|
| Thread: Games Domain Review |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Krishhh
Adventuring Hero
still learning spells
|
posted April 25, 2002 11:39 AM |
|
|
quote:
Oh, I see, but you, a long time HOMM fan, will deliver an objective review... I see
Did you at least read my post?
I posted my thoughts in it and I said that they wouldn`t make an objective review too, but I am not making them a review!
I know I like the game too much and it doesn`t deserve the stars I would give it, but in his review he even says that the music is OK(why is OK already written with capital letters, i would Cap it  ). I`ve seen ~10 people who say that the music is not superb and ~4 who have said that it is not good, the "worst" thing others have said about the music is that the H2 music was better but I can`t comment that since I`ve never played H2.
____________
Promising student of magic.
|
|
Jenova
Famous Hero
|
posted April 25, 2002 11:54 AM |
|
Edited By: Jenova on 25 Apr 2002
|
Quote:
Well, D2 was really buggy on release. I wouldn't call it a beta (others have though), but definitely had some serious balance issues. Just read the 10+ patch readme files and you'll see that things just keep getting balanced, rebalanced, etc. Not a bad game, but it's score in reviews seemed a bit high given its release state and given that the game was missing a lot of story (later released as an "expansion" - How could the game have ended when we knew Baal was still around?). So while H4 doesn't deserve full marks, I think it's no worse than D2 for release bugs.
True, but D2 was playable. I noticed very few bugs in D2, the main changes were the heaps of balance changes, which I agree are dumb. But the game was playable at least and didn't crash (HOMM4 is also playable).
Baal was saved for the expansion pack.. It was a strategic decision. D2 imo was an ugly game though, and that should have bought down its marks more than it did. What's important I guess is that it managed to be fun despite having balance issues and some bugs. And so does HOMM4 which is why it got pretty good reviews.
Quote:
And then he said " because for me, the magic is gone. And the might, and the heroes, etc." I find this really confusing and I myself don't understand it. Maybe just coz my English sucks.
What he meant was that it lost the essence, the touch and feel of the previous HOMMs. It could be in the way of all the new changes which make it play differently to the rest, but that is intentional of course. He probably wanted another HOMM3.
When someone says "the magic is gone" (which is a very common statement for reviews of sequels to classics), what they mean is that what made the previous games so good has been lost. But the rest was intended as a pun. Then he said the "Might" and the "Heroes" was gone as well, meaning EVERYTHING that was great about the previous HOMMs was gone (What is a Heroes of Might and Magic game when the 'heroes', the 'might' and the 'magic' are gone?). A bit of an exaggeration, but it was his opinion as clearly stated.
Nonetheless, it was a great one liner.
And I don't think the review was biased. Just because it didn't get a perfect score doesn't mean the review is 'un-objective'. As long as the flaws of the game were pointed out and the score takes into account the good and the bad.
3 out of 5 stars is quite honest. I'd say 3.5 or 4 is the most it should ever get. The loss of MP doesn't really hurt the score, because MP isn't the best part of a TBS anyway (too much waiting).
____________
|
|
mtkafka
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 25, 2002 12:38 PM |
|
|
One of the things reading Geryk's reviews anywhere, I get the impression that he's somewhat ashamed to be playing games at all. Prolly why he has to use words like 'antithetical' and 'Hegelian mixed metaphor', so that, dear readers, you know that he just isn't some 'dat's cool!' fanboy.
Sometimes being smug and smarmy is WORSE than being fanboyish imo. I just hope he lays off the Oxford Theasaurus in future reviews.
etc
____________
|
|
Columbus
Hired Hero
|
posted April 25, 2002 02:37 PM |
|
|
It's a shame to see ThunderKnight going away feeling his English is bad
That's just not true, he understands and communicates very effectively
Language is a tool for a job. The job is communication.
I hate this sort of overblown pretentious writing - using a complicated phrase when a simple one will do
To make it even worse Geryk has clearly gone so over the top with this that even he doesn't understand what he's on about, the last phrases are just cr*p
For what it's worth I am English with a degree in English and I believe Thunderknight is a far better writer of the language than Geryk
Which is shameful in a professional writer
|
|
brody
Known Hero
Pathetic Loser
|
|
posted April 25, 2002 08:53 PM |
|
|
Ah well... I probably won't read the review... no need, I already have the game and I like it. Fact is, his review was unobjective, like it or not. And with a game like Heroes it's tough to find a truly objective person. If you've played a previous game, you have a certain bias and certain expectations. I found my expectations totally thrown aside when I saw H4, and it was for the best. But for this Geryk person, he didn't like the changes. That's really what it comes down to. In the snippets of review I've read here, it sounds like his main gripe isn't bugs or AI problems, it's the lack of being like the others in the series. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for an objective review, as he's not reviewing what the game is; he's reviewing what he thought the game should be based mostly on old games in the series.
3DO is bound to get reviews like this from a lot of reviewers simply because when most fans first play the game, they don't like it. I hated it for a day or two, then thought it was OK at best, and now I love it. Had I been expected to write a review after day 3 or 4, it would only have gotten 3 stars from me as well.
____________
|
|
brody
Known Hero
Pathetic Loser
|
|
posted April 25, 2002 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, D2 was really buggy on release. I wouldn't call it a beta (others have though), but definitely had some serious balance issues. Just read the 10+ patch readme files and you'll see that things just keep getting balanced, rebalanced, etc. Not a bad game, but it's score in reviews seemed a bit high given its release state and given that the game was missing a lot of story (later released as an "expansion" - How could the game have ended when we knew Baal was still around?). So while H4 doesn't deserve full marks, I think it's no worse than D2 for release bugs.
True, but D2 was playable. I noticed very few bugs in D2, the main changes were the heaps of balance changes, which I agree are dumb. But the game was playable at least and didn't crash (HOMM4 is also playable).
Baal was saved for the expansion pack.. It was a strategic decision. D2 imo was an ugly game though, and that should have bought down its marks more than it did. What's important I guess is that it managed to be fun despite having balance issues and some bugs. And so does HOMM4 which is why it got pretty good reviews.
The expansion may have been planned, but it felt more like they ran out of time before release and decided to put the end into an expansion. The end of D2 felt rushed (6 quests and like 8 waypoints in each act up until act IV, then suddenly only 3 quests and 3 waypoints - stuff like that seemed out of place and a possible result of blizzard trying to release early), and it wasn't really a good game for me until the expansion. I think it got scored high because a lot of reviewers looked at the potential, not just the off-the-shelf product. I would hope they'd do the same for HOMM4.
____________
|
|
a100pieces
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2002 11:09 PM |
|
|
I don't buy my games for potential, I buy them as they are. I don't think D2 got high scores because of potential. Reason it got high scores is because it's starts out good, and for what it is it's great.
HoMM4 doesn't even start out good IMO. I have better things to do with my time than to waste my time beating up a AI that could be bested by a 5 year-old on the toughest setting. To add to insult there is no MP option for me to get enjoyment out of the game, and there is a handful of other problems with it.
At the end of the first few scenarios, I just said this is a waste of my time. Atleast the other heroes games were somewhat challenging and the story had choices before each level and pre-rendered cut-scenes. This one is just so... empty.
____________
|
|
Jenova
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2002 08:40 AM |
|
|
The people complaining about lack of multiplayer are probably the same ones that will complain that multiplayer is too slow when it releases, and that waiting every turn sucks (there will be more waiting since the game tends to take more turns to finish now). I doubt these people will even enjoy or play the multiplayer part. Some might just be looking for something to rant about. Can't please them all I guess.
I actually enjoyed D2 when it released.. it was the expansion that took away the enjoyment. All those stupid balance changes pretty much killed all my characters. And they were mostly high level too.. All those hours, all that work put into getting them where they were.. wasted. They were no longer viable to play. Weakened to the point of being useless. I abandoned the game after D2x.
The hope the same doesn't happen to HOMM4.
____________
|
|
a100pieces
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2002 05:17 PM |
|
|
I never minded the speed. 2 hours, 4, hours, 6 hours, whatever. That bothered me the least. Make this into an interesting strategic game worth playing, and i'm there.
____________
|
|
Moon
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2002 07:25 AM |
|
|
I dont care a bit about the time, also.
a) I have fun, I play
b) I have no fun, don't play.
I have no fun with AI, so don't play. In Hotseat it is fun, so I play.
About the Review, I don't think its so bad. The result maybe, but the facts are okay. Even boardgame design, what doesn't indicate anything bad. For me at least its a GREAT Indicator, because I like Strategical Games with Boardgame design.
Ah so, Boardgame design menas simple gamemechanics. (Don't say me simple sucks. Chess also has simple Gamemechanics)
____________
|
|
Dragonhunter
Adventuring Hero
Anybody got a Band-aid
|
|
posted April 28, 2002 01:37 PM |
|
|
Oh no! Not my precious Homm IV getting a... *gasp* BAD REVIEW! Oh no, horrible horrible peoples giving us a bad review... flames them we will. Yes, my precious... my bug-infested precious... hates the Games Domainses we does! Hates it.. foreverrr!! <http://heroescommunity.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif>
Hey Darion, that was really good!!
|
|
Dragonhunter
Adventuring Hero
Anybody got a Band-aid
|
posted April 28, 2002 01:42 PM |
|
|
I hate multiplayer.
I'm not sure why. I've only played a little. Maybe I had a bad experience. So for me a game's got to be great without that feature, and it should be. When if your connection was bad and you were in withdrawl? What then, huh?
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 28, 2002 02:53 PM |
|
|
i havn't played the game yet, and i have doubts if i will in the future (came to look for ppl-s opinions here). but a friend of mine has played homm4 (he also played previous homms), and he sounded.. well.. disapointed. maybe the reviewer used less comprehensible wording because he was disappointed either, but didn't want to use '[censored]' in his text.
as for board game style, i share the opinion of the reviewer. imho board game system of the previous homms looked idiotic from the point of view of rational thinking, but somehow it worked ok and added some unique style, like an even more idiotic system works in chess. maybe the disappointment was analogous to the possible disappointment of a chess player if chess was changed towards a more realistic battle simulation.
i also agree with the reviewer about the previous homms being somewhat like puzzle games, as far as he clarified what he meant by 'puzzle game.'
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
mtkafka
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 28, 2002 03:47 PM |
|
|
I understand all of Geryk's points but think he's being wordy about it.
Though really, if you think about it, I don't think any amount of changes will please some Heroes players (or any fans of a game that has a sequel). It's either too new or not new enough. Some are just all Heroe'd out, but can't admit it. After reading Geryk's Heroes 3 review on the same site (It's LONG), its possible hes just sick of Heroes games.
I think theres some people who review games that have no desire to PLAY the game they are reviewing. The tone of Geryk's review expresses that imo. I'm not sure, but most of Geryk's H4 review has the feeling of a lack desire to try it out. As if he played it one night til 2am and made up his mind. There's a nonchalance arrogant attitude through the review that gives the impression that he never wanted to give the game a chance. He doesn't even mention the AI!
Anyway, oh well, hes entitled to his opinion.
etc
____________
|
|
brody
Known Hero
Pathetic Loser
|
|
posted April 30, 2002 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't buy my games for potential, I buy them as they are. I don't think D2 got high scores because of potential. Reason it got high scores is because it's starts out good, and for what it is it's great.
Just like Heroes, it started out quite buggy. Go to diablo2.net (or is it diabloii.net? can't remember... oh well), and ask people if they remember the original unpatched version, when the game first hit the shelves. It had a LOT of bugs. Just look at the readme's (http://www.blizzard.com/support/?id=mdt0387p). The earlier patches (1.01, 1.02, 1.03...) fixed some nasty bugs. Memory leaks, crashes, items being broken, quests being unsolvable... it was simply not a stable game. And I'd hardly call it challenging, so being mad at Heroes 4 for its bad AI is kind of odd - D2 took maybe 2 weeks to beat in hell mode. After that you simply levelled your character by fighting the same things over and over again. At least Heroes has 6 separate campaigns, and I expect once the AI is fixed it'll offer a fair challenge too.
____________
|
|
thunderknight
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted April 30, 2002 11:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For what it's worth I am English with a degree in English and I believe Thunderknight is a far better writer of the language than Geryk
Should I take it as a compliment or ??? 
Thanks for your good words, Columbus.
My impression for h4 is that it's not as addictive as the previous installments. I can always squeeze some time to play h2 & h3 after a busy day of work and an exhausted squash league game. But now I'm just not too enthusiastic to play h4 overnight. Perhaps the developer is so ambitious that it aims not only at old heroes fans but also fans of other strategic games such as AoE. And it seems that the sales result of h4 is quite good. But as I've said earlier, the real challenge rests on the playability and degree of enjoyment of MP upon the release of patch(es).
As for the AI problem. It seems to me both programming & map design should be held responsible. Maybe our outstanding heroes fan map-makers, who IMO contribute a lot to make h2 & h3 great games, can do something about it. Maybe after the patches and some decent player-made maps, I'll come back to h4. Now, better practice more for the summer squash league here.
|
|
a100pieces
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2002 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just like Heroes, it started out quite buggy. Go to diablo2.net (or is it diabloii.net? can't remember... oh well), and ask people if they remember the original unpatched version, when the game first hit the shelves. It had a LOT of bugs.
Despite all the bugs, that and the Beta (heh, there's something 3d0 needs to take a clue from), both ran fine for me, and all my friends. Bugs were mostly odd things IMO. Plus the patches tended to come out faster IMO, I bet there wasn't a single week that went by without a patch or two. If 3d0 had the same commitment that would be nice. But perhaps it's not possible to patch their game in a week, or ever a month for that matter
Quote:
And I'd hardly call it challenging,
With 8 people it's satisfyingly challenging for what it is, especially if you go solo with 7 other people in the game.
Quote:
so being mad at Heroes 4 for its bad AI is kind of odd - D2 took maybe 2 weeks to beat in hell mode.
Sure, if you played it like 12 hours a day. It took most people I knew who played it 3 or 4 about 2-3 months. And Don't forget you can run through it 3 times. Each game is significantly harder, and the strategies play out way different in the later levels for a lot of classes.
____________
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted April 30, 2002 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, D2 was really buggy on release. I wouldn't call it a beta (others have though), but definitely had some serious balance issues. Just read the 10+ patch readme files and you'll see that things just keep getting balanced, rebalanced, etc. Not a bad game, but it's score in reviews seemed a bit high given its release state and given that the game was missing a lot of story (later released as an "expansion" - How could the game have ended when we knew Baal was still around?). So while H4 doesn't deserve full marks, I think it's no worse than D2 for release bugs.
I am sorry, but you are an idiot. With the game as popular online as DII of course people will find more bugs and unbalanced tactics. Blizzard actually cares for the fanbase by releasing patches. The game as massive as DII cannot be bug free and balanced.
|
|
brody
Known Hero
Pathetic Loser
|
|
posted May 01, 2002 07:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Despite all the bugs, that and the Beta (heh, there's something 3d0 needs to take a clue from), both ran fine for me, and all my friends. Bugs were mostly odd things IMO. Plus the patches tended to come out faster IMO, I bet there wasn't a single week that went by without a patch or two. If 3d0 had the same commitment that would be nice. But perhaps it's not possible to patch their game in a week, or ever a month for that matter
Well, having a beta is a great idea, but in blizzard's case it didn't do as much as it should have (i.e., the whole server overload they experienced when it first was released). But yes, I was rather surprised that 3DO had no demo or beta of H4.
The patches that I've been around to see (1.03 and on) have been at least a month apart, except for minor patches (fixing CD recognition issues was a fairly quick patch, but that's about all the patch did). The earlier ones may have come sooner, but I didn't have the game when it first hit the shelves, so I don't know.
Quote:
With 8 people it's satisfyingly challenging for what it is, especially if you go solo with 7 other people in the game.
Yeah, but you really have to have 8 people to make it challenging. And then, you get powerful so fast that you can beat hell mode even faster.
Quote:
Sure, if you played it like 12 hours a day. It took most people I knew who played it 3 or 4 about 2-3 months. And Don't forget you can run through it 3 times. Each game is significantly harder, and the strategies play out way different in the later levels for a lot of classes.
I don't know why it took 2-3 months. Once I really got into the game (after buying the expansion), I played with a friend for about 3 weeks and we conquered the whole game... all 5 acts in normal, nightmare, and hell. We played about 2 hours a day M-F, and then probably 6 hours a day on the weekend. After another month, I had two classes through hell and so did he, and we were into nightmare on our third. At that point, we both got really bored, and our characters are probably deleted by now, since we haven't played in about 4 or 5 months.
____________
|
|
brody
Known Hero
Pathetic Loser
|
|
posted May 01, 2002 07:49 AM |
|
|
And here we are, about a month after release, with the first patch... so the 3DO team is, in fact, working just as hard to patch H4 as the D2 team was... so there 
____________
|
| |
|
|
