|
| Thread: Ashan-based Lineups, do you even care? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
jeremiahemo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:34 AM |
|
|
Pawek_13 said:
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.
yes, no problem with that as long as you stick with what you set it out to be.
Be firm. Don't be wishy-washy, easily dictated by people around you.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:37 AM |
|
|
Unless you messed up? 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Sorts
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:54 AM |
|
|
Avirosb said:
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.
Im more about the fact how different Antagarich was in H3 and in MM7... like Krewlod having its old name Bracada desert and being inhabited by wizards, not barbarians. And a good number of other issues.
They had this plan before the whole forge controversy (at least it seems so):
Q: Was Armageddon's Blade (the artifact) suppose to destroy the world by clashing with the Sword of Frost before "The forge" story was changed?
A: The story was relatively unchanged after we removed the Forge. It just had a different origin from the original story.
From: http://www.acidcave.net/jennifer_bullard_interview.html
IMHO they were either tired of the world or discovered that they had problems and didn't bother dealing with them. Especially later of you look at the clumsy retcon with Sandro and Ethric The Mad.
Anyway i actually don't want to drag more of this into this discussion. For me the old world had some nice ideas and storylines, but could have been done a lot better. And forge was implemented in a prety wrong way. More steampunkish or magitech look could have been better, instead of just dropping cyberpunk in game.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:54 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.
Isn't that a change in itself?
|
|
somi
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 01:03 AM |
|
Edited by somi at 01:04, 08 Nov 2014.
|
Kimarous said:
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?
Because if i want to read lore and story I will read a book that is 10 times better than playing a game. For a game, I want to play it, diversity in it and gameplay are more important for me than anything else (because anything else I can get in better quality in other mediums). What has fantasy setting have to do with anything here? The setting gives me the look, the units, and some basic mechanics, not the story or the plot.
The ultimate point of game is interaction. The setting and the plot are addition to the game, not the core, nor the main reason of playing a game. There are games with a story /plot as a focus, but 99% of them have very poor gameplay, but different people like different things.
The plot is not a thing that will make me play a game for 15 years. Thing that will make me play and replay one game, over and over, are mechanic and gameplay. And thats why after all this time heroes is one of the best games I ever played.
And last, I am buying a gameto play it. I am buying a book to read it. Gameplay>Plot (if it has both great). Understand that or not your problem.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 01:35 AM |
|
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 01:49 AM |
|
|
Sorts said:
m more about the fact how different Antagarich was in H3 and in MM7... like Krewlod having its old name Bracada desert and being inhabited by wizards, not barbarians. And a good number of other issues.
but the Bracada Desert is nowhere near Krewlod, it's in Bracada lol
map
there are a few oddities in the old worlds, but Ashan already has way more serious retcons than anything in NWC ever did lol
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 09:30 AM |
|
|
|
Mixed feelings, new is (usually good), but I feel there is moderation needed there so things don't go completely off the rails.
|
|
GenyaArikado
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 11:17 AM |
|
|
|
Heh, for me the opposite. I have stuck with Heroes since i was a young because, while i dont love the gameplay (i have certain distaste for for turn based things) and im notvery good at it, i like the setting/lore/ideas behind it and that has made me stay. Same deal with the Civilization games
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 11:49 AM |
|
|
Adjusting my stance to theme and gameplay trumps story/lore. taking Sylvan as an example, it's no longer the same faction. sure, the creatures (poor unicorn  ) are mostly the same and it's clearly supposed to be a new version, but when i look at ashan Sylvan i don't see Rampart/Preserve/nature.
I see that elven town. Say what you will about NWC heroes lore (not consistent or what have you), thematic ideas always carried over between faction. Sylvan wasn't an elven or dwarven or pheonix' town. it was nature and harmony that so happened to be inhabited by elves, dwarves, dragons. It wasn't a set nation, it was an idea, a philosophy. something that meant something even outside the games.
now? It's a nation of elves, nothing else and if Ubi continues to be too strict in their dedication to "lore first" it can never be anything but, which i find rather sad.
|
|
Rakshasa92
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:25 PM |
|
|
Which sylvan town made it in? I missed that part? Can somebody post the creature line-up here?
Didn't the Unicorn made it?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:45 PM |
|
|
It was the Fury line-up
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Rakshasa92
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:51 PM |
|
|
Blade Dancers? No Unicorns? Really?
So the Plant Snake didn't made it in, but 3 elves did make it in.
I'm so not interested in this game right now. Hope all the cut creatures end up as neutrals (except for the stupid elves and race-units that didn't made it, they can burn in the eternal hell)
|
|
Doomhammer
Known Hero
Smasher of pasties
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 12:52 PM |
|
|
Lore in games is only worth it if it's well written. There is no point in making a game boring simply because it follows the lore. Games are supposed to be fun - they don't necessarily have to make sense.
Who cares if there are a few plot holes here and there if the game play is amazing it does't matter. It's not like they are writing a novel or an oscar winning film it's a game for goodness sake.
|
|
DarkLord
Supreme Hero
Fear me..
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 01:47 PM |
|
Edited by DarkLord at 13:49, 08 Nov 2014.
|
i will have to go with "i have mixed feeling"
which for me means in some cases it can work in some not..
the 1st creation of ashan was HeroesV, in which nival pretty much tried to reincarnate Heroes3 with a new setting twist, in a interview of one of their developers (on russian language) the guy says that in a late stage of development Ubi created a team responsible for the lore of ashan, and a lot of things had to be changed as didnt get the approval of them. so briefly Heroes5 created a base for ashan setting but in the same time was mainly targeted on Heroes3 fans as majority of factions had the same units and had same game mechanics.
heroes6 was a different story, it was made to introduce more changes, and in my opinion not for the good but just for sake of changes. aimed for future heroes games to see which new features will become popular and which will not. there was also attempt to make lore more deep and "interesting"
i generally like when games have their own universe and lore, however ashan itself has too many limitations due to the dragon gods and their creations/races, literally whatever is not their creation is made by wizards of academy , thus "enough" explanation to introduce new units. i think dragon gods is a mistake in 1st place, or at least ubi should have made few races to be their disciples but not everyone. to have a healthy mix of races some that worship them, and some that don't! so we will not have those restrictions at least for some of factions.
but lets look straight on it> we have what we have, and what can be done in this situation, without scrapping ashan of course? i think still even ashan limits, but in the same time it dosnt exclude the opportunity to create something new. look at the sanctuary faction. there was no any reference to naga in ashan timeline at the times of heroes5. however developers managed to put a new faction in game. the lore explanation in my opinion was too blunt (they are secret/hidden society and no one knows much about them), but still acceptable as the end justifies the means, we got another new faction!
as for new creatures i dont think its necessary to always call them "creations of wizards", there can be other explanation, or even no explanation/unknown. lets take Ogres for example. they can easily be implemented in game, but why they are not "because they dont exist in ashan"? hmm. but why not? call them a lesser race created by dragon gods, or even just say their origin is unknown. and we will get a new creature for ashan! why not?
as for the units that already exist in factions their change can also be explained in lore and that shouldn't limit the changes! however in some cases when it sounds absurd, and contradicts the lore too much it shouldnt be implimented.
for example medusa can be changed to dungeon , because it explained in lore and even we had a whole campaign in dlc to justify that! in the same time it shouldnt look like repainted version of coral priestess, it should look very different and that metamorphosis will happen because of choosing the side of malassa. dark elves look very different from sylvan elves for the same reason, so shouldnt be problem there.
from the other side example of phoenix in sylvan faction is another case! that literally breaks in peaces the ashan lore, as the creature tied to the moon the asha itself all of a sudden appears in sylvan faction. this examples shouldnt happen as the lore should be respected at least to some level. otherwise what was the point of creating it, the lore.
|
|
GenyaArikado
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 01:55 PM |
|
|
The only limitations i have seen come from the fans, not from lack of willingness of the developers. I dont see how creatures being dynamic and changing factions with a lore reason is better than them doing the same j
"just because" (like H1-4 era)
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 04:50 PM |
|
|
Rakshasa92 said:
So the Plant Snake didn't made it in, but 3 elves did make it in.
All lines had 3 elves, if not bladedancer it would be a emerald knight.
|
|
TDL
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The weak suffer. I endure.
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 06:20 PM |
bonus applied by Elvin on 09 Nov 2014. |
|
Honestly, I think there is a subtle difference or at least a subtle explanation as to why some people such as me favour units to the lore: gameplay tied to the unit. I know for one that I am one of the few people on this forum who praises multiple aspects of H4 and plays the game even in this day and age (Elvin can vouch for that, I spam him on a weekly basis about it ). And again, I will use it as an example why I, for, one favour units to the lore.
In a perfect world, I'd expect to see units only loosely tied to the lore, developers paying respect to the former continuity, and the gameplay, even though ever-evolving, stay true to the roots. The two former options seem to apply currently to the upcoming game, however the latter option, in terms of units, does not.
The first and foremost example is the change of the way certain units play, such as Cave Hydra. Even though I like the concept of vampiric hydras in general, I find that they do not fit my standard of expected gameplay for this unit at all. Over the years I have grown accustomed to a multi-headed attack with no retaliation. Now they throw a completely new way to utilize the creature completely based off the lore they created for this game (and which does not conform to the one in the past, such as H5's deep hydra). I find this irritating at the very least, as I prefer to see units have a similar sort of gameplay across all the games. From what I gather I am certainly not the only one.
The second example concerns nightmares. While this is a retcon from H5, I find the realignment into a town concerned with darkness a rather fitting one, which is why I chose Blades in the first place. The lore in this case does not matter much for me, as there is substantial reason to move creatures such as this around across lineups. However, I have a really strong affinity for nightmares as they were in Heroes 4. They conform to what currently stands as the 'saboteur' class unit as they had the ability to cast "Terror" and literally cripple living units, especially if you split stacks. However, this is the gameplay I feel attuned to, so no matter how they try to reason for the nightmares' inclusion and what abilities are given to them, I will feel disappointed.
Give or take a few people, the opinion on the changes to the way Medusas are supposed to be played in this version largely mirrors my expectations with the Nightmares. In spite of people favoring their inclusion in Dungeon due to how fitting that unit used to be back in the past even with the impending lore conflicts, they feel robbed of the joy of having the unit be accompanied with the Stone Gaze ability, be it petrification for a few rounds or outright Death Gaze stuff as in H4.
Overall, I value true and trusted gameplay over innovation any time of the day. This applies very much to the way certain units can be used. I am in no way against the inclusion of new units, so long as the way they are played befits the standard of play of the whole faction, or against overall game changes. Even more so, I am not overly concerned with the lore and how everything ties in with it, so as long as they provide satisfactory gameplay.
Also, truth be told, my subjective opinion is based on the fact that I view Heroes not as a TBS per se. In a certain way, it is a strategic roleplaying game, where your whole game plays out on a certain map. Therefore, all the lore conflicts happen outside the scope of my game as I am not overly concerned as to how certain creatures pop up in my towns, so long as they are there, how they can be used on the battlefield, how I see them fit the overall gameplay plan. This also shows why I enjoyed H4 quite a bit.
I also think lore is much more important to people who immerse themselves in campaigns. I have never been one to enjoy campaigns in Heroes games, not because of how they are made but because I enjoy playing custom maps much more. Thus, my view is truthfully skewed, but I feel I can express my take on it all from a totally different angle.
____________
|
|
esvath
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 06:35 PM |
|
|
I vote for "lore", in the sense that each unit should have a background story explaining their contemporary status/affiliation. Just like how Dwarves in Heroes III timeline had been in Rampart then changed their allegiance to Academy in Heroes IV simply because "they disagree with the Elven leadership". That simple line is enough lore for me.
Unfortunately, lore is taken too far in Ashan's context. Here, the lore is very simple: first and foremost, (almost) everything is explained and tied too heavily to their allegiance toward the Dragon Gods. Dragon Gods created the major races and the races then created monocultural empires in their God's name. Each faction is essentially a theocracy: Haven is Elrath's, SyIvan is Sylanna's, Dungeon is Malassa's, Necropolis is Asha's, Inferno is Urgash's, you get my point. Almost every actions are motivated by religion. This limits the conflict among factions into religiously-based conflicts, inter-religion schisms and Eclipse. I am a religious person in real world, but the level of religiousity in Ashan is... sickening for me.
Second prevailed theme in lore is: (almost) everything that is not created by the Dragon Gods is the product of Wizard's experiments. Harpy, Minotaur, Manticore, Sharkmen, you name it. Even Rakhsasa got retconnected.
Between these two themes, I found Ashan's lore is suffocating. We get every creature backstory, every plot, every narration ended with <insert-a-Dragon-God-here> or <Wizard's-experiment-gone-awry>. There are too many stereotyping in Ashan, making stories are predictable and characters are two-dimensionals.
|
|
Moriak71
Hired Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2014 10:51 PM |
|
|
TDL said:
Honestly, I think there is a subtle difference or at least a subtle explanation as to why some people such as me favour units to the lore: gameplay tied to the unit. I know for one that I am one of the few people on this forum who praises multiple aspects of H4 and plays the game even in this day and age (Elvin can vouch for that, I spam him on a weekly basis about it ). And again, I will use it as an example why I, for, one favour units to the lore.
In a perfect world, I'd expect to see units only loosely tied to the lore, developers paying respect to the former continuity, and the gameplay, even though ever-evolving, stay true to the roots. The two former options seem to apply currently to the upcoming game, however the latter option, in terms of units, does not.
The first and foremost example is the change of the way certain units play, such as Cave Hydra. Even though I like the concept of vampiric hydras in general, I find that they do not fit my standard of expected gameplay for this unit at all. Over the years I have grown accustomed to a multi-headed attack with no retaliation. Now they throw a completely new way to utilize the creature completely based off the lore they created for this game (and which does not conform to the one in the past, such as H5's deep hydra). I find this irritating at the very least, as I prefer to see units have a similar sort of gameplay across all the games. From what I gather I am certainly not the only one.
The second example concerns nightmares. While this is a retcon from H5, I find the realignment into a town concerned with darkness a rather fitting one, which is why I chose Blades in the first place. The lore in this case does not matter much for me, as there is substantial reason to move creatures such as this around across lineups. However, I have a really strong affinity for nightmares as they were in Heroes 4. They conform to what currently stands as the 'saboteur' class unit as they had the ability to cast "Terror" and literally cripple living units, especially if you split stacks. However, this is the gameplay I feel attuned to, so no matter how they try to reason for the nightmares' inclusion and what abilities are given to them, I will feel disappointed.
Give or take a few people, the opinion on the changes to the way Medusas are supposed to be played in this version largely mirrors my expectations with the Nightmares. In spite of people favoring their inclusion in Dungeon due to how fitting that unit used to be back in the past even with the impending lore conflicts, they feel robbed of the joy of having the unit be accompanied with the Stone Gaze ability, be it petrification for a few rounds or outright Death Gaze stuff as in H4.
Overall, I value true and trusted gameplay over innovation any time of the day. This applies very much to the way certain units can be used. I am in no way against the inclusion of new units, so long as the way they are played befits the standard of play of the whole faction, or against overall game changes. Even more so, I am not overly concerned with the lore and how everything ties in with it, so as long as they provide satisfactory gameplay.
Also, truth be told, my subjective opinion is based on the fact that I view Heroes not as a TBS per se. In a certain way, it is a strategic roleplaying game, where your whole game plays out on a certain map. Therefore, all the lore conflicts happen outside the scope of my game as I am not overly concerned as to how certain creatures pop up in my towns, so long as they are there, how they can be used on the battlefield, how I see them fit the overall gameplay plan. This also shows why I enjoyed H4 quite a bit.
I also think lore is much more important to people who immerse themselves in campaigns. I have never been one to enjoy campaigns in Heroes games, not because of how they are made but because I enjoy playing custom maps much more. Thus, my view is truthfully skewed, but I feel I can express my take on it all from a totally different angle.
I couldn't agree more on all the things said here TDL. I play H4 as well, and I didn't care if inferno was combined with Necro. I didn't need an explanation with lore. I care for the gameplay.
|
| |
|
|
