Staff reduction at Nival

[ThunderTitan]

>It was a sequel that followed up the near destruction of the franchise with 2 poor products. It was a sequel that was attempting to appease a TOTALLY fragmented fan base while at the same time lure in NEW fans to the game. No, definitely NOT an easy task. <

I've always wondered how H4 managed to get 2 expansions if it did so poorly in sales. Anyone got any numbers/

And making a good game in itself isn't an easy task, doesn't mean they should be cut slack for failing.

>And no matter WHAT kind of game they put out, they were going to get raked over the coals by one faction of the fan base or another.<

Ever seen a blizzard board?! They get blasted by the fan base all the time, but no one argues about the games being good.

[Akira]

Why are u so sure there's gonna be H6? I don't recall any official statements on that... Am I missing somethng?

[jeff]

It seems that the info in that Russian developer's post does not correspond with what you guys have written here. How come?

One of my major complaints with the Nival PR department, they can’t keep the story straight across the different language based forums.

I'd say we should wait for TotE to come out before imposing any further judgements on Nival. After all, we have yet to see whether or not they have learned from past mistakes.

Totally agree, there are a lot of us who are waiting, but it is their last chance to get it right. Now for me that does not mean fix everything (god knows that would take divine intervention) but significant improvement in several areas. As I have stated I want massive improvement in the editor.

Yes, because making a good game is impossible without fan input... which they so listened too.

You’re right Nival needs to get the cotton out of their ears and listen then heed.

And the most business sense is to not cut out half the content the 2nd previous game had, not include any interface feature H4 had

This is one of the biggest examples of their not listening.

Why are u so sure there's gonna be H6? I don't recall any official statements on that... Am I missing somethng?

Yes you missed statements made by Fabrice strongly implying a Heroes 6 is planned, he also suggested it would be Nival that did it.

[Daystar]

Well, the cinematics for Tribes of the East are a big improvement.

[Alamar]

@Sir Charles: So basically you agree that the only "hard" [actually impossible] part is uniting a shattered fan base.



As for other Tier 1 & Tier 2 developers I agree with you. Either they wouldn't take it at all [tier 1] or UBI wouldn't likely have enough $ to hire Tier 2. Given that we're stuck with a Tier 3 developer. Seeing that we're at Tier 3 there's a decent chance that we'll get a worse developer than Nival.



Of course all this will turn around if it turns out that Nival laid off the entire design team for HoMM [or something equally as drastic]. If that's the case then most of the learning that Nival had done would be undone IF [and only if] that's what happenned.



---------------------------------------------------------------------



As far as uniting the fan base I actually agree with the business decision behind UBI & Nival's approach. Start with the last beloved game by most of the fans [H3] and add as many H4 features as you can without breaking the H3-like game.



The implementation may not have been great but I think the idea behind the decision is the right way to go.



---------------------------------------------------------------------



I hate the modern-day economic realities of the game business.



I honestly don't think that it's possible for a traditional company like UBI to give us [me] the kind of game that I want because the bean counters will make them proove that there will be a positive short-term ROI for things like AI, better map editor, etc.



While I can tell you that I won't buy games that I perceive need work in these areas not enough of my fellows agree with me so we're probably going to be stuck with similar efforts in the future.
Edited on Tue, Jul 17 2007, 14:24 by Alamar

[ThunderTitan]

>add as many H4 features as you can without breaking the H3-like game.<

Too bad they forgot this part...

[Akira]

The thing is that what I meant is that your info here is outdated - I followed the link to the guy's LJ and found out that he had altered his post and provided the explanaition. He seems to be very upset with all this mess around his casual post written for his close friends only, he also says that he is not angry with Nival, as that was a standard procedure, but he is really pissed off with all the people who copied his post and published it not only here, but at Russian game sites too... Well, I can see his point. You shouldn't have done that without his permission, guys, it doesn't seem to be very... like... ethical. This is only my opinion anyway.

As for the game, it's real cool to know that H6 is gonna be made. How long will it take? A year? Two years? More?
Edited on Tue, Jul 17 2007, 15:12 by Akira

[jeff]

Start with the last beloved game by most of the fans [H3] and add as many H4 features as you can without breaking the H3-like game.

Ah, the nebulous H3 like, what the heck is that. There is the problem, many of us having played H-IV, want an equally nebulous H-IV like game. I grow tired of the bickering of the two factions over that. I would like to know the proof that H-3 was more liked, economically perhaps, but many may have left gaming for reasons other than a dislike for H-IV. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a scientifically sound survey validating either as being the best or the possessing the larger fan base. Both were good games, both are better than H-V, but that does not mean H-V is bad. Your and my preferences aside if an H-VI is to succeed it will have to embrace both fan groups, and not just the H3 group as now.

[Jolly Joker]

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a scientifically sound survey validating either as being the best or the possessing the larger fan base. Both were good games, both are better than H-V, but that does not mean H-V is bad. Your and my preferences aside if an H-VI is to succeed it will have to embrace both fan groups, and not just the H3 group as now.

*I* think you are wrong. H 4 is definitely not a better game than H 5. Not for ME, at least, and not by a mile. For you, maybe. For others as well. I don't see a problem there. Theer must be people that like boy groups or, um, Camron Diaz as well, so what? Tastes differ.
You can't embrace both fan groups. Either heroes are ON the BF or they are OFF. And H5 goes a long way to try and give your hero more things to do. So isn't H 5 as much as a compromise you can find?

[Sir Charles]

@ ThunderTitan



H4 didn't do poorly in sales. At least the original didn't. It sold quite well. But that was mostly on the coat-tails of H3's success. The expansions didn't sell well at all. This was due to the poor quality of H4. As for why 2 expansions got made....that's a simple one. 3do was doing EVERYTHING they possibly could to gain income...including milking a franchise to it's demise.

[Sir Charles]

@ Alamar



No, I don't think the only hard part was uniting the fan base. I think one of the hardest things is trying to avoid the stigma of PC games in todays age of gaming. With consoles doing remarkably well the past 10 years, PC games have a nearly impossible task. Fans complain about bugs. I'd love to see a game that had as much code as H5 did NOT have a large number of bugs upon release...unless they had some historical sized budget to play with and no time-table for release. Considering the circumstances, I'd say that Ubi/nival did quite well....in fact better than MOST publishers would have done. But thats just my opinion of course.

[Akul]

To JJ:

For a H4 fan? No.

It had some H4 elements, but not enough to make a H4 fan happy.

Still, I repeat Jeff's words, H5 is a good game.



To Sir Charles:

Agree about Nival thing.
Edited on Tue, Jul 17 2007, 16:07 by Sauron

[Jolly Joker]

So give me an idea of how to solve the Heroes on/off the bf problem better than H 5.

[jeff]

To the best of my knowledge there has never been a scientifically sound survey validating either as being the best or the possessing the larger fan base. Both were good games, both are better than H-V, but that does not mean H-V is bad. Your and my preferences aside if an H-VI is to succeed it will have to embrace both fan groups, and not just the H3 group as now.

*I* think you are wrong. H 4 is definitely not a better game than H 5. Not for ME, at least, and not by a mile. For you, maybe. For others as well. I don't see a problem there. Theer must be people that like boy groups or, um, Camron Diaz as well, so what? Tastes differ.
You can't embrace both fan groups. Either heroes are ON the BF or they are OFF. And H5 goes a long way to try and give your hero more things to do. So isn't H 5 as much as a compromise you can find?

JJ we've done this dance before, your opinion is shared by many, to me and many H-IV is better, but I also repeat H-V is a decent game. I respect your right to hold to that opinion, so let's agree not to belittle each group, and keep it respectful. And on it is not a compromise they took the hero of the BF and made them invulerable able to hit any target on the BF regardless of defenses, sorry you almost got me going and this thread is not for that.

[Alamar]

@TT: Well I did mention that the implementation of the idea might leave some things to be desired.



However we did [in expansions] get caravans ; creature locations that accumulate ; Heroes with battlefield skills [not attackable though]; A skill system closer to H4 than H3 ; ... [I'm sure there are other H4-like things but I don't recall them at this point].



I'm not arguing that there aren't enough features to please everyone but at least a few shreds of H4 did actually make it into H5.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------



@Jeff: The reason that I think that H3 is a decent business decision to start with is that that H4 people at least liked H3. The reverse can not always be said. Therefore I can understand the reasoning of using H3 as the basis for H5.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



@ Sir Charles: I'm not worried too much about some bugs being present in the initial release. While I hate to admit it "everyone" tends to have bugs in large projects. Blizzard, Bioware, whoever is going to have bugs/balance issues/etc. upon release.



My larger concerns were for the quality of things like the AI, map editor, lack of official && in-depth manuals, etc. that were never corrected to my personal satisfaction. Obviously these things are in a fine state for other people so it's likely I'm not being realistic.



To give me these things it's going to come down to proving to "bean counters" that it's worthwhile to speand TONS of time on AI, friendlier map editors [with Advanced Modes for LUA scripting], manuals, etc. .... Obviously, because these things weren't done, nobody could prove to the bean counters that it was needed or even economically feasible.
Edited on Tue, Jul 17 2007, 17:27 by Alamar

[Corribus]

This website gets new users every day. There are active discussions about strategy and tactics, new articles being written, new campaigns, new creatures, new spells in a forthcoming expansion. Lots of people arguing about the relative merits of H4 and H3 and later versions of the game. New retail versions of earlier HoMM games that would otherwise have been lost. New spinoff games. Lots of enthusiasm, lots of anger, lots of passion. Do you think we'd have any of that if Ubisoft or Nival hadn't come along? The fact that we're still here arguing about this, to my mind, is testament enough that H5 was a success, and is to be valued.

[Zamolxis]

Taking "fan input" into consideration for creating H5 was useful only to a certain degree. The very reason why H5 was, as SC stated, such a hard project to take on was because the fans were - and are - very divided over what they wanted for the next game. You can blame 3DO for that division, btw. In some senses, they were doomed to fail in the eyes of SOME fraction of the population. So they went with what made the most business sense. Switching developers for no reason at this point would be foolhardy, because continuity counts for something.

Corribus, I don't remember how close where you to the production process before H5 was out, but at least you were around on forums, so I am surprised of your post. Fans being devided or not did not affect Nival AT ALL. They couldn't have cared less about what we think or what we want. More about what Ubi expected if you want. Their contact with the community was almost non-existant, and when it was, mostly it was to justify their choices.

Continuity may "count for something", but at some point you have to admit that the car is just broken and that you should buy another one. You can't fix things forever. With every patch Nival proved that they're moving on... but too slow. The game industry won't wait for them. Soon we'll have KB and maybe other fantasy games which might offer us what we wanted from Heroes before Nival does.

From their (not many but enough) interviews and forum posts, we know already they don't particularly like the Heroes series. They like Warhammer and a few others. From Heroes they only like - to some extent - the game they created, and even then they are not happy with what we "forced" them to change (battlefield size, etc). If before H5 we were just skeptical about them, now half of the community simply doesn't like them (in some cases maybe even hate them). That's a very bad start for H6.

[Zamolxis]

Lots of enthusiasm, lots of anger, lots of passion. Do you think we'd have any of that if Ubisoft or Nival hadn't come along? The fact that we're still here arguing about this, to my mind, is testament enough that H5 was a success, and is to be valued.

Anger, yes. Passion, yes. Enthusiasm, yes - for some. You forgot: lots of disappointment; lots of users who left the forums and the Heroes world. I did see real enthusiasm in 2005. Lots of users going crazy on forums that a new Heroes game was coming. However as more and more info was being revealed, some were first expressing disappointment, and eventually disappearing from the forums.

There shouldn't be all this anger. People should leave the forums because of busy life, not of disappointment. I am greatful to Ubi for coming along. I'm showing that by forgiving (not forgetting) them for being half responsible for what is screwed up in the game. But I don't see why would I be greatful to Nival at all. Modern technology would have allowed maybe any other game developer provide a game with similar graphics. And that's maybe the only thing Nival is praised for (if one doesn't think of the spell book and a couple of creatures). Probably you must lower your standards too much if you're happy with the final product.

What for you is a statement that H5 was a success, the fact that we are arguing (sometimes quite unfriendly) so much about it, it's a proof it was not. I'm not on the forum because of H5. I joined CH in 2004 out of love for the previous titles, and I would have still been here today without it. H5 is sometimes the reason why I try to stay away from the forums, as I don't like how discussions end up. I like to come on forums to meet more friends, not enemies. But I guess the adrenaline and satisfaction of winning an argument motivates people more than the desire of reaching a friendly compromise.

[Corribus]

@Zamolxis

Given that a return to an H3-like structure for H5 was inevitable for whatever developer took on the project, a good percentage of the HoMM community was bound to end up hating said developer anyway.

The H5 we had was certainly better than no H5 at all. For me, it surpassed H4 on almost every level, and I know for a fact it did the same for many other players as well. For you to say the H5 was an unqualified failure is just downright incorrect. I would not be so presumptuous to say that H5 is the better game, period, as I recognize the statistical variance in the opinions on this forum of what should (or should not) have been in the game.

But the basic thing is that prior to Ubisoft coming around, HoMM was a dead franchise. The fact that H5 was made at all, and was made well enough to pretty much ensure an H6 - an H6 that will most assuredly be more revolutionary than H5, no matter who the ultimate developer is - is for me a reason why H5 was a success. Even if you think it a most tepid entry in the series, it WAS an entry. And because of it, there will be another.

[jeff]

@ ThunderTitan
H4 didn't do poorly in sales. At least the original didn't. It sold quite well. But that was mostly on the coat-tails of H3's success. The expansions didn't sell well at all. This was due to the poor quality of H4.

The expansions not selling well had to do with the fact very little was actually added. No new towns, no new faction which is something that highlighted the expansions of H3, even I will stipulate that. All you have to do is look in the H-IV editor and see the outpost town that was started but never finished. 3DO did just throw them out the door trying to keep from going under. Heroes IV sold well, but not well enough to prop up all of 3DO and its other ventures. At least UBI added factions with the expansions, now if they will only fix as much as possible that still need fixing.