Discourses of M&M

[protecyon]

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/412

[nkpavlov]

I agree with the point you make about the general philosophy. But, the current state of the HoMM series is somewhat of an exception. That's because H5 is not a direct sequel to H3. Like it or not, there has been another release in between. So even if the the producers want to make a fresh start off H3, they are not working completely in the dark. They know what has been attempted, what worked and what didn't, they have had a lot of input from the fans to know what they loved and what they hated. Entirely new features should of course be treated with caution, but within the H3-H4 subspace, there isn't that much unknown to fear.



I admit that had there been no H4, I probably would have readily welcomed the H5 that we expect now (which of course would then have been called H4). That doesn't mean that H4 affects the quality of H5 in any way. But it certainly changes the gamers' perspective. It is just sad that it doesn't seem to have changed the producers' at all.

[Sir Charles]

@nkpavlov



What you say is very true. But you're also overlooking another VERY important point in regards to H3-H4-H5. The change in developers. Heroes 3 never really sparked much controversy (original game...NOT the Forge-expansion). It was VERY well recieved across the board. It was a huge seller and prolonged the series for YEARS. Look at H4 however. Highly controversial, highly mixed reviews from critics AND fans, and was a huge disappointment sales-wise. That combined with the bomb that was also known as MM9, NWC and 3do very rapidly developed a rather BAD reputation. This is not exactly a perfect situation for Ubisoft to enter the picture. So, what "should" they do? Should they try to build up their new game from a solid base of Heroes 3, or should they build it up from a rather shaky foundation of Heroes 4? It's just like Tim said..."smart business". They are not ignoring Heroes 4, they're simply not focusing their game on it. I've seen units from H4 showing up in H5, I've seen spells, skills, abilities from H4 showing up in H5. Are we seeing more items from h3 at the current time...of course. If what they're trying to do is distance themselves from the bad rap the Might and Magic brand gained the last few years, of course they're going to focus on the H3 features. They want to prove to the public that they're going back to the games "roots". So it's okay to come back to the series you all knew and loved. Eventually, they'll start to introduce some of the features from H4 to please those fans as well. But I wouldn't expect to see many of them. Once they get their feet planted solidly underneath them in regards to the Might and Magic brand, and bring back a good portion of the loyal fan-base, THEN they can start tinkering with the formula and add in more refined versions of the H4 concepts or concepts of their own. Just show a bit of patience and you'll eventually see that they do indeed have a plan.



Kudos Tim on your article. Other than your praise of metroid (which I personally disliked on numerous levels), your comments are spot on. :O)

[Furay]

I agree whole-heartedly with Sir Charles' comments. Smart business., which is really what all this is about.

[wimfrits]

Nice read!



Two points of disagreement :

The examples of games that cloned and prospered you put forth, basically come down to using the same engine in a new playground. Which makes perfect sense for those types of games.

The analogy in HoMM however is not a cloned game, but ‘a new map’. For which you only need 1 mapmaker, of which there are plenty around.



Second, what Ubi seems to be doing is not mere cloning a game, but taking one step back and cloning a game.

I doubt if there are many examples of that. Though I can understand their reasons for doing so, it raises a lot of difficulties; like the re-introduction of fixed issues.

[psiho333]

I agree completely ... I do liked Homm4, BUT I was a fan of the serie since the first one ... and when I asked my friends what they think about Hoom4, well ... their opinions wern't good at all ... seriously, think about what IS actually good in Homm4 they deleted some of the very good spells, and they dismissed upgrades (which personally I liked a lot), but there were of course some good things, like the capability of units moving without the hero and the involvement of the hero in the combat (which was very good, but could sometimes be used against the player, for example when using a wizard, which could be simply killed by a titan or two, and then no magic for the rest of the combat). So I kinda like the idea in Homm V, where the hero will be involved in a combat, just not the same way like in the 4th. As for some other changes in Homm4 that will not be included in the 5th I can only say you can't have it all, and I think that it is better to start with the 3rd Homm (and maybe in a future Homm VI trying to use some, or all of the new improvements from Homm IV).

[Gaidal Cain]

@Sir Charles:

Please, it's not about getting units, spells and whatnot from H4 carried over. There are very few of those things that define a series, and I don't think anyone would argue a creature was bad just because it was introduced in H4



The issues I'm having is for the most part "minor changes to the core game-play to address issues and bugs that were a problem the first time around", as Corrrribus put it- though in some cases, they might not be so minor. There are a number of features in H3 that were far from perfect or even good that got overhauled in H4. Since Tim seems to have planned an article for that as well, I'll make more indebt comments about that then, though.

[Pitsu]

"do not fix it if it is not broken" could in H5 case rather be "fix that was broken". I agree with Winfrits that Ubi in some sense is going backwards. Probably nobody would call H5 a clone of H3 if the developers keep everything that was good and fix the weak sides. That would be the normal evolution not a genetic intervention by "intelligent" species. Announcing the absence of caravans, presence of chaining (I know these may be reconsidered) having all towns with similar structure (one upgrade for evey creature, lvl 7 creture of each town flyer) and so forth is the ground of "clone" complains. Of course, the opinions vary, but there are some in which case majority of players agree that these sides could evolve to something better.

Long story in short: normal evolution assumes that the weak gets stronger. I am not convinced that it happens in H5, thus, it is not evolution but some kind of genetic intervention.

[Anthriel]

I agree with the point of your article, but I think it's important to point out, (as you probably will in the second part) that Heroes IV scared away quite a few fans. All the people I used to play Heroes III against turned their back on the franchise when IV was released, and anything that reminds them of IV is immediately considered to be bad. I recently managed to interest one of my fans in Heroes again, with the lineups, which are very much like the ones in III (except for Inferno, but that particular lineup was never all that popular to begin with) and the promise that it will be close to Heroes III and won't be alike IV.



This is why there are limits in using features of Heroes IV. Many people don't realize there were good changes in IV. Ubisoft has to produce a Sequel of III, the "good game" and not a Sequel of IV, the "bad game".

[gedassan]

I've always considered chaining a good tactical feature. Create a good chain and win the game. The enemy can disrupt your chain. There is balance.

The feature is not good or bad - it is either liked by the fans, or not... The chain does not have to be fixed. I am happy that it returns.

[Dragon Angel]

I've to add myself to the disagreement points expressed by wimfrits...



To enrich the discussion, i drop two maxims - these were used by Soren Johansen (designer for Civ III and lead designer on Civ IV - one of the most succesful sagas of the TBS gaming) in a speech about sequels on GDC 2004, i think. Whish I still had the link to the slides. I do not know if they are only used at Firaxis, or in all the industry



-Recipe for a sequel: "1/3 old, 1/3 improved, 1/3 new"



-"It is impossible to please all the fanbase of the old game with the next game"

(Accompanied with a nice scheme with circles representing each progressive Civ (including Alpha Centauri) fanbases. Circles were a tad bigger with each sequel, but none of them comprised the circle of the previous game. There was a "core" shared by all the circles, but there were part of the circles that were not shared, or were only shared with one game)

[Ethric]

Calling H5 a (potential) H3 clone isn't the main argument, it is just a convenient conclusion after seeing so many features that one has grown to like and enjoy that arrived in the game *after* H3, namely H4, being scrapped in favour of an older (H3) approach. If H5 was being made in H4's image, with the same flaws, believe me I would complain just as hard, but for slightly different reasons.



It is irrelevant to me what others think. By that I mean that I argue my views for my own sake, I will not change my view just because so many disagree with me. But I also understand and respect that others disagree (at least if they show me the same courtesy). This discussion is not a matter of right or wrong, but a question of personal taste and opinion. This is a point I feel we would all do well to remember (am not accusing Corribus or anyone else in particular, am just saying it).

[grimogre]

I won't know if Heroes V is good or bad until I play it.Master of Magic is called a great tactical game but that was 1995 after 3 patches.Heroes of Might & Magic is now in it's fifth version.I take out my crystal ball and predict that Heroes V will be better than Heroes IV.

[Anthriel]

@Ethric:

It definitely is a matter of opinion which approach would make the better game, that's for sure. But if you care about which approach nets you the bigger audience, and thus, more cash, it is not necessarily that subjective.

I can just repeat that I know three rabid Heroes III players, who wouldn't give something which reminds them of Heroes IV any chance at all.

[Corribus]

I want to say I appreciate the comments - both those that agree with me and those who don't. My aim here is not to make those who disagree with me "see the light" or anything. It's to foster discussion about topics that are important to all of us.



Anyway - it looks like you guys have gotten ahead of me. I haven't really even touched on HoMM yet - but I guess you know that's where I'll be going. The aim of this first part is to discuss the idea of the nature of sequels in general. In that respect, I have to say I am interested by the comments of Dragon Angel. I'm sure most of us know and respect a giant like Sid Meier, but I have to say, in most "direct" sequels (by direct, I mean, sequels released close in temporal proximity to the original release - so that relative technology isn't a factor), that the amount of "new" material is considerably less on average than 33%. I wish I had statistics for that; but it's just a feeling.



And even if you assume that there IS 33% "New Material" - what is "new material"? New material doesn't have to mean revolutionary changes to game design. New material could be something as simple as new monsters and spells (wrt to HoMM). H3 was very much the same game as H2 - but it had lots of new stuff. But the new stuff didn't radically change the game.

[Dragon Angel]

Corribus



I'd say more monsters and similars would enter in the "improved" third. New things would be, in the other hand, features added to either attract new players or provide new challenges to the current ones.



I've to come back to what wimfrits saids: Many of the games you touched in your comments are RPG's, and therefore here could apply the new locations/monster as a new challenge. However, in strategy or other kind of games you'll see there is more evolution. Take Warcraft, Age of Empires, Civilization....



I'd say a lot more, but I've to go away now... stay tuned.

[Darmani]

"H3 was very much the same game as H2 - but it had lots of new stuff. But the new stuff didn't radically change the game."



No, it wasn't. H2 was very similar to H1. H3 had many core elements in common with H2, but enough numbers were changed to radically change the game. For example, in H2 each attack skill point above your opponent's defense added 10%. In HoMM 3 that was changed to ~5%. The result? Combat became less dependent on creatures and attack/defense skill and more dependent on magic, with its now unchained Bloodlust and the new Frenzy.



There are lots of other examples - like not as unaffordable units shifting small and medium maps to normal war instead of Blitzkrieg.







In an action or RPG, you can make a sequel that is identical but with different levels and it will be fresh. In a strategy game, where one will often play the same thing over and over but on different maps, a game with new graphics but old gameplay will be dissapointing.

[Dragon Angel]

I remembered something more about the presentation I think would be interesting, as it may show what is basically meant by "new" features.



Soren talks also about "killer features" for a sequel. Despite the name, these are not wrong features, but on the other hand, the features that will make the sequel "hook" its audience. These are diferent from the core of the game. The core has to be respected, of course, as it is what gives identity to the brand... but each sequel has to offer something interesting by itself, something that makes people think they have to get that game because the one they have in home is not enough. These are the "killler" features.



There is a comment, as well, on the "unfun" features. These are the features that did not worked so well in the previous versions, making players do boring things, in example, Civilizations corruption and/or pollution systems are some of these things noted as an example unfun. These things, Soren says, should be either reworked or scrapped.



So, basically, in the design of a new game, the biggest part on the 1/3 old would be the game core, the biggest part on the 1/3 improved would be non-core features that seem to work, and the biggest part in the 1/3 now, would be the "killer" features - that "substitute" the unfun elements of old games.

[Corribus]

Dragon Angel -



Most of my examples involve RPGs because that's what I play most of the time (though I did use a Metroid Prime example in my article). However, I think it is a general truth that sequels are expected to be "bigger" than the originals but not necessarily "different", if that's a distinction that makes sense.

[Fnord]

Corribus: You bring up some good points in your article about the economics of evolution versus revolution.



Gaidal and Pitsu: That's also a good point about scrapping the fixes--indeed, it seemed to me initially that they were completely ignoring H4 regardless of whether it was good or bad, but the main problem with the argument is that a lot of people disagree that these fixes ARE in fact fixes. For example, seven creature levels is town worked well in H3 and was enjoyed by almost all whereas fewer levels have been preferred by a much smaller audience. And as for the upgrade of every creature vs. no upgrades or a mixture of upgrades...well, there are many many people who LOVE that each monster gets an upgrade. There are also many fans of chaining--despite the illogic of it, a lot of players enjoy the way it works. Even the caravans, which most players liked, have had their share of people who found them more annoying than helpful. So for every "fixed" or "corrected" feature in Heroes 4, you'll find many who'll say it was better before in Heroes 3.



Darmani: You say that the change in percent was one reason that H3 was quite a change from H2. Agreed. But you also say that H2 was very similar to H1 and I disagree with this. The introduction of the H2 combat grid--a much larger space than was available in H1, along with the introduction of spell points that replaced memorization were both changes at least equal to the H2 to H3 changes, if not moreso. In reality, I would say that every version has had significant changes, but the changes from H1 to H2 to H3 were all more evolutionary and less radical than from H3 to H4.