|
| Thread: Top 10 things that must always be present in Heroes Of Might And Magic |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted October 09, 2016 09:42 PM |
|
|
Mind you that I never said anything about the quality of any game as a whole or opinion of them or of their developers. That is because it was no the point of my post.
And yes, I know the 5 and 6 sold quite well. But that is also the time I was somewhat more active in the Heroes sub-forums so I know what I saw there. And while there were quite a number of people defending the games as a whole or certain decision in particular there was also a great number of people shouting things that could've been summed as "it's not like what I'm used to so it sux". And the worst part of it is, that each one of them shouted it about something different. Sometimes even contradictory.
My beef is with that kind of attitude, not Heroes fandom as a whole. Because as I see it, those obsessed voices make it harder for the devs to discern between legitimate requests and whining (should the devs choose to listen in the first place).
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
verriker
Honorable
Legendary Hero
We don't need another 'eroes
|
|
posted October 09, 2016 10:10 PM |
|
|
well, in my opinion, at least a few of those people simply cannot communicate very well, lol
they will say stupid, low effort things like "bring back H3" in a scattershot way simply because H3 was the last game that captured one or more of the elements they're looking for, be it the atmosphere, the gameplay loop, the technical performance of the game, the just one more turn, etc, or the ideal combination of those,
it's something to lazily latch on to as an quick and easy example, not necessarily the perfect game with no room for improvement lol
if those people really thought it was the perfect game, they obviously wouldn't have taken the time to comment on a sequel at all, which indicates they are interested in one to some degree, lol
furthermore, note, as one example, that never once in seven or eight years have I seen a single user say "bring back H3 skill system" lol
there is a strong general consensus that the H5 skill system is a pretty clear and strong evolution of the simpler NWC one, something that was clearly bettered by Ubisoft and has become the benchmark to beat, that notion is barely questioned at all lol
thus I do think it's clear that Team Erwin potentially could have beaten every last benchmark and blown H3 out of the water, there was nothing stopping them, certainly not fans chanting that all that's new must suck,
they just didn't, lol
____________
|
|
hippox89
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2016 11:02 PM |
|
Edited by hippox89 at 23:50, 09 Oct 2016.
|
*Hexagons on battlefield
*Classical names for towns, e.g. Castle/Knights NOT crap like Haven and Sylvan, etc.
*Classical story/world. What is this Ashan crap I heard about?
*Small squares on adventure map
*Pixel graphics that is not overly colourful/cartoonish in style
*Video cinematics that is interesting because of story and style NOT uncreative Hollywood action sequences
That'd be a good start, I feel.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2016 11:42 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:44, 09 Oct 2016.
|
Sumsum said:
Ok, I give up 
I just found that really helpful, and thanks to the video, I now understand a lot of strategies, and I also agree with his opinions, so I had to share it.
Well, I don't know, I didn't play Heroes since I was like 3 years old, so yeah.
My bad, again.
Road to Hell's paved with good intentions mate. Your text was extracted quote for quote and you didn't gave any credit back to your source. If that's your idea of helping then you won't get far with it.
Geny said:
Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to get that of my chest for a while and you gave me the perfect opportunity.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the matter, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I've come to dislike this narrow-minded conservative philosophy that doesn't think outside the box of Heroes 3. In the games that came after it we have a lot of great examples of different mechanics and features that worked well, or at the very least were well received. And in this shifting market nowadays, appealing by novelty instead of nostalgia appears to me almost mandatory. Not to erase the personality of the series, but not to keep it static either. And above all, the end result has to be good, changes involved or not.
Geny said:
Past-obsessive fans who can't accept any innovation to the series.
If there's anyone on this forum who left me with the biggest impression of being such, it's definitely Salamandre. The distinction he tries to paint in his post is just an attempt at dissociation in my eyes. Even his dislike for Civ 5 is very much revealing about how contrary to innovation he is. I mean, at that moment when you're going up against one of the biggest, well received, most actively played, best selling names in TBS and gaming all around with the pretense that it should've appealed more to your nostalgic preference, you've pretty much put a gravestone to your point. I know he feels otherwise and strongly at that, but that doesn't change simple observation.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 12:01 AM |
|
|
|
I don't know, WoG and its children can sometimes seem like an entirely different game.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 12:02 AM |
|
|
|
I don't think is worth arguing. I spent 3 years designing and coding innovations for Heroes 3, while those faithful to the conservative side worshiped HoTA. You just make a big confusion, you call necessary innovations those who aren't and which, in this case, burden the game.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 01:29 AM |
|
|
HotA and you are a different shade of the same conservative color. The difference is that HotA aims for expanding the game as vanilla-centric as possible (with an internal ruleset of their own for visual cohesion, gameplay, balance, etc.) while there's no such restriction to you, so you can innovate more loosely (importing visuals, heavy modding, scripting, etc.). That's also what I imagine you understand as "building upon", however you are still coffined within the limitations of what modding can allow you to do. But you have to realize that none of that has to constitute the basis for a new game, because that's innovation on a different level and by doing so it would only limit and hinder potential unavailable otherwise.
For example, there's no way modding / building upon Heroes 3 can bring me an ATB system, but a new game could, because it exceeds those limitations, and Heroes 5 delivered. Or heroes physically on the battlefield, but a new game like Heroes 4 could (and no, commanders are not the same). Or governors, or area of control, or squared grid, or 3D townscreens, etc. Point is that there are things impossible to attain without creating a new game from scratch, and that's the level of innovation I'm arguing for, that level which warrants new entries that goes beyond simply "building upon" you could achieve with modding.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 10:43 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Go slowly, prudently, keep what made its past successes, and also keep room for further improvements over the new features, if, after reviews analyses, passed the test and proved that they work and fit.
My advice to developers: stop thinking you are smarter than those who build the sequels which worked.
Exactly, and believe it or not that is exactly what h5 did with the gameplay, and it worked (in it's final state with TotE).
Of course if they hadn't screwed up the 3d and the atmosphere it would have replaced h3.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 11:12 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Or heroes physically on the battlefield, but a new game like Heroes 4 could (and no, commanders are not the same). Or governors, or area of control, or squared grid, or 3D townscreens, etc.
Did those create a better game? No, so what are you talking about?
I dislike bad innovations. The "wait" feature from H3 was a good innovation. The 6/7/th slots was a good innovation. I suggest going prudently, one step at once, add things upon those who already federated people, because I known how solid is the backbone of H2 and H3 and how many safe innovations they can support. If you don't do that at each new game, and instead think you are smarter than others and fanatically believe you will invent the HEROES game -the only one people is waiting for since Jesus, you will end with H7 style, a soup of bad ideas and bad optimizations.
You don't know this backbone, so what you propose is just good material for a TBS game, any of them. It won't work in Heroes, it didn't work in Heroes, then all this talk is just speculation.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 11:55 AM |
|
|
Of course they did work to some extent, better or worse.
But game design doesn't always mean to build on the same game to make the existing ones obsolete. H2 obviously made H1 obsolete. On the other hand, H4 didn't make any of its predecessors obsolete - it's an alternative game with a totally different focus.
Think about the following: Let's say, H7 would have been built on H3. 2d graphics; easy-to-use editor; usable RMG; vanilla release with 8 towns; H5 skill system refined; a couple of improvements in town-building and variety of map sites. In short, a game that would encompass H3, enlarge and improve it.
In this case, H3 had no reason to exist anymore and neither had WoG. The real question is, whether that would be possible at all or even desirable.
I mean, there IS H3 WoG, for everyone to play - why do it again?
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 12:00 PM |
|
|
Literally turning in circles, maybe we should get this through skype or something.
JJ said:
Think about the following: Let's say, H7 would have been built on H3. 2d graphics; easy-to-use editor; usable RMG; vanilla release with 8 towns; H5 skill system refined; a couple of improvements in town-building and variety of map sites. In short, a game that would encompass H3, enlarge and improve it.
What you are going to do is stop thinking here for a moment and ask yourself how the hell is this a bad thing.
Quote:
I mean, there IS H3 WoG, for everyone to play - why do it again?
You are really asking this? In 2016 we do like better resolutions than 800x600 for starters, sure we have HD mod, but it doesn't give you fullscreen for anything but the adventure map.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 12:42 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
What you are going to do is stop thinking here for a moment and ask yourself how the hell is this a bad thing.
Quote:
I mean, there IS H3 WoG, for everyone to play - why do it again?
You are really asking this? In 2016 we do like better resolutions than 800x600 for starters, sure we have HD mod, but it doesn't give you fullscreen for anything but the adventure map.
You don't have a franchise when you have a game and then do a remake every 20 years to bring it to new technical standards. A franchise means, you get a new game every, say, 4 years. So if it would always be the same game with a few "improvements", making the predecessors obsolete, you could virtually throw your older games all into the waste bin, which would also mean that a thing like WoG wouldn't happen.
There is also the demand to make MODDABLE games nowadays which means, IF you have mod support, then you can expect - if the game is worth the while - that people will start working with it.
That in turn means, four years later an "update" is definitely not what everyone waits for - nor will there be a need for "technical improvements".
I also wouldn't pay a lot of money for what would be essentially the game game with higher resolution (or in 3d instead of 2d) (and I'm sure, I'm not alone).
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 12:48 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Stevie said:
Or heroes physically on the battlefield, but a new game like Heroes 4 could (and no, commanders are not the same). Or governors, or area of control, or squared grid, or 3D townscreens, etc.
Did those create a better game? No, so what are you talking about?
Well, if you've already decided on an answer, why ask the question? Because some might beg to differ that it did create a better game for them, or at the very least it was a take they never experienced before and enjoyed it as a breath of fresh air if nothing else.
But are you contesting the point or just the examples? Because I find it strange you didn't quote the part about the ATB. So if you think that the ATB is good innovation, then it doesn't matter how many other examples you contest because you already agree with the point. And the point is that there exists good innovation outside of the boundaries of Heroes 3 modding (which is what conservatives understand as "building upon"). If that is correct, then I rest my case.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 01:25 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:31, 10 Oct 2016.
|
So, this is our monthly why-the-sequels-suck/H3-is-awesome thread...
This
JJ said:
Think about the following: Let's say, H7 would have been built on H3. 2d graphics; easy-to-use editor; usable RMG; vanilla release with 8 towns; H5 skill system refined; a couple of improvements in town-building and variety of map sites. In short, a game that would encompass H3, enlarge and improve it.
In this case, H3 had no reason to exist anymore and neither had WoG. The real question is, whether that would be possible at all or even desirable.
is NOT an answer to this:
Sal said:
Did those create a better game? No, so what are you talking about?
I dislike bad innovations. The "wait" feature from H3 was a good innovation. The 6/7/th slots was a good innovation. I suggest going prudently, one step at once, add things upon those who already federated people, because I known how solid is the backbone of H2 and H3 and how many safe innovations they can support. If you don't do that at each new game, and instead think you are smarter than others and fanatically believe you will invent the HEROES game -the only one people is waiting for since Jesus, you will end with H7 style, a soup of bad ideas and bad optimizations.
You don't know this backbone, so what you propose is just good material for a TBS game, any of them. It won't work in Heroes, it didn't work in Heroes, then all this talk is just speculation.
Heroes 3 is one of those golden games that's really though to beat. So, you already have a challenging job to begin with. But even if something not that great, yet still very good followed, most people would be okay with it eventually. Instead, they broke the game and messed up with the fundamentals. Now, to be able to get away with that, you'd have to come up with something great again and the last 4 games are anything but great. If they were anywhere near the league of H3, even the most conservative loyalist would still welcome them, if not prefer them to H3. Even H3 didn't completely wipe out H2 (as JJ suggests a loyal sequel would), did it? There are still people playing it.
A game isn't this feature or that feature implemented eclectically, it's the coherence, balance between those features. While Sal is indeed a conservative person, he is also tasteful when it comes to picking what to be conservative about. And it's simple as this, if any latter Heroes game surpassed H3, the way it did H2, everybody would just shut up and play. Instead, they got worse and worse, no 3D town screen is going to change that.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 01:49 PM |
|
|
artu said:
So, this is our monthly why-the-sequels-suck/H3-is-awesome thread...
This
JJ said:
Think about the following: Let's say, H7 would have been built on H3. 2d graphics; easy-to-use editor; usable RMG; vanilla release with 8 towns; H5 skill system refined; a couple of improvements in town-building and variety of map sites. In short, a game that would encompass H3, enlarge and improve it.
In this case, H3 had no reason to exist anymore and neither had WoG. The real question is, whether that would be possible at all or even desirable.
is NOT an answer to this:
Sal said:
Did those create a better game? No, so what are you talking about?
I dislike bad innovations. The "wait" feature from H3 was a good innovation. The 6/7/th slots was a good innovation. I suggest going prudently, one step at once, add things upon those who already federated people, because I known how solid is the backbone of H2 and H3 and how many safe innovations they can support.
I didn't want to go into detail, but when you look at what Sal called "innovations", then they are not "innovations", but ADDITIONS (or enlargements) that have both plusses and minusses. A plus of the ait command is that it makes battles more interesting for human players, but a minus is, that the additional complexity is bad for the AI. A plus of the two additional slots is that there are more creatures - a minus is that having as many creatures as slots isn't such a good idea in the first place. (Which means, it's an addition that comes with an innovation, and while the addition is good the innovation is not.)
An INNOVATION would be the dropping of mass spells out of the guild and instead making thekm available via "skills" (be it H3 model or H5 model).
ADDITIONS are generally good because they add something (obviously), but adding things also runs the danger of making things less "sharp", bogging/slowing things down, while innovations mean, that something is dropped in favor of something else. The problem with innovations is, that one innovation may make others necessary which is often something not really acknowledged (the 2 last titles suffer heavily from innovating without really making sure that the rest works with them).
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 02:17 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 14:24, 10 Oct 2016.
|
artu said:
Now, to be able to get away with that, you'd have to come up with something great again and the last 4 games are anything but great. If they were anywhere near the league of H3, even the most conservative loyalist would still welcome them, if not prefer them to H3.
Actually, that is very much the case for Heroes 5 which is generally regarded as mechanically superior to Heroes 3 even by most loyalists, and Heroes 4 is a bit of a contested area but there are people who still appreciate it. But without a doubt what you're saying applies to Heroes 6 and Heroes 7. Just a slight although relevant correction.
artu said:
A game isn't this feature or that feature implemented eclectically, it's the coherence, balance between those features. While Sal is indeed a conservative person, he is also tasteful when it comes to picking what to be conservative about. And it's simple as this, if any latter Heroes game surpassed H3, the way it did H2, everybody would just shut up and play. Instead, they got worse and worse, no 3D town screen is going to change that.
I won't deny Sal's tastefulness, but what I do deny is the feasibility of the "building upon" mentality he upholds as the correct approach to new games. If that mentality permeated production for the past years, we wouldn't have seen the ATB, or the introduction of initiative, or the skillwheel, or the advanced hero classes, or any other good innovation that required thinking outside of the conservative box. It's probably as true that we wouldn't have seen bad innovation either, or good in theory but sloppy in execution, or with the wrong complementary features, but if that's the basis from which the conservative point is argued then we will never have any groundbreaking innovations because they're not given the chance out of fear of failure. That is an anti-progressive, anti-creative, risk-fearing, gun-shy, past-oriented and probably even nostalgia-infused way of thinking that will never survive in today's market.
JollyJoker said:
I didn't want to go into detail, but when you look at what Sal called "innovations", then they are not "innovations", but ADDITIONS (or enlargements) that have both plusses and minusses.
That's correct, and it only means that the furthest you'll ever get with the mentality of "building upon" is creating expansion content. Nothing near the level of innovation required to warrant a new game.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 04:04 PM |
|
|
An addition is by definition new as is something that was missing from last installment(s). Mechanics from HV should be the perfect example of a sequel built upon HIII. The problems of HV are not in its gameplay, it's the AI turns length, the 3D projection, the unit designs and art direction, the lore. So I see no problem with innovations when they make sense, want to think outside of the box? Make sure you understand well the box first.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 04:18 PM |
|
|
Obviously, addition isn't the same as innovation.
Every addition expands the game, but isn't necessarily innovative. Heroes 2 expanded the original by 2 factions - an addition -, and also "added" upgrades - an innovation.
Innovations may take something away as well. For example, Mana, has been an innovation brought in by H2 to REPLACE the system that would give you upon visiting a Mage Guild all the spells in there as often to cast as your Knowledge would allow (with 5 Knowledge you'd get every spell 5 times, and if you casted Blind 5 times, that was it with Blind - you could imagine this as acquiring a number of available spell scrolls according to your knowledge skills).
I agree that you should understand the box first, before you try to think outside of it. 
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 04:32 PM |
|
|
It's a problem of degree, and therefore why the equivocation error appears. You cannot say that adding a new artifact is on the same level of innovation as adding a new mechanic. One simply adds more of the same content while the other adds a new rule. That's quite a difference.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted October 10, 2016 04:52 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
You cannot say that adding a new artifact is on the same level of innovation as adding a new mechanic.
I didn't say that at all lol
To be more blunt I merely pointed out the irony that H5's innovations in gameplay were great precisely because H3 has been taken as a basis to build upon.
____________
|
| |
|
|
