Heroes III VS Heroes IV

[Corribus]

Exactly, multiplayer mode is the heart of the game.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that multiplayer was the heart of the game. My bad. I guess I neglected to read that part of the manual.

[HodgePodge]

Since I have a major love affair with both games, I voted "I love them both the same". I keep going back & forth between Heroes III (WoG) & Heroes IV (Equilibris). Both of these magnificent addon mods have greatly increased the interest & replayability of Heroes III & IV.

Right now I'm in the middle of a great WoG map but when I finish it I'll get itchy to play Equilibris again.

In spite of the fact that I have dozens of "other" games on my computer, I still always keep returning to Heroes of Might & Magic … the GREATEST game ever conceived by the mind of man!

I LOVE Heroes!

[Boromir]

My bad. I guess I neglected to read that part of the manual.

(...) the AI IS one of the most important aspects of a computer game (...)

My bad. I guess I neglected to read that part of the manual.

I wonder, if you can just accept that one can have a different opinion than you?

I played H3 a lot and love this game, but love H4 more. For me, for example, the graphics is also one of the most important aspects, and in case of the graphics the difference betweeen H4 and H3 (especially adventure map) is huge (I'd not write that it exceeds the difference in AI, because it's impossible to compare those two things) - if the graphics wasn't so very important to me, I would play Master of Magic all the time, because in terms of the gameplay it was better than any of HoMM series (for me). However, the very most important aspect is the game's mechanics: the hero development system (fantastic in HoMM4), units without heroes, etc. And, please, don't make an irony that you didn't read this in manual, because it's just my opinion - just like yours is yours.

[Gaidal Cain]

You take me too literally and neglect the obvious hyperbole in my analogy. My goal wasn't to make a mathematical comparison of Heroes to pizza. Even though I'm sure you could find good uses for bad pizza.

Considering you made that connection yourself, I don't think I can be blaimed when I point out that it's flawed. I quote:

There's absolutely no sense in this comparison, because the taste iseverything in case of pizza, while AI is not everything in case of HoMM.

[...]I disagree. Taste is almost everything in pizza, and having adequate competition is almost everything in a computer game.

Thus, you've equalled "taste" with "adequate competition". From a multiplayer's POW (which isn't mine, but the point is still valid), a game could ship without an AI and still be equalled to "best pizza in the world".

The point is that when you are judging the greatness of a computer game (or anything for that matter) and you rank the game as the best in the series, but then add that the only deficiency of the game is one of the most crucial and important aspects of ANY computer game (and MP or not - the AI IS one of the most important aspects of a computer game, when viewed as a whole), then your ranking just doesn't make sense.

Considering the differenses between H3 and H4, the ranking could still make great sense- if some of the things changed from H3 to H4 was such that something loathed got changed into something good, H3 could be unplayable while H4 would be tolerable, failed AI or not. If I compared H4 with some FPS with a terrific AI, I'd probably still rank H4 higher, just because the game suits me more. Thus, the AI is not nearly everything as you try to have it- it's a very important part, sure, but that doesn't mean that it overrules everything else.

[pepak]

the AI IS one of the most important aspects of a computer game, when viewed as a whole)

That's a very unique opinion. Do you know of anyone who shares it? It surely isn't the mainstream market (where the genre and the graphics seem to be the most important aspects). In fact, there is only _one_ genre that I can think of that absolutelly require a decent AI, and that's chess, bridge and similar games. All others seem to have a good AI as an optional extra. (Btw., for me the single most important aspect of a game is the music; nothing else comes even remotely close)

Besides, I find it a bit useless to argue AI in case of Heroes games, because the AI sucks in all of them. I find the distinction of "H3 AI is slightly less awful than H4 AI" insignificant when compared to e.g. ballance (H3 rules) or game depth (H4 rules).

[Pol]

the AI IS one of the most important aspects of a computer game, when viewed as a whole)

That's a very unique opinion. Do you know of anyone who shares it?.

If you asked... I believe in that too.

(Or I should say that's true, because believing is only sort of phrase in this case for me....)

Sound like that: "The AI is the extremly important thing behind, you may didn't notice it at the first glance but finally that's what makes the game."

[Metathron]

Heroes 2. Well, it was where I started playing the series. However I'm not impressed by it anymore in the least. Simple skill system, simple tactics, and I don't even like the graphics anymore as the so many people seem to. Still, it's ok game, just surpassed by H3 and H4 (which almost everyone would agree ARE better games if people just started being realistic instead of nostalgic).

If you really want to be realistic then you ought to take each Heroes game and not just pit it against one another, but consider when each of them was published (H1 - 1995, H2 - 1996, H3 - 1999, H4 - 2002) and also keep in mind that each next hero game is based off of the previous one. Thus, H2 is the best game overall, at least for me.

[Corribus]

And, please, don't make an irony that you didn't read this in manual, because it's just my opinion - just like yours is yours.

Oh - I was under the impression that you felt that your opinion was right, and that I just wasn't thinking before I posted. I wonder what gave me that idea?

[Corribus]

the AI IS one of the most important aspects of a computer game, when viewed as a whole)

That's a very unique opinion. Do you know of anyone who shares it? It surely isn't the mainstream market (where the genre and the graphics seem to be the most important aspects).

ONE of the most important aspects.

In fact, there is only _one_ genre that I can think of that absolutelly require a decent AI, and that's chess, bridge and similar games. All others seem to have a good AI as an optional extra.

Then I wonder why all these programmers are hired to write AIs for computer games? If it's so unimportant, why even make one at all? You don't think a good AI is necessary in a first person shooter? That's strange - because every review at gamespot I read about first-person shooters always evaluates the AI. Not much point in playing a shooter by yourself if the AI isn't very good.... unless you just like listening to the music. And obviously a good AI is mandatory in any strategy game because unless you're playing the game versus other humans, you're playing it against the computer.

Besides, I find it a bit useless to argue AI in case of Heroes games, because the AI sucks in all of them. I find the distinction of "H3 AI is slightly less awful than H4 AI" insignificant when compared to e.g. ballance (H3 rules) or game depth (H4 rules).

I don't find the H3 AI "slightlyless awful" than the H4 AI. I don't even consider the two to be anywhere close. The H4 was simply broken and didn't work at all. The H3 AI, while open to exploitation, was at least functional. They aren't even comparable.

[Humakt]

If you really want to be realistic then you ought to take each Heroes game and not just pit it against one another, but consider when each of them was published (H1 - 1995, H2 - 1996, H3 - 1999, H4 - 2002) and also keep in mind that each next hero game is based off of the previous one. Thus, H2 is the best game overall, at least for me.

Sure, if I'd take into the account what you said and be extremely nostalgic then Doom is the best FPS overall since it came 1994 and I was very addicted to it then. Which it is definitely not, and so neither is HoMM 2 better than 3 or 4 (or possibly 5).

Actually, HoMM2's relation to HoMM3 is pretty much the same as Civ2's relation to Civ3. If the games were different enough of each other like Civ3 is from Civ4 and HoMM 3 is from HoMM4 then they might be little harder to rank. But in Civ2's and HoMM2's cases they both are surpassed by their sequels which are just plain better and improved.

But world looks different through pink (nostalgic) glasses.

[Corribus]

If you really want to be realistic then you ought to take each Heroes game and not just pit it against one another, but consider when each of them was published (H1 - 1995, H2 - 1996, H3 - 1999, H4 - 2002) and also keep in mind that each next hero game is based off of the previous one. Thus, H2 is the best game overall, at least for me.

Sure, if I'd take into the account what you said and be extremely nostalgic then Doom is the best FPS overall since it came 1994 and I was very addicted to it then. Which it is definitely not, and so neither is HoMM 2 better than 3 or 4 (or possibly 5).

Metathron makes a good point. It's basically equivalent to the statistical principle of normalization. What he's saying is that it's unfair to compare, for instance, H2 to H4 at face value. You have to normalize your perception of the game for natural advances in technology. In statistics, of course, normalization is easy to do; however in opinions, which are qualitative evaluations, it is not so easy.

[Humakt]

I don't find the H3 AI "slightlyless awful" than the H4 AI. I don't even consider the two to be anywhere close. The H4 was simply broken and didn't work at all. The H3 AI, while open to exploitation, was at least functional. They aren't even comparable.

Funny, because it certainly works in my computer. Actually HoMM4's battle AI IS better than one in H3. Also, AI in HoMM4 IS NOT sitting duck even though it certainly wastes a lot of its moves when visiting objects, possibly bug. Maybe you should try updating your HoMM 4 from version 1.0 to Equiblris and try some decent player made maps instead of crappy official ones.

You have to normalize your perception of the game for natural advances in technology.

Design, playability and interface aren't things really restricted by technology. Which is why some games like Fantasy General, Betrayal at Krondor and King of Dragon Pass are still great atleast to me. But that's an opinion.

[Corribus]

Funny, because it certainly works in my computer. Actually HoMM4's battle AI IS better than one in H3. Also, AI in HoMM4 IS NOT sitting duck even though it certainly wastes a lot of its moves when visiting objects, possibly bug. Maybe you should try updating your HoMM 4 from version 1.0 to Equiblris and try some decent player made maps instead of crappy official ones.

1. I should be more specific: by AI I am referring to the adventure AI. The H4 combat AI I agree is decent. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to claim it's better than the H3 battle AI, because it does do a lot of really stupid things (although so does the H3 battle AI). But it does at least stay competitive. A lot of the problems with H4 battles are due to flaws in the design, particularly the strength of Heroes, rather than deficiencies in the AI. Still, the adventure AI is so bad that it overwhelms any positive contribution of the battle AI.

2. I don't really consider Equilibris as relevant to the discussion, as it's not officially part of H4. Neither is WoG officially part of H3. Besides which, does Equilibris modify the H4 AI at all, anyway?

3. Aside from the H4 campaigns, I did not play any of the "crappy official ones". I have played many of the "great" custom-made H4 maps and I have to say that I liked very few of them because of the problems with the AI.

[Metathron]

Sure, if I'd take into the account what you said and be extremely nostalgic then Doom is the best FPS overall since it came 1994 and I was very addicted to it then. Which it is definitely not, and so neither is HoMM 2 better than 3 or 4 (or possibly 5).

Actually, HoMM2's relation to HoMM3 is pretty much the same as Civ2's relation to Civ3. If the games were different enough of each other like Civ3 is from Civ4 and HoMM 3 is from HoMM4 then they might be little harder to rank. But in Civ2's and HoMM2's cases they both are surpassed by their sequels which are just plain better and improved.

But world looks different through pink (nostalgic) glasses.

Then perhaps it's time you shed these glasses that you constantly keep referring to and stop trying to put said glasses on those you are having diametric views with.

Like I said, in my opinion Heroes 2 is the best heroes game, even though I hardly ever play it anymore, having "replaced" it in favour of H4. That doesn't mean I consider H4 better, just different.

But I think it would be prudent if we put this one into the agree-to-disagree basket.

[Nucleon]

If you really want to be realistic then you ought to take each Heroes game and not just pit it against one another, but consider when each of them was published (H1 - 1995, H2 - 1996, H3 - 1999, H4 - 2002) and also keep in mind that each next hero game is based off of the previous one. Thus, H2 is the best game overall, at least for me.

Nucleon does not need the relativity of ages; he thinks as of this very day, that H3 (WoG) does not suffer from the comparison with its successor, H4, whereas he cannot seriously compare H3 to H2, however charming was the later.

[[T]osHiro]

Both are almost the same. I like H3 for its strategy and H4 for its RPG.

[Justice]

I agree with Corribus, Kristo, Wimfrits, BAndobras Took, Black ghost (he choose 4, but still), Dragon Angel.... gah I give up, it's to boring to find them all . I'd like to vote for Heroes II, but since I can't, I'll go with H3.

[Kareeah Indaga]

Vote Heroes III

I like the town set-ups much better in 3 than 4. I dislike choosing creature dwellings; it's largely useless as some choices are obviously better than others and it is irksome to take a town and find it doesn't match up with my previous settlements. I hate H4's magic system. I like H3+expansions plot much better. Creatures are generally cooler looking in H3 IMO. Haven't done a side-by-side comparison of the music but I generally listen to H2 anyway. I don't play multiplayer so I don't care how well the game functions with a human exploiting the game system. I do miss caravans, however.

[MistWeaver]

Vote for H4.
I love H3. But I love H4 much more. And I love H2 no less than H4.
And Im not sure If I will love H5 at all.

[george137]

Vote Heroes III

I like the town set-ups much better in 3 than 4. I dislike choosing creature dwellings; it's largely useless as some choices are obviously better than others and it is irksome to take a town and find it doesn't match up with my previous settlements. I hate H4's magic system. I like H3+expansions plot much better.I do miss caravans, however.

Can you explain how choosing creature dwellings is largely useless or why you hate Heroes IV's magic system? The creatures in Heroes IV seem pretty balanced (equilibris) and if a towns creatures doesn't match up with anothers it isn't always bad. With Heroes III I found it annoying when a level 5 has armagedon.