rotating camera please!

[crislevin]

With gorgeous 3D engine, it is such a disappointment that players can't control the camera angle.

H5 is a vast superior experience than H6 for me, mainly for the free camera and Uplay-free packaging. I know Ubisoft will not relent on Uplay, but at least allow free camera.

Its already in great 3D engine, It is probably just a few line of code plus some testing. Please make it happen.

[Kalah]

-1

Sorry, you're not getting my vote. I was against the rotating camera from the start, ever since H5.

[crislevin]

Thats fine, its also easy to fix. Simply make that an option. So everybody will be happy!

[Kalah]

A noble view, to be sure. The thing is, it's not free. Spending time and development resources on a thing like that (a thing which in my view is unnecessary) would ultimately take time and resources away from another aspect of the game, such as creature model creation or editor development. I don't want that.

[Yurian Stonebow]

*Agrees with Kalah*

Rotating camera is not that much needed while a well-functioning map editor is a must have. Great scenery ("graphics") may be used to attract some new players but a mediocre or just plain bad map editor will serve to alienate a h*** of a lot players. Heroes VI anyone? The "hordes" of fan made maps available for the said game here at CH, huh?


-Yurian

[Groovy]

I agree with Kalah on this. A free camera makes strategising on the adventure map unnecessarily difficult. At least that has been my experience with H5.

[Bloax]

A static camera makes creating secrets much easier while making the detailing job less painful since you don't have to spend time making things look good from all angles.

So really, a static camera has a lot of goodies for a game like HoMM that a free camera doesn't have for much smaller benefits.

[Torur]

I find a free moving camera just makes everything more difficult than necessary. I've never liked it in any strategy game.

[Panda Tar]

I'm also against this.

What I see in H7 development is that people put too much effort (and money) on things we really don't need. And that is regarding about everything on visual design of that game.

They make units with many details as if they were all competing on a fashion-artbook challenge, even when there's no real logic in making them that way (necropolis units, for example, full or grandeur, embellishment and things for a ... non morale army of undead? Why?), and animations, tons of animations. You see, after several battles, you really don't care much about animations or about that fancy shield you weakest core unit is wearing.

Don't get me wrong. I like a beautiful game, but art and beauty doesn't mean mandatory 3D and super gorgeous engines. The game can have simple visuals, beautiful art, and be fun. Which is why people play H3 even today. And that's why I think Ubi Heroes is missing: too much on visuals, less on mechanics and game play wise features.

[Groovy]

I agree with you, Panda, but this is where I think we deviate from Ubi's target player demographic.

[Panda Tar]

I don't know.

I don't want to blame young people, but what I can do is to compare with what I felt when younger: I didn't care much for mechanics back then, but as we didn't have any impressive visuals back then either...

I think people, young people these days, are only too fond of these things. And it's not a bad thing. But I think this fancy-taste is just bad placed. In games such as Mass Effect, Skyrim, Destiny or Assassin's Creed, having great graphics is a big deal, it makes sense and there's a use for it. For games like heroes, it doesn't explain. But it sells.