So what's the final verdict on Heroes V?

[Gaidal Cain]

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.

Well, for that to happen, the developers would need to begin seeing the maps as (medieval) maps again, not depictions of a world, and I don't think that will happen.

[ProMeTheus112]

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.

I don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to actually argue.

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...

Okay so you agree with me. The only strategic thinking that you do in heroes is when you invent the plans that you will use in games, and then playing doesn't take skill. They are not only urgent but constantly different and new in Starcraft. Which was my point since the beginning.

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

No ? Do you understand that the fact that he made up new strategies is what made him good ? After he has invented them, using them still takes skill because it requires constant adaptation. If I'm using his game plans, I'm not good at strategy just because I have learned them. I'm good if I can execute them right by adapting them right. In cases when they are easy to adapt (some cheesy stuff that he made up), doing it indeed doesn't take so much skill (mostly some solid micro and timing). And Boxer was good at strategy not only because he made up these game plans but also because he adapted smartly to game situations in general. That is something that you cannot simply copy, because situations are always different. Therefore it takes skill.

[Darmani]

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.

Whether that is true or not, it nevertheless reflects extremely poorly on Nival that an arbitrary limit on the number of carryover heroes exists.

Take a look at this pseudocode:

Code: Select all

if number of carry-on heroes < 4
  get first carry-on hero
  place carry-on hero in carry-on slot 1
  get second carry-on hero
  place second carry-on hero in carry-on slot 2
  blahblahblah same thing for third and fourth
else
  error_message "Error: Too many carry-on heroes"
  abort procedure
end

Alarm bells should be going off in the head of every skilled programmer who reads this. That's because skilled programmers, as a rule, tend to shy from the concrete. Rather than writing a procedure that resizes a 640x480 image into a 1024x768 image, a skilled (or rather, not moronic) programmer will write a procedure that resizes an A by B image into a C by D image. Rather than making a way to carry over 4 heroes, a skilled programmer will make a way to carry over n heroes.

Of course, there may be a good reason why n should be disallowed from being higher than 4. Maybe there's a game design reason involved, such as in H4, where the maximum carryover heroes is the same as the number you can have in one army. However, I know of no significance of the number 4 as it relates to the number of heroes. Maybe there are significant performance improvements to be had in making this limit? However, optimization certainly didn't seem to be a priority with HV...

The only reason I can see for this is that the folks at Nival are bad programmers (wow, what a shocking insight! ). Maybe that's why we waited a year for the Wait button, which should have taken a few people less than a day to make.

[jeff]

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.

I would sure appreciate you telling me how, this is more a question for the mapmaking guild. So just a quick example, several quests in my campaign can be done by various means and the rewards are sometimes the same, sometimes not. I set variables depending on how that quest was done, in H-IV I keep a hidden hero that carrys over with different skills depending on how the quest was done, and depending on the skill the carryover sets various variables in later maps. Now H-V's editor may make such a system unnecessary, but if you know of an easier way in H-IV, great.

[Jolly Joker]

@Jeff

With the exception of H 4, in all other Hero games a huge quantity of carryover heroes is simply and plainly dulling the game.

I took H4 out explicitely. Still, since H4 allows scripting, it might be possible to do it with an if-then event. You I wouldn't know, though, because I never used the H4 editor.

[Pitsu]

@Jeff
I took H4 out explicitely. Still, since H4 allows scripting, it might be possible to do it with an if-then event. You I wouldn't know, though, because I never used the H4 editor.

See, when a new map is loaded all scripts and variables are reset. Transfer of variables from one map to another is not an outcome of scripting language or its capabilities. Basically, when starting a map with carryover stuff, last save file of previous map is opened and read by the game. Mapmaker has no way to tell the game what info it has to extract from that old save. If the game extracts only info about heroes, then the only way to transfer whatever info is to convert it into a hero.

[Artas1984]

Final verdict: huge disapointment! Not worth money.

It does not matter if the gameplay now is good again like it was in H3, all i need is to look at the childish cartoony BS design of angel or devil - and i want to puke on this game..

[Jolly Joker]

@Jeff
I took H4 out explicitely. Still, since H4 allows scripting, it might be possible to do it with an if-then event. You I wouldn't know, though, because I never used the H4 editor.

See, when a new map is loaded all scripts and variables are reset. Transfer of variables from one map to another is not an outcome of scripting language or its capabilities. Basically, when starting a map with carryover stuff, last save file of previous map is opened and read by the game. Mapmaker has no way to tell the game what info it has to extract from that old save. If the game extracts only info about heroes, then the only way to transfer whatever info is to convert it into a hero.

Ah, so the real editor demand would be to allow more ways to carry over INFO from one map to the next, not heroes (to play with).

[Ohma]

Eh, it's okay, better than 4 at least. Still isn't all that great though. I'd prefer that they went back to a more storybook fantasy style than a contemporary fantasy style if they made another game, and if they spent more time ensuring that the gameplay and editor were functional before they released it.

[Elite]

Before I rate Heroes V I will briefly discuss the previous games.

I have been playing HOMM since Heroes 2. Heroes 2, 3 and 4 are all extremely enjoyable games in my opinion. They kept me hooked for ages, couldn't stop playing them honestly, even to this day occasionally.

Heroes III was the most addictive for me. The gameplay is amazing. The AI wasn't perfect but could put up a good challenge (I always play on impossible). A lot of the creatures are also pretty cool, and the factions are somewhat unique.

Heroes IV was a great game also. Although it took some time to get into it, once I did I didn't regret it one bit. The game is excellent, but its got some flaws. Mainly the terrible adventure map AI (Even on champion) and some balance issues. However the Equilibrius mod solved most of those problems and some of the user made maps were fantastic.

I bought Heroes V when it was first released. I was really excited about it, I had been looking forward to a new HOMM game very much. I installed it and played it. I was hooked at the beginning, but it died off really quickly. I lost interest very rapidly. The other heroes games kept me playing them for years, even today I play them sometimes.

Heroes V however, I simply couldn't play anymore. The campaign is awful. The story is like a cheap and poorly made movie, most of the characters are pretty annoying, the plot twists so predictable they make you yawn and lots of lame phrases like "Griffin eternal". Whats up with this? HOMMIV might have not had the best campaigns but the times where you would get a long page of text continuing the story, were very well written. After playing HOMMIV, its like moving from a fantasy novel to a preschool pop up book when compared with Heroes V.

I wouldn't mind a bad storyline if the gameplay was very good. But its not. Its just a remake of HOMMIII but not as good. The majority of the interesting units are the old reused ones (Like Titans, Angels), most of the new ones are very bland. And some of the remakes, like the devils, are like wow, what happened. They reintroduced the gathering of resources weekly from windmills and waterwheels, which HOMMIV eliminated. I don't really mind it but I don't see the point anymore.

The skill wheel is a good idea on paper, but not executed properly. To get some of the better skills, you have to pick up useless ones before it. One of the better changes from HOMMIII to HOMMIV was the elimination of most of the useless talents/skills, such as eagle eye or learning (Debatable). HOMMIV succeeded at this for the most part (Save for perhaps scouting). HOMMV just reintroduces this. There are so many skills that are simply not worth taking, and even ones I hadn't seen before. I had only discovered some of them because of the skill wheel on this website. But still, its a bit baffling why anyone would take them considering the limited amount of skill slots you have. Also the AI in HOMMV isn't any good. And when you put it on higher difficulty levels its just so blatantly obvious they are cheating so much its pouring out of their eyes. You still beat them but its no fun really.


Final verdict is:

Heroes V is not a bad game, but its not very good either. The main strengths of the previous HOMM games was their extremely high replay value in my opinion. You could keep playing them forever due to the addictive gameplay and the map editor/custom made maps.

Heroes V doesn't have this, the game gets boring too quickly. None of the heroes/creatures are very lovable and the storyline is terrible when compared to other games (Not just HOMM). I would have preferred an exact copy of HOMMIII but with redone graphics. I play lots of games, not just the HOMM series (Although they are some of my favorites) and I believe that HOMMV simply just doesn't measure up in the long run. Even with Hammers of fate and TOTE (Yes I have played both).

Decent game but don't expect much.

[PhoenixReborn]

There are so many skills that are simply not worth taking, and even ones I hadn't seen before. I had only discovered some of them because of the skill wheel on this website. But still, its a bit baffling why anyone would take them considering the limited amount of skill slots you have.

Such as? This suggests some inexperience. Sure there are some skills that are worse than others but nearly all the skills are useful.

We've had some skill improvement threads but in reality I see people saying stuff like this when they don't fully understand how a skill can be used.

[Elite]

There are so many skills that are simply not worth taking, and even ones I hadn't seen before. I had only discovered some of them because of the skill wheel on this website. But still, its a bit baffling why anyone would take them considering the limited amount of skill slots you have.

Such as? This suggests some inexperience. Sure there are some skills that are worse than others but nearly all the skills are useful.

We've had some skill improvement threads but in reality I see people saying stuff like this when they don't fully understand how a skill can be used.

Arcane excellence, wizard's reward, graduate, tear of asha vision, stand your ground, storm wind, plague tent, counterspell. These are just a few.

I understand that they can be useful at times but I feel they are way too situational. If you meant primary skills then I apologize, but still I would never take war machines for example.

You are right though about the inexperience though. I have only beat the campaigns and played some skirmishes. Didn't want to play anymore after that. At the highest difficulty level I felt I could never take one of these lesser (In my opinion) skills. I could be wrong of course.

[jeff]

@Jeff
I took H4 out explicitely. Still, since H4 allows scripting, it might be possible to do it with an if-then event. You I wouldn't know, though, because I never used the H4 editor.

See, when a new map is loaded all scripts and variables are reset. Transfer of variables from one map to another is not an outcome of scripting language or its capabilities. Basically, when starting a map with carryover stuff, last save file of previous map is opened and read by the game. Mapmaker has no way to tell the game what info it has to extract from that old save. If the game extracts only info about heroes, then the only way to transfer whatever info is to convert it into a hero.

Ah, so the real editor demand would be to allow more ways to carry over INFO from one map to the next, not heroes (to play with).

That would reduce the need, but depending on the story more than four could be needed. I do agree with you however that because of the type of gameplay that H-V is optimized for, the type of campaign I prefer to play or create may never be successfully translated to or create in H-V.

[godlyatheist]

My take on this game: only good for multiplayer. The AI is horrible. It cheats and hogs your computer. Why does it need to pass those artifacts back and forth a billion times per turn?
Quick saves are a pain in the ass when there's a few mountains on the map. I just don't get how a game like this takes longer to quicksave than oblivion.

[Ohma]

I understand that they can be useful at times but I feel they are way too situational. If you meant primary skills then I apologize, but still I would never take war machines for example.

War machines is amazingly usefull if you get the right secondaries. Having a ballista that fires twice a round, or a first aid tent that can ressurect creatures, or an ammo cart that give you ranged dudes an attack bonus can be very helpful.

[ThunderTitan]

I don't know what you're talking about. Feel free to actually argue.

Well that's obvious... now go back and read all my posts...

I'm good if I can execute them right by adapting them right.

Therefore it takes skill.

But that's not strategy... Real Time requires faster reaction times, which in your opinion make it better, but that's not strategy... it's a different skill.

Do you understand that the fact that he made up new strategies is what made him good ?

No, winning made him good... if he'd only invent some new strategies but suck at micro/had slow reactions we wouldn't even have heard of him...

[ThunderTitan]

http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.asp ... post251340

There, clear enough for you?

[Humakt]

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.

MP maps use scripts. And thanks to scripts, MP maps are good experience in single player as well, if just because of the AI boosting you can give with scripts.

For example I put up 2vs2 (which also works as 1vs1 with one or two starting towns without the map having separate versions) Spiritmongers that changes the game in rather interesting way:
The map has three modes for players to choose at the start of the map, Negative Energy: Every creature in neutral creature groups that player kills joins enemy in their town.
Positive Energy: Every creature in neutral creature groups that player kills joins ally in their town.
Spirit Leaders: Neutral creatures defeated with player's starting heroes joins ally, otherwise they join enemy. Essentially a mix of both positive and negative energy.

[dxrb2108]

at first i was relucant to buy this... mainly because heroes iv, i mean it wasn't bad, how you can move with out a hero, and how your hero was a troop and if you raised it to a high level it could rape anything... it was intresting. but i prefered the third, which is what 5 is similar to... because you dont have to choose how to level up your town, and you could only have one of the creatures per tier, and no upgrades... but 5 is awesome because it goes back to the original concepts

[ProMeTheus112]

stuff

Well, I'm not going to argue any longer with you because you are not following the discussion at all and only answering the same dumb stuff every time, but here's my summary to you : yes, RTS require speed and fast reaction, but it also needs strategic thinking. Also, you are obviously better at strategy than someone if you can make up the same strategies as he can in a shorter time.

The link you provide is a pretty dumb post by some stupid noob who doesn't understand RTS and I have no clue why you are using it like some absolute reference. The reply that figures a little lower that says :

"i didnt bother to read, ill just flame at u.

stupid ass game can have both strategy and "fast clicking", theres just no reason they would close eachother out.

NOW DIAF"

is quite an appropriate response to both the post in the link and all of the posts you are made here, to be honest.