A goodbye to HOMM! Heroes VI has ended my love for this game

[MattII]

Griffins could fit well in Haven, Academy or Dungeon, since both Western European and Middle-Eastern civilisations have used eagles and lions as symbols of power, but have also villified some species of birds, and black cats were often considered evil.

[Deadguy118]

I un-exiled myself from the pits of hell to comment on this particular thread. Why? Because I remembered that I used to post here once, in happier times. Nice to see that some of you guys are still here.

I've actually been enjoying what I've been playing of Heroes VI so far. Certainly, my opinion could change, but I don't think so. While I'm not sure how all of the changes will pan out in the long run, I can at least tell that most of them were made to make Heroes VI a more viable game for competitive multiplayer, and who knows? Maybe that will be this game's saving grace. The focus on controlling territory certainly seems that way, especially with the way your heroes can town portal their way to any of your forts.

The campaign seems to at the very least be better than that of Heroes V, though that's not saying much considering the voice acting is of about the same quality. Perhaps most depressing are all the random cameos and callbacks that I recognize from the Necro campaign alone. You have to give Ubi credit, at least they are being consistent with their silly generic fantasy lore.

While I can't say that I agree with everything that has been changed, on a fundamental level it's still Heroes, and at this point a new shiny version of that game, that isn't awful, is enough to satiate me at this point. If that's not enough for some, I can understand that.

[Yazman]

Overall I'm very happy with Heroes VI. After the astounding piece of shit that Heroes V was, Heroes VI, while not perfect, is a huge breath of fresh air.

From the stupid cliched, LOTR-esque generic towns of Heroes V - where dungeon were almost entirely dark elves, nature almost entirely wood elves, and "fortress" literally with almost every unit a dwarf of some type, to the crappy interface, to the complete scrapping of the entire game world/setting. Heroes V was to me the worst of the series. Although I did like what they did with Tower, I was very happy with the new take on that.

Heroes VI is better, imo, in almost every way. The towns are much more interesting and creative again, the art style is spot on, the campaign is much better, and overall I'm having a lot more fun with it.

I want to echo Deadguy118 here - some things bother me but overall I'm pretty happy with it.

[Mhorhe]

I too have started playing in the 90s. I too have played through every Heroes game to date, expansions and all.

And generally it was an upwards trend - I liked 2 more than 1, 3 more than 2. 4 was somewhat of a regression, I liked that they were trying to revolutionize things but some of the changes were really off. The 5th felt like a remake of the 3rd with some upgrades, all good!

And the 6th, well, it's finally a deep change of the system that's mostly to the good (unlike the 4th). It's not all roses, of course - but most of what's bugging me are the, well, bugs. I fully expect that the first expansion will correct most of what I don't yet like, while the most important thing is that the game is FINALLY evolving!

Your post is far too long to break down and analyze by section, especially since most of my comments are focused on one thing - most of your grievances are, well, kind of petty. And most of the rest are pure personal preference, which is neither good nor bad.

For example: graphics feel "dead, sterile, generic". Well, to you, maybe - like I said, personal preference and all. To me, not at all. In fact I like the design better than any previous Heroes game - feels less cartoonish than any of them. That's of course, MY personal preference, so not anymore right or wrong than yours, but it doesn't make or break the game for anyone else.

The riflemen versus stealth bomber comparison, or the ants versus humans comparison, is completely off. It would take at least several dozen thousand ants to take down a single human (and we're talking fire ants or something, not your regular garden variety ants), would you like that implemented in a game? Would you like HIII pikemen to be needed in their thousands to take down a single Black Dragon?

Would that be "realistic"? Inasmuch as we're talking realistic in a game with fairies, dragons and evil wizards?

A game has to adhere to some rules of balance. A good example would be the Warhammer 40 k Space Marine.
In official lore, a single Space Marine is a nigh unstoppable angel of death, more armored than a tank, faster and more agile than a corresponding athlete, with 2 hearts, 3 lungs, able to spit poison. And armed with a machine gun that fires goddamn rockets.
..while in the Dawn of War video game, all it takes is one Ork with a big hunk of metal to bring one down.

Moving on. Undead, more specifically Ghouls. Complaint being that Ghouls aren't shambling Romero corpses. This is another instance where it's simply your personal preference - although I do have to ask, for someone that finds the graphic distasteful because they're "generic", you do desire a lot of generic on your units.

Myth: The Fallen Lords, one of the best Real Time Tactic games of all times, features Ghouls. They're a race of knuckle walkers that has some, uh, carnivorous habits. And they were well done, cool, kiiind of scary. They're not even undead, even though they're in league with the undead. And it's okay. You know why? Here's the origin of the word:

"A ghoul is a folkloric monster associated with graveyards and consuming human flesh, often classified as undead. The oldest surviving literature that mention ghouls is likely One Thousand and One Nights. The term is first attested in English in 1786, in William Beckford's Orientalist novel Vathek,[1] which describes the ghūl of Arabian folklore." Wiki.

And another: " One who delights in the revolting, morbid, or loathsome.
A grave robber.
An evil spirit or demon in Muslim folklore believed to plunder graves and feed on corpses."

The Warhammer Fantasy table top game, that has a history of, what, ~30 years? features ghouls. They're humans that have devolved into beasts after the consumption of human flesh. They're not undead, they're alive, and they're not shambling, they're pretty much fast and agile.

Moral of the story? Necropolis didn't have zombies, big deal. They had something else, big deal. Did you also diss the remake of Dawn of the Dead because zombies were fast? Well, here, they're not even zombies. You might not like it - again, personal preference - but that doesn't make it BAD. Or generic. Or whatever you have against it.

Moving on.. "The developers are making this game to make money, rather than because they want to create a game they like to play and which they know many people like to play." Oh, THAT argument. I'm amazed that by this age you'd need that clarification, but still, here's it: GAME COMPANIES MAKE GAMES FOR MONEY. They can pour a lot of heart into their product, but the ultimate goal is still cash. Even if that cash is for "unselfish" reasons - if your product doesn't sell, you don't have money to make your next product, thus rendering your love and care impotent.

Moving on.. Town Portal. This is a case where complaining about homogenization is silly. Having the possibility to town portal while your opposition doesn't is pretty much a GG for the one with the mobility. There' really nothing the other guy can do. Would you have barbarians learn Earth Magic so you can counter your opponent in MP? How about playing against Infernos? The system may be the same for all races, but it works, and it's fine. Balance. You need that.

Moving on.. The whole heroes paragraph hinges on your personal opinion and nothing more. Heroes don't "feel" powerful to you, being able to recruit good heroes from an evil town "feels" bad to you, etc The only thing I can get behind on is the change to retreat. It should be somewhat more drastic, rather than more or less a "get out of jail free" card - but I completely understand and support the idea of making retreat less drastic than it was previously. One mistake shouldn't be so horribly taxed as it was - or would you rather get back to HI, where retreat and suicide were pretty much the same thing?

As for the abilities tree, I would see it richer. FINALLY being able to pick what I want when upgrading, instead of a roll of dice deciding my Barbarian really really needed to choose between Air Magic and Intelligence, is simply grand for me. I applaud the change.

Moving on.. Caravans. I liked that Caravans could be intercepted, attacked, or blocked. On the other hand, their tendency to accumulate at choke points, get blocked, etc, really grated on my nerves. The HVI solution isn't perfect, but it's not bad at all. The only thing I'd change would be to be able to blockade an area or something, a skill somewhat similar to sabotage mine. That would be a neat trick.

The area of control "issue".. maybe you are unfamiliar with Disciples. Which is an absolutely great game in its own right, and has been for a long time now. Not to mention "Z", the old school real strategy game. Area of control is not a bad thing at all. Forts aren't impervious to conquest. You can keep essential mines under your control with a hero there. You can sabotage them. You can plunder them. I don't see what your problem is here, except "it's new and I don't like new and older was better".

Moving on.. The mixed armies thing, well, that is a target for debate. Personally, I'd allow a town to be converted back to its original allegiance. That way, if you decide on stacking up on Kenshis to protect your Crossbowmen or whatever, a passing Necromancer wouldn't render your investment moot.

The rest of the argument, though, is once again really petty. Yes, some neutral stacks are rather more easy to kill.. uh, and what seems to be the issue? Are you implying the other Heroes games had no easy to kill neutrals? Were all the creeps combos of efficiency? You didn't run into a single neutral that consisted solely of Archers, or Peasants, or Mummies?

Moving on.. the chosen factions. Have you considered that some people are happy with the chosen line-up? This really comes off as nothing more than "I wanted Elves and Dragons, and goddamit Ubi you didn't provide". I would have wanted Dwarves. I'm fine with the line-up as it is. I'm aware that balance and time does not allow for EVERY faction to be released at the same time. It's no biggie. If you're that determined about it, it's not that hard - you wait for an expansion and only buy if they deliver what you wanted. Really, you like to complain about everything don't you?

Moving on.. spells. That's a debate in its own right, but it's rather more linked with the relative scarceness of really useful spells/abilities than anything else. Might can't get 3rd tier on Magic, Magic can't get 3rd tier on Might, and not all classes get all spells. Necros can't learn Life Magic. It's a pretty logical system, upgrade it with some more spells (and a better Tears/Blood balance) and we're golden.

Oh, and "Isn’t that as ridiculous as the notion of a Swiss marine unit or Mongolian navy?".. you should be aware that Kublai Khan launched no less than 900 ships to invade Japan in 1274. No, Mongol navy is not a ridiculous idea, it was damn terrifying and only failed because the God(s) intervened. Mongols made use of everything that was needed, from spies through siege engines, primitive blackpowder weapons to ships.

Moving on.. Radiant Glories make me laugh. It's so evident who they catered for with nude, shining women, I can't help but laugh. On the other hand, I don't see it as unbalanced at all. In fact, to me it makes perfect sense.

You have a strong defensive line, anchored by Sentinels/Praetorians, healed by Sisters/Vestals, and with damage provided by Crossbowmen. The Elites come to complement your force perfectly. You can use your Griffins to dive and your Glories as hit and run, while your Riders with Praetorian cover make a pretty damn effective tank. Or you can move your line forward, protecting your damage dealers and then letting loose with everything you've got. How is that unbalanced?

As for the Marksmen language/history lesson - Gaelish longbows were all about rate of fire first and foremost. You shot 6 arrows in the time your crossbow opponent shot 1 bolt. It was hard to AIM longbows because you were drawing to the ear rather than the eye because of the size of the thing - the only reason Longbowmen were such superlative marksmen was muscle memory from long looong years of training. And Heroes Marksmen have been called Marksmen since HIII, continuity is the probable reason for naming them that - something you complained about lacking so far, but fail to mention at this juncture. As for the issue with Marksmen hitting your own units - yes it's annoying. You can:

a) not upgrade them.

b) take care in where you position them.

c) use the racial ability to shield units in the line of fire.

d) hit your own unit for the price of hitting 3-4 of the enemies.

Point d) is really the essential one. You don't seem to complain about the Magogs, but you do complain about the Marksmen. The reason for it eludes me, since it's essentially the same thing. The ability to force the opponent to mind his movement on the battlefield while you're free to run willy-nilly would have been kind of strong.. not that you CAN'T do it. You can shield your own units, or you can pick the hero that ignores Marksmen friendly fire...

Moving on.. the Sanctuary names is one of the few things on which I agree with you. It only takes reading Clavell's Shogun to know that mizu means water, kami means spirit, onna means woman etc. It doesn't strike me as exotic, it does strike me as kind of silly.

On the other hand, the rest of your complaint here is once again, unfathomably, anchored in reality. So we've got a faction that features spirits, frogs, and what are essentially giant snake-men, and you're complaining about not living up to the historical precedent?

The short version of it all is that you don't like it, because it's not like the olden days and you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it doesn't make it a bad game by any means.

[Yazman]

I also think it's funny that he talks about Night of the Living Dead. Yes they call them "ghouls" in that film, but they are and have always been zombies - Romero has said in interviews that he didn't want to call them zombies because he was changing the paradigm so much that he wasn't sure if it was ok to make such a change. What you see in Romero films are zombies, not ghouls, and even in later films they are referred to as... surprise surprise... ZOMBIES!

[Mhorhe]

I also think it's funny that he talks about Night of the Living Dead. Yes they call them "ghouls" in that film, but they are and have always been zombies - Romero has said in interviews that he didn't want to call them zombies because he was changing the paradigm so much that he wasn't sure if it was ok to make such a change. What you see in Romero films are zombies, not ghouls, and even in later films they are referred to as... surprise surprise... ZOMBIES!

Exactly so much of the OP is based on personal preference or personal view on things, and yet the final conclusion is general.

[Panda Tar]

Moving on.. Caravans. I liked that Caravans could be intercepted, attacked, or blocked. On the other hand, their tendency to accumulate at choke points, get blocked, etc, really grated on my nerves. The HVI solution isn't perfect, but it's not bad at all. The only thing I'd change would be to be able to blockade an area or something, a skill somewhat similar to sabotage mine. That would be a neat trick.

It would seem to me that unconnected zones shouldn't provide sharing of hiring, like the AI conquering a fort of yours between two of your zones, so they are not connected. But, given that these days I'm mostly trying to understand why things are done the way they are, even that I don't like them at all, I think hiring anywhere is somewhat linked to the fact that you can build Town Portals. So your units might be teleporting here and there, however we know that even without Town Portal buildings, they are globally available. If it was to be fixed, I think you could have 2 elements to be considered:

• Hiring globally if zones are connected.
  Hiring globally if town portal structure is already built, which would make the zoning connection not necessary anymore.

If you have no town portals nor connected zones, you shouldn't hire all your units in a single place.

I also don't like these generic dwelling boosters outside town. I'd rather see single unit boosting dwelling. More like to the benefit of map making strategy.

Ah, and welcome to the boards.

[Mhorhe]

It would seem to me that unconnected zones shouldn't provide sharing of hiring, like the AI conquering a fort of yours between two of your zones, so they are not connected. But, given that these days I'm mostly trying to understand why things are done the way they are, even that I don't like them at all, I think hiring anywhere is somewhat linked to the fact that you can build Town Portals. So your units might be teleporting here and there, however we know that even without Town Portal buildings, they are globally available. If it was to be fixed, I think you could have 2 elements to be considered:

• Hiring globally if zones are connected.
  Hiring globally if town portal structure is already built, which would make the zoning connection not necessary anymore.

If you have no town portals nor connected zones, you shouldn't hire all your units in a single place.
I also don't like these generic dwelling boosters outside town. I'd rather see single unit boosting dwelling. More like to the benefit of map making strategy.

That.. is an excellent point It was squirming about in my mind but I hadn't given voice to it yet It's why I gave the RTS "Z" as an example in my previous post - it's exactly how area of control worked in that game.

Yes, even if town portals could theoretically explain the multi-town recruitment, I'd much prefer it the way you described - interconnected means you get to recruit from there, not connected means you don't.

I've no opinion on the dwellings, seems fine enough a system but there's room for improvement. Mainly I'd like to see that "blockade" skill I was talking about implemented there as well.

Ah, and welcome to the boards.

Thank you kindly I have to say they're one of the most welcoming and kind boards I've seen as of yet, I'm used to much less warm welcomes out there in the wilderness of the web

[mr.hackcrag]

where dungeon were almost entirely dark elves, nature almost entirely wood elves, and "fortress" literally with almost every unit a dwarf of some type, to the crappy interface, to the complete scrapping of the entire game world/setting.

H6 is just like this and it sucks in this way once again.

[Panda Tar]

Mainly I'd like to see that "blockade" skill I was talking about implemented there as well.

Well, it can be like a "curse" thing. There are those odd obelisks showing where this zone ends and another beings. This Blockade feature could work on these Obelisks, creating a sort of barrier (dunno if it would end up becoming a physical barrier that could even block a hero from passing through, but well...). Given that you can have many entrances to a zone, barrier could avoid contact with any chosen adjacent zone, instead of having to blockade all entrances one by one - which could end up in abuse if only 1 entrace existed, depending on the time those barriers would last to allow you to blockade many of them on a different situation.

Thank you kindly I have to say they're one of the most welcoming and kind boards I've seen as of yet, I'm used to much less warm welcomes out there in the wilderness of the web

People here take the job seriously and as long as people behave, we won't cut their toes nor fry their feet for supper.

[mr.hackcrag]

My goodbye to HoMM began when Ubi wrapped its tentacles around the franchise, but what has just ended my love for the game is listening to extremely weak H6 soundtrack. For me, now there is no longer any pleasure from HoMM.

[Metathron]

My goodbye to HoMM began when Ubi wrapped its tentacles around the franchise, but what has just ended my love for the game is listening to extremely weak H6 soundtrack. For me, now there is no longer any pleasure from HoMM.

You don't like anything about the game? That's a pity. The beta left me cold but I am enjoying the campaigns. Lots of room for improvement, though. I agree the soundtrack is mostly underwhelming.

[mr.hackcrag]

I find it average. And why waste precious free time playing an average game when you can play an excellent game?

I also find releasing unfinished games unconscionable and Ubi has done this so frequently. I hope they go bust so another company has a chance to F*** up HoMM. I'm tired of Ubi and friends F****** it up.

[Mozared]

stuff

Thanks for taking the time to write that out. I was going to respond to the OP point for point myself, but then figured I couldn't really be bothered as there's - in the end- little point to it.

Most of the dislike regarding new stuff in this world is a dislike for change, not because you can logically and rationally figure out that a game was indeed made worse.

The problem is largely that newer games don't 'capture that feeling' as well, but the point is that shamefully, 'that feeling' is forever lost. I was a huge Monkey Island fan in my day, for example, but even though I recently replayed Escape From Monkey Island it really didn't feel the way it did the first time. I'm willing to bet that even though some of you might still play the older Heroes games, starting a replay of Heroes 2 or 3 today would really not give you the same feeling as you originally had. It's kind of unfair to take that out on Heroes 6, though - I think regardless of what the game was like, it would have never lived up to the expectations of some folks around here.

[Mhorhe]

Well, it can be like a "curse" thing. There are those odd obelisks showing where this zone ends and another beings. This Blockade feature could work on these Obelisks, creating a sort of barrier (dunno if it would end up becoming a physical barrier that could even block a hero from passing through, but well...). Given that you can have many entrances to a zone, barrier could avoid contact with any chosen adjacent zone, instead of having to blockade all entrances one by one - which could end up in abuse if only 1 entrace existed, depending on the time those barriers would last to allow you to blockade many of them on a different situation.

Mainly I was thinking something on the lines of "If Hero is within area of control X on day 7/1, you can only recruit locally there". You could put it at level 15-20 so it wouldn't be abusable, especially by secondary heroes. But your idea sounds interesting, if perhaps a little trickier to use correctly (and maybe that's a good thing).

People here take the job seriously and as long as people behave, we won't cut their toes nor fry their feet for supper.

Heard that and took it to heart

Thanks for taking the time to write that out.

My pleasure I realize there was little point to it, but it just annoyed me enough to write that big ol' wall'o'text there. Just so many things that were incredibly small (like, the color of the Phoenix..what?) and yet were presented like this gigantic incredibly broken things that can and will devour the love for Might&Magic from your heart. Silly.

[SoRHunter]

Your post is far too long to break down and analyze by section, especially since most of my comments are focused on one thing - most of your grievances are, well, kind of petty. And most of the rest are pure personal preference, which is neither good nor bad.

This is the fundamental flaw in your argumentation: it all boils down to personal preferences, so your take on HoMM VI is as good as cjlee's.

I too have started playing in the 90s. I too have played through every Heroes game to date, expansions and all.

And generally it was an upwards trend - I liked 2 more than 1, 3 more than 2. 4 was somewhat of a regression, I liked that they were trying to revolutionize things but some of the changes were really off. The 5th felt like a remake of the 3rd with some upgrades, all good!

And the 6th, well, it's finally a deep change of the system that's mostly to the good (unlike the 4th). It's not all roses, of course - but most of what's bugging me are the, well, bugs. I fully expect that the first expansion will correct most of what I don't yet like, while the most important thing is that the game is FINALLY evolving!

For you, IV was some kind of regression. For me (and some others), "the game [was] FINALLY evolving!" and is considered, to this day, the best Heroes game ever made. Or, in your own words:

The short version of it all is that you don't like it, because it's not like the olden days and you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it doesn't make it a bad game by any means.

Thanks for taking the time to write that out.

My pleasure I realize there was little point to it, but it just annoyed me enough to write that big ol' wall'o'text there. Just so many things that were incredibly small (like, the color of the Phoenix..what?) and yet were presented like this gigantic incredibly broken things that can and will devour the love for Might&Magic from your heart. Silly.

There is always a point about voicing one's opinion, although I differ to brand someone's ideas as "Silly".

[klaymen]

<snip>

This is the fundamental flaw in your argumentation: it all boils down to personal preferences, so your take on HoMM VI is as good as cjlee's.

<snip>

For you, IV was some kind of regression. For me (and some others), "the game [was] FINALLY evolving!" and is considered, to this day, the best Heroes game ever made. Or, in your own words:

The short version of it all is that you don't like it, because it's not like the olden days and you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it doesn't make it a bad game by any means.

You *GASP*....you are trying to use reason?
Get off my internet!!

On a more serious note, I cannot agree more.

[Mozared]

There is always a point about voicing one's opinion, although I differ to brand someone's ideas as "Silly".

That's the point though, it's not - I could tell you guys about how I like McDonalds Cheeseburgers over BigMacs, but nobody would give a damn. And even if someone would, the chance that he'd be able to give me information or comments on that stance that is actually new and in some way useful or interesting to me is pretty small.

I think the OP is 'silly' as well because it mostly points out things that are either preference based or flaws in the author's way of playing/looking at things, it's just that I didn't feel like picking the whole thing apart because I don't think there is much point to it.


In response to your post though; it doesn't 'all' boil down to personal preferences. Whether you like the game or not is preference. Whether it's good or not is fact. Main problem is that it's ridiculously hard to define 'good' and 'bad' in situations like these, which is why it's also so hard to comment on say, music.

However, this doesn't mean that everything someone says about a game is inherently opinion - one can make general statements about how the game is similar or differs from previous games and in what ways those similarities or differences are beneficial or detrimental to a specific audience. And while that sounds like confusing and deceptive language, it's really quite easy; I could say something like "the fact that there are less resources in H6 than in the previous games might make it less enjoyable for the hardcore players who are used to strategies based on moving around more to capture mines, but it will probably make the game overall more enjoying for people who aren't stuck to that pattern and want to focus on army- and citybuilding over optimizing economy".

I haven't re-read Mhorhe's post, but I'm pretty sure he points out a couple of these flaws in the OP that aren't really preference based but just plain off.

[Mhorhe]

This is the fundamental flaw in your argumentation: it all boils down to personal preferences, so your take on HoMM VI is as good as cjlee's.

Oh.. right. You are right. Except.. I already said that myself, please re-read my post:

"That's of course, MY personal preference, so not anymore right or wrong than yours, but it doesn't make or break the game for anyone else. "

"You might not like it - again, personal preference - but that doesn't make it BAD. "

"
The short version of it all is that you don't like it, because it's not like the olden days and you just don't like it. Which is fine, but it doesn't make it a bad game by any means."

For you, IV was some kind of regression. For me (and some others), "the game [was] FINALLY evolving!" and is considered, to this day, the best Heroes game ever made.

Aaaand..where exactly did I not make it clear I have nothing against personal preference? It's the very reason I started my post the way I did. And I continued to make it abundantly clear during my, uh, thesis

There is always a point about voicing one's opinion, although I differ to brand someone's ideas as "Silly".

No, you wouldn't call someone's ideas as "silly" What you would do, though, is not read someone's post with any amount of attention or at all, draw the wrong conclusion due to that lack of information, and make an implicit accusation from that Here's my paragraph:
" Just so many things that were incredibly small (like, the color of the Phoenix..what?) and yet were presented like this gigantic incredibly broken things that can and will devour the love for Might&Magic from your heart. Silly."
I never called the author's opinions silly, at any point. Nor did I attack his personal preference in any way. I didn't even call silly some obviously wrong comparisons between real life and a game, or some incredibly minor things (the color of the phoenix?no, really?)

What I called silly was the generalization of his own personal preference + a number of really petty concerns into an overarching conclusion that the game is BAD, and not just bad for himself but for everyone else.

You *GASP*....you are trying to use reason?
Get off my internet!!
On a more serious note, I cannot agree more.

He's using the exact same reasoning I used, nothing more. He just probably didn't bother reading my post, and probably neither did you - which is fine, it was kind of a humongous wall of text.

But you agreeing with him = you agreeing with me

In response to your post though; it doesn't 'all' boil down to personal preferences. Whether you like the game or not is preference. Whether it's good or not is fact. Main problem is that it's ridiculously hard to define 'good' and 'bad' in situations like these, which is why it's also so hard to comment on say, music.

Which was what I called silly - generalizing his opinions/preferences into a conclusion that somehow was true for everyone (?).

I haven't re-read Mhorhe's post, but I'm pretty sure he points out a couple of these flaws in the OP that aren't really preference based but just plain off.

Mainly the comparisons between ants/humans or riflemen/stealth bomber and core/champion units within the game, which are wrong for a whole variety of reasons.

Also his perception of the "ghoul" undead, and the amazing complaint about Marksmen hurting friendly units - which was bad simply because they're called Marksmen, but fine if they had been Magogs (?).

[SoRHunter]

There is always a point about voicing one's opinion, although I differ to brand someone's ideas as "Silly".

No, you wouldn't call someone's ideas as "silly" What you would do, though, is not read someone's post with any amount of attention or at all, draw the wrong conclusion due to that lack of information, and make an implicit accusation from that Here's my paragraph:
" Just so many things that were incredibly small (like, the color of the Phoenix..what?) and yet were presented like this gigantic incredibly broken things that can and will devour the love for Might&Magic from your heart. Silly."
I never called the author's opinions silly, at any point. Nor did I attack his personal preference in any way. I didn't even call silly some obviously wrong comparisons between real life and a game, or some incredibly minor things (the color of the phoenix?no, really?)

What I called silly was the generalization of his own personal preference + a number of really petty concerns into an overarching conclusion that the game is BAD, and not just bad for himself but for everyone else.

First things first: I've read this whole thread from the beginning and didn't shy from any Big Wall of Text. I just point you to the title of the tread:

A goodbye to HOMM! Heroes VI has ended my love for this game

This whole stuff is to show why cjlee is disappointed with the series he loves - it is not to generalise why nobody should like it.

You *GASP*....you are trying to use reason?
Get off my internet!!
On a more serious note, I cannot agree more.

He's using the exact same reasoning I used, nothing more. He just probably didn't bother reading my post, and probably neither did you - which is fine, it was kind of a humongous wall of text.

But you agreeing with him = you agreeing with me

Please, don't insult me. I did read everything. You pointed flaws in cjlee's arguments, naming it "personal preferences" while counter-arguing with your own "personal preferences".

In response to your post though; it doesn't 'all' boil down to personal preferences. Whether you like the game or not is preference. Whether it's good or not is fact. Main problem is that it's ridiculously hard to define 'good' and 'bad' in situations like these, which is why it's also so hard to comment on say, music.

Which was what I called silly - generalizing his opinions/preferences into a conclusion that somehow was true for everyone (?).

Whenever I read a review, I know that I'm getting an informed opinion. Nobody can't simply abandon the framework shaped by culture and habits in order to give an "immaculate" view on the game - one way or another, "personal preferences" will show. It's only human.

I haven't re-read Mhorhe's post, but I'm pretty sure he points out a couple of these flaws in the OP that aren't really preference based but just plain off.

Mainly the comparisons between ants/humans or riflemen/stealth bomber and core/champion units within the game, which are wrong for a whole variety of reasons.

Also his perception of the "ghoul" undead, and the amazing complaint about Marksmen hurting friendly units - which was bad simply because they're called Marksmen, but fine if they had been Magogs (?).

This is a forum - a place to voice one's opinions and to promote discussion. It's just polite to read and comment on the ideas that are presented, even if those "are wrong for a whole variety of reasons". Just point them (as you did)!

Finally, the "Silly" stuff had a smiley with it. It was meant to provoke thought.