Heroes 5 isn't a true Heroes of Might & Magic game.

[Agnus Dei]

Whether H4 was the main protagonist of 3DO's downfall or not, it sucked big time for me. I hated having only 6 towns, only 5 recruitable creatures; mix of creatures (necro/infreno anyone?), those gay nature summonable creatures (giant mantis for lvl 4, wtf???), some of the new ones' (ballista, venom spawn), and so on... But most of all, I dreaded the possibility of Heroes becoming extinct. So I jumped with joy like a little kid when I first heard the news of the series being revived. The first concept art for Heaven wasn't promising, but who cared? "The Heroes are back!"
I had no expectations what so ever and thus no disappointments. And I'm neither infantile nor blinded because of that. Heroes was my very first game and the one that got me hooked to the computer. I felt the very same thrill playing H5 i did with H2 some 9 years ago. Why did I feel it when according to most of you the game sucks? I don't know, and I don't care, I have the feeling.
H6 is obviously on the way so i suggest we all concentrate on placing some ideas on this forum.

[arturchix]

Well posted, Corribus.

[OliverFA]

On one end of the spectrum you have teams that are in it ONLY for the $ and don't care about anything past profits for the next 5 years or so.

On the other end of the spectrum there are teams that are happy to delay, refine, polish, delay again, etc. and will only release a game when they are happy with the game. Their primary goal is to make a GREAT game and then hope that they are rewarded for it so they can do it again.

This is not quite correct. ALL businesses are in it for the money.

True, but meanwhile some companies care about the long term and want to preserve their milking cows as much as possible, other companies just care about milking them for as long as it endures.

The first type of companies care about the prestige of their games because they want to build a reputation that will last long time. The second kind just want to cash on the prestige their milking cows already have, doing few effort to preservate or increase that prestige. Clearly that's the case of UBI, a company that buys franchises instead of building their own.

Coming back to the panoramic screens (yes, I am really pissed about it :-( ), I read the Galactic Civilizations II designer (sorry I don't remember his name) saying "we wanted the game to look modern and not dated even after some years from now". That's caring about their baby, they are in fact thinking about GalCiv3 even when GalCiv2 still has to lauch its second expansion. But Heroes V already looks dated by now, as it doesn't support panoramic screens!

[Corribus]

The second kind just want to cash on the prestige their milking cows already have, doing few effort to preservate or increase that prestige. Clearly that's the case of UBI, a company that buys franchises instead of building their own.

3DO bought franchises as well.

[Jolly Joker]

About ToE I can guarantee that the game is a bargain (you can nail me for this later, should I be wrong in your view). Not only for those who start with ToE, but for everyone else as well.
There are many reasons for this, but the one I like most is the fact that Heroes will feature a REAL barbarian race, not a barbarian hero with a riff-raff of units, but the real deal.
The art of level 6 and 7 is simply amazing. I'm the type who doesn't care about graphics usually, whether it's good or mediocre - if I want to look a picture or a movie I do. But the Wyvern and its upgrades and the Cyclopses are breathtakingly vivid - and fearsome. The Wyvern is, because its humanoid somehow. Warped. The Cyclops simply looks fearsome. A real monster. But what makes the Orcs really outstanding is the way they feel and play. You have to ATTACK with them. No hiding behind meat shields, no waiting games, no shooting or magic power - close your eyes and march them up - and they have NO unit that can cross the BF in one turn, mind you! They are REAL barbarians, the horde that comes to you no matter what. It's... intense. One HELL of a lot of fun to play the guys with one HELL of a lot of hilarious details, not the least of it being a Warcry that will DAMAGE your own unit in exchange for hasting it's turn on the initiative bar! (Imagine the leader kicking the unit virtually in the butt to speed it up!)
Believe me, if you play them, you will be extremely reluctant to go into fights because you don't trust them to win (but the new show threat level feature will tell you it should be safe). And then, if you go into those fights you won't believe what is actually happening on the battlefield.

I don't even mention the alternative upgrades that are alternatives indeed, by the way.
Furthermore the pleasure is two-sided. Patch 1.6 will bring a lot of additional stuff to the owners of the main game that comes with ToE.

So ToE will do one thing: it will sell. Because it will be worth each cent.

[Elvin]

That's what I love about H5, each faction has a very different - not just gameplay - but feel. And the units do look a lot different and intimidating over the old ones

Btw threat level..? If the orcs have some sort of reckless behaviour and occasionally push their luck I'll be sure to like them.

[OliverFA]

The second kind just want to cash on the prestige their milking cows already have, doing few effort to preservate or increase that prestige. Clearly that's the case of UBI, a company that buys franchises instead of building their own.

3DO bought franchises as well.

And we all know how 3DO ended...

[Corribus]

And we all know how 3DO ended...

We do, and it had nothing to do with buying the Might and Magic franchise. H3 was a result of a "bought franchise". And it was fabulous. MY point is that just because a company buys franchises does not mean that they can't turn out a great product from it. Now, please explain, what is YOUR point?

[Alamar]

On one end of the spectrum you have teams that are in it ONLY for the $ and don't care about anything past profits for the next 5 years or so.

On the other end of the spectrum there are teams that are happy to delay, refine, polish, delay again, etc. and will only release a game when they are happy with the game. Their primary goal is to make a GREAT game and then hope that they are rewarded for it so they can do it again.

This is not quite correct. ALL businesses are in it for the money.

EDIT: Please note that my spectrum example above is only showing theoretical extremes. The excersize was to figure out which end of the spectrum UBI belonged at.

Your point is overgeneralizing also. I know of several [small] business that are run because the guys LOVE what they are doing and like to do the best job possible. The fact that they are paid enough so that they can keep on playing [read that as working] in a field that they love is a bonus.

I will stipulate that once a company becomes sufficiently large that, legally, their continued existence and well being of shareholders must become their primary focus.

However as you said companies have RADICALLY different ways of going about the goal. The most important thing is what is the mindset within the company ....

I would say that small companies can easily have the attitude of quality first and hope that they are rewarded for that. If those companies take off as long as the original controllers of the company have a say-so the corporate environment will focus on delivering quality first and they will know that they will be rewarded for it.

The crossover point occurs when the original employees / managers / owners / etc. no longer have the authority to dictate what the corporate ideals & mindset is. Sometimes the "culture of quality" will mostly remain and sometimes it gets destroyed. It depends on the situation.

IMHO UBI doesn't want to put in the effort to make a "classic" because the economic returns are not justified in the short-term. I'm not saying UBI can't do it ... I'm saying they choose not to do it because this approach is not valued / profitable in the short-term [< 5 years].

There are other companies who WANT to make a classic so they can be rewarded for it [esp in the long term > 5 years] and future classics that they produce.

The point is that you are making the erronious assumption that game companies that consistently employ flexible deadlines and put lots of supposed TLC into their products have more of an emotional attachment to their products and hence less of a drive to make money than companies that seem to put out lots of fluff at opportune times (christmas, movie releases, etc.). But that's just not the case.

Well I think you go too far by saying that I assume that [for example] Blizzard's only purpose is to put things out for-the-love-of-the-game. The spectrum example though is to show two extremes and to have the person figure out what extreme various companies are closer to.

Now, maybe you feel Ubisoft is a company that believes in the "mass fluff" approach.

UBI is no EA ... but they're not Blizzard either.

The real [hidden?] point that I was trying to make is that UBI isn't improving the AI, the map editor, documentation, etc. because there's not enough of an economic motive for them to want to do so.

The point being is that the way to get UBI to do these things is to make it clear that if these things are not done then we won't be buying future editions of the game.

Thus explaining why I don't have any of the H5 expansions yet ....

I think it's a subjective argument in any case but, knowing what I know about the H5 development process (no I can't elaborate), I think it's unfair to place Ubisoft in that corner of the arena at least with respect to H5. Regardless, it's silly to try to criticize a game developer (and Ubisoft in particular) for trying to make money, because that's what ALL companies are about. And furthermore, if you disapprove of Ubisoft's way of doing that, then by all means don't buy their products. That's the beauty of the free market system.

I think you need to reread my original posts in context. I'm not criticizing UBI per-se.

As a matter-of-fact I believe that we as consumers have gotten exactly the game that [as a whole] that we've asked for. I just wished that [as a whole] we asked for better AI, map editor, documentation, etc.

I would also contend that unless economic forces come to bear that H6 may not be drastically better in terms of AI, map editor, etc. because we've given UBI plenty of reason to believe that these things are simply not important. [I.E. too many people are buying the product that I alledge is lacking in those areas]

***********To avoid double posting even though I'd like to ***********

@JJ: That's good to hear. While I feel like my personal desires aren't being met it's good to hear that we really have a good barbarian hoarde race. It sounds fun.

************* To avoid the triple post **************************

@ Corribus: I assume that his point was that 3DO and UBI are similar in that they both want to make a good game that sells a lot as opposed to wanting to make a CLASSIC that will [only] sell a lot.

[Amgor II]

When 3DO/NWC when down the tubes.. I was glad to see someone jump in and take over Heroes of Might and Magic series.

I don't care who did it as long as I can still play HM&M.

And if someone else takes over...so-be-it as long as the games keep coming.

[Corribus]

Your point is overgeneralizing also. I know of several [small] business that are run because the guys LOVE what they are doing and like to do the best job possible. The fact that they are paid enough so that they can keep on playing [read that as working] in a field that they love is a bonus.

If it's a serious business, then it's still about making money first and the fact that they like what they are doing is an added bonus. You may think that's a semantics issue, but it's a very important one. There may be some small "businesses" that are exceptions to this rule, but by and large, when we are talking about large, mass-produced games - it's always about money in the end.

However as you said companies have RADICALLY different ways of going about the goal. The most important thing is what is the mindset within the company ....

The most important thing FOR YOU is the mindset of the company as it applies to making quality games. The most important thing FOR THE COMPANY is the mindset of the company as it applies to making money. Those two things are not often the same.

I would say that small companies can easily have the attitude of quality first and hope that they are rewarded for that. If those companies take off as long as the original controllers of the company have a say-so the corporate environment will focus on delivering quality first and they will know that they will be rewarded for it.

This is not surprising. Small companies do not have the capital to invest in expensive pre-existing brand names, they have no name recognition themselves (at first) to encourage other companies to invest in them (we're talking developers versus producers here), they cannot afford to rely on quantity releases, again due to capital issues. For a small company, quality is the more rational choice. Small companies also probably have the luxury of being able to be more descriminating about who they hire and often the person running the show is more likely to be personally attached to the products. That said, it doesn't mean the small company is any less interested in making money, and as the small company grows, they are more likely to change their business attitude because lets face it - the brute-force, blitzkrieg style of conducting business is generally less risky.

The crossover point occurs when the original employees / managers / owners / etc. no longer have the authority to dictate what the corporate ideals & mindset is.

Well, this usually happens because the managers / owners or whatever sell out to big producers because it's the lucrative thing to do. They usually WILLINGLY give up control.

IMHO UBI doesn't want to put in the effort to make a "classic" because the economic returns are not justified in the short-term. I'm not saying UBI can't do it ... I'm saying they choose not to do it because this approach is not valued / profitable in the short-term [< 5 years].

I see Ubisoft as being somewhere in the middle of the road as far as this spectrum is concerned. I personally think H5 came off very well and that they did not just churn out a fluff-piece that aimed at selling just to make a quick buck off the brand-name. Ubisoft clearly intends that the Might and Magic brand-name will yield several titles for them, and so a longer-term investment (through releasing at least reasonably good titles) is thus in their interest. Their actions thus-far have demonstrated this. This is NOT just a quick short term deal for them.

Well I think you go too far by saying that I assume that [for example] Blizzard's only purpose is to put things out for-the-love-of-the-game. The spectrum example though is to show two extremes and to have the person figure out what extreme various companies are closer to.

I only went by what you said. You said something to the extent that some companies put making a good game as their primary goal, while other companies are just out to make money. This is sort of inaccurate, as I pointed out, because ALL companies are just out to make money. The difference is that some companies feel that the best way to do this is to make a few very high quality titles, and other companies feel otherwise. If this is what you meant to say originally, then wonderful: we agree. But you should then be more precise in phrasing your thoughts.

The real [hidden?] point that I was trying to make is that UBI isn't improving the AI, the map editor, documentation, etc. because there's not enough of an economic motive for them to want to do so.

Perhaps you are right. H5 has sold well enough to make further HoMM titles likely, so maybe there is no reason for further improvement of the game. A lamentable decision for us. But you can't think like a gamer in order to understand the decisions of gaming companies.

The point being is that the way to get UBI to do these things is to make it clear that if these things are not done then we won't be buying future editions of the game.

I'll be buying future editions of the game, because I found h5 sufficiently enjoyable. What you do is up to you.

@ Corribus: I assume that his point was that 3DO and UBI are similar in that they both want to make a good game that sells a lot as opposed to wanting to make a CLASSIC that will [only] sell a lot.

H3 was a classic as far as I'm concerned, as were MMVI and VII. So I'm not sure how that point is being demonstrated.

[Bahototh]

Allright, here goes

I've played and enjoyed H5 for some time now, and I think THE feeling's there. at least for me. Every part in the heroes-saga has had some new things. The fact that lots of people seem very passionate about expressing themselves over this Hate/Love subject goes to show that they care. When TotE comes out to complete (?) H5, we really can review the whole thing.

Maybe too soon yet, but I'm already hoping for nr 6. Waaaar!

[OliverFA]

And we all know how 3DO ended...

We do, and it had nothing to do with buying the Might and Magic franchise. H3 was a result of a "bought franchise". And it was fabulous. MY point is that just because a company buys franchises does not mean that they can't turn out a great product from it. Now, please explain, what is YOUR point?

Your are right in the fact that buying a franchise does not imply that the company who buys it will try to make just an average game. But the oposite is true. If a company just wants to make average games and not masterpieces, then the best business plan is to buy already established franchises and continue them with a series of average games.

Those average games are not bad. They have a quite good quality, and even some very good ideas, but lack the level of commitment that a company has when creating a masterpiece. For that reason they would sell much better with a famous brand name attached to them than with an unknown name.

IMHO, Heroes V lacks a lot of details that would make it a true masterpiece. An example of that is the screen that appears when your hero levels up. You end in situations like "Ok, I know I can choose between basic war machines and advanced defense. But unless I have a photographic memory, I don't know which other skills my hero already has". This could be easily solved by placing a button for showing your hero details. It would not really change the game, but would give it that extra bit of quality that makes the difference between a good product and a very good one. And why do we have to edit the configuration files if we want to play in a window?

Are you sure that HoMM 3 was the result of a bought franchise? It was more the result of a smaller company absorbed by a bigger one. NWC was still doing most of the job.

[Pitsu]

I'll be buying future editions of the game, because I found h5 sufficiently enjoyable. What you do is up to you.

What do I do? Probably go and blow myself up in store and take some "don't care about the whiners" with me right when they are buying H6? Well, that is extreme.

@ Corribus: I assume that his point was that 3DO and UBI are similar in that they both want to make a good game that sells a lot as opposed to wanting to make a CLASSIC that will [only] sell a lot.

H3 was a classic as far as I'm concerned, as were MMVI and VII. So I'm not sure how that point is being demonstrated.

If my memory serves me well, then first years 3DO did not interfere with NWC much more than putting their advertisments and logos on NWC games and organizing sales/finances of NWC projects. MM VI was before 3DO anyway. EDIT: Doh, apparently my timeline of events was incorrect.

[UndeadHalfOrc]

Uh, 3DO bought NWC BEFORE Heroes 2 and MM6 came along.
It was around the time Heroes 1 for Windows 95 was released.
I remember it like it was yesterday.

[OliverFA]

Your point is overgeneralizing also. I know of several [small] business that are run because the guys LOVE what they are doing and like to do the best job possible. The fact that they are paid enough so that they can keep on playing [read that as working] in a field that they love is a bonus.

If it's a serious business, then it's still about making money first and the fact that they like what they are doing is an added bonus. You may think that's a semantics issue, but it's a very important one. There may be some small "businesses" that are exceptions to this rule, but by and large, when we are talking about large, mass-produced games - it's always about money in the end.

I think that's not always this way. All companies are there to make money, but some companies believe that the best way to make money is by giving their customers exactly what they want, while others think that is enough to give them something more or less similar to what they wanted. And the same is true as employers. Some employers have the "I pay you, you work for me" attitude and others have the "I know you work for money, but I think that if you enjoy your work you will make better products that will better satisfy my customers and give me more money" attitude.

[okrane]

I would like to post again the fact that without Ubi/Nival the game would of just died. So, there's really no point in ranting over the fact that it's not really a Heroes game.

It kept the series alive and that matters no matter how flawed the game is.

Now if you want a true Homm game, why don't you start making a team, hire the right people and program it yourselves. Name it as you will, but if it's homm quality I'll buy it, and a lot of other fans will too....

[Pitsu]

I would like to post again the fact that without Ubi/Nival the game would of just died. So, there's really no point in ranting over the fact that it's not really a Heroes game.

It kept the series alive and that matters no matter how flawed the game is.

I would draw a parralel with dead king Gryphonhearth who has been raised by someone who might be a cleric casting rescurrection or a necromancer. Now the question is, is the newly raised creature the true king? Or in more modern term would you say: no matter how flawed she is, she is our holy queen Isabel?

IMO it is not that everything that exists is great or that existence itself justifies existence.

[okrane]

I think you're getting too much philosofical... and over a video-game... I mean... c'mon...

[Pitsu]

I think you're getting too much philosofical... and over a video-game... I mean... c'mon...

Since H5 does not please me entirely, I have to find other ways to entertain myself. Yes, it was philosophical.