Eurogamer Reviews HoF

[Angelspit]

There is a weird <a href="/http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?ar ... 78">review of Hammers of Fate at Eurogamer</a> where the author first admits he didn't like the base game, then proceeds to analyze the back of the game's box and rambles a bit ("There are certainly mountains. I couldn't guarantee they were the deepest ones though. There may be deeper ones I haven't seen. Who am I to judge?"). The expansion gets a 4 out of 10, half the score Eurogamer gave to Heroes V a couple of months ago.



<i>"Dull on the one hand, frustrating on the other, I'd probably give it somewhere in that 4 to 5 boundary before proceeding to barricade my door and hammer shutters over the window before the outraged HoMMunity mob arrives."</i>



Outraged? Actually, I don't care much personally. Just like that time when my little brother watched me play Heroes II for a few seconds and said the game was ugly and boring before going back to his Sega Genesis.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1166025351

[Kristo]

The author clearly tried to fill up his word-count requirement with something other than "this sucks, I hate it," over and over. While I agree with his conclusions, Eurogamer should have found someone else to do the review.

[Metathron]

I got quite a kick out of the "Hommunity" and "Pimp my bear" comments. *snickers*

[DaemianLucifer]

What I liked about the review:

Eurogamer correspondents are rubbish.

I even chuckled there.Though I agree with his oppinions about the original game,I dont agree fully with his oppinions about FoH.But then again,thats maybe because I didnt play it.

[ThunderTitan]

Review: I don't like HoMM games.

[alx516]

another day ... another smart guy (sorry IDIOT)

[HMMFan]

FANTASTIC REVIEW!! chuckle



It does bring to mind the wide variance in the definition of "fun." For example, take this quote from the article: "It just lacks any form of tension. The second you enter a battle screen, for the vast majority of conflicts, you know the result. Either you're going to win, and it's a case of just following it through, or you're going to lose and there's little you can do but go down fighting. ... This is all made worse by the game obfuscating the information you need to decide to engage or not. While not giving exact numbers of an enemy group in favour of descriptive words. ... Dull on the one hand, frustrating on the other, ...."



Of course, the reviewer ignores the host of strategic goals and tactics that must be adopted by the players before those armies can even meet. The tension in the game begins much sooner than when the armies first meet. Furthermore, for many people, the lack of "certainty" and total knowledge of the enemy prior to battle is, in fact, is the factor that gives the game suspense. Working backward from those observations, the need to adopt the right strategic goals and the correct tactics, and then test your choices in actual battle where there is a risk that the "best laid plans of mice and men" will go awry, the outcome thus being unknowable unless and until battle is engaged, is a vital component in the "fun" of the game.



Very odd that the reviewer finds that un-fun. Well, different strokes for different folks, I suppose.
Edited on Wed, Dec 13 2006, 12:11 by HMMFan

[Akul]

One more supid review. How great.

[DaemianLucifer]

Furthermore, for many people, the lack of "certainty" and total knowledge of the enemy prior to battle is, in fact, is the factor that gives the game suspense. Working backward from those observations, the need to adopt the right strategic goals and the correct tactics, and then test your choices in actual battle where there is a risk that the "best laid plans of mice and men" will go awry, the outcome thus being unknowable unless and until battle is engaged, is a vital component in the "fun" of the game.

Actually you missunderstood that one.Its maybe the only thing that has merit in this review.Hes not complaining about the uncertainty of stacks,but about lack of information.All you see is few,sev.,lots,etc,but it would be nice to see actual ranges.Not everyone is a heroes nut and knows these by hard,so I agree that actual ranges should be displayed.As well as the stats of creatures because youll see them when you enter the battle and you can memorize them.In HIV you could always see what are the stats and specials of neutrals you encounter,and thats a good thing.

[Elvin]

Alright.We have a guy who can tell the outcome of every battle from the beginning,doesn't know what vamp lord is and what lots/pack represents.And reviews a heroes game.

One extra faction is underselling and he has a problem about the deepest mountains.Not to mention other the senseless crap he is spitting around.

For God's sake where do they find such reviewers?

[asandir]

Even though I am not the biggest fan on HV in general, I find this kind of attitude shoddy at best and down right ignorant and stupid at worst .... he sounds like a tool

[HMMFan]

lol.. DL...I have noticed that you are playing the usual yin to everyone else's yang. Feel free to disagree....which you will! And oh, I understood him perfectly, and did not misunderstand him.



And, as usual, you missed my point. My comment is concerning the nature of "fun." In fact, I did not mention whether the Heroes mechanic of not giving exact soldier numbers (or evern a numerical range) is or is not a good idea. Rather, I am speaking more generally of whether having total knowledge of all of the factors is self-defeating with respect to the concept of "fun." Please re-read.
Edited on Wed, Dec 13 2006, 16:20 by HMMFan

[Omega_Destroyer]

This reminds me of the fallout that occurred when 1up gave Neverwinter Nights 2 a 5/10.

[ThunderTitan]

Balance must be mentained Fan one.

The game wouldn't be very fun if you had NO ideea of the power of a stack, which ppl that have no ideea what the aprox numbers are don't.

[Gaping_MAW]

Fortunately, Eurogamer doesn't influence my purchasing decisions

[Saturas]

"A couple on the way back from the pub". I like this one I think that main reason for his frustration was the lost battle against vampires. That vampires must have been so strong:)

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

A most unprofessional and unfair review. I wonder how he would rate the other games in the HOMM series and if he is a strategy game fan. I think not.

GOW

[DaemianLucifer]

lol.. DL...I have noticed that you are playing the usual yin to everyone else's yang.

Nope,Im just seeing both sides of everything.

And oh, I understood him perfectly, and did not misunderstand him.

Your comment here shows that you didnt,and that you missunderstood me as well.

And, as usual, you missed my point. My comment is concerning the nature of "fun." In fact, I did not mention whether the Heroes mechanic of not giving exact soldier numbers (or evern a numerical range) is or is not a good idea. Rather, I am speaking more generally of whether having total knowledge of all of the factors is self-defeating with respect to the concept of "fun." Please re-read.

Fun and exact numbers arent what he was goiung for,but fun and lack of information.If few,sev,etc werent predefined and if you couldnt learn them in a couple of plays,thus having an advantage over someone that never played,then that wouldnt be lack of information but fun uncertainty.If you could never see the exact stats of creatures but just an overal description(strong,weak,average,etc),than it wouldnt be lack of information but fun uncertainty.

[Jolly Joker]

The way I see it, this review is the direct consequence of the missing manual. If there had been a manual the way it was in 2 and 3, for example, he should not have had those complaints. What I basically read out of the review is a complete cluelessness about how the game's basic mechanisms work and so on - and I can see that this is no fun.

On the other hand the question is whether the reviewer would have bothered to read a decent manual, if there had been one - he didn't went so far as to try and download the available one.

However, what bothers me most is the fact that the Addon is reviewed in light of the main game. I mean, at this point you clearly don't want a review of the main game, you want a review of the addon. For me this means, an addon can get an 8 or a 9 if it's an very good addon, even if the main game sucks for the reviewer. This must be so because the same is true for the opposite: imagine a very good game with a trashy addon that would add nothing new.

So that's really a weird review, imo.

[ThunderTitan]

"he didn't went so far as to try and download the available one."

I doubt that having to d/l the manual would count as a plus.