|
| 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 / NEXT» |
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
posted August 27, 2010 07:13 PM |
|
|
Games are influencing each other. And like I said, just because it has X number of faction, it doesn't mean it's actually added value. Expecting "variety" doesn't mean the factions have to multiply after each game of the series. They are aiming to achieve variety with only 5 factions. While if there were 8-10 factions, there would be bigger chances that they ran out of ideas.
And besides, I don't think anyone "wanted" to have less factions, it's just that having more of them doesn't immediately make them good.
|
|
mancubus
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 27, 2010 07:33 PM |
|
|
Was really tough to choose between Heroes on the battlefield and no unit upgrades 
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted August 27, 2010 07:46 PM |
|
|
-Reducing number of resources: even if we don't know yet just how badly it will affect the gameplay, I don't have good feelings about it at all.Plus we were used to the old system in all of the five games already.
-Heroes on the battlefield/No unit upgrades: got used to them in H4 eventually,but I still consider them among the worst decisions in the way they were handled.
-Abandoning Heroes 3 universe and characters: Definitely disliked it.
-Not separate Might & Magic heroes: that change bugged me too.
-Infernopolis: Very bad idea.Sure,you could choose to build only Necro troops or only Inferno if you wanted but still...
-Cutscenes: I'm okay with them but I still prefer the good ol' dialogue boxes.
-Taking Heroes OFF battlefield: I think they should have stayed off in the first place...
-Reducing number of factions: It would have been bad if they were reduced to only 3 or 4 factions,but 5 or 6+ eventual expansions seems alright to me.
Abandoning initiative system: I think the system was fine but not really a very bad decision to change it.
Voted for reducing the resources,but hard to pick only ONE to vote...
|
|
CrimsonVenom
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 27, 2010 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And besides, I don't think anyone "wanted" to have less factions, it's just that having more of them doesn't immediately make them good.
Agreed, I never did say that. There's no way I'd want more factions, in exchange for having the originality of each one drop. My point was that should that not be the case, I think everyone would want a higher number of factions.
____________
|
|
KaDa
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 12:57 AM |
|
Edited by KaDa at 01:00, 28 Aug 2010.
|
Missing the "insane random levelup (H5)" option.
Two cents thrown in, voted for something else that annoyed me instead.
____________
|
|
Thorsson
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 11:33 AM |
|
Edited by Thorsson at 11:34, 28 Aug 2010.
|
Definitely no unit upgrade. As noted, it takes a whole level of strategic complexity out.
Regarding the 'less' options, I'm not wedded to having 8 resources, but 4 seems a little low. Still I'm willing to see how it plays. Having more factions is perhaps not so important as having factions that are noticeably different and play well.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 01:22 PM |
|
|
The worst decisions are generally the ones forced on the developers by the publisher.
3DO meddling in NWC's affairs was the worst thing that happened to both the Heroes and the Might and Magic franchise.
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 01:53 PM |
|
|
|
Do we actually know what the things are that 3DO forced on NWC or this is just about having a scapegoat? Because it's quite a convenient excuse to say "I don't like this change, doesn't fit Heroes at all, therefore the developers didn't want it either but 3DO forced them into it".
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 02:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do we actually know what the things are that 3DO forced on NWC or this is just about having a scapegoat? Because it's quite a convenient excuse to say "I don't like this change, doesn't fit Heroes at all, therefore the developers didn't want it either but 3DO forced them into it".
We know that 3DO forced the release of games before they were finished. Just look at Heroes 4 and Might and Magic 9. Might and Magic 8 using the same engine as M&M 6 was also a result of 3DO's meddling.
We also know that all the 3DO developed Might and Magic games like Crusaders, Dragon Rage, Shifters, and Warriors were all mediocre or crappy games made solely to milk the franchise.
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 02:26 PM |
|
|
Releasing a game before its finished affects lack of multiplayer features, balancing issues and bugs, but hardly affects creative decisions, it's not like you can chalk "Infernopolis" up to that.
Milking franchise is what publishers generally do, you can't hold that against 3DO, it's their job, it's business.
Also, just because for example a lot of fans think the lack of creature upgrades is a stepback, it doesn't mean 1) it was forced by 3DO 2) the developers thought it was a bad idea.
I can see something like changing the game-universe being a suggestion by 3DO, or even making the heroes go in battle but other than that not so much...
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 02:56 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, but that's only releasing a game before it's finished, as Vicheron said, executive meddling also plays a part.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 02:58 PM |
|
Edited by vicheron at 15:00, 28 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
Releasing a game before its finished affects lack of multiplayer features, balancing issues and bugs, but hardly affects creative decisions, it's not like you can chalk "Infernopolis" up to that.
This topic doesn't specify that the bad development decisions have to be creative decisions.
Releasing a game early absolutely affects creative decisions. The developer has to cut down on content. Deciding on what to cut and what to keep is a creative decision. Plus they have to change existing content to compensate for the cuts and make it look less obvious.
Quote:
Milking franchise is what publishers generally do, you can't hold that against 3DO, it's their job, it's business.
But 3DO did it badly. The right way to milk a franchise is to actually put some effort into it and make something that people like so that they will buy it. EA was able to successfully milk the Command and Conquer franchise, up until C&C4 at least. They pretty much disregarded C&C lore and pissed off a lot of fans but the C&C3 and RA3 were actually fun and sold well. People did not like the games 3DO made and that's why 3DO went bankrupt.
Quote:
Also, just because for example a lot of fans think the lack of creature upgrades is a stepback, it doesn't mean 1) it was forced by 3DO 2) the developers thought it was a bad idea.
This is why releasing the game early affects creative decisions. The developer do not get to fully implement or test all their ideas when they have to release the game early. If they aren't able to test their ideas then they won't know if the ideas are good or bad, and if they're bad, whether they should be cut or changed.
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 02:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Milking franchise is what publishers generally do, you can't hold that against 3DO, it's their job, it's business.
Also, just because for example a lot of fans think the lack of creature upgrades is a stepback, it doesn't mean 1) it was forced by 3DO 2) the developers thought it was a bad idea.
Danny, Vicheron isn't exaggerating here. 3DO were at least ten times worse than Ubisoft could ever be even if they tried...
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 03:07 PM |
|
|
|
I understand that, but "change" still remains subjective, I'm just saying it tends to sound like "I don't like this feature because it was the idea of a bad and evil publisher that tied the hands of my fav developers" which is faulty reasoning in my opinion.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 03:19 PM |
|
Edited by vicheron at 15:20, 28 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
I understand that, but "change" still remains subjective, I'm just saying it tends to sound like "I don't like this feature because it was the idea of a bad and evil publisher that tied the hands of my fav developers" which is faulty reasoning in my opinion.
How is that faulty logic? If I commission an artist to sculpt a statue for an art gallery and before the artist could finish, I put the statue in the art gallery, do you blame the artist for the statue looking bad?
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I understand that, but "change" still remains subjective, I'm just saying it tends to sound like "I don't like this feature because it was the idea of a bad and evil publisher that tied the hands of my fav developers" which is faulty reasoning in my opinion.
How is that faulty logic? If I commission an artist to sculpt a statue for an art gallery and before the artist could finish, I put the statue in the art gallery, do you blame the artist for the statue looking bad?
That's not exactly a valid comparison, for a video game is a lot more layered than that.
It's faulty logic because what's good or bad is meant to be decided via personal perception. You don't like something in H4 because it doesn't match your taste, but not because the publishers broke some general rule about Heroes and meddled with it. There might also be a lot of stuff that were the decision of the publisher and are lauded by the players for all we know.
For example, wasn't it the publishers who told NWC to drop the Forge because THEY were afraid of the expansion bombing and affecting the future of the franchise, based on fan reactions? They suggested NWC to come up with something else, maybe they told them all the details, so they did it. Now, if you play with Armageddon's Blade and use the Conflux, you might reach to the conclusion that you "don't like it" but would you say it's "because 3DO forced the developers into something they didn't want, therefore it's just bad" or "because, I don't enjoy playing with it, elementals bore me to tears and who cares about sprites"?
Or I could say an example about my preferences as well, it's obvious Ubi wanted Heroes to go back to it's pre-H4 state, so they wanted the old towns back with mostly the same lineup in H5. Yet I still wouldn't say "I don't like Inferno as a separate faction because it was the decision of the publisher who want to make sure H5 is closer to H3 so they can make sure it's a success" and I'll just say "I don't like Inferno separately because I liked what they did with it in H4".
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 04:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's faulty logic because what's good or bad is meant to be decided via personal perception. You don't like something in H4 because it doesn't match your taste, but not because the publishers broke some general rule about Heroes and meddled with it.
How well the option works is also a big decider, and with H4 there were a lot of things that were rushed and buggy (heroes in combat for example), and thus unpopular, whereas given more time to develop and test they could have come out a lot better.
Quote:
There might also be a lot of stuff that were the decision of the publisher and are lauded by the players for all we know.
Quote:
For example, wasn't it the publishers who told NWC to drop the Forge because THEY were afraid of the expansion bombing and affecting the future of the franchise, based on fan reactions?
Yeah, but who's idea was Forge in the first place?
Quote:
Now, if you play with Armageddon's Blade and use the Conflux, you might reach to the conclusion that you "don't like it" but would you say it's "because 3DO forced the developers into something they didn't want, therefore it's just bad" or "because, I don't enjoy playing with it, elementals bore me to tears and who cares about sprites"?
The latter reason of course, but the fact that 3DO might have forced it on them...
Quote:
Or I could say an example about my preferences as well, it's obvious Ubi wanted Heroes to go back to it's pre-H4 state, so they wanted the old towns back with mostly the same lineup in H5. Yet I still wouldn't say "I don't like Inferno as a separate faction because it was the decision of the publisher who want to make sure H5 is closer to H3 so they can make sure it's a success" and I'll just say "I don't like Inferno separately because I liked what they did with it in H4".
That might not be a good comparison to make, I don't think there were many people who liked Infernopolis. I will say that I don't like what they did with Dungeon, because dark-elves are drab and unimaginative. The fact is though, it's often hard to tell whether a particular problem is the fault of the publisher or of the developer. The huge number of changes this time around probably lies with both, since I heard somewhere that Ubi had moved from Nival over 'differing visions' or something.
|
|
bludgeon
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2010 05:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
-Reducing number of resources: even if we don't know yet just how badly it will affect the gameplay,
Or how greatly.
|
|
vicheron
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2010 12:06 AM |
|
Edited by vicheron at 02:45, 29 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I understand that, but "change" still remains subjective, I'm just saying it tends to sound like "I don't like this feature because it was the idea of a bad and evil publisher that tied the hands of my fav developers" which is faulty reasoning in my opinion.
How is that faulty logic? If I commission an artist to sculpt a statue for an art gallery and before the artist could finish, I put the statue in the art gallery, do you blame the artist for the statue looking bad?
That's not exactly a valid comparison, for a video game is a lot more layered than that.
It's faulty logic because what's good or bad is meant to be decided via personal perception. You don't like something in H4 because it doesn't match your taste, but not because the publishers broke some general rule about Heroes and meddled with it. There might also be a lot of stuff that were the decision of the publisher and are lauded by the players for all we know.
For example, wasn't it the publishers who told NWC to drop the Forge because THEY were afraid of the expansion bombing and affecting the future of the franchise, based on fan reactions? They suggested NWC to come up with something else, maybe they told them all the details, so they did it. Now, if you play with Armageddon's Blade and use the Conflux, you might reach to the conclusion that you "don't like it" but would you say it's "because 3DO forced the developers into something they didn't want, therefore it's just bad" or "because, I don't enjoy playing with it, elementals bore me to tears and who cares about sprites"?
Or I could say an example about my preferences as well, it's obvious Ubi wanted Heroes to go back to it's pre-H4 state, so they wanted the old towns back with mostly the same lineup in H5. Yet I still wouldn't say "I don't like Inferno as a separate faction because it was the decision of the publisher who want to make sure H5 is closer to H3 so they can make sure it's a success" and I'll just say "I don't like Inferno separately because I liked what they did with it in H4".
But you're ignoring the fact that implementation of an idea can affect perception. Even if I like an idea, I won't like it if it's poorly implemented and likewise, I might like an idea if it's implemented well even if I didn't like it conceptually. For example, I like vampires but I don't like the vampires in "Twilight." I don't like political thrillers but I liked "The Manchurian Candidate."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2010 07:42 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 08:48, 29 Aug 2010.
|
I've never played H5, but with H4 I vote for reduced factions from the available choices.
Personally I liked heroes on the battlefield in H4. The implementation wasn't the best though because I found myself always doing the same thing.
I don't care whatsoever about the story or characters. If I want a story I'll read a book. If I'm playing a game, clicking through a bunch of text is annoying as hell. So no, I don't care or even know what worlds the game takes place in.
I think the biggest problem with H4 was the overall feel to it. It just didn't seem like the same game as H3.
I think another major problem with H4 was the maps themselves. It seemed like the mapmakers only knew one way to make a map difficult. That was to place multiple exit portals next to your town so whenever you ventured more than a day from your town the enemy would pop through a portal and attack your town.
Oh, I haven't played H5 but I've seen it briefly. I HATE camera angles and zooms in any game. I've never seen a game where this was done well. And related to this is the completely idiotic system requirements for H5. That's the main reason why I didn't buy H5 and the reason I no longer care about the franchise. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for 3D graphics. It's retarded and highly annoying. All those visual Christmas decorations is just a distraction and hard on the eyes.
Edit: Almost forgot another bad thing about H4. They took away hero specialties so they were all the same.
|
| |
|
|
