| WHICH IS BETTER HEROES 2, OR HEROES 3 + EXPANSIONS |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
Hell_Wizard
Famous Hero
|
posted October 09, 2008 05:40 PM |
|
|
I Desagree. I can say tou that HOMM 3 is a perfect combination between GFX and Game Quality (Still Known as "gameplay"). In HOMM4 and HOMM5 the GFX quality is rising, but the Game Itself gets worse.
HOMM 2 is good (probably, never played it).
____________
|
|
rafter
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 31, 2016 05:47 PM |
|
|
I like much more Heroes 2, than Heroes 3. I like the cartoonish pictures and the sounds in Heroes 2. It is always interesting to listen to the sound of dying Gargoyle, or Griffin, Lich, Phoenix, Roc. The Heroes 2 Original Succesion War maps were better than the Expansion Heroes 2 Price of Loyality. But the AI/ computer was bettter/ hard in Heroes 2 the Price of Loyality. The best choice is a orginal map( Succesion wars map) played at the engine of Heroes 2 Price of loyality.
The AI/ computer in Heroes 2 was better than Heroes 3 because computer's heroes always put some defensive units in their castles. So it was much difficult to take back a castle. So if the computer leave a big stack of undefeatable units, the player must think for another city which may be conquered in 7 days.
In Heroes 3, when conquering a city , AI/ computer did not leave any defence units. So it is very easy ( especcialy for expert players)to take any city in 7 days, before the human player lose the game. I made some maps with much money and free troops for the AI/ computer, but it do not leave any defence troops when conquering my city.
Also, having less gold and resources in Heroes 2 balancing the game at Small and Medium maps, where the human player must choose what upgrades to build and what troops/ units to buy.
|
| |
|
|
