Staff reduction at Nival

[Cleanpea]

Very well put, Corribus, the forum needs a bombastic personality such as yourself;)



It is true many new people has come, and many old has returned. This place is good to have, and it would NOT be as it is now without H5; whether or not any like the game.



I think H5 will be better liked in retrospect.
Edited on Tue, Jul 17 2007, 18:42 by Cleanpea

[Zamolxis]

@ Corribus

To some extent I agree with your pov.

Clearly a H3-like structure was more probable and yet with high risk of upsetting a part of the community. I did present a combined H3-H4 structure in the early 2005 on the official forum, appreciated by both H3 & H4 fans. I'm not asking why didn't they follow *my* idea, I'm wondering how come they, a full team of "payed professionals" couldn't come up with sth similar or maybe even way better.

I also agree with all that H5 potentially brought to the Heroes series. I just wouldn't use the word "success" next to it. A concert is a success if in the end all people in the public cheer. Not when half leave the hall during the performance cursing & swearing, while the other half goes home partly content, hoping the band will use the money & experience earned to try and provide a better one next time.

H5 is a (re-)start. Nothing else. Could have been a failure, but it's not - although I might give the feeling I think that with my posts (I only list the chapters where it failed, I never say it failed as a total). But it just doesn't have all the elements of a success to call it like that.

But I guess everyone has his/her own subjective pov on this...

[Alamar]

@Zamolxis && @Corribus: I think that stating "definitively" that H5 is an "unqualified success" or an "unqualified failure" is too extreme in either direction.



It's obvious from this one thread alone that there are reasonable people on either side AND in the middle of the discussion.

[Corribus]

@Alamar -
Erm, isn't that what I said?

@Z
I don't want to reiterate everything I tried to convey in my Discourses article of a few years back. The short short version is the following, and as you'll see the decision to make H5 as it was (H3 like, abandoning the properties of H4) had nothing to do with "lack of creativity". [Although, to be honest, I think some aspects of H5 are quite creative and very different from both H3 *and* H4.] Including any of the major design changes from H4 would have been too risky for a new company trying to resurrect a franchise on the brink of extinction, especially when said design elements were ill-received by a large percentage (whatever it was) of the HoMM community, even if those design elements ultimately failed only due to an inability of NWC to properly implement them because of a shortage of time or resources as the hands of 3DO. Almost everyone LIKED H3, even those who liked H4, and so there was much less risk involved in basing H5 off of a proven formula that everyone had, at one time, liked, rather than an admittedly more daring formula that only some fraction liked and which had not yet been proven to work. So you see, it really had very little to do with creativity at all - and truth be told many game-design decisions do not, unfortunately.

Note that I'm not saying that I think all of the design elements of H4 deserved to be abandoned, or even that those that I didn't like (Heroes on the battlefield) didn't have potential. But H5 was not the time or the place to toy with trying new things, not for a newly purchased - at some considerable expense - franchise to be developed by a team that had little if any experience developing TBS games in general, let alone a series with a set of fans as rabid and critical as us! Had they gone that route, and tried to succeed where NWC stumbled - for whatever reason - H5 would have been an unmitigated disaster, and you can be sure in that case that there would never have been another HoMM game ever again, or at least for quite some time. I'm also not trying to come across sounding like I think H5 is a perfect game - if you read my recent "review" you will see this is anything but the case. When I call H5 a success, I do so because - for me - it gave me a little enthusiasm back for the HoMM games AND because it was at least not a failure. The game works, looks good, and is reasonably deep and fun. That's all, and for me, for a game that may never have been, that's enough to call a success. H6 *is* the time and place to be a little more adventurous, and if H6 turns out to be another H3 clone, then I'll hang up my hat with the rest of you malcontents. But I have an inkling of a suspicion that H6 is going to be something unlike any HoMM game yet... and of course most of you will be furious that they're changing your beloved game.

[PhoenixReborn]

and of course most of you will be furious that they're changing your beloved game.

You've got that right. If they go RTS as you think they might, I will be angry.

[Corribus]

I don't think they will go full RTS. That's too much, but I suspect there might be a little real-time feeling to the new engine. I remember when they went "real time" in MMVI I was totally bummed and was convinced it would never work... but lo and behold the game rocked! I'm open for some changes, as long as they preserve the chess-lilke, strategic feel that sort of defines the franchise.

[Cleanpea]

When people mess with heroes-series, what they are really doing, is messing with our childhood. Our "roots."



It's like, "there are no good shows for children on TV anymore!" or "there was always more snow when I was little!"



Heroes5 is a good game if you watch it from childrens' eyes, lots of creatures, lore, lots of colors and stuff.



I think perhaps today kids are gonna be tomorrows whiners on Heroes of Might and Magic 10

[Sir Charles]

Quote from Zam: "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."

Zam, you're totally correct in this assessment. But at the same time, you're totally wrong. Yes, Nival didn't listen to the fans and they didn't have contact with us either. But that's not NIVAL'S fault. It was a strict order from ubisoft. That was Fabrice's call. It was Ubisoft's game so they wanted to control the flow of information. Simple as that. Ubi's not so strict that they won't let them talk a bit on their own (Nival's) forums though. But everytime they released some Q&A on the Nival forum, they either had to clear it first with Ubisoft...or they got smacked down by them afterwards. So community envolvement is the one topic you can't fault Nival on. If you're going to dissect the job that Nival did on H5, stick to the coding...because that's pretty much all we have to go on.

As for fan-suggestions, those all got submitted to Fabrice and Ubisoft. He then (and others there I'm assuming) went thru them and discussed those ideas with Nival. But the end decisions were HIS. I'm not saying he made poor decisions, because I agree with them for the most part, I'm just saying that people here are pointing the finger at the wrong company.

[Gaping_MAW]

does anyone know what the sales figures for H5 were like? And how many here will buy TOTE and H6? That's how we can measure whether H5 is a success or not



oh and don't forget. Vocal whiners on forums most likely do not represent the larger player base from which they are drawn. Is there a silent majority out there quite happy to see Heroes back and securing a future for itself again?

[jeff]

As for fan-suggestions, those all got submitted to Fabrice and Ubisoft. He then (and others there I'm assuming) went thru them and discussed those ideas with Nival. But the end decisions were HIS. I'm not saying he made poor decisions, because I agree with them for the most part, I'm just saying that people here are pointing the finger at the wrong company.

I would like Angelspit or one of the mods that were organizing the fan suggestions here at CH to confirm that, as I remember it UBI never received a lot of the suggestions as they put out the word they had enough and did not want any more submitted. I am fairly certain for instance they did not receive or accept the suggestions on the editor, and the product (editor) delivered shows are lack of concern for their customer base.

[Sir Charles]

@ Jeff



I'm talking about during the closed and open betas. Not specific forum threads. Although, we alerted Fabrice to those as well. We gathered suggestions from our individual forums and passed them on to Fabrice. He then sifted through them and discussed the ones he thought had promise with Nival. But again, the final call was his.



The thread here didn't actually get forwarded to Fabrice, AS simply let him know it was here and he checked it himself (I can't recall if he ever posted in that thread though...and I'm too lazy to check now) :O)

[Khelavaster]

Good riddance Nival.

You'll be remembered for setting the bar of ineptitude to new heights.

May the ghosts of zillions of bugs and braindead AI heroes chase you through a handful of unoptimized scripted maps to your vodka-infested grave.



Meanwhile, call for all quality developers - Blizzard, Irrational, Firaxis, Triumph Studios, Strategy First - feel free to jump in and rescue the franchise. Yeah, let's dream on...

[jeff]

@ Jeff...and I'm too lazy to check now) :O)

Yeah, me too. I remember volunteering to summarize the editor thread for submission, but basically was told my help wasn’t needed. I would like to know who on this forum was a beta tester for this editor. I would like to know what their input was. My main (perhaps only) hostility toward H-5 was the inept implementation of the editor. While very powerful with many abilities we asked for, it is an editor that excludes a large portion of the previous mapmakers and has left me disenfranchised. Since I get far more pleasure making maps than playing them, H-5 has become a failure for me in most ways. Frankly the annoyance with the editor voiced by many has continually fallen on death ears.

[Sir Charles]

@ Jeff



There really wasn't a beta test for the editor as you'd traditionally think of one. There were a few select fans who got an early peek at it. But IIRC the actual testing was done by the Ubi-testers in Romania. During that particular time I was sort of out of the loop in terms of Heroes due to some hectic times at work, so AS should be better suited to answer questions about the editor pre-release time-frame. Pitsu might've had a peek too, I just don't recall.

[Gaping_MAW]

wow, the vitriol some people have for nival... quite amazing. How many of you still play the game?



So many of you seem to think making a game is a walk in the park. You'll never see a bug free game on release, particularly if it is the first release (which H5 effectively is)... and if you can't detect the great improvements made with the expansion (and seem to be evident in TOTE tidbits), then you need to reset your expectations, or face continued disappointment.
Edited on Tue, Jul 17 2007, 23:12 by Gaping_MAW

[ywhtptgtfo]

Heroes 5 isn't that bad. It has lots of flaws and a very crappy storyline, but it's not so terrible that one wouldn't give it a second glance. At least, it isn't a complete disaster like Heroes 4 (although I still like the plot and storytelling).



>Good riddance Nival.

>You'll be remembered for setting the bar of ineptitude to new >heights.

>May the ghosts of zillions of bugs and braindead AI heroes chase you >through a handful of unoptimized scripted maps to your vodka->infested grave.



>Meanwhile, call for all quality developers - Blizzard, Irrational, Firaxis, >Triumph Studios, Strategy First - feel free to jump in and rescue the >franchise. Yeah, let's dream on...

[HodgePodge]

wow, the vitriol some people have for nival... quite amazing. How many of you still play the game? …

I think instead of vitriol, you meant to say NAUSEA.

[Humakt]

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

Like Heroes 4 but Heroes being easier to protect and without Immortality Potions, by altering the combat system or grid. Maybe even assign creature stacks to them (manually or always in effect if creatures are close enough), that close creature stacks would take part of the damage done to hero. With the amount damage being redirected depending on the size and level of guarding neighbouring stack. Another course would be by assigning heroes somehow to creature stack.

Uhmm, and heroes are better on than off the combat field anyway. Generals shouldn't be immortal until their last troop has fallen.

[Jolly Joker]

No.
You don't see that heroes on or off the bf is changing the complete character of the battle.
Íf the hero is off the battlefield you have a battle between armies. You try to win by eliminating ALL opposing troops while trying to have as many surviving troops as possible. You can flee and save your hero when you can't win the battle anymore.
If the hero is on the battlefield, the first demand is, the hero must be as mortal as the creatures - if he dies in the course of the battle he's dead, otherwise it wouldn't make no sense to have him on the bf in the first place. That means, the aim of the game automatically is KILL THE HERO, that is, the creature stack the hero is in. This may lead to the absurd situation that you win a battle, but lose your main hero - which would make it necessary to be able to resurrect such heroes, because otherwise it wouldn't be fun.
It means further, that the importance of the other stacks is massively reduced. It would further mean, for example, that it would be very advantageous to have a creature like the Treant, because placing a hero with them would be a rather safe thing to do. Compare that with the Inferno line-up (that gain strength ny summoning ADDITIONAL stacks which doesn't help the hero stack) and you see what I mean.
In the end you'd be much less free in the mix for each race and in the racial special than now. A race like the upcoming Orcs would be severely handicapped.
Moreover, I don't really see what it would gain, if your Academy Wizard was part of your stack of gremlins when you fight the neutrals, for example.

No, I don't think you should be able to actually kill the hero. However, there might be more interaction between heroes and more ways to influence each others effects on the battle (more things like Counterspell and so on).

[Gaidal Cain]

It means further, that the importance of the other stacks is massively reduced. It would further mean, for example, that it would be very advantageous to have a creature like the Treant, because placing a hero with them would be a rather safe thing to do.

And? It's not like those kind of units are overpowered as it is (though Ubival seems to have done a fair job with making them more useful than they previously have been).

Compare that with the Inferno line-up (that gain strength ny summoning ADDITIONAL stacks which doesn't help the hero stack) and you see what I mean.

THat is a question of faction balance, not overall gamepaly. I do agree that Heroes on/off have more far reaching consequences than some seem to think, but I disagree that these two things are potential problems with it.