H7 Review Categories

[Kalah]

Hi, guys!

I'm thinking about my review these days, and I started thinking about the possible categories that can be put up. In my H6 review, the categories were campaigns, editor, gameplay, graphics and music.

I'm taking suggestions.

[Pol]

And were you able to test the game editor, by creating a map? :p

[Panda Tar]

Hm, gameplay has many branches, so I think you ought to consider dismembering it into things such as Skills, Spells, Adventure Map, Town management etc. Replayability too and, of course, Technical Issue which are a part of the game either we like or not. Upon graphics review it should be expressed if it matches the Requirements too, specially because you cannot tell the requirements are so demanding by the graphics we have seen so far. I think these topics are factual enough.

[gourley4p]

The 4 major areas I see in the game are as follows:
1. Campaign
2. Skirmishes
3. Multiplayer
4. Map editor

Those may have subcomponents as Panda Yar noted, but those four modes are the main areas.

[Pol]

Sounds like AI, if it's good enough to pose a category itself.

[Kalah]

Some things can be included in "umbrella" categories, I'm sure. The AI may be one such thing - last time, I included it in the "gameplay" category.

[Panda Tar]

I think you can use 5. Replay Value, because it's entwined with all others.

[cjlee]

You really need a category on technical issues.

Most games you can just assume they are reasonably bug free and have no game breaking technical issues, but sadly this is still not the case with H7 and might not be for months to come eg the recent 1.5 patch problems as they say, they still can't fix.

[Kalah]

Yeah but bugs can also be included in a supercategory that tells of how the game is to play. Rest assured it will be addressed.

[Erwinner]

1 Gameplay (quality and coherency of game design + evolution of the formula + fun factor + other content + Ubisoft scenario design)
2 Aesthetics (quality of graphics + quality of art direction + "Heroes feel" + music and audio + quality of Ubisoft story and writing)
3 User experience (interface and intuitiveness + technical performance + bugs + multiplayer and modes + DRM or lack thereof)
4 Lifespan (AI + "just one more turn" replayability + editor and RMG + customization + scope of content and value for money)

please don't devote entire quarters or fifths of your review to talk only about just story campaigns or just music, those are too meaningless and completely unimportant fluff to determine if the actual game is good overall or not lol

[Kalah]

Yes, those are quite good. I'm not sure how much focus I will place on each category, but the campaigns will of course be outlined since they are such an important part of the game - that is, the single player experience. While we here at CH have high expectations for replayability, the SP playthrough is also a big part of it for a lot of players.

[Erwinner]

as a person who only plays single-player, official campaigns and storywriting aren't important or worth any significant weight in the review, it misses the point, it's like attacking a movie for not being interactive enough, unless you're giving commentary on the level design in general which includes skirmishes and multiplayer maps

can you imagine how ridiculous somebody would sound if they rated vanilla Heroes 3 a crap game because the official RoE campaigns are lame, or if they rated vanilla Heroes 4 the best game in the series citing its wonderful campaigns and story as a valid reason, that would be nonsense lol

[Kalah]

Indeed but as the review should be servicing both typical campaign players and those players who prefer other aspects of the game, both should be gone into.

[iLiVeInAbOx05]

For me, the story of a game is important. I always check reviews for two things: 1) Is the game playable? and 2) Is the story well written?

I pretty much only buy games where there is a good single player campaign with a well written story. I used to like the multiplayer stuff like Starcraft, but I feel it's just such a waste of time now and I'd rather be doing other things. So, well written story and playable games for me.

Of course, it has to be a game type that I enjoy as well

[Panda Tar]

I play mainly single player, mainly scenarios. I usually play Campaign to get the feeling of the game, to learn a bit about mechanics and factions; I rarely pay attention to story in Heroes games. I pay attention to story in games such as Mass Effect though. In Heroes, I can keep reading stuff if they have a flair of originality. If they start going to some more usual way, I grow bored rather fast and start skipping everything.

But I agree it's important in consideration to everyone who values Campaign gaming and you, as this site Admin, must cover all sides.

[gourley4p]

Erwinner gives you some great lenses through which to view each section. While I understand his excellent point about not giving to much weight to any play mode, I disagree with the premise that they don't each deserve separate attention. For instance, if I were to review MMH7 solely by my very positive Campaign experience, it would unfairly ignore the horrible state of multiplayer at launch. I might never play multiplayer, but that is the best part about for others. Likewise, the small number of skirmish maps combined with the reported inaccessibility of the map editor means I probably would rate the game low for a single player like Panda Tar who live for the one-off scenarios.

[Galaad]

The thing about campaigns is that you won't play them ad infinitum. I believe most players will play them once or twice then that's it, single scenarios/skirmishes will be the important part, and how replayabale they are.
The thing bothering with multiplayer is there is so much focus about balance that creatures get replicates abilities, heroes with the fixed skillwheel get optimized on rail paths, once you got around it there will be no much fun anymore, people will limit themselves to duels, forgetting how important and immersive exploration part is.

[Erwinner]

Erwinner gives you some great lenses through which to view each section. While I understand his excellent point about not giving to much weight to any play mode, I disagree with the premise that they don't each deserve separate attention. For instance, if I were to review MMH7 solely by my very positive Campaign experience, it would unfairly ignore the horrible state of multiplayer at launch. I might never play multiplayer, but that is the best part about for others. Likewise, the small number of skirmish maps combined with the reported inaccessibility of the map editor means I probably would rate the game low for a single player like Panda Tar who live for the one-off scenarios.

cheers man, and I agree with covering the campaign mode in the review, I just wouldn't devote a large chunk of it to that mode and lump skirmish maps and multiplayer in elsewhere, like the H6 review (IMO if any mode should be weighted higher in importance, it should really be the completely unscripted scenarios and random maps, which represent the actual *game* itself in its purest form lol)

[gourley4p]

The thing about campaigns is that you won't play them ad infinitum. I believe most players will play them once or twice then that's it

I agree somewhat. For instance, I have been going two months on the Campaigns so far. I will probably finish by the end of January. By then, it will almost be time for the Axeoth DLC. By the time I finish those, it will nearly be time for the first expansion. It is all about play style. For me, 4-6 months of gameplay will be very nice for the price.

That said, replayability would be low if that is all I ever did. I would hope for much longer life via the modding and map making community. And, as you say, that will be evaluated for any game in the Heroes series as we gamers hold it to the gold standard that is III.

[Karmakeld]

@erwinner the problem with 'skipping' past the campaign review is when it comes to rating innovation. Surely the campaigns will include scripted events that's innovative compared to older Heroes games, and you won't find these innovations, in unscripted maps, hence you'd miss the progress. Ofcourse one might be able to cover this via eviewing the editor, but again, we don't know if there are ingame scripted events that aren't availble for players in the editor, e.g. such as dams being broken down, and water flooding out. And in my optic, not taking these matter in consideration, would be unfair for the future map-makers, who would want to know what innovative possibilities H7 has to offer compared to older versions. As gourley4p writes, the map making community is a big part of what keeps Heroes games alive, long after release.