So what's the final verdict on Heroes V?

[Jolly Joker]

*Sigh*
I'm reluctant to give this a go again, but reading Jeff's posts makes me shake my head. However, I'm going to try a longer explanation.
1) H 4 is playable only on scripted maps. The map type called "MP" (as opposed to campaign and SP) in H5 simply isn't playable (well) in H4; that's why an RMG isn't really necessary. The original H 4 came with one XL (MP) map, very well done and all - but probably the most boring heroes map of all times.
2) That means, you'll get a decent GAME only out of SCRIPTED USER-MADE maps in H4.
3) I never tried the H4 editor, but I'll accept the verdict of those who work with it that it's quite good and very probably the best of the series.
4) The game obviously needs that editor.
5) Due to the nature of H4 (allowing to play with heroes EXCLUSIVELY) the CAMPAIGN (and SP) mode allows much more hero centered plots. 100 level-ups per hero is a lot. Add to that the immortality potion and it's clear that a H4 campaign allows a completely different kind of story-telling. You can put completely away with creatures and work with heroes only. While I don't like H4, I won't hesitate to concede that this game aspect - hero centered campaign story telling (and in come rare cases even SP maps) - is unique to H4 and its game mechanics. For all people who like that H4 will be the best game of the series.
5a) My personal opinion is that I don't like strongly scripted campaigns and SP maps all too much, no matter what story is told, because you are guided as if following a movie or a book and when I play a game I want to play it my way, so I like the simple maps with a sketched story best.
I'm fully aware that this is my personal preference, though.

Now that's for H4. H5 (and all other Hs) is a completely different game. It offers a decent play on simple MP maps. The game favours LIMITED maps and campaigns because there are only one third of H4s level-ups for each hero. The main aspect of the game is optimizing hero development in combination with town building and army developing. In short, it's a completely different game than H4 that offers an RMG and hero duels as additional features.
I don't think that it makes sense to try and transfer a H4 campaign to H5 (and vice versa).
If you make a campaign you always have to make it in regard to the game you are doing it for. If a game isn't suitable for a campaign idea, well, it's not suitable. H5 campaigns are limited to 5 maps and 4 carryover heroes, and the truth is that this is MORE than enough already for the game (and that has nothing to do with the editor: I think an 8 game campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be boring as hell - you need the armies for those heroes, too, in H FIVE, but not in 4 which is a big difference).

[MistWeaver]

Not if they're done well....

Like starcraft

Again?
But actually you don't play SC for graphics. Do you?
Whatever

I play Heroes2 much more than Heroes 3 nowadays, because of graphics. (though I like almost all gameplay innovations of H3) So graphics matters a lot. At least to me.

1) H 4 is playable only on scripted maps. The map type called "MP" (as opposed to campaign and SP) in H5 simply isn't playable (well) in H4; that's why an RMG isn't really necessary. The original H 4 came with one XL (MP) map, very well done and all - but probably the most boring heroes map of all times.

You forgot to add - "in singleplayer"

[Jolly Joker]

No, I didn't. How long are you going to play that map in MP? With how many players? And as a matter of fact the game is unbalanced like hell. There is no way to beat the insane amount of Vampires the Necro will get on this kind of map.

[MistWeaver]

No, I didn't. How long are you going to play that map in MP? With how many players?

I dont know what you are talking about. For example - "Fire and Ice" excelent map for 1vs1 MP game. Played it many times in hotseat, and will play again. Almost all maps included with the game are very good for MP. Editor needed only to manage teams (just like in H5).

As for balance - well there is Equ.

[Jolly Joker]

You quote my example with the one and only XL map H 4 came. So *I* don't know what *you* are talking about. That map is unplayable in MP as well.
More importantly, though, Jeff doesn't mention MP game at all. He mentions only the editor and everything that is editor related. You don't need a fabcy editor to create a pretty normal medium mp map (in fact you do need an editor only in H4), so that was never bis point. His point is that the H5 editor doesn't allow the type of (campaign) SP map-editing he prefers (he couldn't do the maps and campaigns he did for H4 with H5).
My point is, that the editor does not need to allow things that the game isn't well-suited for, anyway - which means nothing else than: IF you prefer the style of (campaign) single player type play H4 allowed (exclusively playing with heroes which makes for a very different game experience) H5 is inferior anyway, no matter the editor. That the H5 editor doesn't allow this is - in the end - not a failure of the editor, but a consequence of the game.

For the same reason you cannot hold the absence of an RMG against H4 - you couldn't make use of it anyway because it would be usable for basic MP play only.

[MistWeaver]

You quote my example with the one and only XL map H 4 came.

Thats stupid.
You said: "H4 is playable only on scripted maps." - That is a complete sentence. No XL here.
So, again, JJ. Are you sure that "H4 is playable only on scripted maps" ?

[Jolly Joker]

For all of JEFF's purposes, yes.
For MP purposes, no. But for MP purposes the MAP EDITOR and all map editor related questions are practically IRRELEVANT. A well working random map generator in combination with a SOLID map editor is much more important - you don't want to waste your mp playing time with reading a couple dozen text pages, for example.
In single player mode all "MP" maps are a waste of time with H4.

[ProMeTheus112]

I play Heroes2 much more than Heroes 3 nowadays, because of graphics. (though I like almost all gameplay innovations of H3) So graphics matters a lot. At least to me.

You think H2 looks better than H3 ?!

[parcaleste]

... A well working random map generator in combination with a SOLID map editor is much more important...

Actually this is what I am doing and I am pretty satisfied of it

[PhoenixReborn]

You think H2 looks better than H3 ?!

You bet. Just go look at the evolution polls in the heroes 1-4 forum.

[MistWeaver]

I play Heroes2 much more than Heroes 3 nowadays, because of graphics. (though I like almost all gameplay innovations of H3) So graphics matters a lot. At least to me.

You think H2 looks better than H3 ?!

Yes, I think H2 has better graphics. Heroes portraits, creatures, global map objects, artifacs, castles, basically everything in visual part is better in H2 IMO.

[Alamar]

I also agree that I prefer the "look" of H2 over H3 in many areas. I admit that the graphics of H3 are "better" in a technical sense but I prefer the more cartoony look & feel of H2.

Oddly that's one reason that I like H5 graphics is their cartoony nature.

[Pitsu]

You think H2 looks better than H3 ?!

As other said. H3 is IMO the least colorful Homm game. And while the models for H3 themselves might look good, zoomed-out rendered images of them sometimes give a blurry feeling. Thus, despite lower resolution, H2 feels better.

A little though about H5 MP vs SP gameplay: as i have said before, is IMO strong in RPG and tactical combat elements. It looks like the game was done around the campaign maps (These maps had higest priority, and the rest of game was composed of elements that were produced in campaign development). From here, IMO H5 would do best in SP story maps or as a MMORPG. Unfortunately the tools (editor) for building an RPG are too complicated for an ordinary fan. Therefore the game originally built with main priority on SP campaign is now forced to be mainly MP game. Somewhat controversial development and use.

And about strategy. While AFAIK every approach to achieve your goal can be called strategy, no matter how good or bad it is or how many adaptions where needed on the way, I agree with ProMeTheus that H5 could be much more strategic. More drastic effects of town bonuses, weekly effects etc, as well as creature/ hero specials. One reason why in Starcraft one has to keep an eye on enemy is that certain units are totally helpless against certain other units. Open prerequisites for dwellings and alternative dwellings/upgrades are a good ground to diversify the gameplay and make the best build-up for each town less predicable. But the symbiosis of creatures and hero in army could go further than it currently is.
And certainly a way to go would be the scale change. From the 2-4 town local struggle back to Warlords 2 game or Beltway/Broken Alliance type of maps with hundreds of towns. There you do not counter so much armies and specific units, but kingdom expansion directions and economy.

[ThunderTitan]

No ^^ There is a clear nuance, and this nuance is critical to the definition here. I see I'm not the one who misunderstood the sentence

There is a nuance that "use" would not have, but not the one you think. That was my point with the console vs PC example. But feel free to ignore it.

Which makes you come back to what I already said : if you want to give that plan the name of "strategy", fine, but you do realize that it takes absolutely no skill to use it (well, it would in Starcraft if the game was like that, because you would still need speed, which you don't need in H5 . In that case, what you wish to call "lateral thinking", which is obviously strategic thinking, is, this time, a skill, and my point is that there is next to none of that in H5. If H5 is only about using a rigid plan with no adaptation, then it takes next to no skill, hence my grudge about this stupid game that could be a lot better.

Lateral thinking can be part of strategic thinking, but it's not all there is to strategic thinking. Otherwise strategy would be used by very few people (very few new things under the sun and all that).
And it's been called lateral thinking for longer then i've been alive too.

And i'm sure that someone will come up with new strategies for H5 eventually... and i believe people already pointed out that the Civ games do require certain strategies for certain situations. They just don' happen in real time, so they don't seem as urgent as in SC...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but Boxer was indeed famous for coming up with original game plans and overall great in-game improvisation.
You branch out from well-known situations (the first 5 minutes of a game) because the possibilities are very numerous and you can do strategic thinking depending on what happens. So yeah, before boxer did certain things, we didn't know it could be done efficiently and they weren't well known situation... So what ?

Now that you know them is Boxer any less good at strategy?!

[jeff]

Well I have read all of JJ’s posts since my last one, and finally he states several good points and all without being condescending. I’ll comment on a few of them, he’s correct that due to the rushed release of H-IV the AI was never properly balanced and so a good map does depend on scripting. He is also correct that H-IV and V are very different games, though you can be a fan of both many of us fall on one side of the fence or the other. This does not justify the disrespect that several of us throw at each.

If you make a campaign you always have to make it in regard to the game you are doing it for. If a game isn't suitable for a campaign idea, well, it's not suitable.

H5 (and all other Hs) is a completely different game. It offers a decent play on simple MP maps. The game favours LIMITED maps and campaigns

This is very true and the reason for my disappointment, it is not suited for the type of game I choose to play. In that regard it is the worst of the series, but I never stated that my opinion makes it so, and or that JJ’s dislike makes H-IV a terrible game. We offend others when we try and force our opinion of those who disagree. The fact is I have evolved past playing simple maps that H-V editor does a good job creating. That does not imply, if you like H-V, you have not evolved (remember not all evolution is an improvement.) In my case I enjoy being drawn into the story and the heroes development.

Due to the nature of H4 (allowing to play with heroes EXCLUSIVELY) the CAMPAIGN (and SP) mode allows much more hero centered plots. 100 level-ups per hero is a lot. Add to that the immortality potion and it's clear that a H4 campaign allows a completely different kind of story-telling. You can put completely away with creatures and work with heroes only. While I don't like H4, I won't hesitate to concede that this game aspect - hero centered campaign story telling (and in come rare cases even SP maps) - is unique to H4 and its game mechanics. For all people who like that H4 will be the best game of the series.

Which is all I have been saying, and as H-IV, as the saying goes, is becoming long in tooth; so it is very likely the campaign I am currently making is the last. This further increased my disappointment that H-V did not lend itself to this type of game, as I now see the light at the end of the tunnel. The tunnel in this case is the tunnel of my game playing days.

I think an 8 game campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be boring as hell

If the game was created in H-V that may well be true, but in H-IV it really depends on the story development of each hero and whether you find the story interesting.

5a) My personal opinion is that I don't like strongly scripted campaigns and SP maps all too much, no matter what story is told, because you are guided as if following a movie or a book and when I play a game I want to play it my way, so I like the simple maps with a sketched story best. I'm fully aware that this is my personal preference, though.

And my opinion is mine as well, neither of us should assume they are gospel. Oh one last comment in the final map of my campaign, I needed 10 carry-over heroes, five where used to carry-over variables setting the stage for the final map setup. In my next campaign it will take at least that many.

[Alamar]

On the H4 vs. H5 ... RPG vs. Battle maps I have an odd set of opinions:

1. I prefer a strong story map for SP. I also prefer story maps for coop MP. For competitive MP [esp. when it's not a social game] I think you have to go with basic battle-maps.

2. I think that a good H4 map is a heavily scripted H4 map.

3. I generally prefer H5 over H4 because H4 never was finished to my tastes and not enough was done to compensate for AI issues on heroic difficulty in H4.

4. H5's map editor is very disappointing compared to H4. This at least partly results in there not being too many of the types of maps that I prefer.

[Jolly Joker]

I think an 8 game campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be boring as hell

If the game was created in H-V that may well be true, but in H-IV it really depends on the story development of each hero and whether you find the story interesting.

Just for clarification: I meant that statement indeed for H 5 ( it should be clear from the context). In H 5 an 8 map campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be dull (as would be in all other homms except 4).

[Alamar]

I think an 8 game campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be boring as hell

If the game was created in H-V that may well be true, but in H-IV it really depends on the story development of each hero and whether you find the story interesting.

Just for clarification: I meant that statement indeed for H 5 ( it should be clear from the context). In H 5 an 8 map campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be dull (as would be in all other homms except 4).

I would think that the majority of campaigns with 8 maps && 7 carry over heroes would be dull. I do think that a decent campaign COULD be done though. For example SoD's campaign with huge numbers of heroes would have worked better if they would have been carry-over heroes.

[Pitsu]

I think an 8 game campaign with 7 carryover heroes would be boring as hell

I would think that the majority of campaigns with 8 maps && 7 carry over heroes would be dull.

Note that not every 7 hero have to be present on every map. Neither have these heroes to be allies. And in H4, what Jeff was talking about, carryover heroes are also used for info transfer not as heroes. Thus, you can replace some of the heroes with "carryover artifacts/armies" or "carryover dwarven/ogre/dragon alliance".

[Jolly Joker]

With the exception of H 4, in all other Hero games a huge quantity of carryover heroes is simply and plainly dulling the game. Hero and town developing is a central part of the game and to forego this, means forgoing the main game purpose. It may be possible to do it for good effect on one map or another with very specific setups, but the overall use would be small, considering the whole game.

Using "carryover" heroes for other things like transporting things is a waste as well: you can do it by a plethora of other means, so it's not necessary to carry them over.

Carrying over enemy heroes may be considered a nice feature, but only if you have to fight a hero you developed yourself (otherwise the hero doesn't need to be a carryover one). That single feature would be dull by the 3rd campaign at the latest where that gimmick would be employed.

The only game, as I said, in which a chance to carry over a multitude of heroes makes sense, is Heroes 4, I'd think. No matter anyone's opinion on that game, it makes a lot of sense to explore the things to the utmost that make the game different from the others.