|
| Thread: Ashan-based Lineups, do you even care? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
posted November 07, 2014 08:49 PM |
|
|
Danny said:
to be able to tell a proper story instead of not only to throw random units together but also to avoid dull storytelling that involves one faction beating their own kind, like it was in all of Heroes IV's campaigns.
uh... what? Heroes 4 had easily the best storytelling in the series lol
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 08:52 PM |
|
|
verriker said:
Danny said:
to be able to tell a proper story instead of not only to throw random units together but also to avoid dull storytelling that involves one faction beating their own kind, like it was in all of Heroes IV's campaigns.
uh... what? Heroes 4 had easily the best storytelling in the series lol
Really? Because the campaings were like.
1. Haven against Haven
2. Stronghold against Stronghold
3. Academy against Academy
4. Preserve against Preserve
5. Necropolis against Necropolis
6. Pirates mainly against other pirates
It was obvious they wanted to stray away from that, to a longer story arc that features all of the factions in WarCraft style.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 08:54 PM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
I don't like when they start mixing the racial creatures into different factions, however, like the Naga Medusa appearing in Dungeon - it both seems messy and unnecessary because we had a perfectly fine dark-elf equivalent in the Matriarch.
Well the obvious solution is to make Medusas shadow matriarchs that got some deal with Malassa turning them all dragony/snakey instead of them being Nagas leaving their homeland.
that said, i do find the excuses for Medusas in Dungeon to work absolutely fine if, as was the point of my previous post, avoidable 
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 08:55 PM |
|
Edited by fuChris at 20:58, 07 Nov 2014.
|
Danny said:
Really? Because the campaings were like.
1. Haven against Haven
2. Stronghold against Stronghold
3. Academy against Academy
4. Preserve against Preserve
5. Necropolis against Necropolis
6. Pirates mainly against other pirates
Yes but it had great storytelling DESPITE that. That is why I'm saying Ashan can still have great factions DESPITE the lore.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 08:58 PM |
|
|
Danny said:
Really? Because the campaings were like.
1. Haven against Haven
2. Stronghold against Stronghold
3. Academy against Academy
4. Preserve against Preserve
5. Necropolis against Necropolis
6. Pirates mainly against other pirates
Indeed, it was dumb to face each faction only to the same of it, battles got quite boring at times.
But the storyline is by far the best of the whole series.
____________
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 09:11 PM |
|
|
that would be a matter of dull gameplay, or gameplay not reaching its potential, but the actual campaign stories like easily mop the floor with everything from Ubisoft and even everything else before from NWC
and if you really think Heroes 5 is a "proper story" in comparison... well, lol is all I can say
anyway, sorry for slight offtopic, I'm one of those who usually always favours units over lore, but I would say "mixed feelings" because I don't think it's going to work well like that unless they really, really dial back the massive focus on Ashan lore
like in NWC, if it were flexible and limited to just flavor texts and influenced very little else, not dictating stuff like all dwarves worship fire or there are no halflings in Ashan and such, that would be so cool,
however the way it's been handled, outright dictating to us constraints about the dragon gods, the factions, the races, the spells, even the goddamn resources lol, all of which is closed to speculation, there's just nothing to be done about it
it's a mess
so basically in my opinion, much as it may suck, they made their bed, and now they have to lie in it - that would go for lineups too
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 09:26 PM |
|
|
I have to say that I've somehow lost interest. SHADOW UNICORN? Why don't they give Haven a Golden Dragon (which would be a Black Dragon gulping down too many Dragonblood Crystals shed by Elrath). Which just means that lore or not, you can make everything possible, you just need "mutation mechanisms" in the law.
Same with Hydras, obviously. We get now life-draining Hydras - that is, Vampire Hydras, which SHOULD make an incredible, but also preposterous unit.
In other words - lore is nonsense. It's a game, you want changes, so if you have a lore the lore needs to be flexible, which is what they are actually trying to obtain now.
I mean, you can even change the races/faactions. I mean, why are the Wizards mixing only HUMAN and beastly DNA, err, sorry, magically fuse members of the HUMAN race with beasts. I mean, how orcish would a mix between ELVES and Demons be? Or what kind of a Rak do you get when you mic a DWARF and a Shadow Panther?
Anyway, I still think, they should either have went on with after the Dark Messiah (all new, period!) or let the void win and restart the whole creation (all new, period!).
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 09:30 PM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 08 Nov 2014. |
Edited by Galaad at 21:41, 07 Nov 2014.
|
I think one needs another, but that units comes first. A good looking faction's overall is important to me, as it corresponds to the units you are going to use and play with, within a particular world's settings that is only limited by its creator's own imagination and creativity.
I wholeheartedly agree that the lore doesn't have to dictate the lineups as much as it can and should justify the inclusion of something totally new or different, the challenge being to make it fit so that difference=/=heresy.
The first common thing we need to agree on before I continue my thinking, is that I personally see both Enroth and Ashan integrant part of the franchise lorewise. This is why I find confrontation with the “Ashan=/=Enroth so snow off” logic. The lineups votes proposed by Ubisoft featured an almost replica of Sorceress Town and an almost only beasts Dungeon faction, so why should I snow off ?
Phoenix = Champion in the faction now referred as Sylvan for 3 games of the 3DO era.
Dragon = Champion in Sylvan for 2 games of Ubisoft era (so far including yet to be released).
NWC/3DO Dungeon = Mythological beasts, D&D.
Nival/BHE/Limbic Dungeon = Dark elves, mythological beasts, Ashan creatures.
Let's start with the Phoenix example, by original lore provided by NWC/3DO, it is tied to the actual Sylvan faction. Lore could have dictate that this unit is the only possible representative as the Champion's faction, and yet the Dragon replacement introduced in HOMM-III wasn't bothering that much, in every aspect of the game and apparent philosophy. The griffins inclusion into H3's town corresponding to Haven not only needed some new writing to make it fit, but was more than welcomed!, and their removal in MMH7 from this town are totally legit with the Wolf Duchy story. The new MMH7 Haven is quite a success for the challenge in the way I see things, new creatures, new lore, and yet it fits. A few comments against Justicars and Swordmasters, but nothing close to the drama we're having with the lineups voting.
Same goes with the Nagas, no problem in Antagarich/Axeoth Dungeons, no problem in Ashan's Sanctuary. And even better, no problem at all in Ashan's Dungeon either.
On another side, the removal of the Unicorn can legitimately be qualified as a heresy because after 20 years the unit corresponds and is a representative of the faction for many. Subtle change = good, drastic change = war.
The Dungeon Nightmare feels to me like a provocative answer to the Unicorn campaign that has been going on during the Sylvan voting lol, justifying somehow its presence in the faction therefore avoiding its removal from the game. This is only my interpretation and of course is reserved to be totally away from actual reality. With more thinking, I'm being more and more okay with this creature in Dungeon, it is just that I'm not quite sure that I will ever be able to see it in another way than as a “Sylvan missing's Unicorn replacement”. You see the kind of questions this matter awakes in me lol.
The looks are important and I often see them underrated in favor of gameplay.
I think units should be considered first, and lore would give golden permissions therefore getting new opportunities to render everything more magical. How the units looks separately, how the factions look as a whole, how the whole factions looks into the world. And of course, how the world looks.
I hate it that Ashan rules have transformed two mythological beasts & creatures factions into an Elf/Dark Elves overused generality. I am very strict regarding new creatures because the already existing ones that went through the centuries (and through the games) makes them mythic and unquestionable.
I am one who loves mythology and old medieval fantasy, I therefore care much about units and the factions, and am very demanding on this side.
So not only I think that the old and the previous lore are perfectly capable of living together, but I am also fairly convinced that keeping the classic units and their themes respected within Ashan would not be bothering at all, quite on the contrary.
____________
|
|
Kronos1000
Promising
Supreme Hero
Fryslân Boppe
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 09:35 PM |
|
|
I also voted mixed. While I think the factions should not deviate from the lore too much, I agree with Stevie that each case should be treated separately. The Phoenix back in Sylvan was too much for me and they made no effort to explain its presence in Sylvan and the fact that Academy has the Magic Bird Arcane Eagle does not help either. The Medusa on the other hand, I can tolerate a lot more easily as, this time, they did attempt to explain their presence (even if it feels a bit forced).
I actually have very little problems with the Ashan lore (even if the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired), the only thing I actively dislike is the 9 faction limit. Also, in the old universe factions were a lot more fluent as units often moved across different factions between games without causing a lot of issues. In the Ashan universe, factions are more set in stone. This allows for a more consistent lore, but also creates more limitations for developers. This consistency problem is exactly why we are having this discussion. Focusing solely on this consistency will cause factions to become repetitive, however if we get rid of this consistency, we remove one of the cornerstones of the lore which is not a good thing in my opinion. So this is why I voted mixed.
____________
Hwær cwom mearg? Hwær cwom mago?
Hwær cwom maþþumgyfa? - 'The Wanderer'
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 09:51 PM |
|
Edited by Miru at 21:54, 07 Nov 2014.
|
I voted units because I don't respect Ashan's lore.
In some series which have rich background lore (like WarCraft before WoW ruined the lore, Elder Scrolls, or Star Wars) I much prefer consistent lore, even if it makes somethings less interesting or not possible. But this is not the case here. The bottom line is the game has to be as good as possible, and if the lore is uninteresting, bland, or stupid then sticking to it is holding the game back. In a good lore system you probably would be so conflicted and limited by the dumb snow that was previously written anyway.
I almost didn't vote because the answers don't fit me generally (it depends on the series) but in context it's obvious.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
somi
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 10:14 PM |
|
|
|
Units over lore, gameplay over story. I am here to play a game. If lore/story hurts the diversity/gameplay it should be changed. The game should not be changed to follow lore, but lore should be changed to follow the game.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 10:33 PM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 08 Nov 2014. |
|
I have mixed feelings as well, but I am leaning towards lore. The lore as we have it now feels a bit too constrained, too forced onto the factions, leaving little room to "play" with the faction between installments. Factions now are too focussed on a specific race, while there are far too many different races across all creatures populating the world of Ashan to justify that.
Campaign stories should tie in with the lore, expand on it, while telling their own particular story, using the lore as a wallpaper in the background. The lore also shouldn't have been noted down with such strict contrast. Leave things open to interpretation, let players decide what they have to read in some of the things that happen during the campaigns. This counts especially for the influence of the Dragon Gods. Let them be intangible like our own earthly religions, let them be open to interpretation - it's the difference between interpretations that may be the spark for conflicts (just like in our own world).
One of the major strengths of reading a (fantasy, science fiction, etc...) book is that the reader has to form an image in his or her mind what is being detailed in the story. But my main protagonist may look different from the one my neighbor has in his mind. The same should apply to the lore ingame: let it be clear enough that you get the idea what it's about, but vague enough that there's room for interpretation.
Lore should be the foundation on which all else is built. It should provide grips as to why (some) things are the way they are, or happen the way they happen. Creatures form the every day representation of a faction; if they have too much contrast to the lore that's in the background, things turn ugly. Factions should be internally coherent, not only in functionality (distribution between flyers and walkers, shooters and slashers), or aesthetic cohesion, but also why the creatures within it are facing the world together. What's the common theme, their common goal? Why do they huddle together?
At the same time, this lore is mostly absent in most multiplayer games, games on random maps and many playermade single scenario's. I guess that functionality is then more important, as well as aesthethic coherence within the faction.
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 10:41 PM |
|
|
somi said:
Units over lore, gameplay over story. I am here to play a game. If lore/story hurts the diversity/gameplay it should be changed. The game should not be changed to follow lore, but lore should be changed to follow the game.
agreed, though i would like to express it more as story should serve gameplay. if you are forced to change your because of lore or story you're doing something wrong and you need to look at what you're doing and change what's hindering the game.
I can respect a game (Heroes in this case) to try and keep a consistent setting but it has time and time again gotten in the way of evolving, expanding and refreshing the games. When you can't make Dungeon or Sylvan without elves, when you have a hard time writing inferno as anything other than bloodthirsty maniacs, when you create a new faction and somehow negate an old faction a classic unit in the name of lore and consistency, you need to look at what you've done and find where you went wrong and change it.
Ashan is to strict, to complex. You can't change anything without upsetting something else and in a game with a long and respected history, that's a death-sentence.
|
|
Sorts
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 11:23 PM |
|
|
Mixed.
Ashan's lore isn't as strict as its critics think. I believe that they tried a "harder" approach in H6, they saw that they it didn't work so well and decided to loosen up. H7, MMX and DoC are actually pretty much proving that Ashan isn't as strict or set in stone as ppl think.
And yes they are adapting ashan to some older idead and making some necessary but miro retcons to that. They are fixing their lore. Unlike NWC who was like, oh no we have scrwd up, let's blow up the world and pick a new one where we aren't totally ripping of Magic The Gathering.
Anyway i wan't to leave out my critic about how lousy was NWC with lore (the great inconsistencies between MM and HoMM games).
I am a long time DM and world builder and i see nothing restricting in Ashans lore. It has its hard points that explain the basic pillars of the world. Why magic is separated to seven schools, what is the origin of beastmen, what are the elder races and so on. But still there is room for new things and mysteries.
|
|
Kimarous
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by Kimarous at 23:32, 07 Nov 2014.
|
somi said:
Units over lore, gameplay over story. I am here to play a game. If lore/story hurts the diversity/gameplay it should be changed. The game should not be changed to follow lore, but lore should be changed to follow the game.
I hate this line of thinking. Tell me, are you at all familiar with the "Majesty" franchise / world of Ardania? I absolutely love the original "Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim", from the gameplay to the lore... but they absolutely and thoroughly BUTCHERED it! For whatever reason, they wanted to convert all the unique and distinct units into less impressive and more generic versions. Case in point, Paladin from "Majesty" and Paladin from "Majesty 2"... and how do they justify this change in-universe? By making one of the gods (the most active one in the background lore and my personal favourite) pull the most out-of-character move and turn on the rest of the gods, causing a shakeup of the various religious orders and getting kicked out of the pantheon as a result! Oh, they EVENTUALLY retconned it in an expansion pack, saying that he was framed and later accepted back for the significantly better (albeit significantly different) "Warlock" games, but the damage was done.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted November 07, 2014 11:37 PM |
|
Edited by Avirosb at 23:46, 07 Nov 2014.
|
Danny said:
It was obvious they wanted to stray away from that, to a longer story arc that features all of the factions in WarCraft style.
Well thank god they didn't, those never seem not contrived.
Ubi has shown that they are flexible when it comes to their lore,
easily bending, changing and retconning stuff to suit their needs.
As such, I don't care about the lore because I know it is in the capable hands of good decision makers.
Sorts said:
Anyway i wan't to leave out my critic about how lousy was NWC with lore (the great inconsistencies between MM and HoMM games).
Are you refering to the exclusion of sci-fi elements?
I thought that decision was made to appease disgruntled fanbois.
|
|
somi
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:11 AM |
|
|
Kimarous said:
somi said:
Units over lore, gameplay over story. I am here to play a game. If lore/story hurts the diversity/gameplay it should be changed. The game should not be changed to follow lore, but lore should be changed to follow the game.
I hate this line of thinking. Tell me, are you at all familiar with the "Majesty" franchise / world of Ardania? I absolutely love the original "Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim", from the gameplay to the lore... but they absolutely and thoroughly BUTCHERED it! For whatever reason, they wanted to convert all the unique and distinct units into less impressive and more generic versions. Case in point, Paladin from "Majesty" and Paladin from "Majesty 2"... and how do they justify this change in-universe? By making one of the gods (the most active one in the background lore and my personal favourite) pull the most out-of-character move and turn on the rest of the gods, causing a shakeup of the various religious orders and getting kicked out of the pantheon as a result! Oh, they EVENTUALLY retconned it in an expansion pack, saying that he was framed and later accepted back for the significantly better (albeit significantly different) "Warlock" games, but the damage was done.
I played both games, and do like them very much. The first more than the second (and that doesnt have anything to do with crappy lore or change how some stupid unit looks). I did not like it because of gameplay and mechanical changes to the game, limiting the AI of your heroes and similar. I really hope that the main problem of any game is lore and story, and that other parts work great.
If for you the main problem of that game is change of a unit, i have no comments and can not understand your way of thinking.
|
|
jeremiahemo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:26 AM |
|
|
|
yes, and I find it annoying how Ubi sacrifices their own lore just to please those fans who're afraid of changes.
|
|
Kimarous
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:27 AM |
|
Edited by Kimarous at 00:30, 08 Nov 2014.
|
somi said:
Kimarous said:
somi said:
Units over lore, gameplay over story. I am here to play a game. If lore/story hurts the diversity/gameplay it should be changed. The game should not be changed to follow lore, but lore should be changed to follow the game.
I hate this line of thinking. Tell me, are you at all familiar with the "Majesty" franchise / world of Ardania? I absolutely love the original "Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim", from the gameplay to the lore... but they absolutely and thoroughly BUTCHERED it! For whatever reason, they wanted to convert all the unique and distinct units into less impressive and more generic versions. Case in point, Paladin from "Majesty" and Paladin from "Majesty 2"... and how do they justify this change in-universe? By making one of the gods (the most active one in the background lore and my personal favourite) pull the most out-of-character move and turn on the rest of the gods, causing a shakeup of the various religious orders and getting kicked out of the pantheon as a result! Oh, they EVENTUALLY retconned it in an expansion pack, saying that he was framed and later accepted back for the significantly better (albeit significantly different) "Warlock" games, but the damage was done.
I played both games, and do like them very much. The first more than the second (and that doesnt have anything to do with crappy lore or change how some stupid unit looks). I did not like it because of gameplay and mechanical changes to the game, limiting the AI of your heroes and similar. I really hope that the main problem of any game is lore and story, and that other parts work great.
If for you the main problem of that game is change of a unit, i have no comments and can not understand your way of thinking.
My issues with the game are far beyond a single unit. The complete butchery of characterization, design, and lore of the same setting (say what you will about the differences between Enroth and Ashan, but those are two wholly separate worlds, not the same one), the mechanical changes to the core gameplay, and the paint-by-numbers step-by-step campaign where once was both a standalone scenario campaign and a random map generator.
As for your own views, flippantly brushing aside the lore as "crappy" when I doubt you've even looked at it, I have zero respect. I'd even go so far as to call such an outlook a bane upon the industry. As a writer, why the snow are you even playing a fantasy game if you aren't going to give one snow about the world created for the mechanics? Oh, sure, there are fantasy settings made purely for mechanics. Just look at, say, Orcs Must Die. But when the story is ultimately the POINT of the setting... well, why are you even buying the product, and why should I care about what you think?
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:31 AM |
|
|
jeremiahemo said:
yes, and I find it annoying how Ubi sacrifices their own lore just to please those fans who're afraid of changes.
I have played Heroes created by 3DO for a very short time, so coming back to "the roots" is actually something new for me. Besides, next to old units are in all known lineups also new ones, so I truly do not see any problem in here.
|
| |
|
|
