|
| Thread: Who would you choose to develop HoMM ? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:17 PM |
|
|
Firaxis!!
I mean ... they made Civ4 and Civ5 ... what other arguments are relevant? 
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Pawek_13
Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:20 PM |
|
|
I would leave it to Ubisoft. I believe that constant changes in dev team would make future Heroes games much worse than they are now. We finally have a company (Limbic) that is very likely to keep developing new games and we need to let them do that. M&M team has also probably learned that changing developer each game is indeed a bad move, thus they would strive for some stability. Let them do their job and believe, they will succeed. Remember, ToE wasn't created in one day. 
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:22 PM |
|
|
Now what about this option
From-software
True they have no experience in TBS but I would love to see them putting a hardcore approach on the game.
|
|
PandaTar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:24 PM |
|
|
|
What do you mean by hardcore approach?
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:30 PM |
|
|
Well challenging, unforgiving and generally hard.
Example
No Level 250 heroes like in older games
No "Ran everything over with pure numbers after pressing the E button for 10 minutes straight"
Just a game designed in such a way that it would give us a rewarding feeling of completing something really hard. Which I didn't have in the last instalment and generally felt it was been diminishing since H2
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:30 PM |
|
|
Either let Limbic have it but without Ubi or... Larian maybe. They are my current favourite studio. They only made one TBS named Dragon Commander and had to rush it kinda because they had 2 big games going on at the same time and something had got to give but it was still a very good game.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:32 PM |
|
|
alcibiades said:
Firaxis!!
I mean ... they made Civ4 and Civ5 ... what other arguments are relevant?
Yes, it is solid company. But my grudge concerning Civ, for example, is same as for Heroes. Going to 3D and scrollable perspective, creatures now are hard to distinguish, global vision over the map (in civ) or in battle (in Heroes) is now much more confusing than previously. Interfaces become heavy, movement and battle actions tedious. Turns take longer. Multiplayer games take longer. Bigger maps take longer to load and crashes more often.
I know this is not everyone's problem but moving multiple units in CIV5 to same point is a task which you have to control and readjust every turn. While it should be automatic, because this is a STRATEGY game, not micro management or SIM like. This is why I would not trust Firaxis on the matter, despite the satisfaction I almost always had with.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Neovius
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by Neovius at 18:34, 16 Apr 2015.
|
Dave_Jame said:
Now what about this option
From-software
True they have no experience in TBS but I would love to see them putting a hardcore approach on the game.
After what they did with DS2? Selling a broken game and refusing to patch the bugs, because they make the game harder? Saying they won't release any DLCs and then promtly announcing a season pass? Then making a graphics patch (which still aren't on the level of the E3 demo) and selling it for a full price again, splitting the playerbase in half, because no server compatibility, and giving a finger to players, who already own all the DLCs?
On top of that, they can't code for snow. Like seriously, tying a game mechanic to frames, is this 1990?
____________
|
|
Zombi_Wizzard
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 07:23 PM |
|
|
Blizzard 
Realisticaly speaking - game already looks like it could be one of their products ... it just needs a bit of that blizz quality to it...
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 10:32 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Yes, it is solid company. But my grudge concerning Civ, for example, is same as for Heroes. Going to 3D and scrollable perspective, creatures now are hard to distinguish, global vision over the map (in civ) or in battle (in Heroes) is now much more confusing than previously. Interfaces become heavy, movement and battle actions tedious. Turns take longer. Multiplayer games take longer. Bigger maps take longer to load and crashes more often.
I know this is not everyone's problem but moving multiple units in CIV5 to same point is a task which you have to control and readjust every turn. While it should be automatic, because this is a STRATEGY game, not micro management or SIM like. This is why I would not trust Firaxis on the matter, despite the satisfaction I almost always had with.
I didn't have this problem a lot in Civ5. Yes units are a bit harder to distinguish if you look at individual artwork, but still icons help nicely, and I feel scaling is different here than in Heroes (a unit in Civ should take up much less on the adventure map than a unit in Heroes should on the battlefield). I feel interface in Civ5 is very nice. Multiplayer - supposedly - is very bad, however, I'll grant you that (don't play myself so don't know), and yes, there are things that could be much better, like unit movement. Still, Civ5 is easily the best game I ever owned, even for those shortcomings.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
GenyaArikado
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 10:42 PM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
Well challenging, unforgiving and generally hard.
Example
No Level 250 heroes like in older games
No "Ran everything over with pure numbers after pressing the E button for 10 minutes straight"
Just a game designed in such a way that it would give us a rewarding feeling of completing something really hard. Which I didn't have in the last instalment and generally felt it was been diminishing since H2
ah, bad stuff
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 16, 2015 10:43 PM |
|
|
@alci
alcibiades said:
I feel interface in Civ5 is very nice.
Far from that, IMO. Take an example, the build queue command (which we use A LOT during a game). In CIV3 you double clicked, it went to queue. In civ5 you have to open a new window, click on queue, then click on unit to add, up to ONLY 5 loops. Then must redo. Little detail, but little mess here + little mess there (read next) and finally you feel the game and you don't go well together.
Also, again, it could look as a not noticeable detail, but when you are in the middle of the action, when get attacked from all directions and adrenaline bursting, having units limping and suffering overcrowded pathfinding is a no go, at least for me. One thing Civ 3 had, was a very clear and elegant control of armies and land overview. Or such moments will decide if the game matches your expectations. For me it didn't work, played Civ5 for 1 month then put it down. While with civ3 spent years.
Maybe the number 3 is blessed when coming to game sequels? 
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
kiryu133
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Highly illogical
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 07:15 AM |
|
|
can i say intelligent systems under JVC supervision/direction? i mean IS did more or less do the japanese version of Heroes, Fire Emblem, a franchise that seems very similar in tone and Game play. I'm pretty sure nintendo overall would know what to do with it and is probably a better choice than most of the listed ones.
Firaxis are good, but they're not Heroes material. I don't see how they would make Heroes any better than, say, UBI to be honest.
Rockstar are just good at making a fun game. their writing-department are just as talentless as the UBI one. they also don't do strategy.
EA (bioware), interesting and Bioware could certainly do an interesting story/setting and cool aesthetics. EA would ruin it though but of the listed best so far.
CD Project RED is, again, just story more or less. also to my knowledge untested in strategy but it could certainly work. but please, don't let them design the Griffin 
Microsoft Studios
...lol
Blizzard hasn't done anything interesting for at least 15 years, being content with just milking (not bad games though, just dull). also, the same aesthetics for everything that would certainly not work for heroes.
JVC is great, but does he have a team? would love to know this BTW. anyway, JVC+Intelligent Systems/Nintendo is my best bet. would probably not be on PC though which would be an issue...
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 07:48 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Far from that, IMO. Take an example, the build queue command (which we use A LOT during a game). In CIV3 you double clicked, it went to queue. In civ5 you have to open a new window, click on queue, then click on unit to add, up to ONLY 5 loops. Then must redo. Little detail, but little mess here + little mess there (read next) and finally you feel the game and you don't go well together.
Also, again, it could look as a not noticeable detail, but when you are in the middle of the action, when get attacked from all directions and adrenaline bursting, having units limping and suffering overcrowded pathfinding is a no go, at least for me. One thing Civ 3 had, was a very clear and elegant control of armies and land overview. Or such moments will decide if the game matches your expectations. For me it didn't work, played Civ5 for 1 month then put it down. While with civ3 spent years.
Well, I hardly ever use building queue, so maybe that's why it's not an issue for me ... However the times I have used it, I think it worked ok. I think if you turn queue on, doesn't it stay on as default option until you turn it off again?
Regarding the unit movement issue, I don't agree that the two games (Civ3 and Civ5) are 100 % comparable. The 1UPT of Civ5 means you generally have a lot less units to maneuver than in previous Civ games because you don't have stacks of doom. As such, a normal combat situation will involve only around 10 units or so, and as such I don't think movement is such a big issue in terms of how troublesome it is to actually control the units. The fact that 1UPT means that units often get in the way of each other is another story, but that's not really an interface issue. I think I've played somewhere between 2500 and 3000 hours of Civ5 and I'm still playing, I know some people didn't like the changes compared to previous games, and everybody are of course entitled to their own opinion, but I have a hard time understanding that the interface of all things should distress you so much.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 08:32 AM |
|
|
Yeah, the 1 unit per square is another feature which divides the community (myself I find it an awful decision, and Sulla explains it rather well here (scroll down to "what went wrong with civ5).
This is to say that, personally, I don't think Firaxis could be any good for Heroes, taking game-related decisions which don't split communities became somehow a rare thing today. Or, we can see, since the H4 release, that every Heroes game divides its fans one more time again.
alcibiades said:
I have a hard time understanding that the interface of all things should distress you so much.
This is because, since I got into programming, I am much more critical against companies ignoring the common sense of a friendly interface. After all, I worked for 2 years on Heroes 3 interface and, after 10+ interface mods, I find it finally satisfying for the player, eliminating all redundant and tedious actions and clicks.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 09:29 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
This is to say that, personally, I don't think Firaxis could be any good for Heroes, taking game-related decisions which don't split communities became somehow a rare thing today. Or, we can see, since the H4 release, that every Heroes game divides its fans one more time again.
Overall I think dividing a fan base could be avoided easily. For instance, you don’t drastically change game mechanics nor create totally new and different universe. 
____________
|
|
Sligneris
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 09:51 AM |
|
|
Well, nowadays the only way not to divide the fanbase is to keep producing the same content with minor changes, without even any attempts at creativity.
That's the key to franchises like Call of Duty. It works, and it is pretty apparent that some of the fans would prefer Ubisoft to go this path as well.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 10:09 AM |
|
|
@Galaad,
This is a sensitive issue. Neither me or you are marketing specialists or nowadays the marketing objective is the only goal of companies, because when you sell well, you get the funds to continue and sell even more, develop your company, hire more people then produce more. Or, the way we buy games is conditioned by what we see, as ambiance or graphical achievements. We can't test the game before (ok, some will steal it via torrents but I consider this pure theft and should be heavily punishable but this is other issue to discuss). This is why, this month, I bought 3 games on GoG, because I liked what I saw in previews, but then put the games down after 15 min of tedious playing.
Or this is what happens with Heroes too. Some of us still think the only way to get a successful sequel is to take Heroes III then add to it more content, without removing what made its incredible success. I am from those. However, I am not sure a marketing specialist would give me reason, because the common customer has no idea how deep, perfect and elegant was Heroes III, but he has fresh eyes to be impressed by better graphics, slow-on, glows and zooming back and forth.
Or Heroes III graphics are from another age, a game continuing on that way will not sell massively I think.
|
|
Sligneris
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 10:20 AM |
|
|
|
Well, Heroes III graphics are often defended as 'good for their time', but it's true that this kind of visuals would not stand up in the modern gaming market.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 17, 2015 10:25 AM |
|
|
|
yes, this is what I mean. But also I consider heroes as a game chess style, so when you change chess graphics, perspective and rules, sure you create a lot of disappointed fans.
|
| |
|
|
