Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 5 - Temple of Ashan > Thread: What is the most dissapointing feature of Heroes V?
Thread: What is the most dissapointing feature of Heroes V? This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · «PREV / NEXT»
okiesolidarity
okiesolidarity


Known Hero
right brain/left brain wizard
posted June 02, 2006 07:52 PM

Quote:
So back on topic, yeah?  

I'm slightly disappointed that a Necromancer can learn Leadership.  Lame.  You can get good abilities from it (like Herald of Death), but the skill itself is completely useless.  They should have made it "Decrease enemy Morale by 1, 2, 3."


I agree that would be a little nicer.  Herald of Death is a really nice abilitiy, though, and seems as though it was maybe intentional that the undead have to take leadership in order to get it.

Let's not forget the possibility of mixed armies, either.  Just because they're undead doesn't mean they won't run into stacks of powerful creatures from other factions who offer to join.  Sometimes it may be beneficial to leave them as their original type of unit (lvl 7's especially), so it could be nice to have the morale boost for them.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Iris
Iris


Responsible
Supreme Hero
of Typos
posted June 02, 2006 08:11 PM

Hmm, good point.  Necropolis does have the suckiest level 7 creatures, imo.    But is it worth it as a skill though?  You can only get 6 total, and if one is taken up by something that your main force cannot benefit from... that just seems like a waste.

While we're on the topic of Necromancy and Leadership... does the Herald of Death only work with creatures joining you?  Or can it be applied to creature dwellings of living creatures?  (e.g. if I hire 10 Pixies from a creature dwelling, do they join me as Pixies or Skellies?)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Shhejtan
Shhejtan


Hired Hero
posted June 02, 2006 10:00 PM

Concerning Inferno and Academy - try a hot seat with yourself. You don't have to slug it out, just see who does better and who struggles. My girlfirend pointed out that she played a 4 player hotseat leading all the players herself. Evry other castle (wizard, sylvan and dungeon) had outperformed Infreno, and she's a bigger turn based strategy freak then me.

Gating takes too long to activate in the begining, and you lose troops while you set it into motion. If you use it against archers you will lose some troops - imps, horned daemons (very underrated but very good if you think about them) or hell hounds (which are only good if you accumulate and upgrade them). The other castles don't have that "one- turn-sitting-duck" problem in combat, and they suffer less for loosing troops in the begining because they need less of a swarm to be effective (for both dadmage and further gating). Without line of sight, the enemy archers can hit anything you have, and propably do decent damage since your defense is generaly weak.

Think about it: The wizard gets two archers, one of them a fireball slinger with further potential for hitting more then one target, and the inferno must wait untill succubus upgrade for a decent shooter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shhejtan
Shhejtan


Hired Hero
posted June 02, 2006 10:24 PM

And also, I really have to appologize fo all the spelling errors, I'm not a native english speaker.

As for my points being unobjective, notice that I have been talking about game mechanics mostly, and since I've played Magic the Gathering for as long as I can remember, I'm a big fan of games that have solid mechanics that give multiple strategies for a good tactician to choose from. Cuting down the number of choices I have in a game, "dumbing it down", so to say, will always be a big dissapointment for me.

The new and expanded mechanics introduced in Heroes IV gave me a lot more choices and styles of play and I can try to explain a lot more humbly then before, but only if anybody interested would stop for a moment and realize that game mechanics (like gating, spell power or skills) can't be subjective. They can only be more or less difficult to master. The easies ones are ussualy the most popular, while the complex ones are ussualy more rewarding.

What really makes me annoyed is when people who had disregarded Heroes IV because of mostly "personal impression" (the look of the creatures, the top down view, the self propelling creatures ) lost out on what that game really is about. A lot of my friends who gave up on Heroes IV before digging into it now praise some features that weren't in Heroes III but are in Heroes V. They say things like: "Yes! Finaly every creature has a special ability, can you believe that! These are the best Heroes ever!". But, in Heroes IV every creature had a special ability as well, not to mention that there were more special abilities  
in that game.

But no, Heroes IV sucks, everybody knows that. Some even claimed that we "finally" had spells divided into schools in Heroes V, which was such an improvement over Heroes III. Right. Oh, how long we waited for that one! How come nobody thought of dividing them into schools before? They did it in Heroes IV you say? But that game sucks, everybody knows that! Heroes III was the best and Heroes V will be better as soon as they patch it. Right. "Stop badmouthing the game, infidel!" they say and I quote. "How come everybody likes THE GAME and you don't, what makes you think you are so smart?" they say.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gus
Gus


Known Hero
Not-So-Bright Crusader
posted June 02, 2006 10:44 PM

Quote:
The new and expanded mechanics introduced in Heroes IV gave me a lot more choices and styles of play and I can try to explain a lot more humbly then before, but only if anybody interested would stop for a moment and realize that game mechanics (like gating, spell power or skills) can't be subjective. They can only be more or less difficult to master. The easies ones are ussualy the most popular, while the complex ones are ussualy more rewarding.

of course, game mechanics are objective, but their effect, impact, influence on the game is subjective. What you like, someone else can dislike, and except for blatant imbalances, it WILL be subjective. As an example, some think that buying creatures on day 1 is an exploit, others think it's strategy.
As for the variety of choices in HIV, well... Combat anyone ? This skill was a must with heroes on the field. BTW, don't count me in the camp of H4-haters/H5-lovers. I greatly enjoyed H4 and it's too early to tell if H5 is gonna be a great strategy game or juste a nice distraction.

Quote:
What really makes me annoyed is when people who had disregarded Heroes IV because of mostly "personal impression" (the look of the creatures, the top down view, the self propelling creatures ) lost out on what that game really is about.

I don't think "self-propelling creatures", and by extension Hero-less armies or army-less Heroes, are cosmetic changes. This is a perfect example of something you deem as "obvious" while it is clearly debatable. Making heroes required is something strategic. Whether it is a good or bad design decision is arguable.

Quote:
But no, Heroes IV sucks, everybody knows that.

I don't think you'll find a lot of examples of this in this thread. And my last remark is not designed to rekindle an argument between us, but I have the impression you are the one who is badmouthing any HoMM that is not H4. "H4 was so great, H4 had a lot of things, H5 should have been a better H4" etc... Once again, i'm not saying that designing H5 from H4 would have been a mistake, just that it is personal opinion. And judging from popularity, H3 is by far more popular than H4. To me, that doesn't mean anything, majority isn't always right. I can understand that if you loved H4 (and why not ?) you're disappointed that H5 is not using features from it, but you have to understand what you feel and how you judge such or such feature _IS_ personal, like everyone else's opinion. Yours is not more objective.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shhejtan
Shhejtan


Hired Hero
posted June 03, 2006 01:19 AM

Quote:
...game mechanics are objective, but their effect, impact, influence on the game is subjective. What you like, someone else can dislike, and except for blatant imbalances, it WILL be subjective. As an example, some think that buying creatures on day 1 is an exploit, others think it's strategy.


The only subjective thing about game mechanics is the mastery one achieves. Easier to master = more people will master them and  possibly like them. If people don't comprehend them, they will dislike them even though they might be good. Especially if somebody else uses it aginst them. And that comes down to who has more resources to tap into or invest in the game, be it time, intelligence, patience and expirience with games as such.

Quote:
As for the variety of choices in HIV, well... Combat anyone ? This skill was a must with heroes on the field. BTW, don't count me in the camp of H4-haters/H5-lovers. I greatly enjoyed H4 and it's too early to tell if H5 is gonna be a great strategy game or juste a nice distraction.


I believe I have mentioned it before, combat is the one skill I never go for intentionally. I build it up along the way if there are forts and altars, but it never a priority for my magic heroes. I protect them with good formations, line of sight and luck, allowing me to spend my levels on furthering their magic skills. Well, it works for me I guess.

Quote:
I don't think "self-propelling creatures", and by extension Hero-less armies or army-less Heroes, are cosmetic changes. This is a perfect example of something you deem as "obvious" while it is clearly debatable. Making heroes required is something strategic. Whether it is a good or bad design decision is arguable.


I believe you'd be amazed how many people thought that self propelling creatures were a cosmetic annoyance that broke the purity that was THE GAME. Silly I know, and shows a serious lack of those resources needed to master the game. Most people that gave up on Heroes IV soon never figured that it may be an advantage, as it is ofen cited as one of the most annoying and, lacking a better word, blasphemous features that condemned Heroes IV in their eyes. I consider the SPC good because they make my gameplay smoother, but a lot of gamers hate them because they interfear with their personal vision of what Heroes are.

Quote:
And my last remark is not designed to rekindle an argument between us, but I have the impression you are the one who is badmouthing any HoMM that is not H4. "H4 was so great, H4 had a lot of things, H5 should have been a better H4" etc...


I'm sorry, but I really shouldn't have to repeat myself so often. How many times must I say that I didn't want Heroes V to be a better Heroes IV, but better than Heroes IV. Now the logic behind my complaining is that going back to a game Heroes IV evolved from with so little significant change is hardly going to make Heroes V better than the previous sequel.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
okiesolidarity
okiesolidarity


Known Hero
right brain/left brain wizard
posted June 03, 2006 01:44 AM


Quote:


I'm sorry, but I really shouldn't have to repeat myself so often. How many times must I say that I didn't want Heroes V to be a better Heroes IV, but better than Heroes IV. Now the logic behind my complaining is that going back to a game Heroes IV evolved from with so little significant change is hardly going to make Heroes V better than the previous sequel.




Many gamers did not see heroes4 as progress from heroes3.  In my opinion, the vast changes that took place in heroes4 almost seemed as though it was trying to create a different gaming franchise altogether.  In comparison, the progression from heroes1 to heroes2 and heroes2 to heroes3 all seemed to be moving towards the tweaking of a similar gameplay concept.  For better or for worse, each one seemed to replace the previous title as an indisputable improvement.

Then heroes4 came, and a lot of fans of the series felt betrayed.  Some of the changes felt as though they were not improving on an old formula, but rather trying to make a new game altogether.  I don't hate heroes4; i think there are a lot of great features in heroes4, but it never felt like it was the next step in heroes of might and magic to me.

I will admit, I breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced that a lot of the changes that had taken place in heroes4 would not be continued into heroes5.  In the same way that you tell me that you are tired of explaining that you don't want another heroes4, I am tired of explaining that I don't want another heroes3.  Yes, this game resembles 3 more than 4, and (as I have said at least twice before in this thread) 3 resembled 2 and 2 resembled 1.  4 is the black sheep of the series.

As you have stated previously in this thread, 5 has adopted a lot of features from 4.  It has also axed a lot of those features.  I think the frustration comes from the fact that despite the fact that you say you want an improved game in the series, most people here will disagree with you that 4 is an improved version of 3 (I would argue that the two are apples and oranges), so the fact that this game does not include some features of 4 that you enjoyed (heroless armies seems to be a big one, if I am not mistaken), seems to suggest that you want a game that is more like the black sheep of the franchise than every other game (not just heroes3, as you seem to be asserting).  That is why you are getting accused of wanting another heroes4.

I apologize that so many of these posts have been off-topic.  This discussion should be taking place in another thread.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
FlawedParadigm
FlawedParadigm

Tavern Dweller
posted June 03, 2006 01:55 AM

First off let me say that, aside from the weak Inferno faction, I by and large enjoy the game, once I got used to the 3D world map (which, by the way, almost turned me off from the game, but then I still play some text games...) but of course, this is a complaint thread and I'm here to complain.

My biggest complaint is the rushed feel - campaigns not working properly, duel heroes wildly imbalanced, some decisions seemingly made out desparation or sheer error (such as which towns focus on what magic school - Sylvan without Summoning? You're kidding, right?), no RMG, no editor - and things along those lines. This game was not ready to be released when it was, but knowing the industry a bit, I doubt the fault lies with the programmers. It says something that it's my biggest complaint, since practically every PC game is rushed these days anyhow. Heck, when the expansion for Diablo II was released, Blizzard said right up front that it wasn't ready and that they expected to patch most things within a couple of weeks. It ended up being eight weeks, but still.

The biggest gripe I have within the game is the amount of interdependant skills required to get the 'ultimate skill' for each faction, most if not all of which require 5 of your 6 skill slots to acquire. Plus, there's no way I've seen in game on how to get to these skills - if you don't have internet access to see a site like this, you might not even know such skills exist. Obviously, no one wants these skills available early if they have any concept of balance, but instead of requiring almost your entire skill tree, why not just require expert in your town's main attribute, and level 20-25?  Or at the very least, not make them rely on abilites from no more than 3 different skill lists. Heck, it's impossible for some heroes to even get their faction's ultimate skill, at this point. That's goofy. Again, this leads back to the 'rushed' feel.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shhejtan
Shhejtan


Hired Hero
posted June 03, 2006 03:03 AM

It's just so funny to hear that the game which introduced something that was sort of a dream for many players that I personaly know, to be considered a black sheep ot he series, okiesolidarity.

I remamber that the idea of having your hero in the thick of combat being appealing to me and my friends since heroes II establised the series. When we were expecting Heroes IV, the feeling was - finally! I remember a recent poll about which heroes game was better Heroes III or IV (heroes IV won, for the first time i guess), but a lot of the players who woted of Heroes III said that they wanted to vote for Heroes II. I guess the fans of the series are now divided (more or less definitely) into those that never really figured out heroes IV, and those that did and now can't go back. That's just my expirience, feel free to bash

But the question is one of progress, justice and gratitude, I suppose. It seems to me that most bankrupcies in the computer game world happen when somebody decides to add a bit of progress to the same old same old routine that the average joe gamer seems content with. If I made a game that was so popular the public wouldn't let it go no further, I guess I'd be very sad. If Heroes V is succesfull, it will be a good sign that there is no room for progress in this, or any other succesfull franchize. Limiting a team of geniouses responsible for Kings Bounty and Heroes I to making the same game over and over again, well, old Greeks used to dicribe torments of hell as being something like that.

Everybody whoever thinks Heroes IV was a black sheep, not a heroes game, should at least feel guilty, for it that attitude that drove the firm that gave them their beloved Heroes III to bankrupcy. So there, now you have a game that's even more half-baked than the original Heroes IV had been, that even has some bashed features implemented even more clunkily, are you happy? I guess in two or three more sequels, which will no doubt have better graphics but won't dare to go beyond that, somebody in the firm will snap and try to innovate, to expand. I pity the poor sod. He'll be looking for a job real soon.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
okiesolidarity
okiesolidarity


Known Hero
right brain/left brain wizard
posted June 03, 2006 08:04 AM

Quote:
It's just so funny to hear that the game which introduced something that was sort of a dream for many players that I personaly know, to be considered a black sheep ot he series, okiesolidarity.


I can empathize.  I have been playing this series since heroes 1.  I went back and played king's bounty for months, thinking how wonderful a game it was to start this type of game.  What made the heroes series so unique and special for me was the changed emphasis, away from the typical strategy game in which there was an enormous map with a bunch of individual units that you controlled across the map.  Instead, their was a centralized figure, a hero, that carried these armies, and cut out the mindless manipulation of having to move each individual member of your army across the field.  

When I had heard about heroes4, I was excited about the fact that there had reportedly been a lot of changes from the previous heroes titles, and I thought to myself that maybe they had perfected the game I always wanted them to make.  I rushed out and got it, to discover that they had taken so many of the elements I had loved about the heroes series and butchered them.  Heroes participated in battles?  Towns felt mashed together (why are demons and undead part of the same town?)  The graphics felt as though they were a step backwards from Heroes3.  Troops could be sent around without heroes?  I never dreamed of a game in which I could participate in battle with my hero...I had already played several other games that let me do that.  I liked the fact that the hero was more of a general, depending on the skills of his/her troops instead of leveling up and tearing through the enemy's army by himself/herself if necessary.

Nevertheless, I stuck with it for a few months, but it never clicked for me.  It never clicked for most of the people I talked to.  I'm glad that you and your friends thought it was cool...I thought it made it like so many other games I had played.  The poll here may have shown differently, but the sales records tell a very definite story: heroes4 was a crash.  

Quote:

I remamber that the idea of having your hero in the thick of combat being appealing to me and my friends since heroes II establised the series. When we were expecting Heroes IV, the feeling was - finally! I remember a recent poll about which heroes game was better Heroes III or IV (heroes IV won, for the first time i guess), but a lot of the players who woted of Heroes III said that they wanted to vote for Heroes II. I guess the fans of the series are now divided (more or less definitely) into those that never really figured out heroes IV, and those that did and now can't go back. That's just my expirience, feel free to bash



I'd like to think that I figured out heroes4.  It wasn't that hard.  I beat Single Player fairly easily. I played it multiplayer with my other friends for a while, until we collectively decided that it wasn't as good as 3 or 2. It was just never as fun for me.  Whatever additional challenge you are talking about is not registerring for me...we always thought it played out too simply.

Quote:

But the question is one of progress, justice and gratitude, I suppose. It seems to me that most bankrupcies in the computer game world happen when somebody decides to add a bit of progress to the same old same old routine that the average joe gamer seems content with. If I made a game that was so popular the public wouldn't let it go no further, I guess I'd be very sad. If Heroes V is succesfull, it will be a good sign that there is no room for progress in this, or any other succesfull franchize. Limiting a team of geniouses responsible for Kings Bounty and Heroes I to making the same game over and over again, well, old Greeks used to dicribe torments of hell as being something like that.



this is a franchise.  I am as bothered by the amount of sequels that most developers produce as you are.  I wish that game developers spent more time coming up with new and interesting game ideas rather than focusing their attention on the same schtick.  

What bothers me even more, however, is when they slap a game into a franchise that seems completely inappropriate in order to sucker fans of the series into buying it because the other games in the series were good.  I have got a copy of megaman x-7 that is gathering dust in my closet as I write this, because of the horrible "progress" that was implemented into a series that I thought was one of the best side-scrolling action series before they released that monstrosity (if it aint broke, don't fix it).  When a developer is making a sequel to a game, or even more, another installment of several, I expect it to be similar to the previous titles, improving upon the parts of the previous games that people had problems with.  I don't expect a completely new approach that feels like it doesn't belong to be grouped with a bunch of games with which it bears only slight resemblance (there's a reason why Heroes of Might and Magic 1 isn't called King's Bounty 2).  Perhaps my biggest complaint of heroes4 was that they called it a heroes game.  If it had a different title altogether, maybe I wouldn't have judged it so harshly.  I wouldn't have felt as suckered into buying a game i didn't think i was buying.  

In response to your greecian hades analogy (will you stop with the weak analogies?), albert camus thought of sisyphus' ordeal as a truly freeing experience; only through the safety of knowing his eternal fate could he be free to think of whatever he wanted, instead of worrying of the uncertainty of what his future may bring.  This is not hades, however, these are video games - little diversions from real life, remember?  I think it is a little more than extreme to compare eternal damnation to disappointment in a video game.  

Quote:

Everybody whoever thinks Heroes IV was a black sheep, not a heroes game, should at least feel guilty, for it that attitude that drove the firm that gave them their beloved Heroes III to bankrupcy. So there, now you have a game that's even more half-baked than the original Heroes IV had been, that even has some bashed features implemented even more clunkily, are you happy? I guess in two or three more sequels, which will no doubt have better graphics but won't dare to go beyond that, somebody in the firm will snap and try to innovate, to expand. I pity the poor sod. He'll be looking for a job real soon.


this is clearly just another insertion of your opinion.  I don't feel guilty.  For as short a period as heroes5 has been out, i already prefer it to heroes4.  Are you not considering the possibility of patches/expansions to fix some of the problems you have discussed about heroes5.  If you think that heroes5 is hopeless, why did you buy it?  Why are you probably still playing it.  It has problems, yes...I am not saying it is flawless;  I have already listed a number of my disappointments (one of which WAS it's extreme resemblance to heroes3...another was its focus on graphics over gameplay).  I am not arguing with you there.  As I stated before, this argument about the quality of heroes4 belongs in another thread, and that is hopefully the last I shall have to mention it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OOPMan
OOPMan


Adventuring Hero
posted June 03, 2006 11:22 AM
Edited by OOPMan at 13:25, 03 Jun 2006.

When it comes to "Heroes in the Thick of Combat" Shejitan AoW: SM is definitely top dog. In fact, it's one of the major problems with that game. Pumped-up Heroes eat everything else for dinner :-(

I think maybe I would have liked H4 better if I hadn't picked it up so late. Also, playing it against AoW: SM was just not a fair fight, since one is far in advance of the other...(Although technically AoW is just a very-true remake of Master of Magic)

I will probably give H4 another shot sometime in the future, probably around about the same time I finally get around to enjoying Disciples II, but for now H5 is ruling my roost (Although I only really enjoy the Dungeon and the Academy)...
____________
It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
armageddonic...
armageddonicidiot


Adventuring Hero
posted June 03, 2006 12:34 PM

1,3 and 5.

Basically, the graphics look like boring games like Tales of Symphonia ans Warcraft (which includes WoW). Such games have a feeling that just isn't good, and Heroes V really has that feeling.

The number of towns? It's ok.

Creatures? Way bad. The people who made the game are just someone who wanted to make heroes, not who knew how to make heroes. So they tokk elements they thought would fit it in. But the elements did not fit in.

The skill system? I like it, but the system of Heroes IV was way better.

Lack of innovation? Yes. It's simply a slitely changed heroes 3 with totally ruined graphics. And heroes 3 was the worst game in the series before this one came.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted June 03, 2006 04:35 PM

I have to admit, although I don't want to, that H5 has been a let down to me.

I can't really put a name to what I don't like about it, it's just the whole theme altogether. I liked H3 for it's style, and H4 kept it pretty similar and wasn't bad, but this one is like that old thread metaphor (can't remember who wrote it, despite italmost being a HC relic ) about Heroes being a tree, how overdoing the details kills the game, like what was started in H4.

I can hardly bear the adventure map. The Town map is interesting, but not what I liked about H3.

The graphics aren't as good as some of the recent games, but that's ok, no problem, but the actual creatures are too cartoony and fake. H3 looked so realistic, in the creatures and towns, which was what was immersive. That is what H5 lacks.
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted June 03, 2006 05:04 PM

Stupid camera on the battlefield makes me nuts. They couldn't make it worse.

I don't understand why are you complaining about units' appearance that much. The units are really great-looking, well, their design may be a bit irritating sometimes, but hey, just compare any of the better-looking units of h5 to horribly ugly harpies or behemots of heroes IV. see the difference?

the only thing that really bugs me is that after countless hours spent playing WoG and enjoying its almost infinite possibilities, heroes V seems a bit sterile and simple to me


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Darkeye
Darkeye


Promising
Famous Hero
of the Deep
posted June 04, 2006 01:27 PM
Edited by Darkeye at 13:38, 04 Jun 2006.

I totally agree with the camera, and also on the adventure map - WHY CAN'T IT BE MORE FLEXIBLE!!!

As that is said, I still have about 100 things I get constantly irritated about in this game!

First - the Elemental Chains: There is no explanation in the game itself, so you have to go to the web to find it out, and then it is ambigitious as it's said that upgraded creatures have two elements accociated with them, but in battle with Elemental Vision, you only see one of them! What is right???

Another thing, when playing the scenario "Deficiance" and Sinitar the Dark elf gets killed after he's captures, he shows up in the tavern right after - really logical (I didn't see they ressurected him in the video as well) What about some scripting - making him not appearing again???

But then to some really annoying stuff:

WHERE IS THE KINGDOM OVERVIEW????
This has been in the Heroes series for all times, and now it's gone! You have no screen showing you your mines, towns and heroes and armies anymore - how dissapointing!!!!!

The mouse-scrolling is so slow as well, and you have to use the arrow keys (on the other side of the keybord than you left hand)

Plenty of View restrictions as mentioned, makes it difficult to get a nice overview, and when you focus out as much as possible, the game slows down really!!

Since creatures don't have a movement allowence themselves like in H3, you will use low level heroes as "caravans" again, moving creatures from one hero to another in several chains often, BUT you have to move each and every single creature one by one - NOT like in H4 where you could move tham all at once, In addition the movement when moving the creaure slots is very slow (at least on my pc)

There are no customized keys what so ever!!!! (DISSAPOINTING)

Several of the artifacts have not been described yet

It is easy to miss an adventure objects when moving a hero to them.

There should be a quick load without asking like quick save. And it doesnt have to state "All unsaved data will be lost" every time!!

You can't save during a combat, like in Heroes 4

As a single player, you should be allowed to use as much time as you want in combat. Trying to learn how elemental chains work out or just find the right spells and how much damage they do are time restricted now - which is just crap when playing by yourself!

Heroes block each other easily (friendly heroes should be allowed to move through each other), since they take up so much space after all.

When upgrading creatures, it doesn't state how much the upgrade will cost.


    Well guys, I just had to get out some of the frustration regarding this game. It is obvious that the game isn't finished yet, but this is more dissapointing than Heroes IV was even when it came out. This game is after my opinion barebly playable, as they have focused on making steroid graphics ala World of Warcraft instead of focusing on making the game run smooth, customize more to the players needs, and let the players get a good strategical overview!

I sincerly hope the developers read this forum, and that at least some of them actually play this game, and are hero fans themselves(which really is crucial to the development)

They must see that making the game so unplayable and unintelligent regarding gameplay in many ways, just will make them loose players and buyers of the game!! I hope at least the will make a good patchwork hereafter and that within the time ehe expansion comes the game will have been repaired and run smooth.

Please comment this if you agree or disagree, or can explain things on other ways


Darkeye

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Gom_Jabbar
Gom_Jabbar


Promising
Famous Hero
Revealer of Truth
posted June 04, 2006 01:44 PM

Quote:
As a single player, you should be allowed to use as much time as you want in combat. Trying to learn how elemental chains work out or just find the right spells and how much damage they do are time restricted now - which is just crap when playing by yourself!


Just set battles on "Standard" and not "Dynamic Battle" and you will have plenty of time.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
neoexdeath
neoexdeath


Adventuring Hero
posted June 04, 2006 01:54 PM

Quote:
First - the Elemental Chains: There is no explanation in the game itself, so you have to go to the web to find it out, and then it is abigitious as is is said that upgraded creatures have 2 elements accociated with them, but in battle with Elemental vision, you only see one of them! What is right???


Elemental chains was changed. Now it adds extra damage for attacking opposite element and randomly changes opponent's element.

Quote:
WHERE IS THE KINGDOM OVERVIEW????
This has been in the Heroes series for all times, and now it's gone! You have no screen showing you your mines, towns and heroes and armies anymore - how dissapointing!!!!!!


Personally, I never used this option. You can see how much resource you get by hovering your mouse over that resource icon in the upper part of the screen.

Quote:
The Scrolling is so slow as well, and you have to use the arrow keys (on the other side of the keybord than you left hand)


You can place your cursor on the edge of a screen for the same effect. You can also click on a minimap to center your view on that point.

Quote:
Plenty of View restrictions as mentioned, makes it difficult to get a nice overview, and when you focus out as much as possible, the game slows down really!!


Agreed. I don't like this new 3D it makes it hard to move your hero without changing the camera too often, especially when underground.

Quote:
Since creatures don't have a movement allowence themselves like in H3, you will use low level heroes as "caravans" again, moving creatures from one hero to another in several chains often, BUT you have to move each and every single creature one by one - NOT like in H4 where you could move tham all at once


IMO it's good that creatures can't move by themselves like in H4, but "swap all" button would be helpful.

Quote:
Several of the artifacts have not been described yet

This will probably be fixed in a patch

Quote:
As a single player, you should be allowed to use as much time as you want in combat. Trying to learn how elemental chains work otr just find the right spell and how much damage they do are time restricted now - which is just crap when playing by yourself!


I don't get it- you DON'T have a time limit in single player. Check your options maybe you can adjust it.

Quote:
Heroes block each other easily (friendly heroes should be allowed to move through each other)


I'd rather it stayed the way it is After all it's a STRATEGY game- blocking your own path is a strategical error. Furthermore, you can move through another person in real life, can you?

Quote:
When upgrading creatures, it doesn't state how much the upgrade will cost


Hover your mouse over the upgrade button to see the cost.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Thanatos
Thanatos


Known Hero
posted June 04, 2006 01:55 PM

Quote:
HOMM V has many dissapointing factors,
we all agree with that.

the thing that agitates me the most is
that during the combat, the enemy (the opposing player; AI) is using too much magic
I can barely attack with my melee units and
shooting with my archers doesn't make much difference..
Righteous might is used alot, and cloning their creatures, resurrection. Every good spell..I always have the most ridiculous spells. lightning, those rock spikes etc. I don't know where they find those spells. I've never won from a hero. So I won't be able to use my arcane institution skill.. Because by that time, Im dead


If you always get destruction spells, specialize in destruction magic? Or play a faction that doesn't focus on destruction magic...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted June 04, 2006 02:28 PM

Ah yes, two more things come to my mind.

1. WHERE THE HELL IS THE SPLIT-STACK OPTION . Don't tell me they forgot to do such a simple thing

2. No scoreboard ;( What's the point in playing solo maps if you can't even record your score? >< I've enjoyed getting high scores @ h3 (still remember when I got the angel rank on a XL map.. ;P). Very disappointing   not to see it here.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
neoexdeath
neoexdeath


Adventuring Hero
posted June 04, 2006 03:03 PM

Quote:
1. WHERE THE HELL IS THE SPLIT-STACK OPTION . Don't tell me they forgot to do such a simple thing


Hold shift while dragging a stack to split it.

Quote:
2. No scoreboard ;( What's the point in playing solo maps if you can't even record your score? >< I've enjoyed getting high scores @ h3 (still remember when I got the angel rank on a XL map.. ;P). Very disappointing not to see it here.


I miss hall of fame too. Also, a map editor and random map generator would be welcome.
I'm looking forward to the next patch, it may add some of these features

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1309 seconds