|
| Thread: What is the WORST decision in Heroes developing history? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV |
|
ReSisTanCe_Bg
Tavern Dweller
Life haz no Alt+ F4 :(
|
posted November 24, 2010 10:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Worst thing? having no Fortress after HOMM3 or having none of the unique creatures from that faction in any of the sequels 
AGREE .. why did they left the H3 Fortress  it was my favorite H3 race and stil is ..
____________
..Life was much easier when APPLE and BLACKBERRY were just fruits!
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 06:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Worst thing? having no Fortress after HOMM3 or having none of the unique creatures from that faction in any of the sequels
AGREE .. why did they left the H3 Fortress it was my favorite H3 race and stil is ..
AGREED! I'm hoping it comes back with the jungle tileset in H6; the vaguely aztec theme would be a perfect fit for the jungle tileset. If not, I'm starting a petition or something on the forums to make sure they know people actually still care about it. 
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!
|
|
KaDa
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 10:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The WORST decision in Heroes history is a repetitive one which we see again and again in each subsequent game - the utter desire of the developers to add new , untested stuff to the game just for the sake of it!
Yes, the last two games came out really unpolished.
I can live with quite a bit of lore-raep, if the new lore is good enough, because it's a new game.
I can live without some factions for the same reason. I will totally miss my favorites, but if the new ones are good enough, that will ease the pain.
When I first played H4 and had my heroes killed in a fight, I was really "WTF is this!?". But I got used to it and now I really like the idea that going after the general of the army is a valid strategy as any.
Like it, hate it, these are all matters of preference. Like how I don't like chocolate ice cream.
But unpolished bits, that is not a matter of preference, but an incomplete product.
The devs shouldn't give release dates that make them cut too many corners, and should play and love the game as much as the target audience.
Oh and not only play, but also improve the code to be relatively bug/"feature" free
____________
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 07:34 PM |
|
|
|
The worst for me is Heroes on the Battlefield. One of the main reasons I dropped H4 so quickly. It didn't feel right that one hero alone would clash against a stack 100s whatever creatures and win.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 09:40 PM |
|
|
|
Bad implementation =/= bad idea, Heroes in Combat failed due to the shoddy balance that was rampant in the release anyway, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 09:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bad implementation =/= bad idea, Heroes in Combat failed due to the shoddy balance that was rampant in the release anyway, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
For me, it was a bad idea as much as it was badly implemented. Just give me any excuse to make it seem like rational for one hero alone to wipe out stacks of hundreds of creatures.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 10:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For me, it was a bad idea as much as it was badly implemented. Just give me any excuse to make it seem like rational for one hero alone to wipe out stacks of hundreds of creatures.
Bad balance is a big part of bad implementation and the heroes in H4 quickly became overpowered, which showed bad balance. As for the initial idea, well it was a welcome chance to get at those bloody spellcasters before they could do too much damage.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 11:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
For me, it was a bad idea as much as it was badly implemented. Just give me any excuse to make it seem like rational for one hero alone to wipe out stacks of hundreds of creatures.
Bad balance is a big part of bad implementation and the heroes in H4 quickly became overpowered, which showed bad balance. As for the initial idea, well it was a welcome chance to get at those bloody spellcasters before they could do too much damage.
I think the idea has something interesting. Maybe they should even make a middle ground between H4 and H5, so that Heroes did much less damage, and could not be attacked themselves - this would still allow some interesting features with regard to spell reach and AOE, and also different attack styles (i.e. ranged attack vs. melee attack).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 01:26 PM |
|
|
Black Hole have a good base for the needed middle ground. In Mark of Chaos two heroes can engage each other, essentially fighting an isolated duel and not being of much use to their armies until one of them is killed. In a Heroes game it could look like this:
- either hero challenges the other to a duel, which could be refusable (but lowering the morale of the army of the refusing hero);
- then they begin their own battle which is concurrent with the battle of their armies (at the beginning of each round the heroes take one turn each to fight each other, then their armies follow as usual);
- until they fight, they can not cast spells or use abilities affecting their armies, but may have unique duel abilities for the purpose of this fight only;
- when one of the heroes loses, he/she's either disabled for the rest of the battle or for a few turns;
Tha trade-off is obvious - while the heroes are fighting each other, they can't aid their armies (except via some passive abilities), but when one of them wins, his/her army gains the advantage of unilateral support without equivalent counter from the defeated enemy hero.
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted December 27, 2010 07:27 AM |
|
|
Puting together the necro and demons in the death faction in homm4 ( the only thing I hate about that game)
____________
|
|
e-lysander
Known Hero
Lysander
|
|
posted December 27, 2010 11:56 PM |
|
|
1. Omitting Tower and Sylvan - Heroes VI
I don't know what they're thinking, but I hope they know what they're doing.
2. The jump to 3D visuals - Heroes V
After reading the announcement of Heroes V in PC Gamer, this really worried me. It gave me the distinct impression that HoMM was no longer going to be HoMM. I was wrong, but the jump to 3D just seemed a bit controversial.
3. Nerfing the unique rivalry between Titans/Black Dragons in favour of the generic Angel vs. Devil dichotomy - Heroes III
I'd have expected better from NWC, but apparently they thought the M&M series was too unique.
4. Race-based factions - Heroes V
As if similarities between Heroes V and Warcraft weren't prevalent enough, they decided to add an Orc race. Oops.
5. Pseudo-Warcraft III art style - Heroes VI
With Heroes VI it seemed Black Hole had abandoned the Warcraft copy-catting. After the reveal of the "Arthas clone" Vampire, it seems we may have spoken too soon. Not to mention the connection to spiders.
6. Not including Sandro - Heroes V
Having been the sole consistent hero in the series (even appearing as an undead Warlock in Heroes I), it was a major upset to learn of his absence in Heroes V. Maybe Heroes VI will redeem itself...?
|
|
Orfinn
Supreme Hero
Werewolf Duke
|
|
posted December 27, 2010 11:59 PM |
|
|
Orcs have been in many a HOMM game.
Arthas clone? Well there aint THAT many ways to change what defines a Vampire, at least a vampire made for battle.
The spider connection were in H5 and Dark Messiah too.
____________
|
|
e-lysander
Known Hero
Lysander
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 12:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Arthas clone? Well there aint THAT many ways to change what defines a Vampire, at least a vampire made for battle.
Long, white hair? Gray skin? Armor? What's wrong with bald (Heroes III) or short, black widows-peek hair? (Heroes II/IV)
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 02:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Arthas clone? Well there aint THAT many ways to change what defines a Vampire, at least a vampire made for battle.
Long, white hair? Gray skin? Armor? What's wrong with bald (Heroes III) or short, black widows-peek hair? (Heroes II/IV)
Heroes 3 is a Max Schreck clone and Heroe's II and IV the Bela Lugosi Dracula stereotype. If you're going to complain about originality about H6's Vampire design, do consider that as well.
Personally, I don't consider H6 Vampire to be anything like Arthas. I see it as a more fancy H5 Vampire design. My personal favorite vampire design is H3 though.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 05:04 PM |
|
|
What? The H6 Vampire upgrade armor (especially the helmet) looks pretty much exactly like the Lich King in WC.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 08:55 PM |
|
Edited by kodial79 at 20:56, 28 Dec 2010.
|
Quote:
What? The H6 Vampire upgrade armor (especially the helmet) looks pretty much exactly like the Lich King in WC.
It doesn't. Not at all. Exept that both armors got a dark theme to them. It seems to me that people are so desperate to find or create in their little closed up minds every possible and impossible fault to blame on the Ubisoft's M&M games, they're toothpicking every detail and examine it on a microscope.
It can't be helped, haters gonna hate.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Orfinn
Supreme Hero
Werewolf Duke
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 09:18 PM |
|
Edited by Orfinn at 21:22, 28 Dec 2010.
|
Ok heres the pics of them. Just for crying out loud and judge doom on the differences
Remember Arthas aint a vampire, but a Lich. In Ashans lore, liches desire to become vampires making them of higher rank too.
Arthas
Vampire Lord
The only similarity I see are glowing eyes and similar, vertical helmet gap for the face.
____________
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 09:24 PM |
|
|
They are so painfully different, the H6 vampire looks too clean and wimpy for my likings.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
einomida
Known Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 09:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Arthas clone? Well there aint THAT many ways to change what defines a Vampire, at least a vampire made for battle.
Long, white hair? Gray skin? Armor? What's wrong with bald (Heroes III) or short, black widows-peek hair? (Heroes II/IV)
Heroes 3 is a Max Schreck clone and Heroe's II and IV the Bela Lugosi Dracula stereotype. If you're going to complain about originality about H6's Vampire design, do consider that as well.
Personally, I don't consider H6 Vampire to be anything like Arthas. I see it as a more fancy H5 Vampire design. My personal favorite vampire design is H3 though.
Except that both H2 and H3 design vampires are classical images of a vampire. Why change the accepted awesome look to a more recent style popularized by a different brand like Warcraft.
Honsetly, it doesn't bother me much, even though I would prefer the H2/H4 style. But I see the problem being in the change (maybe to the worse) itself, not particularly how the vampire will look like in the end.
|
|
Orfinn
Supreme Hero
Werewolf Duke
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 09:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They are so painfully different, the H6 vampire looks too clean and wimpy for my likings.
Kinda snobbish and arrogant due to their status and the Necropolis philophosy, yeah. But so have vampires mostly been in any fantasy source.
____________
|
|
|
|
