Conceptiually best heroes game?

[Willow]

LOL! Well this conversation certainly went off track... but let me put in my 2c's anyway since I was actually thinking about this the other night.

I think through science you'd be able to tell an elven skeleton and a human skeleton apart, just like you can tell Modern Man and Neanderthal Man apart. However, from far away, they'd look pretty much the same I'd think.

Edit:

Oh, and H4 is my favourite because of the depth of the character classes. I think the concept was brilliant, but like so many others have said, it was lacking in execution.

[kitcat0]

Voted III. It is conceptually similar to H II, but I like that it has more features. Actually there are things that I like about each heros game (yes even heroes V, although I will probably never really get into it)

[TheUndeadKing]

H4, easily. In fact, that's why I like it so much. It's also in my view, an unfinished revolution.

[Artas1984]

I can't believe someone votes for Heroes IV...



You call yourslef a HOOM fan?

I am going to write an article soon, becaue it started to piss me off..

Mod edit: watch your mouth.

[DaemianLucifer]

You call yourslef a HOOM fan?

And I cant believe you call yourself a HoMM fan.I would write an article,but I have better things to do

[dallasmavs41]

It's H3 for me..It had all the great ideas from H2, and added so much more which made it excellent. H4 and H5 have both been disappointments for me, but I still love both..

[Metathron]

I can't believe someone votes for Heroes IV...



You call yourslef a HOOM fan?

I am going to write an article soon, becaue it started to piss me off..

Mod edit: watch your mouth.

Oughta be good. Make sure to sprinkle it with lots of smilies, though...

[ThunderTitan]

And watch out for the dreaded double post HOOM fan.

Frankly i think HoMM III looks good enough not to need a clone with newer graphics.

[Akul]

I can't believe someone votes for Heroes IV...

You call yourslef a HOOM fan?
I am going to write an article soon, becaue it started to piss me off..
Mod edit: watch your mouth.

I would write an article about those like you, but I:

1. Have better things to do then writing about n00bs like you
2. If I get a urge to write, I would update my novel
3. I would be baned from the forums

[Jolly Joker]

The poll asks for the "conceptionally" best Heroes game, and I, too, cannot understand why so many people voted H 4: H 4 clearly has the worst concept of them all, for reasons that are not that difficult to name (note, that we are talking about the game CONCEPT here, not the actual game).

I don't know whether anyone here knows what had happened at that time, but after an uncontested rule of HoMM for 3 incarnations there were contenders for the first time: first Age of Wonders (the initial version) and Disciples (initial version as well). Both games didn't copy Heoes, but went into the direction Heroes had NOT gone: SINGLE creatures led by Heroes. AoW featured a more complex town building, lots of races and a complex tactical fighting part with hero development and "upgrading" being in the second row, while Disciples was the nearest to role-playing with complex unit-upgrading through experience AND buildings, paths to be chosen, potions, magic schools and so on. Both being original enough to be released, they had one thing in common: heroes on the battlefield and fighting alongside SINGLE creatures.

Clearly (and I mean clearly as in obvious) Heroes IV wanted to accomplish too much. The game wanted to keep what was heroes-specific, creatures stacks specifically, AND add the main AoW and Disciples features and have heroes on the battlefield. It sacrificed town building complexity (the picking of buildings and creatures in Disciples II is a lot better than that in Heroes IV) for multiple Hero development and since Heroes had to fight alongside creature stacks the latter were reduced to what I would call "filler stuff" (the stuff to cast multiple spells on).

Conceptionally Heroes IV tried to be everything at the same time, but in the end excelled in nothing. I'd call this a conceptional failure, and a spectacular one at that.

[Mytical]

Ok I am one of the few who voted HoMM 5. Conceptually (if not in actuallity) it is an awesome idea. Now don't get me wrong, it has a lot of flaws (still), but conceptually it has the most potential. The skills interactivity was nice, the magic types was interesting (conceptually), some of the heroes specials were intrigueing (even if some were redundant). There is a lot people might like to see added, changed, or made better, but it was a great concept. Yeah I know this is an unpopular opinon, but I never did know how to go with the crowd...

[DaemianLucifer]

Conceptually HV is a clone,and for the most part,so is HIII.So how can those two be the best conceptually?As for HIV being a conceptual failure,JJ all the things you told were failures are actually bad implementations not bad concepts.

[Jolly Joker]

Well, that's exactly where we differ.
While I agree that H IV's concept is notably different from all the others (so it constitutes a "vaild" pick), the concept in itself simply sucks because it wants to be the milk-giving, wool-producing sow. Depending on what exactly it is you like in H 4, you'll find that specific aspect better served either in any other Heroes game or in AoW or in Disciples and the reason for that is not the implementation, but the fact that the game has to sacrifice something in order to add the new game "dimensions" (like heroes on the battlefield, just to give an idea of what I mean).
So single heroes fighting alongside stacks of hundreds or even thousands of creatures, single heroes able to summon whole armies single-handedly, all that may seem to give something, but it takes something as well: creature importance, and creatures, town-building and towns as a whole are by far the worst of all Heroes games - conceptually, not implemented.
An implementation error for me would be to go for more (individual) heroes, but have extremely generic heroes at start, cutting back the special, making them all alike except the portrait. That's badly implemented.

Now, for clones (and differing concepts).
Heroes I is obviously an original concept.
Heroes II as well because of secondary skills, creature upgrades, splittable stacks and a revised magic system.
Heroes III is the most unoriginal, imo. I don't see nothing conceptionally different from H II, it's just more of the same.
H V is different as well: Racial town theme (original concept); racial skills for all towns (original concept); creature initiative (original battle concept); completely revised skill system (which I would call original as well) plus some smaller things make H 5 conceptually original enough for me to be a valid choice, at least for me.

[Mytical]

I have to agree with JJ here. H5 had a lot of potentially good concepts. Sure there are things I don't agree with/like, but that is implimentation not concept. It has the potential to be the best of the series. We will see if that turns out to be the case, but it does introduce quite a few new things that conceptually are amazing.

[DaemianLucifer]

Well, that's exactly where we differ.
While I agree that H IV's concept is notably different from all the others (so it constitutes a "vaild" pick), the concept in itself simply sucks because it wants to be the milk-giving, wool-producing sow. Depending on what exactly it is you like in H 4, you'll find that specific aspect better served either in any other Heroes game or in AoW or in Disciples and the reason for that is not the implementation, but the fact that the game has to sacrifice something in order to add the new game "dimensions" (like heroes on the battlefield, just to give an idea of what I mean).
So single heroes fighting alongside stacks of hundreds or even thousands of creatures, single heroes able to summon whole armies single-handedly, all that may seem to give something, but it takes something as well: creature importance, and creatures, town-building and towns as a whole are by far the worst of all Heroes games - conceptually, not implemented.

No,thats bad implementation,not a bad concept.Concept of heroes fighting(and dying)along with other creatures on the BF is excelent.But it was badly implemented because a low level hero is as weak as a level 3 creature,but a high level hero is as strong as a full creature army.Thats to much of a difference.It couldve been done in another way though.Either by making heroes extra strong from the begining,but extra expensive as well,thus later they would reach the same level of importance as the rest of the army,or by making them weak,but stackable with other creatures(I explained this one in another thread so I wont repeat).But thats all implementation.

Furthermore,the concept of choosable creatures is way better than the obligatory upgrades(even though Id prefer something of a HII-HIV mesh),the concept of caravans and separate creature and hero movement is way better than chaining,the concept of battle LoS is also great,as well as the concept of threat area.And so on,and so on.

[Gaidal Cain]

So single heroes fighting alongside stacks of hundreds or even thousands of creatures, single heroes able to summon whole armies single-handedly, all that may seem to give something, but it takes something as well: creature importance, and creatures, town-building and towns as a whole are by far the worst of all Heroes games - conceptually, not implemented.

I disagree - H4 is, as you noted, the most conceptually different from the rest of the heroes games. Heroes on the battlefield are badly implemented - that doesn't mean that it's totally impossible to do it (compare commanders in WoG, which for the most part manages to be valuable without dominating over the rest of the army). Town building isn't the best- but I'd say that's due to the fact that they reduced the number of levels, not because the concept of two creatures/level is flawed. Further, there are many ideas that works - caravans and heroless armies, to name two (even though these two does clash with eachother and the AI, it's not a problem with the concept per se).

H V is different as well: Racial town theme (original concept); racial skills for all towns (original concept); creature initiative (original battle concept); completely revised skill system (which I would call original as well) plus some smaller things make H 5 conceptually original enough for me to be a valid choice, at least for me.

Racial town themes is hardly a concept in any gameplay sense, it's just a flawed idea (flawed in the same sense as the H4 idea that every creature has to have a speciality, leading to silly abilities like zombie's toughness). Creature initiative was introduced in H4, but the ATB system is very novel (and one of the best parts of H5). I do agree that there is enough to make H5 a much more valid choice than H3 (even though it had some ideas as well- hero specializations, wait button and underground), and one could perhaps not ask for so many more new ideas in a new installment in a series, but I still find that it's taken too much from the old H3 and missed out on several of the good things that H4 has to offer.

[Jolly Joker]

It might be so for you, but it isn't for me.
You say that Heroes on the bf was good conceptually, but badly implemented. I say it was bad conceptually, because there is no implementation that would work: Heroes integrated into a creature stack? whatfor? what would that gain exactly? In my opinion trying this is already a conceptional flaw.
For the other things you mentioned, you are making the mistake and picking out game aspects while trying to sell them as "concepts". The basic flaw of the IV concept is, as I said, trying too much. Taken alone and without context many H IV aspects have something going for them, but it's not the single aspects that count, it's whether and how they interact - which constitutes the GAME concept. And the GAME concept sucks because some basic game ideas are not working together; the bad implementation in some cases is an additional factor.

Which is the answer for why H IV seems to have so much unfulfilled promise.

[DaemianLucifer]

It might be so for you, but it isn't for me.
You say that Heroes on the bf was good conceptually, but badly implemented. I say it was bad conceptually, because there is no implementation that would work: Heroes integrated into a creature stack? whatfor? what would that gain exactly? In my opinion trying this is already a conceptional flaw.

Read the whole idea,I dont want to repeat myself.What would you gain?For starters you wouldnt be able to kill brazillion zombies with a single sprite and a level one hero.Immortal heroes that can slowly pick off the enemy is a conceptional flaw.

For the other things you mentioned, you are making the mistake and picking out game aspects while trying to sell them as "concepts". The basic flaw of the IV concept is, as I said, trying too much. Taken alone and without context many H IV aspects have something going for them, but it's not the single aspects that count, it's whether and how they interact - which constitutes the GAME concept. And the GAME concept sucks because some basic game ideas are not working together; the bad implementation in some cases is an additional factor.

Ok,the battle was conceptionally the best in HIV.There,without picking aspects.And so was magic system.Way better than in HV.

The way the aspects interact depends on their implementation and thats what was bad in HIV.

[Mytical]

When I posted my opinon (I got to learn to stop doing that I guess), I never thought I would get this discussion going. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

[DaemianLucifer]

When I posted my opinon (I got to learn to stop doing that I guess), I never thought I would get this discussion going. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

You like giving yourself too much credit.If check the above posts youll see that its JJ that started the argument,not you,and that it revolves more around his(wrong)impressions,not yours