|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:02 PM |
|
|
Doesn't make it suck any less though 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you didn't find anything about a Cerberus NOT looking that way either, but you did find something about the number of heads, I take it, and that number isn't exclusively 3.
But mainly, as it was in H5.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:23 PM |
|
|
|
So? Does that mean, Cerberi must always have 3 heads?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
|
There was no reason for cerberi to lose their head. It was just a pointless change that did nothing in the way of improving their design, if anything they look poorer. You might also say that subconsciously it's an outcry for ubi's decision to make changes that were not needed and often for the worse Same goes for the zombiefied liches. A lich does not HAVE to be skeletal but a homm lich does and is expected to be, besides what we got was plain ugly.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 06:23 PM |
|
|
There was also no reason not to lose (or gain) a head.
From a necessity point of view you don't need line-up changes - still, line-ups are changed, because things need a change, otherwise why make a new game? If a unit is kept in a line-up, at least a model change may be in order - this has been also the rule, since there is a creature evolution.
So there is no reason to lament those, except when they look crappy which is a matter of taste. Skeleton or not, number of heads - who cares?
That said, I agree that Liches and Dogs look somewhat crappy indeed.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 06:30 PM |
|
|
|
And ghosts. And those chain demons. And vampires. And...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 06:38 PM |
|
|
|
No, Vampires are ok. Better than H3's Nosferatus.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, Vampires are ok. Better than H3's Nosferatus.
What? HVI one look stupid with that big sword, imo
____________
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
still, line-ups are changed, because things need a change, otherwise why make a new game
Change for the sake of change, is the best design philosophy of all
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:13 PM |
|
|
Why is that? After all, they are superhumanly strong, so they can wield it.
H3's Nosferatus look silly - Nosferatus are way weaker but have mesmerizing abilities like the alternative upgrade in H5.
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:14 PM |
|
|
Every Heroes vampire ever looked dumb. Which is exactly the point of being a vampire. To be overdone and uninteresting.
I very much agree that the Heroes 6 Vampires look too much like Warcraft Deathknights and that they're only vampires because we are told they are.
And I agree with JJ that the Heroes 3 nosferatus were even worse. They were original, as far as vampires go, but they were still bad.
The Heroes 4 & 2 Vampires looked like Bela Lugosi's less talented brothers Fred and Bob. And the Heroes 5 one looked like their cousin Stu, who was into fencing.
They were all dissapointing. The 4 & 2 least, because they ripped off a reasonably good stereotype, but that did not make them any good.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
still, line-ups are changed, because things need a change, otherwise why make a new game
Change for the sake of change, is the best design philosophy of all
When we talk about looks - yes.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Every Heroes vampire ever looked dumb. Which is exactly the point of being a vampire. To be overdone and uninteresting.
I very much agree that the Heroes 6 Vampires look too much like Warcraft Deathknights and that they're only vampires because we are told they are.
And I agree with JJ that the Heroes 3 nosferatus were even worse. They were original, as far as vampires go, but they were still bad.
The Heroes 4 & 2 Vampires looked like Bela Lugosi's less talented brothers Fred and Bob. And the Heroes 5 one looked like their cousin Stu, who was into fencing.
They were all dissapointing. The 4 & 2 least, because they ripped off a reasonably good stereotype, but that did not make them any good.
No, I disagree with that.
You see, in Homm 1 and especially in 2, ALL creatures have a dumb look - they are ALL stereotypical clichés. Now considering that graphics, resolutions and the whole crap was much less sophisticated, this was a pretty cool way to do it. The creatures where somewhat ARCHETYPICAL. Look at the Peasants, for example. Look at the Trolls and Goblins, look at the Dwarves. Look at the Dragons. Or Titans. H 2 managed to come up with archetypical models for all of them, cartoony, childish even (mutant Zombies?), but all the more ... lovely for that.
Worst thing H 3 did was changing things to a more "serious" outlook.
Meanwhile, we have this ultra-serious crap where things are discussed, as if they had their own frigging reality.
I despise that.
The only good creature modelling is in HoMM 2. The rest sucks because all those fabulous creatures suffer from a fit of manic "realism" attempts.
Edit: Let me add something: Best creature in HoMM 3? Archdevil. Why? Cartoony. Worst looking creature in H 5? Devil. Why? Looks like a Traitor Marine. (Not that kit would look good in H4.)
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is that? After all, they are superhumanly strong, so they can wield it.
To me, I always found stupid the "Vampires wielding big swords" and I'll stick to HoM&M II-IV vampires all day.
But, since it's more a matter of tastes than anything else, let's leave the discussion there
____________
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 07:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You see, in Homm 1 and especially in 2, ALL creatures have a dumb look
I disagree, the creatures in H2 looked downright realistic (as far as "old-school" fantasy goes) compared to the more fairytale-like creature design of H1.
H6 can't decide if it wants to be "dark and mature" or "lighthearted and goofy".
I also think the Archdevil is one of the best looking creatures in H3,
not because it's cartoony, but because it actually possess an emotion.
Or rather, it's one of the few humanoid creatures with a face.
In regards to the vampire, it's not a proper vampire unless it sez "blah".
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted February 21, 2013 10:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
From a necessity point of view you don't need line-up changes - still, line-ups are changed, because things need a change, otherwise why make a new game?
Well, this is just where we completely disagree. Things don't need to change just for the sake of changing. Things need to improve. So if the new version is better than the old version, go for it. If it is just different than the old version, it will at best be insignificant - and at worst you'll end out with something that proves to be actually worse than the old.
Problem is that every time you make something that is different just for the sake of being different, and which is not just better, you lose a bit of the legacy of the old game - be that history, atmosphere, or actual gameplay. And that's not a good thing imo. If you are afraid of of sticking to what's already there, you shouldn't make a new version of an old game, you should go make an entirely new game.
Heroes 3 was such a brilliant game because it blatantly wasn't afraid of being essentially an updated and expanded version of Heroes 2. It took what was good from Heroes 2, and improved where it was possible. It made a better skill system, a better magic system. It made the graphics better (as in more contemporary and technically more refined - like the art style or not). It added more factions. It added more creatures to each faction. It expanded on the series instead of throwing a lot away.
And I think this tendency can be extended directly into the next installments of the game. Heroes 4 was very unpopular, not only because it had technical issues, but also because it was so focussed on fixing what did not need fixing (Infernopolis, anyone?). Heroes 4 was not necessarily a bad game in its own rights, but it didn't go down well with most Heroes fans because it was so obsessed with rewriting the series that it threw away a lot more than it added - which is natural, since Heroes 3 was essentially the sum of the three previous games, and you don't just make the same amount of stuff in a single new game, particularly not with him game design is getting ever more demanding in the graphical department. And this very mistake has been painfully repeated with Heroes 6, which is why again the game ends up feeling like less than what came before it.
Obviously I can't prove it, because I can't rewrite history, but I personally have no doubt that if they with Heroes 6 had instead stuck to the frame of Heroes 5 and modified that - adding dual heroes classes, smoothed out the warts of the skill and combat (initiative) system, modified the factions that needed modification (Dwarves, Dark Elves perhaps, Haven racial skill, etc.) and added new factions, the game would have been down a lot better with the fan base than what the current Heroes 6 did - even if (or rather because) that would have ment adding less new stuff.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2013 10:48 AM |
|
|
Let's not forget that we are currently talking about creature MODELS and creature LINEUPS ONLY.
I don't think this is a black/white case.
Creature line-ups have been changed from 2 to 3 as well, and obviously without necessity. Look at the Dungeon: Centaurs: gone. Gargoyles: gone. Griffins: gone. Hydras: gone. That's 4 out of 6. In came Trogs (fitting), Harpyies (better with Barbarian/Stronghold), Evil Eyes (good), Medusae (good) and Scorpicores (don't know), making the now subterranean Dungeon a 3-flyer faction.
Anyway, ideally, for line-ups you would want to change creatures (only) that didn't work out so well, taking them out and replace them, (which may make more changes necessary), but since models/looks will have to be changed anyway due to the always increasing resolution and so on, a change of model would seem to be a matter of course once you change the developer as well.
Of course, those decisions are not always well-advised: while H V made Dungeon a doubtful BDSM lair of Dungeon, the Succubus model was pretty much perfect, imo. Now, H VI transferred the BDSM lair to the Succubi making Dungeon more normal, which means, they changed Dungeon for good and Succubus for bad ("firy whip-and-leather Barbie").
What about the line-up. Looking, for example to Inferno, the H 5 lineup doesn't work in 6: Imps, Demons and Dogs as cores? No way. What about Imps, Succubi and Dogs? Possible. Then what about Demons, Mares and Pits as Elite? Works, when you consider Demons = Lacerators (they basically are those, just upgraded to Elite) and Pit Lords could have been left Elite as well as Nightmares. However. H 5's Devils had sucked big time, being obviously WH40K Traitor Marines, and I didn't mind the complete overhaul - the real loss have been the H 3 Devils here.
Now, I'm not impressed by the Inferno lineup of H 6, but I wasn't impressed by the H 5 lineup either. I don't think it was necessary to redo Inferno by coming up with 3 new creatures (the Lacerators are just restyled demons), but it's not a complete loss either.
The main problem I see is that there actually is no continuation in the series - never has been: It's Homm 1 and 2; then 3 expanded the terrain-based town concept making a lot of serious changes, and then HoMM 4 destroyed the whole world.
Ubisoft's redesign has not TERRAIN-based factions anymore, but RACE-based factions - the game is different. I don't see any way back.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2013 11:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You see, in Homm 1 and especially in 2, ALL creatures have a dumb look
I disagree, the creatures in H2 looked downright realistic (as far as "old-school" fantasy goes) compared to the more fairytale-like creature design of H1.
Fairy-tale style IS old-school fantasy, so fairy-tale look is as "realistic" as it gets. What I mean with "dumb" however, isn't "bad". It's, well, "DUMB". I would often laugh playing, "blah" being a part of it, but also the silly Peasants "marching" forward with their sickle, head down. Lots of faces have a dumb look. Dwarves falling looks hilarious, Mummies losing their bandages and so on.
That's all quite enjoyable.
In H 3 Devils are great with their come-on gesture. Others are good as well, mainly Inferno, the Whip Lords, the hopping Imps, also hilarious, but the whole game is decidedly more "serious" in it's graphical display, best seen with Necropolis.
And while H 3 may be considered as just ok, it can also be considered as stepping beyond the borders of what has been good for the game in the long-run.
Once this whole stuff is taking itself TOO seriously it starts to suck, and this "taking itself too seriously" is the main problem of the current thing.
When I watched Jurassic Park I was stunned, because the models looked so REAL - but that was because everyone already knew how those Saurians would and should look.
That's not true for a Hydra, a Cerberus or a Manticore. If you want to make a model for those, they must look as real as those Saurians, but they must also look believable. That's the problem. The Titan of H 2 looks like a greek statue of Mars come to life - nothing "realistic" there. Still, a great Titan. How to make that "realistic" in the other sense? They somehow suck in H 5, right? I don't think they would have been better in 6.
Disciples series have been way better in dealing with realism, but they also had not that many creatures.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2013 12:48 PM |
|
|
|
You know what would be cool? A FEMALE Vampire creature for once!
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted February 21, 2013 12:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know what would be cool? A FEMALE Vampire creature for once!
No, because then Vampirella is close by and with her shameless sexual pandering. We've had enough of that already.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
