very newb question from a IV-er

[minger]

So I just caught wind of Heroes V and read the previews and everyone is like "Heroes V is like Heroes III because Heroes IV sucked." Can someone explain the basics of this assumption?

I was introduced to the series through Heroes IV. Yeah the graphics sucked and the maps were cluttered, but I had a lot of fun with it. Granted, I am a single-player person, I just played through the (very lengthy) campaigns and I was done. But i thought it was a lot of fun, gameplay wise.

Anyways, any explanation would be great!

[gravyluvr]

Three major changes occured that caused a lot of HOMM3 fans to HATE homm4.

The company that put out the game (3do) was going bankrupt and they rushed the product with lots of bugs, no multiplayer and a crappy AI. Also they changed the way that armies could move so a lot of people didn't like that.

[DaemianLucifer]

A lot of features that got introduced in HIV were hated by some and loved by others(heroes and creatures got independant,heroes on battlefield,strange battlefield,choosing instead of upgrading creatures,etc)but as gravyluvr said,there were three things that everyone hated(and still hates).

Because of those HIV is now officially the curse,the game that should never be done,the bane,the horor,the devil,....and is to be avoided at all costs,meaning that any feature that was introduced in HIV is never to be seen again.Ever.Even if it was good.

[Francesco]

I liked H4, I think it had a good potential... but a very very crappy Ai and tons of bugs made the game nearly unplayable. It was rushed and its unifinished taste made me prefer to stick playing the old H3 most of the times.

On the other hand I have to disagree with you about the graphics, I think H4 graphic was good for its times and fits well in the game.

[Orfinn]

The worthy features for me in HIV was the choose dwelling system though it should have been extended, ALOT or kinda like have some units upgradable, some you could choose 2 or more upgrades too or none at all, other features I appreciated was the army less heroes functions interesting ways too shape your hero (but each hero lost their personality) , the caravan which for me have saved my heroes days many times, saving lots of hero running back and forth from towns. Flagging windmill, waterweels etc and thereafter giving you resources every day without being needed to visit them for getting res every week was great and you could focus on more important task instead.

For me every Heroes game is completely different from eachother even H3 and H5 have clearly differences between them, yes clonefreaks i know H5 is based on H3 but unless you wackys have noticed, several features are from H2, & H4 too. Nival based H5 from H3 because they wanted a safe ground so they didnt do a mistake with their first Heroes game, I understand that but sadly useful features as I mentioned above have not been included but we could always hope that expansions and sequels give us the opportunies to use them yet again since H4 in a new, more improved way.

[Boromir]

To me, H4 was the best of the series in almost every detail. The graphics was far better than in H3, the battle mechanics were clearly based more on Master of Magic than on previous parts of HoMM, and the heroes' skills system was fantastic. There was far more strategy in H4 than in previous parts. There were some things that sucked, like only 4 creature levels and no upgrades, but choosing from two creatures at each level was quite an interesting idea. Combining this with upgrades might be great.
I must admit that I regret that in H5 we see a 'return to H3' - it's a huge step backwards.

[Bandobras Took]

There were several worthy features in Heroes 4.

Simultaneous retaliation was magnificent. I enjoyed the magic system and the skill system in general. The choice of dwellings was great.

But because it was such a significant departure from the rest of the series, it needed more time to be appropriately balanced. Heroes in combat were not even remotely balanced. To the extent that they felt they had to offer a hero the Combat skill twice as often as any other. The AI when the game was released had no real clue how to handle daily growth or heroeless armies.

While going back to the I-III games may be a step backwards, it's a sensible step, in my point of view. Tackling balance and AI requirements with base of the other three games seems to me a far less daunting prospect than having to sift H4 to find out what didn't work because of time constraints and what just plain didn't work.

[ciptheelf]

I think H4 is better than H3 in all aspects except gameplay.

[Corribus]

I think H4 is better than H3 in all aspects except gameplay.

Isn't that a little like saying: The average yearly temperature in Greenland is better than in Florida in all aspects except for how cold it is.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I like HOMM4, especially with the Equilibris mod. Equilibris is a fan made mod ( a new version should be out soon) that addresses balance issues, makes the AI a bit smarter in some aspects, and adds some new stuff.

Anyone who hasn't downloaded the Equilibris mod (look on the left hand side of the Celestrial Heavens site for a link to the Equilibris site) should download it and give it a try.

GOW

[minger]

wait- - so what eaxctly were the three things everyone hated?

[theLuckyDragon]

One thing that can be safely assumed is that the first impression the game had on the community was bad: it had no multiplayer for several months and it had bugs.

After that, as time passed, it was revealed that the AI was weak.

Then some people argued that putting heroes on the battlefield unbalanced the game: at low levels they were more like a pain, and at high levels they were too powerful.

And I think there's more to add to this list.

I, for one, liked it anyhow.

P.S. Didn't read your message properly... You were referring to "three things"... In this message, I am too, but only by coincidence.

[Francesco]

wait- - so what eaxctly were the three things everyone hated?

lots of bugs, no multiplayer and a crappy AI

[HodgePodge]

wait- - so what eaxctly were the three things everyone hated?

There were only two things I didn't like about Heroes IV:

1.) The destruction of the old world and the disappearance of many of my most beloved heroes and some creature types.

2.) The AI didn't know its âšš from a hole in the ground (especially in single-player).

But with the Equilibris addon and some exceptional maps & campaigns made by loyal Heroes IV fans … Heroes IV has become my favorite Heroes game in the series (although I still love and play Heroes II & III).

[Thelonious]

@ minger

That's one of the questions that aren't easely answered. HoMM IV was shipped toearly, as mentioned before. 3DO threw it out to save itself, but after looking again - they should've taken a little longer and that might have saved them.

Anyway, there are 2 camps in the 'HoMMunity' - the ones that hate HoMM IV, and the ones that see HoMM IV as a nice game, dispite of it's short commings, such as a bad AI, the bugs and the fact they had to wait for the mulitplayer version several weeks.

HoMM III was a really good game, a game all HoMM fans like, but some of the features in HoMM IV were liked by everyone as well. Among them are the Caravan and the skill system. Ubisoft is now acting as though HoMM IV never existed and that's not a good thing.

Because allthough HoMM III was a good game, there were things that were done better in HoMM IV. And that's why there are messages that it's bad that HoMM V looks to much like HoMM III.

[Corribus]

Here's the low-down:

H3 was a successful game in just about all respects. H4 made some drastic changes to the basic formula of the Heroes games; many of these changes had a lot of promise.

Unfortunately at about the same time 3DO was going through some serious financial problems that would ultimately lead to their bankruptcy. Perhaps in the effort to right the sinking ship, H4 was shipped (very) prematurely (although not nearly as prematurely as MMX).

Even if H4 had shipped after proper testing, it is likely that the community would have been somewhat divided on the game, given that it changed a lot of the fundamental properties of the series.

But unfortunately the problems inherent to the rushed release (in particular, the already-mentioned terrible AI) pretty much doomed H4 from the start and masked the potential benefits of the fundamental gameplay changes in the eyes of many Heroes fans. It's sort of a "well the game sucked because of reason A, so therefore everything about it must be bad" reaction, when a more fair assessment would have been "Well the game sucked because of reason A, but some of the new features B C and D might have been pretty good if it hadn't been for reason A."

I have written about this topic a lot already in my column on CH so I won't rehash it all, but suffice it to say that while a lot of people are happy that Ubisoft has elected to go back to the H3 formula because it is a decision which ensures a game that will at least be what they know, a lot of fans are unhappy that they didn't give some of the new H4-features a chance to show how good they could be if properly implemented and in the context of a well-tested game. These latter fans are mostly those who stuck with H4 (i.e., they weren't totally turned off by their initial reaction to the game) and were able to glean some enjoyment from it once user-made maps were released as well as the Equilibris mod, and therefore "see the potential", so to speak, of the fundamental gameplay changes. I suspect though that these fans are in the minority, though of course that that doesn't make them wrong.

Thus H5 finds itself in something of a difficult position. Whichever route the designers had chosen, fans would have been divided over it. You can't please everyone. Myself, I feel that the decision Ubisoft made was the appropriate one from a business perspective, but not necessarily the appropriate one from a purely game-design perspective. Time will tell, I suppose, but my (well-founded) suspicion is that H5 will be a visually pretty game that is very similar to H3 in many respect and that will ultimately please most fans (and attract lots of new ones) but will leave them (the veterans) a little underwhelmed because of its refusal to be a little more adventurous; but more importantly, it will lay the groundwork for a more revolutionary H6 that will return to some of the good ideas where were implemented in H4 (and some new, as yet unanticipated ones) but which were ultimately (temporarily) abandoned in H5 to re-secure the faith of fans in the title.

(Btw I should add to be fair that I really didn't like H4 and a lot of those game-play changes -e.g., heroes on the battlefield- to which I referred could never (IMO) work well within the Heroes formula. That said, I do recognize that those ideas never got a truly fair shake and I hope that Ubisoft does relook at them during the design of H6. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I'm happy that Ubisoft has gone back to the H3 formula for H5 (a smart business decision withstanding), I understand why some people disagree with it. H4 was a poor game, but it's not necessarily because of the changes to gameplay that were made.)

[Bandobras Took]

Though it is clear that, even though heroes are off the battlefield in H5, a great deal of H4's influence remains. Some skills enable a hero to do a physical attack, others actually affect how swiftly the hero can cast spells -- heroes are treated like another troop stack for purposes of initiative (which in and of itself is a rather interesting blend of 3 and 4's respective systems), and can attack physically rather than be limited to spells.

But in the whole, Corribus' analysis is a rather clear and unbiased one. I agree with it.

[Tao Jones]

Because allthough HoMM III was a good game, there were things that were done better in HoMM IV. And that's why there are messages that it's bad that HoMM V looks to much like HoMM III.

Which is why I've decided to refer to Heroes 5 from now on as Heroes 3.5.

It looks to me as if they've taken everything I thought was an improvement back out of the game I love. Nice goin', guys.

Caravan, no weekly visits to the water wheel, daily creature growth... I could go on for quite some time.

In exchange, we get... shiny stuff. Woo hoo. Call me back.

[Bandobras Took]

Because allthough HoMM III was a good game, there were things that were done better in HoMM IV. And that's why there are messages that it's bad that HoMM V looks to much like HoMM III.

Which is why I've decided to refer to Heroes 5 from now on as Heroes 3.5.

It looks to me as if they've taken everything I thought was an improvement back out of the game I love. Nice goin', guys.

Caravan, no weekly visits to the water wheel, daily creature growth... I could go on for quite some time.

In exchange, we get... shiny stuff. Woo hoo. Call me back.

Of those, the only thing I'm actually going to miss is flagging Water Wheels and Windmills. That's a major convenience.

Caravans were a moderate convenience. You can still hero chain to get creatures where you need them.

Daily creature growth was okay, but I think having the various "week of" added a nice bit of flavor to the game.

I don't blame them for taking Heroes 3 as their base. If we're going to talk about similarities, we might as well call Heroes 5 Heroes 2.8, because three was approximately Heroes 2.4.

[igoraki]

To me, H4 was the best of the series in almost every detail. The graphics was far better than in H3, the battle mechanics were clearly based more on Master of Magic than on previous parts of HoMM, and the heroes' skills system was fantastic. There was far more strategy in H4 than in previous parts. There were some things that sucked, like only 4 creature levels and no upgrades, but choosing from two creatures at each level was quite an interesting idea. Combining this with upgrades might be great.
I must admit that I regret that in H5 we see a 'return to H3' - it's a huge step backwards.

my thoughts exactly,just didnt miss upgrades much....
but in general,yes,best in the series
am also dissapointed by ubisoft ignoring h4 while creating h5