Heroes Community

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (

) Heroes 2 (

) Heroes 3 (

) Heroes 4 (

) Heroes 5 (

) Heroes 6 (

)

Post Reply
UserName:	Want to register?
Password:	Forgotten your password?
Subject:	(Optional)
Post Icon:
Compose Reply:	Remember: making 3 replies in a row in the same topic will reduce your post count. [quote]1: CREATURE ABILITIES TITAN'S HELM AND GIANTSLAYER the titan looks nice imho, except the helm that looks bit out of place compared to his other armour (well, i don't really like the look of the helm also). also, he is supposed to be a shooter, so i wonder how he can shoot well with his helm covering his eyes almost completely (the homm3 titan was much better from that point of view). now, the question is: is the titan immune to the hobbit's gantslayer ability? if he is immune, this helm would make sense, but on the other hand, the titan looks like the most perfect giant, so being immune to giantslayer would sound really weird. FIRST STRIKE now.. when a creature with first strike ability attacks another creature with first strike ability, who will hit first? or is it like attacking and defending with normal monsters? the only creature that is free of that contradiction seems to be the dragon golem that has first strike negation on the opponent. will the first strike ability be effective against multiple attacks in the same round? imho the first strike ability might give too large advantage when the stack is large, and might be difficult to balance the way it is announced. also, i don't like the first strike ability too much, and would be happyer if it was removed. 2: CREATURE APPEARANCE well, imho the style of the graphics is of major importance (is this a personal problem with me?). imho the heroes4 screenshots that i have seen so far are better than i expected, but the creatures that don't fit the style stick the eye the more unpleasantly. like in homm3 the wolves may be one of the most useful creatures in inferno, but for me they are just meat requred for the demons, just because their graphics does not go with the style (they look like clumsy teddy bears, sorry if i am offending the artist). MINOTAUR yeah, here is another monster that has the head of a horned bear (instead of a head of a bull this time). VAMPIRE i like the attitude of the vampire (the impression on his face), but his clothing does not seem to suit anything close to 15-th century at all (like the appearance of most of the other creatures does). this hurts. is it impossible to have a vampire who is not a few hundred years ahead of his time experimenting with fashion? WOLVES AND DOGS i havn't seen a larger picture of a wolf yet, but i have some reasons to suspect that the wolves will be too realistic. i personally prefer style over realism anytime. as far as i have seen some medieval paintings, the animals look bit difefrent there (well, could not find the best examples at such a short notice, but those should make the point: http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bosch/bosch42.html for a small dog and http://www.abcgallery.com/B/bosch/bosch43.html for a few pigs. i.e. animals, especially the dogs and the pigs, seem to have their head, neck, front part of the body, and slenderness of their legs out of proportion. also applies to humans in some form, but that part of the game graphics is already usually very nice as far as i have seen the screenshots) BUILDINGS THAT LOOK LIKE A HEAD well.. would you build a house that would look like a head of a human? i can understand that this makes the purpose of the building easier to understand, but on the other hand, the buildings do not look very nice that way imho. WALLS i cannot remember any paintings where they would have drawn buildings with the help of a ruler (sticks in the eye when everything else looks as if it has been drawn by hand), also i don't remember many paintings of that style where they would have drawn each brick in the building invidually (at least not in such detail). maybe the fortifications would look better if they didn't look so perfect. DRAGON GOLEM there has been a debate about the infamous dragon golem (i wonder how many ppl would be seriously unhappy if the creature was remade).. well, at the gui (graphical user interface) lectures they say that the appearance of a good gui should enable the user to intuitively guess what button he should click. the appearance of the dragon golem, i.e. all the shiny mech-like parts, etc, and the dr watson (with glasses) sitting inside makes me intuitively guess that this is a tech and mech monster. or at least a hybride of a medieval monster and some modern tech thing the medieval ppl could not even have dreamed about. 3: MISCELLANIOUS ANGEL AND CRUSADER an angel would beat the crusader anytime. i have heard that warriors fell flat on the face when they saw an angel (should be in some story in the bible). NATURAL ENEMIES what if the natural enemies were berserk against each other, the probablility of them attacking each other would depend on distance on the battlefield.. now that the morale does not look so important anymore.. ******* assuming that if i don't like one creature, i can pick the other.. but this decision often has nothing to do with strategy, but graphics instead. also, it seems that i will be avoiding the academy town, because i like neither of the top level creatures too much.. oh, well.. but that's why i play the game - the style and the small details.[/quote]
Options	Show Signature: add your profile signature to this message. Email Notification: notify you by email when this message recieves a reply.

Click here to review this thread.