretty much scrapped special buildings as well, or so they say). Oh, and the Warcraft analogy doesn't work too well since oil wasn't in W1. If they suddenly scrapped mines from Settlers everyone would sit up and take notice wouldn't they?
I don't see the point, no oil wasn't in the first game, but how does that change anything? Strictly compared, in W3 it was a "regression" because oil wasn't needed anymore. Compare this to the skills of HOMM, in the first one they didn't exist, if they took them away in Heroes 6, would you just say "oh they weren't in Heroes 1 anyway, who cares"?
You don't know how are they gonna cost, you don't know what they implemented to make the differences. It's possible there are other stuff needed for each highest level creature, something related to the racial abilities.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 01:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yet your example was about a tv show changing its storyline. You're being arbitrary about what's "too different". Who are you to decide Heroes will still be Heroes even if it has different protagonists and different world, but it cannot be Heroes if the heroes act like units?
Okay, bad analogy, the Tardis is a setting, but if they suddenly scrapped the idea of the Doctor having constant companions, then you couldn't really call it Doctor Who any more could you?
Quote:
I could easily say the mechanics changed because of the world, the heroes had to be more involved, creatures managed to roam on the map etc.
This is still Ashan, so you can't make too many changes while trying to maintain the same continuity.
Quote:
I don't see the point, no oil wasn't in the first game, but how does that change anything? Strictly compared, in W3 it was a "regression" because oil wasn't needed anymore. Compare this to the skills of HOMM, in the first one they didn't exist, if they took them away in Heroes 6, would you just say "oh they weren't in Heroes 1 anyway, who cares"?
Except that there are now 5 versions of Heroes, for those two versions of Warcraft, ergo, heroes has more continuity. You'd get the same responce if you suddenly scrapped 'beakers' (or whatever research icon they use for research these days) from Civilization.
Quote:
You don't know how are they gonna cost, you don't know what they implemented to make the differences. It's possible there are other stuff needed for each highest level creature, something related to the racial abilities.
Well since they've scrapped 3 precious resources basically scrapped the special buildings the costs can't be that different from town to town.
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
I already addressed this, if Heroes was put into the real world with actual humans in it, or it would be no longer turn based, that would be a crucial change (like Star Wars featuring our Earth, killing the old galaxy far away). But changes "lesser" than that (I understand this sounds arbitrary too but you get the idea) don't make it non-Heroes.
You're simply just saying what you like in Heroes should be carved in stone and should never be changed into something you dislike, but if they change something you like, then it's OK. What you personally like or dislike has nothing to do with a game still being in the same franchise.
I get it, you don't like not having mercury/sulfur/gem, you don't like creatures going without a hero, you don't like creatures retaliating at the same time. That's your right to feel that way, but you're certainly not entitled to say what's Heroes and what's "not Heroes anymore" based on such preferences. Like I said, anyone could argue Heroes 4-5-6 shouldn't be called "Heroes of Might and Magic" because HOMM meant the world of Roland & Catherine and could easily say "if Star Wars went to another galaxy that doesn't have Tattooine, it wouldn't be SW anymore." You personally have no issue about Ashan, yet you're using gameplay feature changes the same away, simply because you dislike losing them.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 01:34 PM |
|
|
I think Dexter has a good point that defining what is good and bad about a game is not easy - good to one person might be bad to another. I guess that just goes to show why you must be very careful with removing something from a game - and the current ressource dispute is a perfect example of that. Even if they claim it adds to the tactical level that you have to fight over one ressource only, it makes people angry. Perhaps it would have been wiser to add another new (similar to WOG Mithril) ressource that would be this super-ressource.
(On a side-note, I don't get the whole point, in previous games you also had to fight for ressources, if you want to intensify this fight, then increase ressource demands, which will bring you to the same end. People can just spam the maps with "crystal" mines, and then they whole "more fight for ressources" thing is lost either way.)
As for the whole "fantasy games are different from reality games" discussion, I'm not quite sure I buy that. Quite in the contrary, in fact.
Had Civilization upgrades been largely UNsuccesfull, and Heroes upgrades largely succesfull, you could rightfully claim that Civ was hampered by the fact that they had to stick to reality. But as it is, Civ is the one with the less options, yet they get to the better result. And I don't agree that just because you can change something, you should do it.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for the whole "fantasy games are different from reality games" discussion, I'm not quite sure I buy that. Quite in the contrary, in fact.
Had Civilization upgrades been largely UNsuccesfull, and Heroes upgrades largely succesfull, you could rightfully claim that Civ was hampered by the fact that they had to stick to reality. But as it is, Civ is the one with the less options, yet they get to the better result. And I don't agree that just because you can change something, you should do it.
You don't agree with that because you're generally against change and you said it yourself, you prefer a series to be the same game over again otherwise "buy a different game". That doesn't mean more people agree with you than who disagree, because that's not reflected in trends.
You don't know what would have happened if Civ upgrades were unsuccessful, because they weren't, so that's pure speculation. Yet you're making an intentional contrast that "Civ is a game that never changed, it stayed successful but Heroes started to falter because they changed too much" which is a one sided story, I tried to bring in points to prove there's a lot more going on for both games than to base their successes on this single aspect. Like Heroes 4 had negative opinions not ONLY because of the gameplay changes, but several other things, like graphics and the bugs.
If Civ 5 implements only a few changes, but they completely ruin the engine, the camera movement, they add different and bad music, or a watered down battle system, it could very well flop. But it won't happen because "it had too many changes so it was no longer a Civ" or "it didn't have enough changes to make people interested", simply because it's the execution that killed the game. Yet if they started to replace the tanks with minotaurs and the aviation with dragons then you could say they killed Civ because it's not supposed to be fantasy and you would be right, everyone would agree. But if in H6 the Devil is replaced with the Black Dragon, would you say "it is no longer Heroes because in Heroes the Devil is always meant to be the most powerful Demon and the Black Dragon belongs to Dungeon"? That would be ridiculous, some fans obviously wouldn't like it (same way they don't like Phoenix missing from Sylvan, including myself), but nobody would claim it's a different game altogether because of that.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 02:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Like I said, in a fantasy game the limitations are a lot smaller. You could actually argue that Heroes died after 3 because they killed Enroth & Erathia.
No, Heroes died after H3 because H4 gameplay was too different and was glitchy as hell, not because the world changed (which they provided a reason for).
No, Heroes died when 3DO began imploding and took NWC with it. Heroes 4 was not a complete game like Heroes 3. The developers didn't have enough time to fully implement and test their ideas before 3DO released the game. Heroes 3 would have had problems too if it had been released several months too early.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 02:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for the whole "fantasy games are different from reality games" discussion, I'm not quite sure I buy that. Quite in the contrary, in fact.
Had Civilization upgrades been largely UNsuccesfull, and Heroes upgrades largely succesfull, you could rightfully claim that Civ was hampered by the fact that they had to stick to reality. But as it is, Civ is the one with the less options, yet they get to the better result. And I don't agree that just because you can change something, you should do it.
You don't agree with that because you're generally against change and you said it yourself, you prefer a series to be the same game over again otherwise "buy a different game". That doesn't mean more people agree with you than who disagree, because that's not reflected in trends.
True - which may reflect I'm wrong, or that the interests of the developers and the fans are not always identical. The cynical observer might say that developers probably know, that a good part of the fans will buy the new version more or less no matter what's in it - but that they're likely to harvest new fans by making the game into something different. For instance, it must be tempting for Ubisoft to look at all the gazilion people worlwide who play RTS and RPG games and think "maybe if we made Heroes a bit more like these games and less TBS, we'll sell more units ...".
Of course I'm well aware things are not that black and white, but even if this is putting things on the edge, it might also have an element of truth.
Quote:
If Civ 5 implements only a few changes, but they completely ruin the engine, the camera movement, they add different and bad music, or a watered down battle system, it could very well flop. But it won't happen because "it had too many changes so it was no longer a Civ" or "it didn't have enough changes to make people interested", simply because it's the execution that killed the game. Yet if they started to replace the tanks with minotaurs and the aviation with dragons then you could say they killed Civ because it's not supposed to be fantasy and you would be right, everyone would agree. But if in H6 the Devil is replaced with the Black Dragon, would you say "it is no longer Heroes because in Heroes the Devil is always meant to be the most powerful Demon and the Black Dragon belongs to Dungeon"? That would be ridiculous, some fans obviously wouldn't like it (same way they don't like Phoenix missing from Sylvan, including myself), but nobody would claim it's a different game altogether because of that.
Certainly, you can kill a game in many ways, and an update can turn out unsuccesfull for many reasons. Don't get me wrong - Civ 4 was bugged down to the degree that it was unplayable when it came out.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against change - quite on the contrary, I think change - or at least development - is exciting, but as Dexter said, it has to come for a good reason. For instance, I was all for moving the Dwarves out of Elven town, because it was part of a greater vision (and I know some people didn't like that).
My point was that when you change things, make them bigger, not smaller: Heroes 5 skill system was hugely succesfull, because it expanded Heroes 3 skill system. Sure, some skills went down the drain, but overall, the new system opened new doors, new tactical features, and widened the game.
Cutting back rare ressources from 4 to 1 doesn't achieve that. You can achieve exactly the same results with 4 ressources as you can with one, but you can't achieve the same results with 1 ressource as you can with 4. Case of point: Intensity of ressource fight will not depend on ressource number, but on demands (as in building costs) and availibility (map design). Thus, if you want to intensify ressource wars, make buildings more expensive (which is basically what you do when you have only one ressource, because now all buildings will consume the same one, making overall consumption bigger), and same result is achieved. Ironically, Heroes 5 tried to do that in the original version and failed epicly, which was why major ressource re-balancing was done in patch 1.3 (I think it was).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 02:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
True - which may reflect I'm wrong, or that the interests of the developers and the fans are not always identical. The cynical observer might say that developers probably know, that a good part of the fans will buy the new version more or less no matter what's in it - but that they're likely to harvest new fans by making the game into something different. For instance, it must be tempting for Ubisoft to look at all the gazilion people worlwide who play RTS and RPG games and think "maybe if we made Heroes a bit more like these games and less TBS, we'll sell more units ...".
Of course I'm well aware things are not that black and white, but even if this is putting things on the edge, it might also have an element of truth.
Yes, I believe those would be correct. It should never be forgotten in the art/entertainment industry that 1) it's still about selling a product 2) the developers/creators/writers/producers/directors are humans too.
Quote:
Certainly, you can kill a game in many ways, and an update can turn out unsuccesfull for many reasons. Don't get me wrong - Civ 4 was bugged down to the degree that it was unplayable when it came out.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against change - quite on the contrary, I think change - or at least development - is exciting, but as Dexter said, it has to come for a good reason. For instance, I was all for moving the Dwarves out of Elven town, because it was part of a greater vision (and I know some people didn't like that).
My point was that when you change things, make them bigger, not smaller: Heroes 5 skill system was hugely succesfull, because it expanded Heroes 3 skill system. Sure, some skills went down the drain, but overall, the new system opened new doors, new tactical features, and widened the game.
Cutting back rare ressources from 4 to 1 doesn't achieve that. You can achieve exactly the same results with 4 ressources as you can with one, but you can't achieve the same results with 1 ressource as you can with 4. Case of point: Intensity of ressource fight will not depend on ressource number, but on demands (as in building costs) and availibility (map design). Thus, if you want to intensify ressource wars, make buildings more expensive (which is basically what you do when you have only one ressource, because now all buildings will consume the same one, making overall consumption bigger), and same result is achieved. Ironically, Heroes 5 tried to do that in the original version and failed epicly, which was why major ressource re-balancing was done in patch 1.3 (I think it was).
But what's a "good" reason and what isn't, is not factual. You say that argument about the resources, that you can't achieve the same results with 1 resource than what you can with 4, maybe they want to achieve something "different". Whether that different thing is a good or a bad reason, that's up to the developers and the players. I'm pretty sure Heroes won't lose a substantial amount of fans because of it, just the same way if the 4 resources stayed, a lot of people wouldn't have complained it's "too much and needs to be changed".
As for the "make them bigger" argument, I'm sure you're familiar of the term "less is more". For example, there's Age of Wonders that has 12 factions. Yet a lot of their units are identical, or the same unit in a different skin. While HOMM4-5 only have 6 factions, H6 will have 5, yet they will be "worth" more than 12 in AOW, or even the 8 in HOMM3 because they are able to put effort in making them differ from each other (it also seems to be forgotten now but HOMM3 had a lot of creatures that lacked any special abilities).
A lot of people think like "HOMM1 had 4 towns, H2 had 6, H3 had 8, so it's obvious the sequels should have even more", but no, the number had been degressing. It's just that there are a lot of stuff behind the numbers. Just like having less factions and less resources will feel "different" but it doesn't mean the "wrong" reason or how some said it's just "laziness".
Also, adding an 5th resource would have meant no added value to Heroes, even if a lot of people don't wanna admit that. Yet some people would have got pissed because "there's enough already".
And myself, I'm pretty indifferent about the Dwarves not in the Elf town, I prefer Dungeon having an actual race of Dark Elves and I won't be happy if the Rakshasa are removed from H6. Yet I can't say any of these stuff are actually "good" or "bad" other than stating my own taste about them. It's going to be the same with the 1 rare resource thing, we will find out how it affects the game when we play with it, even if we don't like it doesn't mean nobody is going to like it and that it was a bad decision.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 03:01 PM |
|
|
About the rare resources in Heroes, do not forget that successive games have come up with new uses for them.
They added trading posts in Heroes 2 that allowed you to exchange one resource for another.
They added spell shops in Heroes 4: Winds of War, you could buy spells in exchange for rare resources.
Rune magic and creature artifacts were added in Heroes 5. Rune magic used rare resources to cast spells and creature artifacts used rare resources to buff your troops.
Over the series, they added four new uses to rare resources. It would not be hard to expand upon those ideas. They could add the ability to craft your own artifacts using rare resources. Each rare resource could correspond to a certain buff like attack boosting artifacts needing sulfur and intelligence boosting artifacts needing gems. They could allow you to expend rare resources to get temporary production boosts in dwellings. They could allow you to spend rare resources at the mage guild to research spells. Four schools of magic, four rare resources, one resource per school, with secondary and tertiary resources for higher level spells. They can change altars/sacrificial pits to allow you to sacrifice rare resources for experience or blessings from the Dragon Gods. They can just look at other games with multiple resources and see what they do with them.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 03:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But what's a "good" reason and what isn't, is not factual. You say that argument about the resources, that you can't achieve the same results with 1 resource than what you can with 4, maybe they want to achieve something "different". Whether that different thing is a good or a bad reason, that's up to the developers and the players. I'm pretty sure Heroes won't lose a substantial amount of fans because of it, just the same way if the 4 resources stayed, a lot of people wouldn't have complained it's "too much and needs to be changed".
To me, different just for the sake of being different is, if not bad, then something that makes my red alarm-flag go up. And I'm aware I'm playing out like a bit of a conservative lobbyist here, which is kind of ironic as I would normally consider myself to be anything but that. But I do think it's good to have a plan when you temper with something - otherwise, there's a good risk it'll just end up going wrong.
And I'm ALL for "less is more" when it comes to micromanagement and the like. So I'm with you on that - but when it comes to gameplay and strategic options in a strategy game, I don't think that's the right pointer to go by.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 03:19 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 15:19, 21 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
About the rare resources in Heroes, do not forget that successive games have come up with new uses for them.
They added trading posts in Heroes 2 that allowed you to exchange one resource for another.
They added spell shops in Heroes 4: Winds of War, you could buy spells in exchange for rare resources.
Rune magic and creature artifacts were added in Heroes 5. Rune magic used rare resources to cast spells and creature artifacts used rare resources to buff your troops.
Over the series, they added four new uses to rare resources. It would not be hard to expand upon those ideas. They could add the ability to craft your own artifacts using rare resources. Each rare resource could correspond to a certain buff like attack boosting artifacts needing sulfur and intelligence boosting artifacts needing gems. They could allow you to expend rare resources to get temporary production boosts in dwellings. They could allow you to spend rare resources at the mage guild to research spells. Four schools of magic, four rare resources, one resource per school, with secondary and tertiary resources for higher level spells. They can change altars/sacrificial pits to allow you to sacrifice rare resources for experience or blessings from the Dragon Gods. They can just look at other games with multiple resources and see what they do with them.
I think the problem with the rare resources is that they've been up till now, too rare, so I imagine you could solve some of the issues of late-game surplus resources by increasing current production and cost by say 5 times (and of wood and ore by 10 times, so that they'd still be rare), and then finding new uses, like unit costs down to tier 5 rather than just up at tier 7.
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 21, 2010 03:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To me, different just for the sake of being different is, if not bad, then something that makes my red alarm-flag go up. And I'm aware I'm playing out like a bit of a conservative lobbyist here, which is kind of ironic as I would normally consider myself to be anything but that. But I do think it's good to have a plan when you temper with something - otherwise, there's a good risk it'll just end up going wrong.
Yeah, you do sound like that. It's not about "for the sake of being different", the only thing where Heroes could be guilty of that is the creatures, because people expect new stuff so the developers HAVE to come up with new creatures, like they are doing it with Necropolis now, for the sake of bringing something new to the undead instead of repeating the usual line up.
But among gameplay differences, I think a lot of them are pretty "organic", like the skill system in H2, the elemental classes in magic in H3, then heroes involved in battle and creatures wandering without a hero, that was a natural change too because other games started to show stuff like a hero in H3 needing at least 1 creature is simply outdated. I just don't think it made it a completely different game, but in your words, it did make it bigger. Not sure if I can call the less rare resources "organic" or "up-to-date" but I still wouldn't dismiss it as something that's without a plan and just for the sake of being different.
|
| |
|
|
