Planning to Buy ‘Tribes of the East?’

[Kareeah Indaga]

Agree with most of what Zam said (‘cept the bits about the H2 Wizard and Warlock towns not fitting together, but I don’t feel like going into a novel right now. Maybe later).

Moreover, what is with you people who insist that Elves and Dwarves MUST hate each others’ guts? Tolkien did it, other games did it—so what? To date, no Heroes campaign has taken place in Middle Earth.* I understand Tolkien’s mythology has become a strong basis for modern fantasy, but that’s all it is—a basis. It does not dictate the fate and nature of all fantasy universes everywhere, or else why make those universes in the first place? One can even argue that following Tolkien’s stereotype is a bad idea, as it makes the entire fantasy realm in question take one more step towards cliché fantasy tripe.





*Standalone maps are another story.
Edit: Just re-read Zam’s post and realized I rehashed one of his points. Eep. Oh well. It bears repeating anyway.

[ThunderTitan]

Dwarfs are rugged tavern brawlers while elves are fancy girly -men that use soap and whatnot. They definitely shouldn't get along.

[Zamolxis]

Until Snow White came and tought the dwarves to use soap as well...

=======================================

On a more serious note now, just to make myself clear: when I was talking about H2 Wizard & Warlock creatures not all matching together, I was talking from JJ's perspective, only to prove from his own perspective that Nival's "descendents" of those two towns are maybe even less homogenous than the originals, that the "one-race" concept he's praising so much actually failed, without the game needing it in the first place.

From my perspective, those two alignments were perfectly fine as they were. Some of the creatues might not have matched with others, but they did not need to match. The towns had "unity in diversity" if you want. A certain feeling that made people simply love them. Creatures were complementary rather than contradictory (which can harder be said about H5 ).

Better that than Nival/Ubi coming with the same number of alignments, but leaving out some unique creatures, to make room for some repetitive ones.

And I don't get this thing with Dwarves and Elves being so incompatible. After all, even in Tolkien, Gimli joined Legolas - not Grishnakh or Lurtz. They are both fairy tale good creatures in the end. Which can't be said about Angels & Inquisitors for example, with one symbolizing the humble protector of human lives, while the other the fanatic torturer and taker of human lives.

Some people are so bothered, if not offended, about fairy tale mythology not being respected, but don't give a s**t, or even cheer, when RL "mythology" gets twisted. I guess that's the new fashon: stain what was pure, wash what was dirty, and spend your life on forums fighting other people, fanatically defending what really matters - the correct portraiting of the dwarf - elf relationship.

[Kareeah Indaga]

On a more serious note now, just to make myself clear: when I was talking about H2 Wizard & Warlock creatures not all matching together, I was talking from JJ's perspective, only to prove from his own perspective that Nival's descendents of those two towns are maybe even less of a homogenous alignment, that the "one-race" concept he's praising so much actually failed.

Oh okay, nevermind that then. Whee, now I definitely don’t have to write a novel!

[ThunderTitan]

Until Snow White came and tought the dwarves to use soap as well...

Using soap to wash nubile young runaway princesses is the exception that confirms the rule... it's also most likely illegal considering marriage age back then, so it's manly too.

[Zamolxis]

Just because 50%+ of the units in the town aren’t the same creature with different steroids doesn’t mean there isn’t a theme. Which is something Nival desperately needs to learn. The old way was fine (I even dare say significantly better ), it just took a little more effort on the part of the developers to implement. The H5 way is boring and repetitive.

Yeah, sure, whatever. But since doing it the old way would have been boring and repetitive as well, not to mention old, this is another no win situation for Nival then.

One last thing I wanted to comment on: (and I guess I'm done for the day)

Better be repetitive inside the game's universe - at least you respect the tradition - then copy from other games (Warhammer, WoW, Etherlords etc), both creatures or the "one-race" concept.

When 3DO went bankrupt, I guess none of us wanted sth else for H5, than a revival of the old Heroes universe, in a new (graphically/technologically) modern game, by taking the best of all previous Heroes games. That meant trying to understand why H3 was the most successful, and starting from there, add the things that were maybe lost from H2 to H3, as well as all the H4 innovations that didn't contradict with the successful elements of H3.

Unfortunately for us, Nival knew (and loved) the 3 other games I quoted above more than the Heroes series. They tried to copy H3 as they saw it was the most successful, but they did not understand why that game was successful, and left out some of its best parts, but kept some of the bad parts (which H4 improved). And they blended that with lots of Warhammer creatures and few other concepts they thought, from experience with other games, would be better in Heroes.

Nival was not in a no win situation.

They could have taken the "safe path" and do only what I mentioned above - enough to win our gratitude and be sure any H2, H3 & H4 fan would buy the game - which would already be sth (better than the "hate" half of the community bares them now).

Or they could have taken the risky path and go for "one-race" alignments, but also take the necessary precautions:

- Take care races are not obviously taken from other games (like the Dark Elves obviously taken from Warhammer)

- Take care they don't leave out creatures dear to the fans, only to introduce repetitive creatures instead (like 4 Elves at Sylvan, but no Pegasi in the whole game)

- Take care they complete the one-race alignments with creatures already existing in the universe, like Zealot (H3) or Priest of Light (M&M) i/o Inquisitor (Warhammer)

- Take care the game either has enough alignments or otherwise don't make 2 Elven alignments out of only 6 in total

- Take care they are creative enough to not give the feeling of repetitiveness

- Take care they preserve the atmospehere of the of the old alignments (which used to be quite different one from another, while now all seem to be driven by same motivations: greed, revenge, conquering)

- Take care they stick to their own promise of providing "one-race" alignments (also for Academy, Dungeon and even Sylvan), otherwise it might all seem like an excuse for thier lack of creativity or for bringing creatures from other games into Heroes.

For the last point, if they really wanted "one-race" alignments, maybe Dark Elves should have been the alternative upgrades at Sylvan (much like the Renegades idea), and leave the dyno-lizards have an alignment of their own, much like the H3 Fortress.

[Jolly Joker]

I really love it, when things get warped.

It was Starbatron (who meanwhile edited his first message!) who started it by basically saying that H 2 line-up was so original and had variety while H 5 had not and H 2 would be infinitely better than H 5 in that respect.

I simply said that this wasn't true for H 2 (look at the Human town as an example for all units are the same and look at the others for simply a hodgepodge of different units, mostly without rhyme or reason) and it wasn't true for H 5 as well (the towns are very near to the ones used in H 3) with the only exception of the Dwarven town which could easily have been a bit more different.

I'm not praising that concept. I'm just saying that it isn't worse than the former non-concepts.

About tradition - a meaningless word that may just be an excuse for being unoriginal and boring. On the other hand there'll always be things worth conserving that might be called tradition to get things short.
What is tradition for one, is unnecessary burden for another, though.
With this established, it's always better to keep things the way they are, because you can always say you value tradition. If you change things, people not only will say, you DON'T honor tradition, you'll have to live with the accusation of being unoriginal anyway. So it's no wonder that nowadays new and fresh things become increasingly rare.

About good and evil - there is nothing speaking against an EVIL Sorceress in H 2, their nice fairy tale creatures notwithstanding. Nothing is good or evil per se or per definition. Good and evil comes with actions only - and with actions of those who have a choice. Otherwise it's completely meaningless and devoid of sense. With things always good or bad you have no story because you have no characters. You have a story only, when characters are on the brink of something, when they see the alternatives and have to make a decision.
This is true BOTH ways, Zam. Something that is ALWAYS and per definition evil is just as boring as something that's per definition good. So the best is GREY, because grey can either become black or white, and in the world of Homm (and probably in reality as well) it depends on the so-called leaders whether things start to get more black or more white.
So in case of the Elves, for example, you can have the free forest-fighters who will stand against evil and injustice when you have a "good" leader, and you can have revengeful, wrathful, too-proud and arrogant, self-loving bastards, led by an evil one.
That's how it should be, and that's how it is.

Lastly, @ Silence That sounds very theoretical. In reality you don't think on each map anew why the Griffins work with Minotaurs and Centaurs. That world wasn't Earth, so basically they can do what they want anyway and say, well, on that world Griffins and Centaurs are age-old allies against the Rocs, so what?

[Silence]

This is true BOTH ways, Zam. Something that is ALWAYS and per definition evil is just as boring as something that's per definition good. So the best is GREY, because grey can either become black or white, and in the world of Homm (and probably in reality as well) it depends on the so-called leaders whether things start to get more black or more white.

OK, gray (undefined) can become either dark or light depending on situation. But which town is more gray - an orc centered one or one with orcs, ogres and trolls? Why is it so that in terms of good and evil it is better to be undefined, but the town society should be well-defined?

[Gaidal Cain]

the towns [in H5] are very near to the ones used in H 3) with the only exception of the Dwarven town which could easily have been a bit more different.

?? Haven/castle are almost the same (two units have switched levels, pikemen are replaced by peasants), and Necro and Tower/Academy both have one unit exchanged. Inferno shares 5 and a half unit (pit fiends have chenged rather much) Rampart/Sylvan has four units that are the same, Dungeon has two. If you're talking about themes, both of the latter have had a theme about locale replaced by one about race. Apart from humans, H3 had two creature types that were repeated in their town- elven pegasi riders in Rampart and goblin wolf riders in Stronghold. Both of these are riders, which means that the repetition is less obvious. I don't mind that the idea about a racial theme, but I think it went too far in Dungeon and especially Fortress (I wouldn't mind it if there were another non-human in Castle as well).

I'm not praising that concept. I'm just saying that it isn't worse than the former non-concepts.

I'm seeing the concepts in the previous towns. That you can't doesn't mean that there aren't any, just that they aren't as obvious.

About good and evil - there is nothing speaking against an EVIL Sorceress in H 2, their nice fairy tale creatures notwithstanding.

Agreed. Even if different towns in H3 are considered "good" or "neutral", it's just a handy label. Their canon history is certainly not one of peaceful coexistance between the "good" races and unyielding resistance towards the "evil" ones.

[Jolly Joker]

[

I'm not praising that concept. I'm just saying that it isn't worse than the former non-concepts.

I'm seeing the concepts in the previous towns. That you can't doesn't mean that there aren't any, just that they aren't as obvious.

Pray, tell, where are concepts in H 2, excluding the fairly obvious undead theme?

@Silence
I don't think any of that doesn't matter. If you have a town with "nice" and friendly looking creatures like those of the H 2 Sorceress and on the other hand one with ugly and brutish looking ones like Orcs, Goblins, Trolls and Ogres it's fairly easy to see the former as "good and noble" and the latter as "evil and primitive" or something, but this is obviously a massive prejudice - and all too often the good and friendly looking is evil on the inside and so on.
Whether it is a society as in H 5 or something like an alliance of creatures like in H 2, the decisive thing are the leaders - or heroes. It's always possible that an evil leader misleads even the most peaceful creature into picking up arms unjustly, so basically I view them all as initially grey, no matter what. You could say, that I view the creatures always as neutral with the leaders deciding the course.

[Silence]

JJ

You realize that I am not arguing against the good/evil point, right? I absolutely agree that the good/evil is decided by which hero player/mapmaker *choses* and how he plays. My point is, as you put it: society vs alliance. In alliance the player/mapmaker can again *chose* the leading nation. In one race society you are limited to no choice.
In other words race based towns are resitricting/boring in the same way as stricktly good or evil factions. Moreover, while your evilness can be shifted by hero selection and gameplay, without alternative dwellings there is very little to help against the boredom of race based towns.

[Jolly Joker]

I'm not sure I understand you.
What do you mean with "leading nation"? And why are race-based towns boring without "alternative dwellings"? I mean, you cannot pick Golems as "leading nations", simply because there are no Golem heroes. In H 3 you could take Minotaur heroes for Dungeon, or Troglodytes, or Humans (which have no place there), but not Medusae or Scorpicores or Evil Eyes or Harpies and neither Dragons.
So I'm a bit at a loss here what you mean.

[Starbatron]

What makes something "grey" so much more interesting than something black and white? A perfect example of good versus evil working and NOT being boring is Lord of the Rings. Clearly the orcs, uruk-hai, trolls, dragons are all inheriantly evil and never vary from that alignment. Likewise with the elves of Lothlorien, Imladris, the dwarves of the Lonely Mountain (ruled by Dain), and the humans of Gondor and Rohan--they are all good and never vary from it. Only individuals that are tempted by evil and are too weak to withstand it, such as Boromir, or are driven mad, like Denethor, turn remotely evil, but repent of it (even Denethor in his madness regretted the "loss" of his son Faramir, as he perceived it; he "gave in" to evil, in a manner of speaking, but never sought to kill his own people or Rohan's people to aid Sauron's orcs). The only race that truly had both evil and good within it were the hobbits, and then only when they were corrupted from the outside by Saruman. Once Frodo, Merry, Pippin, and Sam returned, most of them quickly fell back to the side of good. However, even with all these creatures being wholesale good or evil, no one (at least, no one in their right mind) would argue Lord of the Rings is boring, outside of those who don't like fantasy (such a pity). Of course, in the Silmarillion, the Noldor (elves) fight and kill each other, but it is the doom of the first murder of elf against elf at Alqualonde and the madness of the sons of Feanor that drove their battles from within (instigated wholly because of Morgoth's stealing of the Silmarils and slaying of Finwe, so once again, because of "corruption" from the outside). So, yes, there is grey in the Silmarillion, but once again, it comes from without, but not from within. And as for dwarves and elves hating each other in Tolkien? Yes, there is alot of resentment, but there were many times when they worked together in friendship, both in the Silmarillion (the dwarves role in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears was as large as that of the Elves) and afterwards, between the dwarves of Khazad-dum and the Elves of Eregion (otherwise known as Hollin). The resent between dwarves and Elves mostly sprang from the cursed necklace of Nauglamir and the fighting and deaths over its owners, which was the result of Mim the petty dwarf's curse on the jewel used in its making. So once again, the evil between the two races springs from an outside circumstance, rather than from the leader. While this in no way means all fantasy should be derived from Tolkien's work (although clearly his stamp is on much modern fantasy out there), it illustrates that the classic "good versus evil" struggle is hardly dull or boring. It is not merely the nature of one race being good and another evil that makes it interesting, but their effects on individuals for each side that make it so. And in the Tolkien tradition of the Silmarillion, men were the grey "wildcard" that did change sides. Blending that into the good versus evil struggle can certainly add to such a story, but there is no need for EVERY faction to be grey, or really any faction necessarily, for it to be interesting and exciting.

[Gaidal Cain]

Pray, tell, where are concepts in H 2, excluding the fairly obvious undead theme?

Knight: Medieval human kingdom
Sorceress: Good (woodland) fairytale creatures+Phoenix
Barbarian: Evil fairytale creatures
Warlock: Evil (greek) )mythical creatures
Wizard: LoTR (hobbits, Rocs, and Mages), with a Golems which fits with mages and two extra units for good measure.

The themes aren't clearcut, and there's overlap between some of them (according to the scheme above, Cyclops should be in the warlock town), but the units aren't randomly choosen.

What do you mean with "leading nation"? And why are race-based towns boring without "alternative dwellings"? I mean, you cannot pick Golems as "leading nations", simply because there are no Golem heroes. In H 3 you could take Minotaur heroes for Dungeon, or Troglodytes, or Humans (which have no place there), but not Medusae or Scorpicores or Evil Eyes or Harpies and neither Dragons.

Let's put it this way: You can take out medusas out of dungeon in H3, and still have a town, but you can't take out the dark elves and still have a town (3 units aren't enough). In the same manner, you can emphasize them in H3 (pretend there's a halfmedusa leading them a la H4 or something), but you'd be hard pressed to do the same with the minotaurs.
And you can indeed have dragon heroes leading the dungeon, if you have any of the expansions

[Jolly Joker]

That's complete and utter rubbish, and I hope you know it (and I find LotR boring without end).

If there is no alternative or conscious decision things lose their meaning. Take predators. It's in their nature to kill prey - if they wouldn't do it they would die. They have no say in it and act on instinct. Something, no matter what, anchored it in them, for whatever reason. They are not evil because there is no conscious decision they can make.
That means, if a race is to be called "evil", than its members must have made a conscious decision to do something which would be considered evil (by us, by humans, that is) and there must have been another option open to them otherwise it would be forced.
With good it is the same.
Something that was inherently good or evil, is a paradox, because if something is inherently so the alternative is missing which means the words lose their meaning - think of the predator.
That in turn means that good and evil are meaningful and therefore interesting only for creatures or races or sentient beings - THAT CAN BE BOTH GOOD AND EVIL.

[Starbatron]

That's complete and utter rubbish, and I hope you know it (and I find LotR boring without end).

If there is no alternative or conscious decision things lose their meaning. Take predators. It's in their nature to kill prey - if they wouldn't do it they would die. They have no say in it and act on instinct. Something, no matter what, anchored it in them, for whatever reason. They are not evil because there is no conscious decision they can make.
That means, if a race is to be called "evil", than its members must have made a conscious decision to do something which would be considered evil (by us, by humans, that is) and there must have been another option open to them otherwise it would be forced.
With good it is the same.
Something that was inherently good or evil, is a paradox, because if something is inherently so the alternative is missing which means the words lose their meaning - think of the predator.
That in turn means that good and evil are meaningful and therefore interesting only for creatures or races or sentient beings - THAT CAN BE BOTH GOOD AND EVIL.

You missed the point entirely. It isn't that individuals on either the good or evil side don't have a "choice." I did not use the word instinctive, and inherent does not mean the same as instinctive. The races in LotR are either inherently good or evil, meaning they act according to their natures. However, as you point out, they have an option, but that option comes from an outside factor presenting them with a dilemma or the choice between doing what they know is good and are inclined to do, or giving in to the other side. The One Ring is a perfect example of the temptation of power and evil that plays itself out against a number of individuals. Boromir fails the test and is tempted by its power (he would use the ring) as is Isuldur. Boromir repents afterwards, knowing he had done evil. This is not a new concept and unique to Tolkien. Even Genesis illustrates this point. Adam and Eve were created good, but Satan corrupted them by temptation. I never once said an individual within a race doesn't have the potential to do good or evil, but they are inherently good or evil, and as a whole race, typically don't vary from that nature. The individuals within Tolkien's world are often tempted and some fail the test, but they still know when that have done evil, and many usually repent of their actions, though some don't (think Saruman, for instance). But there is always some outside influence that tempts them with the choice between the two.

[Jolly Joker]

I think it's you who misses the point here.

You play with words:
"The races in LotR are either inherently good or evil, meaning they act according to their natures." Then you go on: "Hoever, they have an option." Don't you see how silly that is?
Think about it again: As soon as something is inherent or "according to nature" things become meaningless. Good and evil EXPLICITELY make sense only when there is NO good or evil "nature", because a "nature" is what it is and can't be put in such categories.

[ThunderTitan]

I'm just saying that it isn't worse than the former non-concepts.

Non-concepts?! I'm calling BS on this one. All the creatures fitted the theme of the town one way or another.

Likewise with the elves of Lothlorien, Imladris, the dwarves of the Lonely Mountain (ruled by Dain), and the humans of Gondor and Rohan--they are all good and never vary from it.

Elves have been killing eachother for shiny jewels (way before they were stolen) for longer then men existed, the dwarfs are rather greedy pricks, and humans have always fought on both sides in every war with Mordor.
And it's the exterior force of evil that makes them so good, because the threat keeps them from fighting amongst themselves, which they would, otherwise Sauron couldn't have had so much success with corrupting Denethor, or Saruman with Théoden, or the ring with Boromir. Frodo has to carry the ring because he's the least corruptible, and not some magic resistance.

Adam and Eve were created good, but Satan corrupted them by temptation.

NO... they were created without SIN. There's a world of difference. And the snake tricked them into understanding the difference between good and evil, thus making them responsible of their action, and capable of sin.

[Starbatron]

I believe I understand where our misunderstanding is coming from JJ. I don't believe having a nature, meaning an inclination towards doing good or doing evil, negates the ability of having sentience and freewill. How are they exclusive features? A sentient being can be inclined by their being towards doing good, but still possess the intellect and ability to choose to go against their nature or inclination to do the opposite, can they not?

[chaosgorgon]

so this is an stand-alone expansion , like Age of wonders shadow magic????,i remember to suggest that for the first expansion to deal with bugs and a true simultaneus turn sistem, so in this game i will have all the races, even if i dont have the original and the first xpansion???

one thing heroes 5 is already a true sim-turn game???, i didnt care about the expansion, so i dont know, really, no true-sim turns, no heroes for me