|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 21, 2015 01:02 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 13:41, 21 Oct 2015.
|
I'd find replay value at the expense of campaign experience a more than acceptable sacrifice. The real fun is in custom maps and multiplayer and I think balance and emphasizing the game's strong points should be done with an eye on those. Campaigns shouldn't take priority over replayability, that's doing things backwards.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 01:19 PM |
|
|
That's one thing we've tried to communicate to them: FIRST build and balance the game THEN balance the campaigns (I even went so far to suggest to omit the campaigns in the initial release and add them later as a free update).
The economic reality is, that most game reviews are built on campaigns - and this is nothing new. Just think about how the really good Etherlords 2 was released without ANY "skirmish maps" at all (killing most replay value)! Game still wasn't thrashed because of that. Even playing time estimation is based on campaigns.
And I don't even want to know how many people play campaigns ONLY (never playing any single map without story at all).
So that's just unrealistic. AoW3 vanilla had only two campaigns, probably one reason for the less than enthusiastic official reviews. The game has the best RMG ever - but who cares? Realistically, campaigns should be good and fuel the appetite to really delve into the game. You can't just dismiss them.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 01:45 PM |
|
|
I'd rather we got less missions, each testing you in more than a few ways. Trudging through the mission from one quest to the other with the AI wandering in the background is not my idea of fun. AI capability aside, I bet they could have given it the tools to have a more intimidating presence. I do not mean resource bonuses or extra armies, a more advantageous position can work wonders. Stables in strategically placed locations, easier to claim mines, the odd dragon utopia, good land connection with roads and portals..
If the team had less campaign missions to work on, there would no doubt be more time to spend on other, more crucial things. Besides, overly long campaigns tend to be boring and the important thing is to get a taste of the gameplay. Both of the faction and the map's special design.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 02:10 PM |
|
|
I do agree.
But we are at "back to the drawing board" territory here.
If we are at it - I understand that a certain level of scrpting seems necessary in things that follow a story. But being treated like a 3-year old dog, getting those missions, go to x, speak to y, go to z, go back to x, ask for this, do that - I mean, where is the goddamn GAMEPLAY when you follow instructions like with painting by numbers?
SCREW! THAT!
It's like, you don't need to know what you do as long as you follow the directions step by step. Kills all fun anyway, so campaigns are annoying in a bad way.
However - for the current game, I don't think it's a realistic thing to suggest, letting campaigns go to hell OR completely redesign them - you'd been way better off to do it more skirmish oriented in the first place.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 02:31 PM |
|
|
Campaigns are usually story-driven and stories are best told by setting a few goals for the player to achieve that match this story. What better way than to set a few quests?
Or would you rather see a campaign composed of only skirmish maps with just one objective, "defeat all enemies"?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 03:17 PM |
|
|
Did you ever play an adventure game?
A story has to be told in such a way that players themselves realize what they have to do AND, most important,
they on't have to be coded in a way that they crash when you do things your way.
Example: You'll have a dialogue box or scene where the gist is, well, the Empress will send troops and it will be expedients to fortify the town.
The way it will currently be, you'll get a task, sorry, you must fulfill a quest: Build Fortifications level x. When you do, you get some reward or whatever - how lame is that?
I mean, there are more or less 3 options: 1) you get the idea from the dialogue, hey, fortifications are great, I build them. 2) You say, screw fortifications, I'll build someting else instead, let them come, I'll beat them anyway; 3) you do something silly.
Now, in reality, I THINK (I'm not entirely sure what happens when you don't complete such a quest) worst case is - nothing happens. The game waits for you to fulfill the silly quest.
What SHOULD happen is simply, that army comes. The problem with this approach is, you must not win without fortification, and win with it - but it's highly likely that you'll win anyway, provided you build something good instead of fortifications.
Which in turn means, the campaigns are not presented, the stories not told in a sensible, interesting way.
And that hasnothing to with the WINNING condition. Of course you can have different winning conditions. I just don't want to be taken by the hand and told, you have to do it this way. Just leave clues for people to do the right thing.
I EDIT this for an example:
When you played HoMM 2, playing the good campaign there comes the point when you get "Dwarven Alliance" which simply means, all Dwarven stacks on the map will join you for free.
No one is tasking you with something, though. They don't tell you: Find all Dwarven stacks and win them for your army. Instead it's up to you. You MAY think, hey, might be advantageous to hire one or two Heroes and try to collect as many Dwarves as possible, but you may also say, Dwarves just make me slow - I take only the upgraded stacks and leave the basic ones - maybe I can pick them later wi another hero.
See what I mean?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 03:39 PM |
|
|
Basically the game connects the dots for you in such a way that you don't have to THINK, just EXECUTE. The fact you even get arbitrary rewards like +50 Cavaliers or +5000 experience instead of reaping the strategical benefits of your actions makes it all the more Pavlovian in nature. Bottom line is that at the end of the day the game plays you instead of you playing the game. Streamlined RPG progression instead of tactical gameplay.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 03:42 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Streamlined RPG progression instead of tactical gameplay.
Exactly that.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 04:00 PM |
|
|
IMHO campaigns should be designed last, once any single play skirmish/scenario and multi is done and offers enough replayability already. Then campaign would be an experience adding stuff with scripting events and various quests and objectives. Campaigns should be the ultimate single play experience (fan made maps like TEW or THUNK come to mind). If the core game is designed around campaigns, I think is going backwards, because depending on scenarios can just hinder the rest. Aside hardcore campaign players who want to optimize a rush and overplay the campaigns x times in order to achieve so, I believe most players will play it once or a few to several times at best. I think most Heroes players are casuals and all they want is to be able to keep the addiction for years, sometimes discovering new strategies and different ways to play the game even years later, and that is by multi with friends and/or not get tired of skirmishes thus also importance of good RMG and consequent amount of maps since not so many are good map makers either (or simply lacks the patience or are too lazy to create). Therefore I believe a maximum of efforts should be made towards non-campaign maps at first, then campaigns would only enrich the overall singleplayer experience by proposing stuff which isn’t necessarily available outside them, sometimes unique to a specific scenario. I think game designers should ask themselves more seriously as why h3 and h5 as still being played so many years later. The core of these games is really good and anything added further just improves the overall experience. I think so many are also disappointed in h7 because it wants to be a best of which doesn’t even correct the few flaws of its predecessors (some skills in h3, ultimates in h5 for the most obvious ones), if anything, it seems like a downgrade.
Also I think they should keep in mind Heroes is first and foremost a turn-based strategy game with a few RPG elements. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I see way too much emphasis on the roleplaying aspect in h7, at the detriment of what the series are about in the first place.
____________
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 04:05 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 16:06, 21 Oct 2015.
|
Stevie said:
Basically the game connects the dots for you in such a way that you don't have to THINK, just EXECUTE.
Ahh, I see the somewhat more subtle distinction you're making. Quests are fine, just not outlined as harsh as they are. Allow players to try and tackle a problem in their own way and don't punish them if they don't follow the outlined steps exactly. Yes, I fully agree with that, let players try it their own way.
I was more thinking in the line of Necropolis mission 4, where you have to activate 8 pylons and collect 4000 souls. It makes sense to make those hard quest objectives to complete. You're not given specific steps on how to reach those pylons or in which order.
Galaad said:
IMHO campaigns should be designed last, once any single play skirmish/scenario and multi is done and offers enough replayability already.
In full agreement.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 04:11 PM |
|
|
I think we all agree, and thanks to Stevie for putting it so eloquently - "Pavlovian" is really cool. 
|
|
drusain
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 04:50 PM |
|
|
GenyaArikado said:
verriker said:
GenyaArikado said:
See, if you read you'd see his point is not that there arent polished on release fames anymore, but that the current trend is "buggy on release"
And no, you arent forced at all, but you have been calling the game snow for months so why did you buy it regardless escapes me lol.
and my point is I disagree there is such a strong trend, and certainly that the likes of Heroes 7 are a valid representation of that trend either, it's a very extreme example, that's why it ranks in the lowest 4% of all games listed on Steamspy lol
also, of course I didn't buy it, why would I after already being burned by Heroes 6 lol
Thats not what you said before but w.e. This just means that since you arent a buyer your opinions doest mean snow lol.
This is a couple pages out but this response is garbage. I haven't purchased the game yet because I know that it wouldn't be satisfying for me. I don't have to play the game to know this; I played the beta for $1 and felt the game was clunky and unfocused. Animations were bland and sound effects were pathetic. The skill design didn't feel like it would be a fun mechanic. Add to the fact that the game wasn't polished and I just decided not to buy it.
I actively check to the state of the game to see if it's at a quality where I would want to purchase the product and play it. So far I've neither seen nor heard any reason to do so, especially at the asking price.
This is called being a smart consumer. Paying money for things that you don't feel are worth the price makes no sense.
My opinion shouldn't be better or worse than anyone else's just because I've chosen not to purchase the game yet.
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 05:16 PM |
|
|
Since the conversation already was interrupted, let me address something from the previous page:
3lion said:
Brukernavn said:
[My five points]
This is not a fix/change list at all. You beter call it "My wish list for heroes 8"
Do you people even understand, that major changing of the skillwheel and magic system means complete redesign of the entire game? There is a suggestion for the Warfare skill in the neighboring thread. Read it. That's what could be implemented, not your "Magic System Redesign". List like this doesn't help. "Complex skillwheel"... What does it even mean for Chris sake?
I agree, I don't expect a complete point from my list to be tackled, but still that's my answer to the request:
"To that end what I would like to see is a thread with your personal top 5 changes or fixes to H7 you want to see that you think will make the game better for everyone."
More realistic things would be fix memory leaks, fix bugs, fix multiplayer, better optimisation, slightly better AI, some visual improvements, tweaking skills and spells here and there, and perhaps a bit more content. But even if all this was done, I still wouldn't play the game, because there are many other games that are much more fun and challenging to play. So making such a list would be just as useless - from my point of view.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 05:58 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Also I think they should keep in mind Heroes is first and foremost a turn-based strategy game with a few RPG elements. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I see way too much emphasis on the roleplaying aspect in h7, at the detriment of what the series are about in the first place.
Agreed. I believe JVC felt that about Heroes IV and about 15 years later we still have such things. Not that it is wrong, but it may just be that they are spending too much time and resources to progress storyline rather than gamplay and tactical elements.
|
|
Sandro400
Promising
Supreme Hero
Shadow of Death
|
|
posted October 21, 2015 11:56 PM |
|
|
From Top 5 thread:
ChimTheGrim said:
Why not just keep Erathia? The fact that certain HoMM 3 heroes are in recent "ashan" HoMM games makes no sense. There's literally no cohesiveness to the franchise because of these goofy changes.
Sorry, maybe you mean "just keep Axeoth"? You know, Erathia (well, Enroth, to be precise) and cohesiveness kinda don't match... Axeoth, on the other hand, will make a grand return in H7 and we already know that it will at least look different from vanilla (Infernopolis again etc).
Or do you want future Heroes be set on Enroth, but before the cataclysm - thus moving into the past, which is exactly one of the reasons why Ashan stories are criticized? ^^
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted October 22, 2015 12:09 AM |
|
|
|
Well, Enroth may take centuries to become solid from all that destruction. So yeah, one'd expect to move to Axeoth, it has lots of possibilities. Or even move to another world (fingers crossed for Forge).
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 22, 2015 08:10 AM |
|
|
The time of Enroth and Antagarich is long gone. I'd rather ubi wouldn't get their hands on it, unless they let marzhin in charge.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2015 08:41 AM |
|
|
Also, I don't think the old games really took the setting to be important. The old HoMM universe is more or less a series of planets and on the planets of continents that are linked via "portals" - an easy explanation of why there is change (and the Inferno are aliens).
As far as setting goes, that's pretty perfect for a computer game, because things do need change from one incarnation to the other, so that's what you got: time jumps and location changes.
HoMM 5 ended that universe and introduced a new one - which COULD serve the same purpose, provided the powers that be have no qualms to do drastic stuff. Example:
Malassa and Elrath kill each other in a terminal Dragon battle, eliminating Light and Dark Magic, while the Demon Messiah destroys the ward around Sheogh freeing the Demons who become part of Ashan, leaving Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Order and Chaos Magic and Haven and Dungeon in trouble. As a result, Elves unite again, Dark Elves being welcomed back into the arms of Sylanna and the deep woods, while Humans go back to Ylath praying to Air - but in secret Order and Chaos sects thrive. And meanwhile, in the depths of the underground left empty by the leaving Dark Elves, a new threat takes shape: the REAL Dungeon, a collection of unspeakable abominations born from underground dragon crystal veins and elemental comfluxes, led by the Dungeon Overlords... and so on.
You know, it IS possible, you just have to clean the slate once in a while.
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted October 22, 2015 09:07 AM |
|
|
I think everybody understands their Ashan setting could support variety, the problem is its creator does not want to do that so it will never happen lol
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2015 09:23 AM |
|
|
|
I suppose, at this stage it's a simple adapt or die - although things already smell bad, so things may need a spider venom cure.
|
| |
|
|
This MEGA THREAD is pages long: 
