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

[OliverFA]

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.

And that is why HoMM V is not a masterpiece. The important thing is "that it is done" not how good it is. For some people this will be ok, but for some other people it won't.

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....

This like saying to someone that didn't like a movie "hey! if you dislike it, Why didn't you make it yourself?". Simply if people don't like a movie they won't go to see the sequel. Or, talking about a game, they won't buy the next installment and, maybe, wait for the gold edition that gives the full fame plus the expansions for half price, instead of paying full price for the game and each expansion.

And by the way, HoMM V is a true HoMM game. The problem is that it is just an average one.

[Wurtzel]

Average according to you... To a lot of people this is the best Heros game of the series... I myself tend to agree with them, although I do recognize it has got flaws...

[Alamar]

@Corribus: I started to discuss each of the points you made but the thread just got too long and would have started going in circles.

I've got a minor in economics with specializations in predictive analysis [not that I've used the analysis piece since college]. I've run my own business before. I've managed customer support for a global company in the SE US region before. I understand perfectly well the traditional business model and the responsibilities that the business has to employees, shareholders, consumers, etc.

From the arguements that you make I am also positive that you understand the same points that I do. I understand the points that you're trying to make and we're in more agreement than I believe you think we are as to general business models / goals / etc.

However I'm not running the HoMM business. As a consumer my goals are:

1. To get the most quality that I can get for a game at a given price.
2. If I don't like certain aspects to try to figure out what can be done to "prod" UBI/Nival to give those things to me.

To do this we need to analyse UBI's actions so we need to consider things like:

-- state of the 1.0 release
-- number of updates to AI
-- number of updates to map editor
-- How UBI handled documentation issues
-- state of release of the 2.0
-- How UBI WILL attempt bug fixes
-- How UBI WILL attempt stability fixes
-- How UBI WILL add extra features to original H5 if it's inexpensive

The above points tend to indicate that the driving force behind UBI's willingness to add to the game / make the game the best it can be is determined by whether they'll realize a short-term ROI on investment. [Probably less than 5 years]

This is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for a company. They are simply looking at economics but if they can throw us a nice [but inexpensive to them] bone they are willing to do so.

This means that I have some hope of getting a better quality product out of them.

Therefore my goal is to try to convince as many people as possible not to buy the game until we see improvements in AI / map editor / etc. Hopefully they will communicate this to UBI. My next hope is that King's Bounty fixes all of my issues [with similar to UBI level elements elsewhere] and sells 2x as much as H5 with much better word-of-mouth. Competition and the possibility for much more unit sales is exactly what I think we need for UBI to give me MORE of what I want.

[Corribus]

@OliverFA

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.

We can agree with your final sentence, although that's not the opposite of what I said. The opposite of what I said (buying franchises does not imply that the games will be bad) is that just because you build up a new game from scratch does not mean that the game will be good. Which I also agree with.

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.

You throw this "masterpiece" word around like it has some absolute definition. Aside from the fact that I think it is sort of silly to apply it to a video game, what is a masterpiece is certainly in the eyes of the beholder.

IMHO, Heroes V lacks a lot of details that would make it a true masterpiece.

There you go: IMHO. It's useless to argue the point. I liked the game. Some people did not. Fine. My whole point here is that to say something like, "It's not a true HOMM because NWC didn't make it," is just silly.

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.

I don't know the whole history - the point is that there were two companies involved, a developer and a producer/distributer. Such companies have very different goals and interests (although both companies are out to make money). But, if NWC was absorbed by 3DO, it was because the people at NWC thought it was the best business decision.

@Pitsu

MM VI was before 3DO anyway.

No it wasn't.

@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.

NWC became a subsidiary of 3DO in 1996. HoMM1 was released in 1995, before NWC was affiliated with 3DO. The first NWC games bearing the Might and Magic brand name to be released under 3DO were HoMM2 (1996) and MMVI (1996).

@Alamar

However I'm not running the HoMM business. As a consumer my goals are:

1. To get the most quality that I can get for a game at a given price.
2. If I don't like certain aspects to try to figure out what can be done to "prod" UBI/Nival to give those things to me.

You and I, I think, believe the same thing. The two points you list above are reasonable goals for any consumer. The mistake that most consumers make - and specifically most fans of anything, be it movies, books, or video games - is that fail to realize that the consumers' goals and business' goals are tangential at best. If they both want to end up with a good product, it's for very different reasons. My whole point in this thread (and a major point of my Discourses articles) is that game fans often whine about how a game turns out and they criticize a company for "being stupid" or "not caring about the fans". But they are led to say such things because they are looking at the situation from a gamer's perspective and not that of the company. I am not in business but by dissociating myself from the game and looking at the situation objectively, I can understand the logic behind development decisions - from a business perspective - even if I do not like them as a gamer.

[okrane]

In an attempt to put this to an end I say:

a) Where are you all trying to get? HOMM5 is made by someone else with their vision of the game. Of course it's different.

You don't like it: better don't buy it. In fact, if more peopl would not have bought it, maybe they would have started thinking to improve.
So what are you all trying to prove here: that fans have bad taste?

b) HOMM5 is made by Ubival. Nothing will change that. HOMM6 will probably be also made by ubival.
No matter how it's called it's something different than the last 4 heroes so what's the problem?

c) You should talk more about their stupid way to deal with fans. That should be the main issue here. The game is faulty because you all see it as faulty, and that's because you were not listened to when the game was designed.

To give again the example of blizzard, if you would all check out for example the official forum of Starcraft2, you'll see that the devs actually ask fans how the game should be, if a feature should be in or out, or even to suggest new things.
Link below:
http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx ... c2-general

d) What is the point to this conversation?
It is like it is and nothing you say won't change it, neither will our opinions change. I fail too see the need for a polemic here...

[OliverFA]

@OliverFA
We can agree with your final sentence, although that's not the opposite of what I said. The opposite of what I said (buying franchises does not imply that the games will be bad) is that just because you build up a new game from scratch does not mean that the game will be good. Which I also agree with.

Yes, we agree about that, so no need to argue. Simply, if you are making a game from scratch you need to make it better because you cannot count on people buying it blindly simply because "they are keeping my favourite game alive".

So, if you know your game will be average, get yourself a brand name to make people buy it.

You throw this "masterpiece" word around like it has some absolute definition. Aside from the fact that I think it is sort of silly to apply it to a video game, what is a masterpiece is certainly in the eyes of the beholder.

I don't think we need an absolute definition of this word to understand what it means in that context. Let's say that "masterpiece" means the developer attitude towards the game. They can try to make a good game, or they can try to make the best game possible. There are always limitations due to time and money, but a company wanting to build (or maintain) a reputation for the long term will be willing to commit more resources, and take more risks. They will also care a lot more about little polishment details.

IMHO, Heroes V lacks a lot of details that would make it a true masterpiece.

There you go: IMHO. It's useless to argue the point. I liked the game. Some people did not.

I like the game too! But I think it is far from being a very good game. It is just a good one. And one of the reasons why I think it is just good and not very good are all those little details. We can argue about those little details if you wish. I already mentioned panoramic screens, not being able to play in windowed mode, and an interface that could be easily improved. Others in this same thread mentioned boring story, abuse of cinematics, no AI updates and being mod-unfriendly (including the so complicated scenario editor).

Fine. My whole point here is that to say something like, "It's not a true HOMM because NWC didn't make it," is just silly.

I agree with you in that statement. It succeeds at capturing the HOMM feeling. On the other hand, being one my complains that it is Heroes III-3D would be silly to say that it does not feel like an Heroes game... ;-)

@Alamar

I also hope that Kings Bounty will end being a good game. This could help making HOMM VI (I have no doubts there will be a HOMM VI) a better game. Not by competition, but by comparison. There are so few games in this niche of the market that they hardly compete against themselves. But if one sets an standard, the next one needs to meet that standard to also sell.

I have no much hopes in Disciples III. To me Disciples games get old too fast. But if we could have an Age of Wonders III...

[Corribus]

I don't think we need an absolute definition of this word to understand what it means in that context. Let's say that "masterpiece" means the developer attitude towards the game. They can try to make a good game, or they can try to make the best game possible. There are always limitations due to time and money, but a company wanting to build (or maintain) a reputation for the long term will be willing to commit more resources, and take more risks. They will also care a lot more about little polishment details.

I could be wrong here, but I do not believe that developers sit around a table before game developers start designing and say, "Ok guys, we're going to try to make a mediocre game this time, so nobody needs to work on Fridays." or "Alright, we've been ordered to make a masterpiece this time, so let's really put some effort into this one." The developer is always going to try to make the best game possible, under the conditions they are given. The conditions come from the producer (who may be the same company, but probably not the same division) as a result of the business philosophy. This can include factors such as allocated budget, time, and intended demographics (game rating, intended age-group, even game style). These decisions also are probably not being made by gamers but businessmen who understand the gaming business. These men/women also are not saying, "Alright guys, we want a masterpiece so let's give the developer unlimited budget and time," or "Well, we just want a game that's so-so, so give them $X.XX to work with and 6 months only." They're are carefully (or not so carefully) making such decisions based on a business strategy. Under the conditions ultimately decided upon, the developer will make as good a game as possible. The ultimate quality of the game derives mostly from this original set of conditions (which are probably modified over time depending on progress), with developer talent, creativity and luck playing minor but not insignificant roles. Note that I say that the conditions are modified over time. If, during development, the developer seems to have something really cool in the works, they may be able to persuade the producer for extra money or more time. Or, if a game that initially had lofty aspirations isn't going so well (or business for the producer isn't going so well), the producers may decide to cut their losses and just release the game prematurely and hope for the best. This is probably what happened to HoMMIV and MMIX.

So I think the developer always INTENDS to make as good a game as possible (it's in THEIR best interest as a dev), but the result is limited by the resources made available by the producer.

I like the game too! But I think it is far from being a very good game. It is just a good one. And one of the reasons why I think it is just good and not very good are all those little details. We can argue about those little details if you wish. I already mentioned panoramic screens, not being able to play in windowed mode, and an interface that could be easily improved. Others in this same thread mentioned boring story, abuse of cinematics, no AI updates and being mod-unfriendly (including the so complicated scenario editor).

They're all subjective. I enjoyed the game very much. Much more than H4, but not as much as H2 or H3. Still, my personal opinion about the game does not mean that (A) it's not a "true" HoMM game (whatever that means) or (B) the dev didn't try to make as "good" (again, whatever that means) a game as possible given the resources that were made. Remember, it is possible to have high aspirations and fail to meet them. It's also a very complex business and I think people have a tendency to try to justify their opinion of a game by oversimplying the development process.

To give again the example of blizzard, if you would all check out for example the official forum of Starcraft2, you'll see that the devs actually ask fans how the game should be, if a feature should be in or out, or even to suggest new things.

You don't know what, if any, kind of Ubisoft/fan discourse went on behind the scenes during development of the game.

[theLuckyDragon]

What's so subjective about windowed mode? So many games have it, it is really useful and it can't be tremendously hard to implement. It has become something like a standard, beyond the preferences of individual fans. It should be in as an option and that's that.

What about interface? I will only mention the lack of the Wait button. It's misleading and inconsistent with the fact that every major comand has its own button. I see no subjectivity here.

You keep talking about allocated resources. You say people oversimplify the development process. Then tell me, how many resources does it take and how complicated is the development process to change Sev. into Several and fix Enought and other typos? Was it oh so overwhelming?

Ah well, I guess what's done is done. We'll see what future patches bring. But I expect more professionalism from both Ubi and Nival.

P.S. Yep, free market is grand. If you don't like it, don't buy it! You can do something else which is not a permitted subject on this forum. Bah...

P.P.S. @okrane:
>> "In an attempt to put this to an end I say..."
You can't seriously believe people will stop posting alltogether because you say something.
>> "d) What is the point to this conversation?
It is like it is and nothing you say won't change it, neither will our opinions change. I fail too see the need for a polemic here..."
That's what forums are for. Conversations.

[Corribus]

What's so subjective about windowed mode?

It's subjective whether someone doesn't give a $h*t about having it. I could frankly care less.

So many games have it, it is really useful and it can't be tremendously hard to implement.

You find it useful. I don't. Subjective.

What about interface? I will only mention the lack of the Wait button. It's misleading and inconsistent with the fact that every major comand has its own button. I see no subjectivity here.

It's subjective whether someone doesn't give a $h*t about having it. I could frankly care less.

[theLuckyDragon]

[Corribus]

Precisely.

[Jolly Joker]

Well, that's the point. Patch 1.6 that will come this month and will bring among a lot of other features the Wait button.
Now, part of the people will say - rightly so - that this feature shoud have been in from the start, indicating that 1.0 was a somewhat incomplete game.
The other part will say - rightly so - that this is proof they are still working and patching on it - do you listen, Alamar? - and that the game will be great eventually.

The main question is, do you like to play the game or not? If not, you will be member of the first group, if yes, of the second.

[Alamar]

Well, that's the point. Patch 1.6 that will come this month and will bring among a lot of other features the Wait button.
Now, part of the people will say - rightly so - that this feature shoud have been in from the start, indicating that 1.0 was a somewhat incomplete game.
The other part will say - rightly so - that this is proof they are still working and patching on it - do you listen, Alamar? - and that the game will be great eventually.

The main question is, do you like to play the game or not? If not, you will be member of the first group, if yes, of the second.

Actually I indicated that UBI is willing to add extra features into the core game [esp. if it doesn't cost a ton of $/time] ... Aside from that they WILL attempt to fix bug & stability issues. That's why I have hope that in the future that they may be convinced to address issues that they haven't done much with yet ... AI, map editor, etc.

The only problem is to convince them that it's in their best interests to address these issues [esp. when there are lots of people willing to buy the game without having these issues addressed].

[OliverFA]

What's so subjective about windowed mode?

It's subjective whether someone doesn't give a $h*t about having it. I could frankly care less.

So many games have it, it is really useful and it can't be tremendously hard to implement.

You find it useful. I don't. Subjective.

With all respects, you are pushing too hard this objective/subjective thing...

Next thing you will say is that 1+1=2 is subjective...

What about interface? I will only mention the lack of the Wait button. It's misleading and inconsistent with the fact that every major comand has its own button. I see no subjectivity here.

It's subjective whether someone doesn't give a $h*t about having it. I could frankly care less.

Well, if I pay for a product, in that case a game, I give something about having it complete and polished. If someone else wants to pay for half done products that's fine with me. Fortunatelly we are in a free world. But in the same way than you use your freedom for not caring about having hald the product, I use my freedom for wanting to have the full one.

@ Jolly Joker:

I like playing the game, but I get tired pretty soon due to all those little annoyances. Specially, I get tired of little but annoying details like watching two black bars on each side of my laptop (is that or having an image that does not respect the proportions). I also dislike having to wait a few seconds to alt+tab from the game to other applications (remember, that's Windows, not a console) or not being able to have the game in a Window.

However, there are other games which I play without that annoying feeling. I do believe that if Heroes V was better polished, I would not have that tiring feeling, like I don't have it with those games. The best example about those games that get perfectly integrated with the rest of Windows is Galactic Civilizations II.

Better late than never! I welcome the inclusion of the wait button in version 1.6.

Now we just need Windowed mode in patch 1.7 and panoramic screens for 1.8. ;-)

[Corribus]

With all respects, you are pushing too hard this objective/subjective thing...

I am? Seems to me that what aspects of a game one considers to be most important are subjective - that is, dependent on the individual perspective. Some people obviously feel that window mode is important. I do not. I never use it nor do I want to use it. Thus the importance of windowed mode in a game is subjective. Same goes for a wait button. I use hot keys anyway, so I really don't give a crap whether there is a wait button. It's subjective because you may feel differently.

Next thing you will say is that 1+1=2 is subjective...

Huh?

[theLuckyDragon]

There are certainly other buyers out there who find windowed mode and buttons useful. I'm not saying they're the majority, but I'll venture to say that they are many.

Just as there are many buyers who, like you, express their distaste for the mentioned features with a harsh tone.

So you see, Corribus, you are not the only person that the game is aimed at.

No need to snap.


1+1=0 in Z(2).

[CrownedWombat]

Hi everyone, decided to jump in after lurking for quite some years

I somewhat think you're getting caught up in minor details here. Stuff like a button or a mode may be an indicator of overall interface/structural polish, but does not make the difference between a great game and a game. It's like arguing that MM6 was behind in terms of graphics. Who cares? I sometimes throw in a round of Oblivion and can't help to think that MM6 was so much more fun.

It is the atmosphere that a game has that makes the difference, how much it immerses us into its world. And having a lot of nice ideas built in and potentially superior graphics, H5 does not. Except for the first times I entered the castle screen, I never felt like "back then".

This may have a lot of reasons. Some I see for me:

(a) I'm no longer a child. I'm approaching my mid-twenties and a CS Master and tend to see things from a technical perspective. I do not doubt that this kills a lot of what the game could have been for me. I see a crappy AI, I see unit and fraction design that is halfway stolen from the Warcraft universe to get a slice of its commercial success.

In H2, which I mostly played, I was trembling in my castle when the "violet guy" on Broken Alliance came around, throwing all my forces at him in a desperate attempt to survive. It was drama, epic battles with a lone boar running around while the broken remains of my towers shot down the enemy.. ..today it's become optimal build orders, leveling paths. Having an AI that is optimized for, hmpf, I dunno what, H5 has become stale and cold.

(b) The game is made for money and you feel it. I think this is more or less the point of the OP. While I in no way am a fan of JVC (I could beat him with his stupid alien stuff coming up in each and every MM game, breaking balance AND all feeling), I see a difference as well. The unit design, the sounds and music aren't distinct any more, the cinematic cam in combat mode is just tedious. While they cleaned up the game universe (which I do appreciate), they left it behind lifeless.
The coming expansion is a nice example of this as well. While form a strategist's perspective having 200 somewhat different units is intriguing, it is just tedious for me (plus I take on ANY bet they massacred what was left of game balance).
I personally liked H2 (again), not everything was upgradable, and why the heck should it be? This is not a turn-based new korean superpowergamer-aimed Starcraft in Fantasy, at least it shouldn't be. It's HoMM. At least I hoped for it to be.

(c) Mediocre teams spawn mediocre games. There are only so many really good games out there, and they are, prove me wrong, done not by some contractors who deliver code milestones and get money but by a team who grew on this project. See id, Bethesda, the GalCiv people (never played, but I'm following the tenor of it being outstanding) and the team that made Civilization. Maybe Blizzard and CCP as well. These are more or less independent teams, that operate on a when-it's-done basis. There seldom was a good game, that was created by a team hired by the publisher. All the innovations in games came from small groups that had an idea and worked it out. And got bought up. All are EA, Ubi oder MS now. And I've yet to see another milestone to come from there.

Well. I somewhat lost my train of thought here, but the better for you, I guess that was enough of blah anyway. Still got some things in the back of my head, but guess I'll post them as the discussion goes on.

[smith-b-d]

I see unit and fraction design that is halfway stolen from the Warcraft universe to get a slice of its commercial success.

Oh, for f_cks sake... how many times have i heard this fanboy bullsh!t.

Im sorry but warcraft did not invent or design elves/dwarfs/orcs or any other part of the heroes universe (give some credit to LOTR and every other fantasy writer & artist there is you douche bag), not only that but the might and magic universe has been around far longer(1986) than blizzard even has (1991).

Blizzard has not EVER come up with a single original universe... even starcraft(1998) rip's off the alien versus predator comic(1992)... three teams, aliens, human & technological advanced aliens, calling them protoss, zerg and terrain doesnt make them original.

I swear im going to kill the next blizzard fanboy i meet.

----

As for the rest of your post, welcome to adulthood... its where nothing is original or exciting anymore.

(c) Mediocre teams spawn mediocre games.

I'm not going to bother listing every great game that was developed by a mediocre team just to prove you wrong, so ill just list one... warcraft. Blizzard was once mediocre too.

Maybe Blizzard and CCP as well. These are more or less independent teams, that operate on a when-it's-done basis.

Yes, and just how many billions do they have to do things this way? They have a luxury that the other 99% of developers & publishers out there simply cannot afford.

[UndeadHalfOrc]

CrownedWombat, excellent post.

Reading your bit about being afraid of purple in "Broken Alliance", makes me want to share a similar moment in HOMM2 in an old map I had NEVER played before yesterday: Revolution. You're Undead and in the center of the map against 5 castles, all allied against you. I'm having no problem in HOMM3, but MAN do I suck in HOMM2 now. I have succeeded in retaking my 2 necro castles back, but the enemy heroes have Lightning Bolted ALL of my Liches and Vamps, I'm left with nothing buy my lev1-3 walkers and not much experience to show for it

[Alamar]

I see unit and fraction design that is halfway stolen from the Warcraft universe to get a slice of its commercial success.

Oh, for f_cks sake... how many times have i heard this fanboy bullsh!t.

Im sorry but warcraft did not invent or design elves/dwarfs/orcs or any other part of the heroes universe (give some credit to LOTR and every other fantasy writer & artist there is you douche bag), not only that but the might and magic universe has been around far longer(1986) than blizzard even has (1991).

While I agree with your opinions on faction design I would say that in a purely artistic sense the units seem like they draw too much inspiration from WarHammer Fantasy.

(c) Mediocre teams spawn mediocre games.

I'm not going to bother listing every great game that was developed by a mediocre team just to prove you wrong, so ill just list one... warcraft. Blizzard was once mediocre too.

Blizzard may have been mediocre at some things but they have never been mediocre from a perceived quality and "fun" perspective. If you have evidence to the contrary though I'm willing to listen.

Maybe Blizzard and CCP as well. These are more or less independent teams, that operate on a when-it's-done basis.

Yes, and just how many billions do they have to do things this way? They have a luxury that the other 99% of developers & publishers out there simply cannot afford.

Do you think that Blizzard is in their position totally by accident?

I would contend that the reason that they [and several other companies] are in their position is because of the choices that they made in earlier games have put them into this position.