Planning to Buy ‘Tribes of the East?’
-
Omega_Destroyer
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 6939
- Joined: 28 Feb 2006
- Location: Corner of your Eye
-
Jolly Joker
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 3316
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
@Starbatron
Ok, I had time and opportunity to think about an analogy to make things a little bit clearer. For the sake of starting this I'll define the following:
eating meat = evil
eating plants, vegetables, fruit = good
Note, that for starters this definition is accepted by all sentient and conscious beings.
First we have three categories of beings (whether sentient or not!)
1. Those who can only live on meat
2. Those who can only live on plants
3. Those who can live on both
It's immediately clear that 1 and 2 are not interesting in any way. Creatures under 1 are not evil because they have no choice and creatures under 2 are not good for the same reason. This is reflected that people are keeping cats - predators - as pets and would never think them evil just because they kill mice - it's their instinct, after all.
That leaves 3. Those who can live on both - those who really have a choice being good or bad.
So far so good, now let's say those under 3 are not all alike: we have again 3 categories of beings:
1. Humans. No inclination to something
2. Orcs. Inclination to meat. That means, they simply LIKE meat, it's tasty for them, delicious even, while vegetables and plants taste like shit (well I could have said children instead of Orcs, but no matter), but they can live on them
3. Elves. Inclination to plants and vegetables which are taste and delicious, while meat tastes like shit for them, but they can live on it.
Remember, at this point all 3 of them have the same idea of good and evil.
What happens now is that the poor Orcs are struggling. Good tastes like shit while evil is real tasty. Those poor sods are torturing themselves being good, suppressing their inclination while those arrogant Elves of course have all the luck in the world and an inclination of being good.
Question: at this point, whose side are we (humans) on? Answer: THE ORCS'S SIDE while we would disdain the Elves, born with the virtual silver spoon in their mouth.
By the way, we had the Orcs' situation in the middle ages when the Church declared sex for the sake of having fun as sinful and evil - and you could say that humans in that time as in every time had a rather strong inclination to BE evil in this regard - and were so. For the price of feeling guilty.
Now, what would happen with our Orcs here is, then, that they would indulge in evil more or less often and would feel guilty about it, but at some point inevitably someone would come up with the only decent thing here: there must be a reason for why plants taste like shit for all of us, so we are not meant to eat that crap. We are meant to eat meat, for whoever's sake, and we are relishing it and not going to feel guilty about it. And not that much later someone would say that it's actually evil to eat plants because THEY produce the air we all breathe, while animals eat plants and are therefore evil, so it's actually good to kill and eat them - or something like that. AND THEY HAD A POINT!
Ok, I had time and opportunity to think about an analogy to make things a little bit clearer. For the sake of starting this I'll define the following:
eating meat = evil
eating plants, vegetables, fruit = good
Note, that for starters this definition is accepted by all sentient and conscious beings.
First we have three categories of beings (whether sentient or not!)
1. Those who can only live on meat
2. Those who can only live on plants
3. Those who can live on both
It's immediately clear that 1 and 2 are not interesting in any way. Creatures under 1 are not evil because they have no choice and creatures under 2 are not good for the same reason. This is reflected that people are keeping cats - predators - as pets and would never think them evil just because they kill mice - it's their instinct, after all.
That leaves 3. Those who can live on both - those who really have a choice being good or bad.
So far so good, now let's say those under 3 are not all alike: we have again 3 categories of beings:
1. Humans. No inclination to something
2. Orcs. Inclination to meat. That means, they simply LIKE meat, it's tasty for them, delicious even, while vegetables and plants taste like shit (well I could have said children instead of Orcs, but no matter), but they can live on them
3. Elves. Inclination to plants and vegetables which are taste and delicious, while meat tastes like shit for them, but they can live on it.
Remember, at this point all 3 of them have the same idea of good and evil.
What happens now is that the poor Orcs are struggling. Good tastes like shit while evil is real tasty. Those poor sods are torturing themselves being good, suppressing their inclination while those arrogant Elves of course have all the luck in the world and an inclination of being good.
Question: at this point, whose side are we (humans) on? Answer: THE ORCS'S SIDE while we would disdain the Elves, born with the virtual silver spoon in their mouth.
By the way, we had the Orcs' situation in the middle ages when the Church declared sex for the sake of having fun as sinful and evil - and you could say that humans in that time as in every time had a rather strong inclination to BE evil in this regard - and were so. For the price of feeling guilty.
Now, what would happen with our Orcs here is, then, that they would indulge in evil more or less often and would feel guilty about it, but at some point inevitably someone would come up with the only decent thing here: there must be a reason for why plants taste like shit for all of us, so we are not meant to eat that crap. We are meant to eat meat, for whoever's sake, and we are relishing it and not going to feel guilty about it. And not that much later someone would say that it's actually evil to eat plants because THEY produce the air we all breathe, while animals eat plants and are therefore evil, so it's actually good to kill and eat them - or something like that. AND THEY HAD A POINT!
-
Starbatron
- Pixie
- Posts: 135
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
So basically you are saying that if something is pleasureable, that makes it good, and how dare we say that something that isn't pleasurable to our likes and dislikes is bad? Then all we have to do is wait for some one to come along and say, "hey, you like that? Well, it must not be that bad." After all, no one has ever taken pleasure in something that is bad... 
-
Kareeah Indaga
- Archlich
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
The biggest and most obvious flaw with this analogy is that in Heroes V, there are no “people who only live on plants.” EVERYONE lives on both, except possibly the Inferno town being solely “carnivorous”, depending largely on whether or not you count Agraelag, and no one even has any strong inclination towards “plants only”. Every faction is roughly as greedy, bigoted and self-centered as every other faction. Thus there is NO choice for the player, we have to choose “both”, leading to the same result you claim to be reserved for “vegetarians” and “carnivores”. At least in the traditional conflict between the pair of them we had two choices; now we have one, and it’s boring. Neutral gray is only useful and interesting when you have black and white to contrast it with, otherwise all you get is a dull smear.Jolly Joker wrote:@Starbatron
Ok, I had time and opportunity to think about an analogy to make things a little bit clearer. For the sake of starting this I'll define the following:
eating meat = evil
eating plants, vegetables, fruit = good
Note, that for starters this definition is accepted by all sentient and conscious beings.
First we have three categories of beings (whether sentient or not!)
1. Those who can only live on meat
2. Those who can only live on plants
3. Those who can live on both
1.) @JJ: I believe the word you’re looking for is “sapient” not “sentient”.
2.) @ Everyone: Did this post give anyone else flashbacks?
-
Jolly Joker
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 3316
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
@Starbatron
Basically I say, if something pleasurable for the whole race (because there was an "inclination") this race wouldn't view this is as evil - it might try to do so (we have examples for that), but it would lead to mental illness and a lot more evil.
@Kareeah Indaga
You didn't read it: I clearly said that 1 and 3 is boring and not interesting.
Anyway, you are just mixing "the people" (as in "the creatures" or "the race") with their leaders. Correctly enough the race is grey - they just do what they are told: The Dwarves will fight WITH Biara's Renegades AGAINST the Dungeon and they will fight WITH Raelag's Dungeon AGAINST Biara's Renegades (and fellow Dwarves as well). They don't have the capacity to really see what is good and what is evil exactly (which in reality is so as well). So the leaders or heroes decide what they are doing (and fighting for). So, for example, clearly, very clearly Freyda is good (as is Godric) while Rolf is evil for the Dwarves.
So, correctly enough there is no "race" that is inherently good, and it depends on the heroes, the map-makers and the players on how to do it.
You can easily make up a map where some really good human (or indeed any other), does good with his army of Squires and Paladins and Inquisitors, but you can shape a really evil human "hero" as well, and the really good thing is you can do this (with a little bit of imagination) for ALL the races, even for Necros and Demons.
So actually it's in YOUR hands whether things will run a good course or an evil one. You don't have to jump onto the train and cannot stop it. You CAN create an evil Sylvan campaign and you CAN create a good Necro campaign (or map); whether or not this works, depends only on the acting heroes, not on any inherent factor like "an inherently good race" a concept which is just silly (even the Angels had fallen ones among them).
So, no, they are not grey, they just have the capacity for BOTH black and white.
Basically I say, if something pleasurable for the whole race (because there was an "inclination") this race wouldn't view this is as evil - it might try to do so (we have examples for that), but it would lead to mental illness and a lot more evil.
@Kareeah Indaga
You didn't read it: I clearly said that 1 and 3 is boring and not interesting.
Anyway, you are just mixing "the people" (as in "the creatures" or "the race") with their leaders. Correctly enough the race is grey - they just do what they are told: The Dwarves will fight WITH Biara's Renegades AGAINST the Dungeon and they will fight WITH Raelag's Dungeon AGAINST Biara's Renegades (and fellow Dwarves as well). They don't have the capacity to really see what is good and what is evil exactly (which in reality is so as well). So the leaders or heroes decide what they are doing (and fighting for). So, for example, clearly, very clearly Freyda is good (as is Godric) while Rolf is evil for the Dwarves.
So, correctly enough there is no "race" that is inherently good, and it depends on the heroes, the map-makers and the players on how to do it.
You can easily make up a map where some really good human (or indeed any other), does good with his army of Squires and Paladins and Inquisitors, but you can shape a really evil human "hero" as well, and the really good thing is you can do this (with a little bit of imagination) for ALL the races, even for Necros and Demons.
So actually it's in YOUR hands whether things will run a good course or an evil one. You don't have to jump onto the train and cannot stop it. You CAN create an evil Sylvan campaign and you CAN create a good Necro campaign (or map); whether or not this works, depends only on the acting heroes, not on any inherent factor like "an inherently good race" a concept which is just silly (even the Angels had fallen ones among them).
So, no, they are not grey, they just have the capacity for BOTH black and white.
And since you, JJ, were not sure that you got my previous point well, I will use the opportunity to say it again
At the very same time you say:Jolly Joker wrote:
1. Those who can only live on meat
2. Those who can only live on plants
3. Those who can live on both
It's immediately clear that 1 and 2 are not interesting in any way.
Don't you see anything controversial here?
1. Towns that consist only of orcs
2. Towns that consist only of ogres
3. Towns that consist of both
All three towns are equally interesting.
-
Jolly Joker
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 3316
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
I dont know about you guys, but I smell a sinister plot behind this stand alone thing. I suppose someone thought about it before me, but I didnt read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if its repetition...
Remember Heroes 3 (of course you do
) and Shadow of Death? I cant help myself from having nightmares about getting the beautiful-stand-alone-last-chapter thing without the dwarfs, and the bright future of HoMM V Complete Edition 
with some Cronicles hiding behind the scene...
Up to now I have been enjoying the game a lot, if its fragmented on purpose just to squeeze some more money out of us...
Shame on you UBI!
On the other hand if they do their job well I'll fail my exams, so I dont know which alternative is better
Remember Heroes 3 (of course you do
) and Shadow of Death? I cant help myself from having nightmares about getting the beautiful-stand-alone-last-chapter thing without the dwarfs, and the bright future of HoMM V Complete Edition with some Cronicles hiding behind the scene...Up to now I have been enjoying the game a lot, if its fragmented on purpose just to squeeze some more money out of us...
Shame on you UBI!
On the other hand if they do their job well I'll fail my exams, so I dont know which alternative is better
-
Jolly Joker
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 3316
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Sorry, but I don't see any connection.
Let's simply compare the Dungeon, which seems to be fair to me (in terms of being a moderately race-based town with their 3 1/2 race-based units. We can take the H 2 Dungeon as well.
Assassins - Trogs. Trogs can be heroes, interestingly enough (they are blind), so they are intelligent. Assassins are male Dark Elves and can be heroes.
Blood Furies - Harpies. Harpies are just creatures (?) and cannot be heroes. Furies are female Dark Elves and can be Heroes
Minos - Evil Eyes. Minos have some intelligence, but are slaves and cannot be a hero. Evil Eyes are just creatures
Raiders - Medusae. Raiders are male Dark Elven Cavalry. Heroes look like them. This is the half unit to the dino. Medusae see to be just creatures, because they cannot be heroes.
Hydra - Mino. Hydra is a creature. Mino is intelligent and can be hero.
Matriarch - Scorpicore. Matriarch is a female Dark Elf and can be a hero. Scorps are creatures.
Black Dragons. In 5 they are intelligent but won't lead. In 3 they are creatures, I'd think.
Additionally we have HUMAN heroes in Dungeon which seems odd.
In heroes 2 all Heroes are humans and it doesn't matter whether the troops, for example the Minotaurs or Centaurs would have some intelligence or not.
Troops are Centaur, Gargoyle, Griffin, Minotaur, Hydra and Dragon.
I don't see your point; you may be able to make it clear.
Let's simply compare the Dungeon, which seems to be fair to me (in terms of being a moderately race-based town with their 3 1/2 race-based units. We can take the H 2 Dungeon as well.
Assassins - Trogs. Trogs can be heroes, interestingly enough (they are blind), so they are intelligent. Assassins are male Dark Elves and can be heroes.
Blood Furies - Harpies. Harpies are just creatures (?) and cannot be heroes. Furies are female Dark Elves and can be Heroes
Minos - Evil Eyes. Minos have some intelligence, but are slaves and cannot be a hero. Evil Eyes are just creatures
Raiders - Medusae. Raiders are male Dark Elven Cavalry. Heroes look like them. This is the half unit to the dino. Medusae see to be just creatures, because they cannot be heroes.
Hydra - Mino. Hydra is a creature. Mino is intelligent and can be hero.
Matriarch - Scorpicore. Matriarch is a female Dark Elf and can be a hero. Scorps are creatures.
Black Dragons. In 5 they are intelligent but won't lead. In 3 they are creatures, I'd think.
Additionally we have HUMAN heroes in Dungeon which seems odd.
In heroes 2 all Heroes are humans and it doesn't matter whether the troops, for example the Minotaurs or Centaurs would have some intelligence or not.
Troops are Centaur, Gargoyle, Griffin, Minotaur, Hydra and Dragon.
I don't see your point; you may be able to make it clear.
About heroes which have little to do with my original point. Imagine that an evil scientist has created an army of mutants and tries to take over the world with this army. According to you, in heroes universe the madman cannot take the hero spot. (Or at least it is odd to have him there). In H2 knight Maximus was a greenskin, remember? You think it was NWC mistake? I do not think so. Heroes are exceptions of common. They are personalities and unique and do not have to be from the majority of town inhabitants or whatever.Jolly Joker wrote: Additionally we have HUMAN heroes in Dungeon which seems odd.
In heroes 2 all Heroes are humans and it doesn't matter whether the troops, for example the Minotaurs or Centaurs would have some intelligence or not.
Race based towns are limiting to the game in the very same way as good (white) or evil (black) towns. Multi-raced towns are the equvalent to your "gray" in another, but parallel dimension.I don't see your point; you may be able to make it clear.
-
Jolly Joker
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 3316
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
You'd have a point, if you'd have heroes that could build there army either from all available ones or even in a generic way. THEN you had the mad scientist - or maybe good diplomat - hero type who'd somehow get an army together.
Since there are towns, though, there always IS a theme. You WILL have to recruit from a certain type. If you are a Necro you WILL fight with undead - and when I say NECRO, I mean the TOWN, not the hero because in all heroes games you can lead your creatures with any hero who happens to be available, but you are limited in your creatures.
Heroes 5 didn't change anything about that, except that it makes less sense to use alien heroes for your armies due to the special abilities. For the rest, the creatures changed a bit and in some towns there are more units of the same type, that's all.
So I don't think you really have a point here, sorry.
Since there are towns, though, there always IS a theme. You WILL have to recruit from a certain type. If you are a Necro you WILL fight with undead - and when I say NECRO, I mean the TOWN, not the hero because in all heroes games you can lead your creatures with any hero who happens to be available, but you are limited in your creatures.
Heroes 5 didn't change anything about that, except that it makes less sense to use alien heroes for your armies due to the special abilities. For the rest, the creatures changed a bit and in some towns there are more units of the same type, that's all.
So I don't think you really have a point here, sorry.
-
Campaigner
- Vampire
- Posts: 917
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
- Location: Campaigner
I'll just hop in and say that I much prefer racebased towns to everything else since it feels much more believeable and that they got a theme.
Another thing I really like is that the factions can fight for a variety of purposes and not just the old "I'm a Warlock and I'll use my monsters to take over the world!" and "We, the treehuggers of the forest will stop you together with our fairykin!".
Another thing I really like is that the factions can fight for a variety of purposes and not just the old "I'm a Warlock and I'll use my monsters to take over the world!" and "We, the treehuggers of the forest will stop you together with our fairykin!".
-
Jolly Joker
- Round Table Hero
- Posts: 3316
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
I certainly fail to see the point. The reason might be that I don't see RACES in former Heroes versions; I see only CREATURES. Since I've listed the Dungeon creatures for H 2 and H 3 already, in H 2 I don't see "races" at all, more an ability to hire certain creature types in certain towns.
In H 3 you'd think there ARE races - those heroes are from, for Dungeon this would be Trogs and Minos who'd share the Dungeon, but the rest are creatures as well, not races.
And in that respect Heroes 5 is the same, with the exception that the hero is from the one and only "race" and there maybe more than one race member in varous functions to hire while the rest are creatures as well, albeit with some story why they are there.
That's all I see there. But I still see no point of yours.
In H 3 you'd think there ARE races - those heroes are from, for Dungeon this would be Trogs and Minos who'd share the Dungeon, but the rest are creatures as well, not races.
And in that respect Heroes 5 is the same, with the exception that the hero is from the one and only "race" and there maybe more than one race member in varous functions to hire while the rest are creatures as well, albeit with some story why they are there.
That's all I see there. But I still see no point of yours.
-
BoardGuest808888
- Round Table Knight
- Posts: 506
- Joined: 06 Jan 2006
I think I'll go with 4th category : Probably no, but we'll see.
I bought HoF, but I found myself not playing or enjoying it even half as much as the original H V because what was new in HoF turned out not what I considered interesting.
I don't want that happen again. I might see several months after that released.
I bought HoF, but I found myself not playing or enjoying it even half as much as the original H V because what was new in HoF turned out not what I considered interesting.
I don't want that happen again. I might see several months after that released.
-
Apocalypse
- Conscript
- Posts: 242
- Joined: 17 Mar 2007
I totally agree. Race based towns are much better than the childish mix of creatures from other heroes games.I'll just hop in and say that I much prefer racebased towns to everything else since it feels much more believeable and that they got a theme.
(The town design of Haven for me it's the best, with 5 human units and two allied ones)
Hide, listen, watch, learn… And when the time is right, strike from the shadow.
I hope I'm still posting on the right thread...
Yeah, I will buy it
. I just find it not nice from UBI that they intend to squeze some more money from hardcore fans, (because we will be the main buyers for it). HoF was expensive enough, but no... they want more!
And then, they will do for sure an expensive add-on even for this one. I know the rumors that this is intended to be final, but again: marketing! They will make more money saing that this is the last one, much more that HoF, and then with minimum effort, they will add a new race and make an add-on just to squeze a little more.
I just hope that they will deliver a mature enough product so that people can do a nice mod for it, and never be forced to buy addons again:)
Don't get me wrong: I'm gratefull that they will make it, I am just not happy that I have to pay twice for the same product.
krs
Yeah, I will buy it
. I just find it not nice from UBI that they intend to squeze some more money from hardcore fans, (because we will be the main buyers for it). HoF was expensive enough, but no... they want more!And then, they will do for sure an expensive add-on even for this one. I know the rumors that this is intended to be final, but again: marketing! They will make more money saing that this is the last one, much more that HoF, and then with minimum effort, they will add a new race and make an add-on just to squeze a little more.
I just hope that they will deliver a mature enough product so that people can do a nice mod for it, and never be forced to buy addons again:)
Don't get me wrong: I'm gratefull that they will make it, I am just not happy that I have to pay twice for the same product
.krs
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests