Discourses of M&M

[Psychobabble]

Ummm, iirc Pools of Radiance was a remake of a very early CRPG of the same name, not a Baldur's gate link.

[wimfrits]

@ Corribus:

Sure, I agree. Thought we were talking about combat AI earlier though.

A quick comparative scan of balance factors would lead me to say that H4 adv AI was flawed, and H3 towns, creatures, skills, specialties and spells were unbalanced. I still think H4 is overall better balanced than H3, so I still don’t see why the ‘supposedly unbalanced’ H4 is brought up in defense of H3. But that’s just my opinion and I’m sure others have other thoughts on this.



Anyway, no matter how flawed a game, mapmakers can always set things right.



So the conclusion would be that Ubi needs to invest in a good editor

[Corribus]

@Wimfrits - I agree with you there! A good editor is key.

[Caradoc]

First, let me clarify my thoughts about 'art'. What I was trying to say was that Heroes maps could be used as an artistic medium, not that the game itself was a visual treat. I've often complained that as maps it's not very maplike and as a virtual reality it's not very real.



To the current discussion, I would point out that the higher the version number, the more pressure there is to introduce innovations. Heroes III could get away with being a rehash of Heroes II, but Heroes IV needed to offer more that's new. And I will predict that if Heroes V is only a return to Heroes III, it will surely fail.

[Fnord]

The change to full 3D is enough to distinguish Heroes V from its predecessors. While most people recognize that gameplay is the key issue of importance, we're a very visually-oriented species. Even if the game was absolutely IDENTICAL to Heroes III, the change in visual perspective will make the playing *experience* very different. Ultimately, the game will need a lot more than just the new visuals to survive, but because of the visuals alone, it will still be perceived as different and while playing it, it will feel different. Of course, we know there are other changes too: a square grid instead of a hex grid, new special combat abilities for Heroes, skills divided into skill and abilities, new special abilities for creatures, a new optional combat system, several new multiplayer options, and probably many more things too.

[Corribus]

@Charley - the fact that H5 is going to be in "3D" is going to be innovative enough, I feel. Nevermind the fact that the HoMM name has essentially been rescued from certain demise, I think fans will be so happy to play a new Heroes, especially after the divisive and half-baked H4, that even a somewhat derivative H5 will ultimately be successful. As I've tried to stress, H5 is not the place to try out wacky new ideas given the circumstances surrounding the present state of the series; H6 will provide a better and less risky venue for revolutionary alterations to the fundamental Heroes formula.

[Corribus]

Heh - I didn't see that Fnord had basically already said what I just said. Graphics, as much as a lot of the hard-core-ers like to say otherwise (about all games, really), ARE important. And even if the game hasn't changed at all, wholly revolutionized graphics can do as much to make a game feel fresh and innovative as any changes to the gameplay ever will, and without the risk of turning off fans (assuming they can load the thing on their computer, of course!)

[grimogre]

I'm still playing Heroes 3.Meanwhile I have Heroes 4.The Gathering Storm and Winds of War.As I wipe the dust and cobwebs off Heroes 4 which I last played 2 years ago and then played and kept playing the wog version of Heroes 3.What made Heroes 3 so great was Wog!!There was enough Wog versions to keep me entertained!I have gotten more entertainment out of Heroes 3 Wog than any other computer game or book or movie!!Wog is the total package!!!Wog is A+++

[Lightbringer]

Great article Corribus. As far as risks go, improving something doesn't always mean changing its fundamental game mechanics. I am pleased that H5 will be an evolution of H3. H4 was such a departure...I'll leave it at that.



Capablanca (legendary chess GM) wanted to change the game of chess, increasing the size of the chessboard and adding pieces to the board. He lobbied the world chess community for these changes but of course noone was interested. My advice to Capablance? Focus instead on ways to improve the game experience, dont play with the foundation of the game that made it a success.



Call it personal bias but the irony is that a sort of perfection was achieved in H2. Incredible accident or a tribute to the craft of NWC? And then amazingly, that perfection was honed in H3. Consider its international appeal and hard-core fanbase comprised of intelligent, highly critical and outspoken players and then the position of releasing a sequel is not an enviable one.



Well I know one thing. I'm committed to H5. I'm going to buy it, and play the hell out of it.

[Corribus]

That's kind of an interesting question: was the success (I don't mean financial here) of H2 due to unbelievable attention by NWC, or just dumb luck? I don't know... but games like that don't come around too often.

[Liutas]

Just a simple question:

And why there is so general understanding that HoMM III has more fans then HoMM IV?

I played all of them incl. WoG, but I could not believe that one can be so strong in his opinion about one version vs. the other.

I'm from those fans that have little time to argue with hard core fans, participating in all the boards, but I do pay cash for all extensions, etc.

So, do I have a say, cause I love IV as I loved III - IV was annoying at the beginning, but as it is with your wife - once you forget paying attention to what is annoying and concentrate what is good - your life becomes more joyful.

And now on the evolution - there should be no way "back to good things", and I think Dragons is making good point in referring to CIV series - eliminate annoying things, leave the core, add new challenges (to rethink the strategy).

What I read here - core III fans - shouts in ecstasy - give me my III in 3D, cause that was what we expected in IV; C’mon guys, this was 5 years ago.

I can still play chess, but the life is changing and I do want some new challenges, but not old stuff - like chaining.

So my verdict - among die hard fans III prevails, at least on this site, but there is some other fans that will not write here as they are not in map making, using all the twists, etc. They just play for fun and want some more fun - not the old stuff revitalised. In my opinion Ubi will make big mistake to do the game for small number of fanatics and ignore the chance to get bigger audience, like CIV is doing with every game.

And the final: CIV IV a HoMM V is coming out in similar time - see which one would get better success - I bet on CIV - just the feeling.

[wimfrits]

- "What we do know is that heroes off the battlefield works"

Both systems have their flaws. After playing a game for a significant amount of time, you simply do not see the flaws anymore.



- "A game based off H3 will work if done properly"

Depends on how you define 'work' I guess. Technically, the most solid 'working' solution would be to base the game on H4 with heroes off the battlefield. That way, you don't get stuck with the imbalanced H3 features and don't have to think about refining the heroes in battle thing.



- "And to expect a revolutionary H5 is doubly unfair..."

I disagree. Gamecompanies exist to provide in our need. Not the other way around. We're not charity either

What you expect from a game should not be influenced in any way by what is good for the company; whether you understand their decision or not.



- "...you will buy this game..."

Most likely



Thank you for an interesting read!

[Liutas]

Just a simple question:

And why there is so general understanding that HoMM III has more fans then HoMM IV?

I played all of them incl. WoG, but I could not believe that one can be so strong in his opinion about one version vs. the other.

I'm from those fans that have little time to argue with hard core fans, participating in all the boards, but I do pay cash for all extensions, etc.

So, do I have a say, cause I love IV as I loved III - IV was annoying at the beginning, but as it is with your wife - once you forget paying attention to what is annoying and concentrate what is good - your life becomes more joyful.

And now on the evolution - there should be no way "back to good things", and I think Dragons is making good point in referring to CIV series - eliminate annoying things, leave the core, add new challenges (to rethink the strategy).

What I read here - core III fans - shouts in ecstasy - give me my III in 3D, cause that was what we expected in IV; C’mon guys, this was 5 years ago.

I can still play chess, but the life is changing and I do want some new challenges, but not old stuff - like chaining.

So my verdict - among die hard fans III prevails, at least on this site, but there is some other fans that will not write here as they are not in map making, using all the twists, etc. They just play for fun and want some more fun - not the old stuff revitalised. In my opinion Ubi will make big mistake to do the game for small number of fanatics and ignore the chance to get bigger audience, like CIV is doing with every game.

And the final: CIV IV a HoMM V is coming out in similar time - see which one would get better success - I bet on CIV - just the feeling.

[Corribus]

@Liutas: "[Heroes] IV was annoying at the beginning, but as it is with your wife - once you forget paying attention to what is annoying and concentrate what is good - your life becomes more joyful. "



Heh heh, I love that! :-)

[Corribus]

@ Wimfrits:



Quote:

"Both [heroes on/off the battlefield] systems have their flaws. After playing a game for a significant amount of time, you simply do not see the flaws anymore. "



The flaw in the H3 system is conceptual; the flaw in the H4 system actually affects gameplay and totally unbalances the game. I understand your devotion to H4, and I sympathize with it, but can you honestly tell me that the way that Heroes on the battlefield are implemented in H4 makes for a balanced game? Rarely have I ever played a game of H4 where I needed to even recruit a single creature, and rarely have I met a stiff challenge for high level heroes (although there are those who have said that your campaign Wind of Thorns is quite challenging - I still mean to give it a try! . Maybe it's just that I'm totally awesome at the game - but I doubt it. And furthermore, I have yet to see anyone suggest a way that this system could even be made to balanced at all! I for one have played H4 a lot - and the passage of time does not improve it for me. The fact that many agree with this viewpoint (and the relative lack of those who can point to a real systematic flaw of the H3 system other than the fact that "it doesn't really make sense") seems to support my argument that, personal opinions aside, the H3 system definitely can work but the H4 system's plausibility is still a matter of debate. That doesn't mean it CAN'T work given proper time and balancing, but it is a risk.



"Gamecompanies exist to provide in our need. Not the other way around. We're not charity either "



Point taken! And if consumers express those needs, game companies will definitely cater to them if they're smart. If 30 billion fans went to Ubisoft and demanded Heroes on the battlefield, they'd probably listen. In fact it wouldn't even take 30 billion - probably much less (as happened in the Forge). But in the case where there is a lack of demands, the game company has to go with what they believe will give them the best chance of success, and in this case, for reasons outlined in my article, this is a game based on the H3 system.



"What you expect from a game should not be influenced in any way by what is good for the company; whether you understand their decision or not."



Hmmm... I agree with you. Your expectations are individual and driven by personal taste - and by all means, express those expectations and opinions as much as you want. What I'm saying is that for you (generic) to expect a game company to cater to your personal expectations is a completely unreasonably expectation in itself. There are two sets of interests here, and they don't always coincide.



Also, despite that I'm "getting what I want" in H5, my point in this article was not to argue the merits of H3 vis-a-vis H4 (i.e., which was a better game). My goal here was to explore Ubisoft's decision to make H5 more H3-like and why it makes sense to me that such a course of action was taken. Just because their decision is justified from a business standpoint does not mean bupkes about the virtues of the H3/H4 core elements and certainly doesn't mean it's going to please everyone. However, I do believe that (to some extent), what is good for Ubisoft IS (generally) good for the HoMM fan, because Ubisoft making money is what will ensure the longevity of the series. This is of course in the limit that Ubisoft makes quality entries into the series.



But clearly, we will never arrive at a unified answer of which was better, H3 or H4.

[Darmani]

"(and the relative lack of those who can point to a real systematic flaw of the H3 system other than the fact that "it doesn't really make sense") "



Catapults can be destroyed with a single spell.



Hero specialties are extremely unbalanced, almost as unbalanced as magic in HoMM IV.



Defending castles is too easy.



Magic skills are overpowered. Melee skills are underpowered.



Level 7 creatures are too affordable (i.e.: 2 castles are enough to recruit everything from a castle)



Bad ideas: Intellignce skill, making castle defences do more than defend



More on Might vs. Magic: Attack and Defense skill no longer does as much (% bonus decreased from H2). Now the only way to get an uber attack skill is with the new and improved Bllodlust, as well as Frenzy. Mass spells can be cast very cheaply, thanks to the new magic skills.





Your love of H3 is justified, but are you not getting a little....arrogant with that statement?

[Corribus]

I'm referring only to Heroes being on the battlefield. Yes there were some skills in H3 that were better than others; some skills were farily useless. (btw I think it's a good thing that there is a little diversity in the usefulness of skills.) Small imbalances are unavoidable and it's not really the point of what I'm arguing about.



Give me a reason why the Heroes-on-the-battlefield approach as it is implemented in H3 does not work or ruins the game, OTHER than that it's "unrealistic". It's pretty clear why the Heroes-off-the-battlefield approach was awful in H4. Maybe it could be made to work. Maybe it couldn't. We don't know - and that's the point, really.

[Gaidal Cain]

@Corribus:

While it doesn't 'ruin' the game (which I don't believe the heroes in combat did in H4 either, but that's another matter), the fact that heroes can cast a spell when one of their creatures has a turn is in fact very bad- it compounds the general problem of 'speediest army wins'. It also made sure that tricks like 'blind and resurrect' works, which is unlogical ('logical' is not the same thing as 'realistic', even if they often are close.)

[wimfrits]

@ Corribus:

Good points; I agree!



I'm pretty much devoted to H4 indeed, but I'd like to point out that I've played a lot more of H3 so far (logical considering the games' release dates). I love both games, but I became bored with H3's relatively superficial nature eventually. H4's system opened up a whole new dimension of tactics.



As for balance of heroes on/off the battlefield:

- ON: single heroes are pretty decently balanced up to a point. Too much stat boosts and creatures become irrelevant like you said.

New balance issue in H4 is that multiple heroes + few armies is stronger than multiple armies + few heroes. I don't know if this could be balanced better. Don't know if it should either, it's a matter of personal taste.



Carried over heroes in campaigns will always be relatively unbalanced, but that's the same in H3.



- OFF: has illogical side effects like Gaidal Cain said.

The main problem I have with H3 system actually is that the hero's survival is not linked to his own power.

If the archdevils you face are split up in 7 instead of 5 and kill your entire army before you have a chance to act; your lvl30 hero, on whose development you spent the last 4 hours, is dead. Face an enemy who is fortunate enough to have high morale twice in a row and casts blind on your remaining stack, and your lvl30 hero is gone for good, without having a chance to intervene. The H4 system solved such illogical aspects.

[Crustacean]

Funny that HoMM 2 was not much discussed here.



From my point of view, the "closer to H3 than to H4" indeed makes perfect business sense, no argueing that.

However, it's more a "classic formula" versus "innovative (but flawed) formula" choice that has been made.

Case in point, they coild have made a more "H2-like" game. My main gripe would be the 8-levels of creatures and the "every creature has its upgrade" points. This makes for very generic (almost bland) rosters. I understand that "some creatures have no upgrade, some have 2, as in H2 made things harder to balance (unbalance could also be accepted/part of the design, by having pairs of "rushing"/standard/"long to develop powerful" castles) but it made for a much more diverse game ! (one thing I think h4 tried to do with its 2-choices rosters).

Having played H2/3/4 a lot along this years made me realize the many reasons why i now replay H2 so often. It is special, no castle feel the same at all, the 6th lvl creatures are really something (at least for the 4 non-rushing castles, and this is reinforced by the % binus for atk and def which are significant and not levelled) while in H3, 6th and 7th are not that different in power, no awe and accomplishement in getting the 7th lvl building.

Incidentally, H2 also still looks fine thanks to its cartoonish design, had it tried to be "realistic", it would be a mess today...

H3, while still a VERY good game, with its generci more-of-the-same-but-more-for-every-castle, made for a too generic game in the end, IMHO (even the graphic design is a little generic, limited color palette).



Ideal for me would be "start with H2, upgrade it to 3D, and add more - like in H3, but with a more "diversity / sense of scale / real differences" approach to the mix.