Log in or sign up to comment
15 Comments
Posted by Tennmuerti

@ahoodedfigure said:

@Tordah: I'd go you one better and say that every Heroes game had something good about it, and that especially includes Heroes 1. I've wrangled with AW before on this, but my point is that the actual units seemed to matter more as individual stacks, and that even low-level units have more weight. It's a bit more chess-like in that respect. I feel like the farther down the road the Heroes franchise has marched, the wider the gap between top level and low level units has been.

They reduced this gap a lot in 6

In the beta the basic units were downright overpowered and Champions too weak. They seemed to have balanced it out now and all 3 tiers are useful

AW, the AI is so damned important to games like this that I don't feel like I'd necessarily want to play Homm6 (yes) even though they're taking a huge leap forward by letting you pick your skills. I'm sure there were other leaps in there somewhere... how do you feel about the square movement and how do you feel about all the mandatory online stuff they've been talking about?

Square movement was in 5. It's fine.

Mandatory online stuff is no biggie if you have a stable connection. But I dislike it on principle.

Posted by ahoodedfigure
@Tordah: I'd go you one better and say that every Heroes game had something good about it, and that especially includes Heroes 1. I've wrangled with AW before on this, but my point is that the actual units seemed to matter more as individual stacks, and that even low-level units have more weight. It's a bit more chess-like in that respect. I feel like the farther down the road the Heroes franchise has marched, the wider the gap between top level and low level units has been.
 
I also think the creature mix for each town had more charm to them, and the battles in general, because of the smaller maps, felt less like they would take for effing ever.
 

AW, the AI is so damned important to games like this that I don't feel like I'd necessarily want to play Homm6 (yes) even though they're taking a huge leap forward by letting you pick your skills.  I'm sure there were other leaps in there somewhere...  how do you feel about the square movement and how do you feel about all the mandatory online stuff they've been talking about?
 
 
@Mento: I try not to think about the stacks anymore, but yeah that used to bother me too. I think it might make more sense if you have actual separate units if your stacks get too big, but that might push it into Fantasy General territory. 
 
As for Age of Wonders, I know that game inside out if you have any questions. I haven't played the sequels, but I've played the hell out of the first game and like it a lot. Haven't played it multiplayer yet, though-- *looks pointedly at an unassuming cloud, kicks rock, goes back to justifying existence* 
Posted by Tennmuerti
@ArbitraryWater
Found something that makes me more hopefull for 6:

Hello Heroes,

The Townscreens


We all agree on the fact that the townscreens must be revised, and although we won’t be able to change them for release, rest assured that this feature update is on the top of our priority list in our post-launch support plan.


The M&M’s team”

Posted by ArbitraryWater

@Tordah: I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ. Obviously, this opinion comes from being exposed to Heroes 1 well after my exposure to the rest of the franchise, including V. However, I find that Heroes II does everything the first game does far better, from the cartoony creature sprites (the Vampires say "BLAH" when they attack for goodness sake) to the basic mechanics, to the soundtrack itself. Also, the AI in Heroes 1 is brutal, especially in the context of the way the rest of that game plays out.

Posted by Tordah

Well, this sounds far more promising than I had ever dared hope for. Nothing will ever top HoMM 3, that's a fact. I bet even the developers themselves know that so there's no use hoping for that level of quality. I can appreciate that they're trying out some new things instead of rehashing old concepts, even if it doesn't always pan out that well.

I must say I'm a bit disappointed with your negative comment towards Heroes 1. It was the first Heroes game I ever played (those were the days!) and I loved every second of it. Sure, the sequels improved on the actual gameplay formula a lot, but no other entry in the series had even half as much charm and personality as Heroes 1 had. I take personal offense whenever somebody says something bad about it.

Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw

@ArbitraryWater: In a weird way, I kinda liked the world they created in VI-VIII. Sure, it was full of fantasy tropes and cliches, but on the whole? It was a world I really liked exploring. Never got that feeling from HoMMV.

Moderator
Posted by ArbitraryWater

@Sparky_Buzzsaw: Yep. Generic Fantasy all the way. Really though, with the exception of that scrapped Forge faction in Heroes III and the late-game presence of laser guns in M&M VI and VII, was New World Computing's generic fantasy world so much better? On the plus though, the difficulty is no longer wildly inconsistent in the same way the fairly awful campaigns for Heroes V were.

@Tennmuerti: I've heard some mutterings of bugginess, but of course that just reminds me of how they had to patch Heroes V like 3 times to make it playable, changing the cursor from a horse to a unicorn in the process. They'll iron it out... eventually. Not sure how well they'll rebalance it though, considering that was a sticking point with Heroes V as well, and they didn't really get that right until Tribes of the East anyways. Links should be fixed now. Hopefully.

Posted by Tennmuerti
@ArbitraryWater
Was waiting for this :)
By the way your links are broken.
 
I'm still on the fence about HoMM6 as well.
They pretty much took 5 as basis and worked from there. Which is good to me since I liked 5. But also bad because they changed some things in directions i'm sceptical about.
 
The heroes stat system of might/magic/luck/morale is straight up better I think, so good job there.
However the skill system leaves much to be desired. Yes the randomness has been removed and that is nice. But it also means that every might hero and every magic hero will have the exact same things available. And it also means that some skills will always be taken while others neglected. At least in 5 there were variations due to faction in the skill tree. Although the racial blood/tears abilities help migitate that.
 
Now I realise that the game has just come out, but on the balance side of things this game is leaing towards 4 a lot. Necropolis is insanely easy to clear a map with due to their racial. Whereas the Inferno gating racial is hardly even worth the effort untill you have an incredible amount of luck. Healing is king.
 
The overall combat system is more tame then in 5 imo. The good part is that it makes everythign more balanced. The bad is that gone are some of the most ridiculous awesome strategies that were possible in 5.
I will forever remember you triple balista with chain lightning on. And the initiative system made things way more interesting before too.
 
I was kind of negative towards the territory system during the demo, but have since come around. It's a change one can respect.
The town screens are still awfull.
 
And then there are the bugs, oh so many bugs right now. The biggest thread on the official boards.
Some are really really obvious and big too, the kind of shit that should NOT have gotten past the 2 betas.
Taunt still does nothing. Epic bow wich is supposed to reduce ranged and obstacle penalty also does nothing. Phoenixes are still broken in liek 3 different ways. Upgraded griffins special ability still does not work AT ALL (oh and hey the human campaing heroe's special skill is 15% more on dives, wooptee doo). Liches life transfusion is still broken. That's just some of the worst ones I have personally experienced.
This is seriously one of the worst cases of known bugs being completely ignored by the devs. And they delayed the game like 3 times too. Just unexcusable.
 
With a lot of bug fixes and some balance changes it could be a really good game.
 
@Sparky_Buzzsaw said:

Let me hit you up with a dumb question that I have this vague feeling I've asked you before. I enjoyed the series up to HoMM 3 (and it should still be Heroes of..., and not this blasphemous bullshit). I didn't play IV, and I really ended up loathing V for its wildly varying difficulty and general sense of blandness. Has this one ironed out those difficulty issues? Does it feel like a proper, proper HoMM game or does it still have that fantasy generica feel that V did?

It's pretty much as you put it "fantasy generica" even more so then 5.
Difficulty seems normalized. But to me that makes it a bit more dull.
Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw

Let me hit you up with a dumb question that I have this vague feeling I've asked you before. I enjoyed the series up to HoMM 3 (and it should still be Heroes of..., and not this blasphemous bullshit). I didn't play IV, and I really ended up loathing V for its wildly varying difficulty and general sense of blandness. Has this one ironed out those difficulty issues? Does it feel like a proper, proper HoMM game or does it still have that fantasy generica feel that V did?

Moderator
Posted by ArbitraryWater

@Mento: Really, if you like Master of Magic so much, you should just play Age of Wonders or either of its sequels, because those games take everything I like about Master of Magic without the braindead AI, wildly difficult random encounters or lolbroken imbalances. It also doesn't have stacks, since video games have to be REALISTIC AND SHOW EVERY SINGLE CREATURE BECAUSE METAPHYSICAL CONCEITS ARE FOR PUSSIES.

And having messed around with Lords of Magic a bit, allow me to tell you straight up: That game does not seem super great. The combat is actually real time with pausing, something I associate with Infinity Engine titles more than anything else. Once again, does not seem... amazing.

Posted by Mento

MAD. STACKS.

Honestly, that was always the thing that got me with those games and a fairly dumb reason to stop following the series. I know it's just a symbolic thing, since no-one wants to try and command 700 goblins separately in a game that's really more about Catan-esque city building and resource point claiming, but it just struck me as such an inelegant combat system. I'd have preferred something more like how RTS does units, where you'd need to build the appropriate lair and then require extra time/money to make units of that type over the regular grunts. Then just keep the armies at manageable, skirmish-sized levels. Like Master of Magic.

I know I go on about Master of Magic a lot, but I'm trying to recall this fantasy TBS that had really good strategic combat alongside the city-building stuff. Lords of Magic? It's been a while since I played it, and I think it was just a demo anyway, so maybe I'm misremembering since it's apparently kind of average. What I wouldn't give to have a TBS game like that with a more in-depth X-COM style turn-based combat/exploration system. Wildly veering off topic.

Moderator
Posted by Video_Game_King

I'd say that Dunsparce's presence in the HoMaM (man, what an effing weird acronym) would make me play them, but I've always been more of a Smeagle guy, when it comes to Generation 2. Besides, I still have a ton of games to complete.

Posted by ArbitraryWater

@Video_Game_King: Well, I was referring to Heroes 2 Sandro and Heroes 3 Sandro, but I'm pretty sure you're just being internet facetious with that comment. So yes, Dunsparce is totally in all of the games.

Posted by Video_Game_King

I didn't know that Dunsparce appeared in a Might and Magic game.