Looking Back at the Reviews

[Angelspit]

Another look at the recently updated <a href="/https://www.celestialheavens.com/88">list of Heroes V reviews</a> (scroll down after the first picture) reveals that a <i>lot</i> of Web sites review games these days, and the quality of some of these articles are <a href="/http://web1.dignews.com/review.php?stor ... ionable</a> to say the least. The average score remains about the same after nearly three months: most critics seem to agree that the game deserves a rating in the low 80s, which is about the same as Heroes IV and lower than Heroes III, according to the <a href="/http://www.gamerankings.com/">GameRankings.com averages</a>. Here is the breakdown:

<div align=center><img src="/features/gamereviews/images/heroes5reviews.png"></div>



What about you? Three months later, are your impressions more positive or more negative? Do you agree with those reviews?

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1155386870

[Gaidal Cain]

the quality of some of these articles are questionable to say the least.

That's one site I won't be getting reviews from...

[Justice]

How can anyone write a review about a game he doesn't understand

I would think HoMM V ought to get 72% or so...

[VortexD]

I hate quantifying subjective matter. Sure reviews are good way to get an initial idea of a game's quality, and they might pull potential buyers into the open. But they remain products of individuals with their own views and one can agree/not agree to those in varying degrees. So what if H5 would get a 3.0/10 by some hatefull reviewer if I like the game who cares. I'd prefer to make my opinion with a game demo, video's, screens, etc...

[Derek]

If the person could easily justify giving the game a 3/10 then I think you'd be hard pressed to disagree with them. It's a matter of backing up your opinion rather than just saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it."

[Evenshade]

It seems that a large percentage of the reviewers were aiming most of their frustration with Heroes V at the release process for the game rather than the game itself -- in other words, the fact that the map editor was not in the initial release, that the game had bugs (it's software, therefore, it will have bugs), that it only had 10 maps... in other words, that it wasn't as "complete" as the previous Heroes games had been.



Overall, I think that these items are of secondary importance to enjoyable gameplay, and I've found Heroes V anything but lacking in that department (for single player, at least; I don't judge Heroes games on their multiplayer experience). I, unlike some people, am willing to wait for a map editor, for more maps, etc., especially if it means that their quality is likely to be higher. In the meantime, I get to play through the campaigns, and improve my skills on the maps they did provide. And as for bugs... let's just say that I've seen no reason yet to squawk about them.
Edited on Sat, Aug 12 2006, 09:22 by Evenshade

[Infiltrator]

The biggest dissapointment of H5 is the lack of post-release support it has been getting. It showed great potential, but nobody worked hard enough to fix all the bugs and imbalances, for three months. We've been given two washed up patches that brought nothing on the table, and frankly I can't see any improvement coming judging by what I've seen so far.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I find the game to be quite fun. For me it is a worthy successor in the HOMM series.

Are there some things that need to be addressed? Yes.

The map editor should be "just around the corner" and will help to solve the problem of low number of maps.

I think some folks have not given HOMM5 a chance for the same reason they did not give HOMM4 a chance...it is different. Their loss in both cases.

GOW

[Campaigner]

OMG what a dolt....just look at this:

One thing that I found to be exceptionally frustrating is opposing army size. Your units on the screen are limited to a set type, (archers, paladins, demons, whatever) and then the amount of people you have of that type are displayed below. This affects how much damage you can inflict and in some cases your great army will cause enemies to flee before the fight can begin. Now some areas will be guarded by creatures designed to give your hero a run for their money and no matter what you do they will match or overwhelm your army. If you can muster a thousand archers to combat them, a thousand peasants and a thousand paladins, they will match with 1500, 1500 and 1500 of something that could smear you across the wall. It scales up the difficulty to a point which is semi uncomfortable.

"

So Mr.Dolt sees a big army on the adv.map and musters the army necessary to battle it. By that time they have grown to incredible proportions which our reviewer can't match....

Another favorite: "

One thing that HOMMV has adopted which I find exceptionally frustrating is you cannot choose to play X race over Y race when you start the game. You have to choose the Haven loooong before you can go for the Necromancers or the Demons. I don't enjoy having to unlock the other races before I can play them. I understand that it was done for story purposes, but dang, its super freaking dumb.

"

He can play any race in scenarios or multiplayer but just doesn't seem to be enough for our dear reviewer....No, this guy DEMANDS to be able to play the campaign in any order (wait! You can do that! Oh, seems likr Mr.Dolt didn't knew about that....)

Man! This guys is clueless....just look at the minuspoints in his review....

[Caradoc]

I like that guy who gave it the 90.8 score. That's pretty fine measurement, there. (Myself, I give it at least a 91.125 !)
Edited on Sat, Aug 12 2006, 15:26 by Caradoc

[Marcus333]

@ Campaigner



Yeah, he seems almost retarded. I mean, how can you even write things like that? He's not even got any real arguments to support his opinions!



"One thing that HOMMV has adopted which I find exceptionally frustrating is you cannot choose to play X race over Y race when you start the game. You have to choose the Haven loooong before you can go for the Necromancers or the Demons. I don't enjoy having to unlock the other races before I can play them. I understand that it was done for story purposes, but dang, its super freaking dumb."



See?

[Gaidal Cain]

And right after that, without making a new paragraph, there's one sentence about the camera. Not a very well written review, even without regarding the lack of Heroes knowledge.

[DaemianLucifer]

One thing that I found to be exceptionally frustrating is opposing army size. Your units on the screen are limited to a set type, (archers, paladins, demons, whatever) and then the amount of people you have of that type are displayed below. This affects how much damage you can inflict and in some cases your great army will cause enemies to flee before the fight can begin. Now some areas will be guarded by creatures designed to give your hero a run for their money and no matter what you do they will match or overwhelm your army. If you can muster a thousand archers to combat them, a thousand peasants and a thousand paladins, they will match with 1500, 1500 and 1500 of something that could smear you across the wall. It scales up the difficulty to a point which is semi uncomfortable.

Good that he didnt have to fight 700 wights.

As the days turn to weeks you then enter into the Week of the Golem or the Week of the Colossus or some such and each creature week causes that creature to appear at random on the map. If you spend enough time roving the map, capturing resources and the like, the map will soon be littered with creatures.

Say what?Littered with creatures?Ive played for 6 months sometimes and had 4 weeks of creatures at max.And those are all isignificant stacks.

Adventure with 8 different races

Lets see...1st grade maths:1+1+1+1+1+1=8....

You have to seek out cities or the like to upgrade your units

And he claims he played disciples?*sigh*

And I thought reviews starting with "They moved heroes to 3D,so lets give it an 8" were bad.

@Evenshade
Well that basically is correct.The game itself is not bad,but it was released to soon,and the patches are laughable.Add in some bad things respawned(non-flagable windmills,first turn exploit,etc),few maps,awful told story and the game becomes quite annoying.

[Dakobstah]

My score is somewhere in the high 70s, which is what I would have given it when it came out. Unfortunately, nothing has been done in three months that really makes me want to change that score. There's definitely some good gameplay here, but not enough to keep me for long (i haven't touched it in a month and a half, while most HOMM games I played daily for at least 4-5 months and then still played fairly regularly for several years onwards). Nival/Ubisoft will have to offer a lot more to get me playing again as it is, and that's just disappointing.

[Angelspit]

We can't agree on the pros and cons of Heroes V, but at least we can all agree on what a crappy review sounds like. That's a start.

[ByteBandit]

We took a poll over on WoG Archives I about what everyone thought of Heroes 5. Here were the results:



1.Best game of the series! 2

2.Like the game very much 3

3.It's okay 11

4.Worst game I ever played 0

5.Computer lacks specs to play it 9



25 voters only. What I gathered from the voters, the game is middle of the road. I think once the map editor comes out things will change.

[Hambone]

As I almost exclusively play solo in what passes in this game for the non-campagin "sandbox mode", I frankly am finding HOMMV a little tedious to play against the AI. Ubi should give up making maps and spend more time making the engine accessible by the homebrew community.



Anyway, most of the reviews for this game are complete crap regardless of the score they actually assigned. I'm hoping to get a solid review up on my website within the next couple of weeks.

[dallasmavs41]

HoMMV has been solid but not anything special or spectacular. The map editor is going to be key to see if you can actually play this game for years to come. I'd love to think that the map editor is going to be some great state-of-the-art thing like some people are hoping, but honestly, look at the state of the game when it was released. From the looks of what Ubisoft has given us now, I don't see the map editor being anything but a copy of H3's, if that, (which isn't bad, but it'd be nice to have some additions and improvements..)


But, hey, Ubisoft could prove me completely wrong and develop a wonderful map editor with many amazing improvements. From what they've shown me so far, I'm not expecting too much though.

[Crosis]

The small supply of multiplayer maps and lack of a map editor are the only things that really bother me about the game. I'd give the game about a 7.5 for now, and once there is a map editor and more custom maps there's a good chance it will move up to a 9 or 9.5. (For comparison purposes, H2 was about an 8.5, H3 9.5, and H4 8.5.)

[Crayno]

I've had fun playing it but I won't be coming back to it,so basicly just another fun game and nothing like HOMM 2 or 3 wich I replayed several times(the campains),let alone the stand alone maps.

Fun game? yes

Classic? not even close I'm afraid