Heroes Of Might and Magic 4? what the hell was that?

[pepak]

1. With technology always advancing it's always in the best interest of gamers to get the newest graphics.

That's a pretty strong claim. There are a number of examples I could cite where it simply isn't true. For example, pretty much every remake is an example to the opposite. I am sure many people will also cite the Heroes series, saying that H1 (no, H2! No, in fact H3!!! ...) has the best graphics.

[ThunderTitan]

I am sure many people will also cite the Heroes series, saying that H1 (no, H2! No, in fact H3!!! ...) has the best graphics.

Best graphics != looking better.

What most devs don't seem to get is that you don't need the latest tech to make a game look good and it's certainly not enough.

[TheUndeadKing]

What most devs don't seem to get is that you don't need the latest tech to make a game look good and it's certainly not enough.

I'm not sure about the game devs, but one thing is certain; the hardware manufacturers do need to sell their goods:

New games > New video cards, processors, and whatnot > More money (for the hardware companies)

[Century]

Yeah, unfortunately these games need to make the developers money, and while the latest in graphical technology isn't necessarily going to put off a die hard fan of earlier games, it may very well attract new gamers by being flashy.

[ThunderTitan]

Yeah, unfortunately these games need to make the developers money, and while the latest in graphical technology isn't necessarily going to put off a die hard fan of earlier games, it may very well attract new gamers by being flashy.

Plenty of devs think that way... that's why they'll never get near Blizzard's lvl of success.

[Secret_Holder]

I agree with Century.
But it is a big problem when developers seem to think more about overhauling the graphics than making the game interesting, wich was how I felt about HoMM4. Plus the fact that they destroyed all the things we accomplished in HoMM1-3. The Reckoning was just bad storywriting, wich is a complete no-can-do when you're dealing with games with many RPG elements. (And any other game for that matter)

[ThunderTitan]

The Reckoning was just bad storywriting,

Especially compared to all the inaccuracies that existed before.

But it is a big problem when developers seem to think more about overhauling the graphics than making the game interesting, which was how I felt about HoMM4.

So trying to change alot of gameplay elements when it would have just been easier to just add some new stuff and be done with it (like H5 did) wasn't trying to make it more interesting, it was all about better graphics. So glad you cleared that up.

[TheUndeadKing]

Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with ThunderTitan. Heroes IV is by no means a perfect game, but it brought fresh new ideas to the series and it was a step forward, really. Disregarding these changes is purely conservatism IMO.

Besides, I'd take Gauldoth's story over any other HoMM story any day.

[Siegfried]

Hi,

well, H4 has the best storylines of any Hx, and it has a quite deep gameplay, better than H3. The creature alignments are, hmm, so, so. Some are better (the black dragon), some are worse. The Inferno/Necropolis joiner was not that ideal. But well, this is acceptable.

What i always hated and do until today is most of the animations. Mostly the walk animations of most human-like creatures are terrible. The satyr walks like sleepwalking. Pikemen, leprechauns and barbarians walk as if they have shit. The stand animation of the griffin is pure nonsense. Really awful. The more astonishing is that other animations are excellent. The combat animation of the satyr for example is very good. All animations of hydras and dragons are very good. One of the best is the fairie dragon. And the barbarian berserk is one of the best.

Generally the underground landscape was better in H3, where the surface landscape is better in H4.

[Ya5MieL]

I try to forget H4 even tho it had some nice features.

New factions: a MISS, since 6 new factions failed to bring equal diversity as 9 prior ones. Also, same layout for all towns made town-building uninteresting from the second build. Every town was 100% the same.
New magic schools/system: a HIT,.. it was very nice and imho the system is best in the series... i dont think schools had to be tied to factions,.. but they were nicely done, even tho they were clearly inspired by Magic the gathering colors/schools.
Hero changes: a MISS imho, hero specialties from h3/5 are way better than this, even tho many of them were unbalanced in both system.
Also ridiculous hero in battle which defeats hordes of creatures unscratched doesn't help.
Story: now this is interesting,.. in original H4, its quite a HIT, tho it lacked any major cross-faction conflicts which would enrich campaigns. Story of expansion is downright ridiculous and one of the worst in the series... so both HIT and MISS here.

Those are just a few traits for now, and so far there are 2 HIT-s and 3 MISS-es

[Campaigner]

If you ask me, the game we're talking about is not a real HoMM game since it was so different. It took a good singleplayer concept and ruined it with new ideas that enhanced the RPG part of the game and devastated the strategic part. The M&M fans probably loved it since it reminded them of their heroparties but I said it sucked and I still do.

The graphics was ugly and the first thing I thought of when I saw it was 'plastic toy'.
The animations was laughably bad which worsened the combat.
Combat was boring and completely unbalanced since heroes were so important.
Sieges was a complete joke. If you didn't have ranged attackers or magic users there was no point in being in a castle. Also, melee attackers hit enemies over the walls....
The heroes screwed the balance completely. You could have 8 heroes in a single party if you wanted! But for effectiveness you had 2 mages, 1 tactician and 1 supporthero.

[pepak]

The graphics was ugly and the first thing I thought of when I saw it was 'plastic toy'.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I liked H4 graphics more than any other Heroes'.

The animations was laughably bad which worsened the combat.

Couldn't care less, really. I grew up on games where "animation" meant that the object was moving in any way, the top games having as many as three animation frames per character.

Combat was boring and completely unbalanced since heroes were so important.

Heroes in combat is the change I like the most :-)

Sieges was a complete joke. If you didn't have ranged attackers or magic users there was no point in being in a castle. Also, melee attackers hit enemies over the walls....

The towers give a monstrous advantage to melee units as well. Hit through wall is not a problem for me, considering that it is a simpification of far too complex concepts.

The heroes screwed the balance completely. You could have 8 heroes in a single party if you wanted! But for effectiveness you had 2 mages, 1 tactician and 1 supporthero.

You could have 7.

Your "effective" combination probably wouldn't survive five turns against three barbarians backed up by two mages...

[Campaigner]

You don't like that people dislike HIV and now you try to make my points less valid huh?

When I talked about the graphics and animations, I don't mean the 3D technology behind them. I mean that specific gamegraphic. Considering I'm about to start playing Heroes II again, hightech graphics isn't very high on my list.

And I seriously can't understand how you can like the HIV graphics better then those of Heroes II, III or V. It's completely mindboggling.

Since you like heroes in combat I suppose you're a fan of the M&M series and that HIV with their limit of 7 heroes in a party resembled the M&M games the most out of the HoMM series.

My point about the balance of heroes and the hero only parties was that you can build up your own unstoppable superparty that contains 2-4 heroes.
Your example makes it even worse by saying you should have FIVE heroes in a party! So much for creatures....

[Siegfried]

The graphics are better in H4. At least most of the graphics. The underground was better in H3. But graphics is a secondary point. The most important point is gameplay. And here H4 is better than H3. It still has some quirks, but it is quite good.

I like H3 very much, and most of all WoG. But in some aspects, regarding gameplay, especially telling good stories, H4 is better.

[Metathron]

And I seriously can't understand how you can like the HIV graphics better then those of Heroes II, III or V. It's completely mindboggling.

I think the HoMM IV graphics are simply gorgeous, and far superior to both HoMM III, whose graphics are too drab and washed out for my taste, and HoMM V, which tends to be tacky and over the top, though still lovely in some aspects. The graphics of HoMM I & II are very much different than HoMM IV, but on par with it nonetheless.

Animation has also never been an issue for me with HoMM IV, and I've never really understood all the outcries regarding it. Seems just fine to me...

Since you like heroes in combat I suppose you're a fan of the M&M series and that HIV with their limit of 7 heroes in a party resembled the M&M games the most out of the HoMM series.

I've never played a single M&M game, and I love heroes in combat...

[pepak]

And I seriously can't understand how you can like the HIV graphics better then those of Heroes II, III or V. It's completely mindboggling.

Could it be that I have different preferences than you do? Am I a sicko or what?

Since you like heroes in combat I suppose you're a fan of the M&M series and that HIV with their limit of 7 heroes in a party resembled the M&M games the most out of the HoMM series.

Well, I did like Might & Magic III quite a lot, although not as much as Heroes 2-4...

Your example makes it even worse by saying you should have FIVE heroes in a party! So much for creatures....

Guess I don't care about creatures too much. One behemoth is the same as another, after all, but each hero is different.

[Vlaad II]

If you ask me, the game we're talking about is not a real HoMM game since it was so different.

I call it evolution. In addition, I'll pull a Zamolxis here: Nival will introduce commanders in H6 and return heroes in combat as a feature in H7.

It took a good singleplayer concept and ruined it with new ideas that enhanced the RPG part of the game and devastated the strategic part. The M&M fans probably loved it since it reminded them of their heroparties but I said it sucked and I still do.

I've never played M&M but loved hero parties. Yes, it's the RPG feeling I enjoyed most.

The graphics was ugly and the first thing I thought of when I saw it was 'plastic toy'.

I could say the H3 graphics were "paper dolls", but it's a matter of taste.

The animations was laughably bad which worsened the combat.

The combat animations, especially the "death" part, were strange in the third sequel as well.

Combat was boring and completely unbalanced since heroes were so important.

It was different, but as interesting as before. Have you played multiplayer (hot seat at least)?

Sieges was a complete joke. If you didn't have ranged attackers or magic users there was no point in being in a castle. Also, melee attackers hit enemies over the walls....

There was a significant defense bonus, as far as I remember...?

The heroes screwed the balance completely. You could have 8 heroes in a single party if you wanted! But for effectiveness you had 2 mages, 1 tactician and 1 supporthero.

LOL We must play some day...

Your example makes it even worse by saying you should have FIVE heroes in a party! So much for creatures....

Creatures were essential for creeping... Even later, one single Leprechaun could be the difference between the life or death of your superhero...

[gaspi2]

I like heroes 4 the most:-/.
Mainly because gameplay took great advantage and I enjoy great increasment in strategy.
4 example, as death I like skeleton+ghosts+vampires(from necromancy)+bone dragons and venom spawns with plague and getting defence as high as I can to survice much longer-the longer I am in battle, the more dmg plague/poison will do.
Or I like 1st strike and vamaric touch on bone dragons(I like watching phoenixies when they try hit bone dragon - due to 1st strike and fear they will 'forget' to attack and dragons get free hp:))

Or as nature I like dragon+giant strenght on phoenixies with guardian angel - 660 hp phoenixies are something fearsome, mainly if 4 will be ressurected in time:).
(as I like it on mantises:))

[Siegfried]

Or as nature I like dragon+giant strenght on phoenixies with guardian angel - 660 hp phoenixies are something fearsome, mainly if 4 will be ressurected in time:).
(as I like it on mantises:))

Hmmm, i already thought of trying this (but on a hero). Do dragon strength and giant strength stack? The resulting hitpoints would be awesome.

[Metathron]

They do indeed stack and the result is indeed awesome. Dragon Strength is one of my favourite level 5 spells, it's just so much fun!