My H5-rant\whine (long post)

[Akul]

I'm not from UBI but I care about how other fans feel about the game. You NEED a strong community behind a HoMM like game and if a major section of the community has problems with the game then THAT IS A PROBLEM.

BTW: If I were from UBI / Nival the game wouldn't have been released yet. More maps, Better AI, real documentation, and a map editor would have been in the intial release.

As far as "H4 fan" point of view if you LOVE H4 then you're going to be unhappy with H5 [duh]. Is there any other reaction you could have but disappointment??!?!?!?!

You should read before you post alamar. I never told that I am dissapointed. In fact, I was positively suprised. But the game isn't PERFECT! So we whine to make it better. Do you think that developers would improve anything if noone told: "That isn't good. It should be repaired!!" A hell would they!

In fact, why did they make H3? H2 was a good game! Theer is no need to make anything new if fans say that everything is alright! This way, H3 would never be created.

Actually I could see something like that in the bible. Going out amongst the people to raise an army for the cause of rightousness and having the people come to the cause of the great hero IS the stuff of legends Heck the entire point of the Queen Campaign is for a great hero to go amongst the people to raise an army ........

As far as "frustrating" you don't HAVE to do any of this if you don't want to. If you do want to then [IMHO] it's not unreasonable to me to have to hire a hero to do these chores. My strong preference would be for a way to automate this so that once you set things up you [the virtual GOD] wouldn't have to worry about it anymore.

You can be a hero if you are going into battles. Every f**k*** peasant can rail the militia. He just needs to say: "join the army of queen Isabel!" and they will run to see her or die for her (or both). There is no need to see her imidiately. And especialy not a hero who never fought a battle.

And if I don't send hero there, then I would easily lose the fight with AI who cheats!

[ywhtptgtfo]

Didnt even bother to pick up H5. I haven't been impressed with the screens or the demo since the start. As much as I dislike H4, I'd say H5 is even worse. I might have more fun playing H1 instead.

[Akul]

Didnt even bother to pick up H5. I haven't been impressed with the screens or the demo since the start. As much as I dislike H4, I'd say H5 is even worse. I might have more fun playing H1 instead.

If you liked H3, you'll like H5. Almost the whole gameplay (just improved) is there. Unles you don't like H3, that is.

[HMMFan]

Well, so far, I have to disagree with Ethric's review and many who have agreed with him. But I disagree in this way...I like the game. I personally enjoy it and am not bored yet. Are there problems? Of course. I am hoping that the patches over the next couple of months will fix the nits that people have noted here. Am I bothered by the fact that the game was released with the bugs and deficiencies? Somewhat, but not much. My annoyance is greatly mitigated by UBI's statements that they will address the deficiencies soon. Let's hope they follow through.

As for game design decisions, I just do not ascribe to the opinions of the posters here. I personally did not like many of the H4 ideas, e.g. the flaggable mills and creature generators. They are not mines and are meant to require an affirmative decision on the player's part to go and obtain their benefits. I also did not like caravans for the same reason. I think the idea of the army going to far without resupply is more in line of my idea of strategic game warfare. But , I am not saying that my opinion is the "right" way of doing things. I understand why people prefer the above game design, it just did not appeal to me. There is no need to re-open this debate, and is merely offered as the basis for my opinion of the game.

When looking at this game in a wider perspective, I think UBI made the calculated decision to lose the posters here as fans of the game in the hopes they can be replaced with new fans. It is unfortunate in some way, but from a business perspective, you can look at it as the option between attempting to resolve game designs made in Heroes 4 that resulted in a game that did not sell well enough for a more conservative approach building upon a wildly successful game and making iterative improvements. It is not surprising that most people at CH don't like that approach because most of you are fans of Heroes 4 (I stopped playing it after a month or so, and went back 3-4 times, with Equilibrius, but as I am not a MP, it held nothing for me). In turn, when it comes time for Heroes 6, the posters remaining at CH will be mostly H5 fans.

In any event, I am sorry that Ethric et al. don't like the game, but I am having fun. Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with his conclusions.

[Akul]

[quote="HMMFan"]<snip>[quote]

Who told that the game is bad? I personaly think that it is one of the best TBS's.
Also, H4 was sold good enough. And was succesful. Many fans don't like it, but still, it gave much money to 3D0 and NWC. They bancrupted because the "Four Riders of Apocalipse" which was the most expensive project in history of PC games.

P.S. I don't play H4 MP and enjoj it. It all depends on personal tastes.

[ThunderTitan]

It is unfortunate in some way, but from a business perspective, you can look at it as the option between attempting to resolve game designs made in Heroes 4 that resulted in a game that did not sell well enough for a more conservative approach building upon a wildly successful game and making iterative improvements.

And silly little me that though that H4 didn't sell well because of the sad state it was released in. Games sell the most in their first month, and H4's sorry state at release insured many people didn't buy it at that time.

[LordErtz]

I'm just curious here, but does anybody else's computer have a problem with the 3d engine? Enough to make the overview map frustrating? I run a 2.6ghz with 1 gig of ram and a raedon 8500...on VERY LOW setting it frustrates me.

I also run it on my laptop athlon 3700+ w/ ati raedon 9700 pro mobile and 1.2 gigs of ram...on LOW it even has problems... JUST ME???

I agree that the graphics are great..they are colorful and give a rich texture to a fantasy world that we love, but I personally think it's too much to the point that the strategy used to play the game is actually more cumbersome and less enjoyable

What resolution are you using?It fares better on 1024x768 then on 800x600.

yup 1024x768....bleh...too many graphics

But I agree that we whine because we want improvements (improvements that should have been standard already). We all hope somebody from ubi or nival or wherever reads this post and all the other whiner posts on the internet so they can fix things like

1. Dungeon - Upgrade to assassins says "allows to produce scouts"
2. Dungeon - "allows to produce deep dragons"

I mean holy hell, it feels like I'm playing BETA!

[HMMFan]

It is unfortunate in some way, but from a business perspective, you can look at it as the option between attempting to resolve game designs made in Heroes 4 that resulted in a game that did not sell well enough for a more conservative approach building upon a wildly successful game and making iterative improvements.

And silly little me that though that H4 didn't sell well because of the sad state it was released in. Games sell the most in their first month, and H4's sorry state at release insured many people didn't buy it at that time.

I am not sure what you intended by quoting me and adding your comment. Whatever the reason why H4 did not sell well, it did not sell well. It's not my fault for pointing out the indisputable fact that the game did not sell "well enough." if you want to ascribe its poor sales because of bad implementation instead of its ideas, thats fine. I did not make any assertions concerning that issue at all.

Unfortunately, Sauron, you are correct and incorrect at the same time. The demise of 3do came about because the company was in dire straights and depending on the success of H4 to "save" the company. That is not my opinion, but rather the reason cited by the attorneys and business people of 3do who put together the annual 10K and quarterly 10Q filinsg made by the company with the US SEC. Basically, they said that the "Heroes" brand had underperformed and become diluted in the description of investment risks of the company. That is "business speak" for Heroes 4 not selling well enough. Was it successful comparatively? Probably. But not well enough unfortunately. In any event, I did not say that H4 was a "bad" game. In my opinion, I did not like it, but I am not presumptive enough to claim that my opinion is the "objective" fact. As implied by Thundertitan above, he believes that the bad implementation was the reason for its poor sales performace. I have no idea.

[ThunderTitan]

I am not sure what you intended by quoting me and adding your comment. Whatever the reason why H4 did not sell well, it did not sell well. It's not my fault for pointing out the indisputable fact that the game did not sell "well enough."

Your statement made it sound as if the game failed solely because of the changes from H3. Considering the state it was in when first released I seriously doubt that.

And just because the game didn't sell enough they're justified in not using anything from it, not even the bloody extra buttons it had?

[HMMFan]

Your statement made it sound as if the game failed solely because of the changes from H3. Considering the state it was in when first released I seriously doubt that.

And just because the game didn't sell enough they're justified in not using anything from it, not even the bloody extra buttons it had?[/quote]


Well, I am quite confused about the point you are making, but whatever. My statement was that the business guys had to make an initial decision - build off of H4 which did not do well (or well enough), or build off of H3 that did. In my statement, I do not make any express or implied judgment of H4 and its "ideas," nor did I imply that the ideas were the reason for its failure. I did say that the going that route would require resolving the game designs choices made in that game, which can be interpreted as both judging the innovations on their own merits and also resolving problems with their implementations. You seem to infer arguments into my post that I did not make. I am merely telling you that the business guys had to start with that initial decision. You may not like the decision they made, but there it is all the same.

As for the second sentence, you seem to confuse me for being one of the computer programmers at Nival. Ask them why they made certain coding choices for the UI that you deem either sloppy or dumb.

In any event, this is off-point. I like the game.

[ThunderTitan]

Well, I am quite confused about the point you are making, but whatever. My statement was that the business guys had to make an initial decision - build off of H4 which did not do well (or well enough), or build off of H3 that did.

My point was that you made it sound like H4 failed because of the differences from H3. You might not have meant it that way, but that's how it ended up.

And there's a huge difference between building off H3 and completly ignoring H4 as it never existed, which is what they did.

[HMMFan]

Well, I am quite confused about the point you are making, but whatever. My statement was that the business guys had to make an initial decision - build off of H4 which did not do well (or well enough), or build off of H3 that did.

My point was that you made it sound like H4 failed because of the differences from H3. You might not have meant it that way, but that's how it ended up.

And there's a huge difference between building off H3 and completly ignoring H4 as it never existed, which is what they did.

I disagree. I did not make an argument that H4 failed because of its differences with H3. You inferred that argument. I merely stated that H4 did not perform well enough. So, it did not "end up" that way. I think you are being defensive of H4 because other people have flamed it and you assumed that I was doing so also.

As for the second sentence, I told you that it is apparent that Ubi's initial decision was to determine whether to build off of H4 or H3. They chose the latter. Again, you may not like it, but there it is. I am not sure what is the "huge difference" because I did not imply what was the best course of action by Ubi/Nival. From what you are writing, I feel that you are arguing with other people when responding to my statements.

In any event, the thrust of my response to Ethric was that, in my subjective opinion, I like the game. I understand why he doesn't like it, and it is unfortunate that Ubi could not or did not (want to) find a middle ground for fans of H1-H3 and H4. I am not exactly sure what you are arguiing about with my post as the parts you are disputing seem off-point.

[DaemianLucifer]

When looking at this game in a wider perspective, I think UBI made the calculated decision to lose the posters here as fans of the game in the hopes they can be replaced with new fans. It is unfortunate in some way, but from a business perspective, you can look at it as the option between attempting to resolve game designs made in Heroes 4 that resulted in a game that did not sell well enough for a more conservative approach building upon a wildly successful game and making iterative improvements. It is not surprising that most people at CH don't like that approach because most of you are fans of Heroes 4 (I stopped playing it after a month or so, and went back 3-4 times, with Equilibrius, but as I am not a MP, it held nothing for me). In turn, when it comes time for Heroes 6, the posters remaining at CH will be mostly H5 fans.

I could buy this if there was a decent manual,if the game was bug free,and if in game informations were better.

[HMMFan]

This is a fair response. After all, you can decide not to like H5 because of at least 2 reasons, one of which being the failure to implement H4 ideas, and the second being poor implementation of the game, or combination of both. However, my point was that in the decision to go down the H3 route, Ubi made the calculated decision that the people turned off by that decision would be outweighed by the number of new fans to the game. That business decision may have been torpedoed by the poor implementation of the coding (oh, and lack of a decent manual), however. In my opinion, it has not been that big of a deal to me. So, I just kind of ignore the poor implementation and am enjoying the game.

[ThunderTitan]

I disagree. I did not make an argument that H4 failed because of its differences with H3. You inferred that argument. I merely stated that H4 did not perform well enough. So, it did not "end up" that way.

Ahem....

resolve game designs made in Heroes 4 that resulted in a game that did not sell well

You were saying?!


And I was saying that I don't really have a problem with them using H3 as a base for the game, but with the fact that they completly ignored H4, or even treated it like the plague. That's the part that makes no sense to me. Ignoring the more radical changes is one thing, but actualy going back to things alot of people complained about in H3 way before H4 is just stupid.

I also belive their ideeas was to get back those people that didn't like H4, not getting new people instead of those that liked H4.

[HMMFan]

You know, you are just not reading carefully. Here is what I wrote, "...but from a business perspective, you can look at it as the option between attempting to resolve game designs made in Heroes 4 that resulted in a game that did not sell well enough for a more conservative approach building upon a wildly successful game and making iterative improvements. "

I said that Ubi had to make a business decision of starting with Heroes 4, and "resolving game designs" made in that game (which I later clarified by explaining that it meant weighing the game design ideas on their own merits, i.e. are game design ideas such as caravans (some people like and others do not) a"good idea," and ALSO the implementation thereof (inserting game heroes on the battlefield and balancing the game as a result thereof)), or just scrapping Heroes 4 and going back to Heroes 3. Now, you tell me...where did I say that Heroes 4 failed because it was not Heroes 3? You are blatantly misreading my post and inferring arguments I am not making. Either you are just being obtuse or you are not a native English speaker. If the latter, then that is forgiveable. If you are, then what are you talking about? My point was limited to solely inferring that Ubi's first business decision was to decide which template of a game to use. Somehow from that, you are stating that I averring that the failure of H4 was the result of it being different from H3. If you want to continue to grind an axe with me about the merits of H4, that's fine, but I am a little confused why you are doing so. If you are not, then re-read my post.

As to the latter part of your post, I udnerstand that you are disappointed with Ubi's decision to ignore H4. I can guess at the rationale, but I won't defend it. I can only guess that they believe their business model predicts greater sales from a h3 template game.

[ThunderTitan]

I can only guess that they believe their business model predicts greater sales from a h3 template game.

A H3 template does not require ignoring H4. "H4 bad" isn't exactly a business strategy.


And I did get that you didn't mean to sound as if you were saying that H4 failed because of differences to H3, but it did sound that way from that sentence. You appear to think that it can't be interpreted in that way unless one blatantly misreads it, which is plainly wrong.

[DaemianLucifer]

It is one thing to chose HIII as a base and improve upon it,and completely other to choshe HIII as a base,then avoid everything HIV brought.If you look at the caravan poll,youll see that it is one of the features with over 90% agreement that it should be implemented.There are many other things,like FoW,which isnt only HIV feature,but a feature in every single strategy game(both real time and turn based)that appeared recently.

[HMMFan]

I was very careful not to make any "judgments" upon the merits of H4 in making my post. I merely stated that Ubi made the decision to use H3 as the template to base the game on. Whether you deem that to be a good decision or not, that is up to you, and I do not want to get drawn into that argument. As to the intention and meaning of my words, I am the author of the post, and I told you what I meant. if you want to torture the words to infer another meaning, feel free, but I will no longer argue the issue with you. You just seem to want to fight about it.

[Ethric]

For me it matters very little if H4 "sold well" or not when I decide if I like it and it's features or not. And expecting it to be able to save 3do by selling well seems very, very unrealistic. The problems in 3do ran deep.

Making the game more akin to H3 isn't something I'd agree with, but I can understand it. People have different views of what's best and nival are fans of H3. However, that is not the case with H5. There was a statement earlier here by someone saying that "if you enjoyed H3 you'll like H5". That is false, because H5 isn't equal to H3. More similar to H3 than H4, yes, but there are many differences that could make those that favour H3 frown.

I understand why he doesn't like it, and it is unfortunate that Ubi could not or did not (want to) find a middle ground for fans of H1-H3 and H4.

I like both H2, H3 and H4, and I consider H2 to be the best HoMM made. And this is why I said at the start that ok they want a H3'ish game, I hoped for something else but it could still be a good game. So here's for me the initial disapointment of seeing the game made with the "wrong" features, but then also seeing the endproduct being unfinished and with poor ingame functionality, what with the interface and lack of useful info. Now if you like the gamedesign, and enjoy the interface, then there's only the bugs, the flawed AI and the poor documentation (I'm making the bold assumption that no-one likes that), and those you'll find in most any new game so you'd still be able to like the game.

But be that as it may, discussing opinion is mostly fruitless, I just wanted to clarify my position.

In turn, when it comes time for Heroes 6, the posters remaining at CH will be mostly H5 fans.

I missed this... what an odd statement