|
|
radox
Known Hero
|
posted October 02, 2010 05:18 PM |
|
Edited by radox at 13:48, 04 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, tell me then how the hell they are going to tell us that an Imp is as poweful as a Cerberus? Again, the "brilliant groundshaking innovative features" of Ubi-soft...
The Imps are probably out, just like Gremlins, Leprechauns etc. Inferno doesn't seem to have the cartoon-ish style from H5 anymore.
Well, that doesn't sound too bad. I haven't thought about this. It's an interesting idea to throw out all the 1st level units from previous games (or probably keep them only as weak neutrals guarding the basic resource mines) while keeping the more-powerful units to form the backbone of the new factions? I am ready to accept that as long as they keep as much of the classic 3-4-5 level units as they can INTO the game!
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 05:03 AM |
|
|
For a great deal I agree with Radox, though that's mostly because I can't stand the idea that Ubisoft, in my eyes, is ruining the very core and foundation of Heroes of Might and Magic.
The very BASIS of heroes of might and magic was that it combined well known and fun fantasy creatures into a single game: it did NOT invent any of their own.
And the reason WHY is plain dead obvious when Ubi comes with moon-phoenix-crap. Seriously, Jezus. I mean it was already clear H5 produced a crap story with a crap background and a crap excuse for 'lore', and H6 only seems to PROGRESS into that direction.
CHANGE, though, is not always needed. Progression is only needed when something isn't perfect yet. There is a good reason why Haven has seen VERY little change ever since H1, and that reason is because it was pretty much perfected in H3. H4's change to it failed, H5 restored its previous 'finished' state. It's hard to "improve" upon a faction like Haven, and if you're only going to change anything in it for the sake of 'progressing', you're being stupid.
As is pretty obvious when you look at a random "my H6 lineup" thread and look at the random abominations and boring crap people come up with just for the sake of offering a bit of change.
And greetings, yet-another-random-undead-construction-unit-every-single-modern-game-uses-and-thinks-is-cool-but-really-makes-no-sense.
Whoo, I love to rant!
____________
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 08:40 AM |
|
Edited by MrDragon at 08:43, 09 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
For a great deal I agree with Radox, though that's mostly because I can't stand the idea that Ubisoft, in my eyes, is ruining the very core and foundation of Heroes of Might and Magic.
The very BASIS of heroes of might and magic was that it combined well known and fun fantasy creatures into a single game: it did NOT invent any of their own.
And the reason WHY is plain dead obvious when Ubi comes with moon-phoenix-crap. Seriously, Jezus. I mean it was already clear H5 produced a crap story with a crap background and a crap excuse for 'lore', and H6 only seems to PROGRESS into that direction.
CHANGE, though, is not always needed. Progression is only needed when something isn't perfect yet. There is a good reason why Haven has seen VERY little change ever since H1, and that reason is because it was pretty much perfected in H3. H4's change to it failed, H5 restored its previous 'finished' state. It's hard to "improve" upon a faction like Haven, and if you're only going to change anything in it for the sake of 'progressing', you're being stupid.
As is pretty obvious when you look at a random "my H6 lineup" thread and look at the random abominations and boring crap people come up with just for the sake of offering a bit of change.
And greetings, yet-another-random-undead-construction-unit-every-single-modern-game-uses-and-thinks-is-cool-but-really-makes-no-sense.
Whoo, I love to rant!
Wow..... that was a lot of.... vitriol.
So far they have not invented any creature but have been restyling existing ones to fit various factions.
Like the old games did as well when shoving the Gryphon around, or the Hydra, or the Gargoyle, or many many others.
Almost every single game has juggled creatures between the factions.
We don't know enough about HVI's story line to judge it, you may very well be right, but for now, it's hard to tell.
Haven is "pretty much perfected"? I disagree I think they are a horrifically boring faction, and contradictory to your argument about mythological creatures.
Admittedly, on a mechanic level, they work quite well.
I'll agree that some of the "my H6 line-up"s aren't very good, but some come up with great stuff, like Winterfate's excellent and reasonably conservative line-up for Rampart.
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and if you're convinced HoMMVI (or MMHVI whatever) will not be a decent addition to the series then I guess that sucks for you (being honest here) because you will have to wait for HoMMVII to try again.
And that has got to be bloody annoying, I seriously would be extremely pissed off if my favorite franchise stopped producing games I liked for a while.
Regardless I would encourage you to soak up information and try and look at things with a fresh point of view.
You may (or perhaps may not) come to accept some changes (or hate them more).
Just please don't rage against the people (like myself) who think a great deal of the changes they are proposing are justified and probably (we can't be sure until we get closer to release) will reinforce or fix some of the game's weak points.
Edit: Also what undead unit are you referring? because the whole "construction unit" thing is throwing me off.
Personally I don't like the new vampire much, and I also think the Lich is worse off, Skeleton looks great though, as do the Ghoul and Ghost, in my opinion.
|
|
thesnidr
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 01:19 PM |
|
Edited by thesnidr at 13:21, 09 Oct 2010.
|
And of course the game needs progress. This is a new game we're talking about, not a remake of the old games. They can't be expected to use the same setups or the same creatures over and over again.
Now, I don't want them to change everything for each game, but I think it's idiotic to complain when they want to change anything at all, simply because "what we already have works well"
If you liked heroes III better, go play heroes III. I'm patiently waiting for whatever new and innovative features and creatures HoMM IV comes up with.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 02:38 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:41, 09 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
If you liked heroes III better, go play heroes III.
This kind of argumentation never gets old, no matter that never gets sensible either. Like - "OK, we failed to provide you with something likeable, but hey, you still have the old stuff you so enjoy, so go play it and don't bother us with your backward opionion that clearly shows lack of understanding about progress". Some people liked Heroes IV too (I myself am somewhat neutral towards it), but the game is regarded as grand failure nevertheless. But this is progress too, no? Who cares that it actually fails...
The problem with this sort of thinking is that everything which is new is immediately classified as "progress". Like if I invent a new way to pick my nose or walk on the street on my hands instead on my feet, then I am progressing, the society is progressing and everything is, undeniably, moving towards a better progressive future. No? Why not, it's new, it's original, it shows disrespect to the old, rotting stuff.
Now, seriously, everybody agrees that every next game of the series has to have something new compared to the previous installments. If they copy-paste Heroes III with better graphics, that will be nothing short of excuse for a new game. Heroes III has its weak spots - imperfect balance between factions and spell schools, many useless skills, static heroes (compared to IV and V), game-breaking spells like Dimension Door, etc. But Heroes III also has many things that none of the next games managed to improve or replace successfully because they didn't need improvement or replacement in the first place. Like the might/magic class for each faction and many other. What is the point in removing or changing something that everybody or almost everybody likes?
About the creatures - Ashan badly needs new creatures! The dwarven and elven factions need to re-organize their homogeneous armies (even though some would say that a Dungeon full of Dark Elves is a progress, because it's new...). The neutral creatures are almost non-existent and this has to change. HOWEVER, some creatures just have to stay. A Heroes game without the Black Dragon will not be entirely a Heroes game (I don't really love them, but they've always been around and one can't help but grow accustomed to their presence). Academy without the Titan will look like some different faction. Or try to imagine a Necropolis without Skeletons or Vampires. It ain't working like that.
|
|
Mike80D
Famous Hero
Map Maker
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 05:23 PM |
|
|
I think the game could be perfectly successful w/o black dragons or Titans, though I do like those units a lot.
People used the "then go play homm3" argument b/c I swear some people here freak out if ANY creatures are different. Some have even said that they wish homm6 was exactly homm3 with better graphics. If that's the case then I really do suggest someone go play homm3 b/c based upon all information homm6 will have some variations and things new.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Gold Dragons in H6. Call me a conspiracy theorist but as I go through the Homm5 root files there's a lot of things that got changed by UBI at the last minute, or never got included but the root file is still there. It seems in the game files that the Gold Dragon is everywhere, but eventually became what we know as the Crystal Dragon. Maybe I just suck at homm lore, but they're different dragons to me.
|
|
Mike80D
Famous Hero
Map Maker
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 05:27 PM |
|
|
|
Creature names and lore are not the things I'm most worried about in the upcoming factions. Instead, I want the creatures to be more dynamic and synergistic in different variations. I hate to reference Kings Bounty b/c I don't want Homm6 to be KB, but so many of the creatures in that game had an activated or inherent ability that could work well with other creatures. By putting together a near limitless combination of these creatures it allowed for some really interesting and dynamic battles, and required more strategy than most homm fights.
|
|
Fool
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 05:53 PM |
|
|
|
People, remember that the game isn't even in an alpha stage yet. It's silly to cry that recently revealed information x is going to ruin everything when we have no idea how these things will work in practice. Things are always different in execution than on paper, and in this case not everything has even been written down yet! I think it's a better idea to step back a bit and wait until features are a bit more concrete and we can see them in action. That is the right time to determine whether something is a bad idea or not, but right now it's too early to tell.
|
|
Kien
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 07:07 PM |
|
|
Lack om inventions in fantasy genre medium is something that bothers me. I don't want to see the same reused stuff all the time, have some imagination damn it! Don't pick only the most stereotype myth creatures like minotaur or griffin.  I hope for new stuff in this game.
|
|
odium
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 09:13 PM |
|
Edited by odium at 21:19, 09 Oct 2010.
|
I know that I will say something that most people that write here won't agree with but there are some others that like the idea of race factions and not an amalgam of creatures (I did not consider orcs or dark elves boring). The storyline would be potentially more mature and easier for one to immerse in the atmosphere. My only wish is that they make them balanced and unique in the sense of play-stile.
Another point would be that using race based factions will make future developments less boring . For example look at the elves, they will always be the same: unicorn, ancient treant and dragon cannot change much since they are mythological creatures. What they can do is to slightly change creatures and swap between factions which I bet that not many people find original or pleasant. However if you make a more racial faction you could always make changes since it can be explained by an improvement of technology or a downgrade after a cataclysm.
Moreover, I'm not so kin on seeing 10 factions which are not balanced and with problems in the storyline. For me it is better to have 5-6 factions but close to perfection it terms of story and balance. Of course if they manage to make 9-10 great factions that would be even better. I don't like the idea of adding something because it's always better to add (quantity over quality).
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 09:54 PM |
|
|
You're right, I don't agree with you on the species based factions.
But we won't flay you for it. 
But I think monsters can provide a dynamic that humanoid races can't, which namely, how those creatures interact with the faction, it's ideology and it's magic.
While the Humanoids can fluctuate with technology and culture, monsters can fluctuate with how they relate (or don't) to those cultures.
It also creates a stronger theme of a combined representative force for a faction when it's a unified front of very different species that all share those common factors.
Personally, I'd say my strongest "want" is for the visual dynamic it creates as well as the gameplay principle of "instant feedback", just a single glance at a creature should be enough to tell you about it's role.
Creatures of the same species have the problem they need secondary attributes to differentiate them, like other weapons and equipment.
And then finally have widely differing stats despite being the same species, which seems a little odd.
Compare for example the stats of a Shadow Witch and a Stalker, seems a bit... unusual they differ so much despite being the same species.
But meh, it's all subjective anyway, but I do have a serious pet-peeve against the mostly 1 species line-up.
There are also, many many mythological creatures I'd love to use in a Heroes game, I find it hard to accept more of the same creature at the cost of something new.
What I do agree with is quality over quantity, rather have 5 well balanced and unique factions then 10 poorly balanced same-ish ones.
(speaking from a game mechanics point of view.)
|
|
Kien
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 10:39 PM |
|
Edited by Kien at 22:43, 09 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
(I did not consider orcs or dark elves boring)
The problem with dark elves in H5 was that they all looked like a bunch of fulgy anime inspired snow witches. And out of nowhere comes a minotaur. Dark elves fine just design them in a way so I can accept the loss of the old school warlock faction.
Another thing about creatures is that I wish their strength would match their looks more. Centaur with broad bladed spear has 10HP while a dwarf 1/5 of the size has 20HP and higher damage wtf? However I realize this could cause problems if you want monk dressed in a soft hooded robe to be tier 5 units while you have armored knight as tier 3. Having lower tier units being able to have higher HP than higher sounds too different from the Heroes formula. 
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 11:01 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 23:02, 09 Oct 2010.
|
|
Making a creature "worthy" of its appearance in a fantasy game is troublesome because one can always argue that the respective thing empowers itself through magical means if it looks too fragile (Shadow Witches for instance) or suffers from who knows what effect when its bulky outlook is awarded with miserable stats (Horned Demon, Djin, etc.). And here come the fans. I for example don't understand why the dragons should be the strongest creatures in the series, but others will say that this is nonsense and but of course that dragons should be the mightiest beasts available, every other option is preposterous by default. And there is no reasonable explanation why the Devils which are twice the size of the Angels have less HP. And so on.
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 11:02 PM |
|
|
Fortunately the new tier system will ram some sense into that.
Then the Minotaur can occupy the same tier as various other monsters and come out with higher then average HP for the tier and not be inferior to for example a Shadow Witch when it comes to HP, Defense or Damage.
Minotaur strikes me as an Elite choice, if they make it in.
I hope they make them larger, more bull-like and less... well "enslaved" and mangy.
Big with a massive axe and slavering carnivorous jaws, thick shaggy fur and have their upgrade armored.
|
|
odium
Known Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2010 11:32 PM |
|
Edited by odium at 13:50, 10 Oct 2010.
|
Speaking about mythological creatures and the faction they will fit best, I believe that the minotaur is out of place in the dungeon(dark elves) faction. I would say that their most appropriate allegiance would be the orc faction (they too have been created by the mages and apparently escaped). I know that they wanted to keep some creatures from the old line-ups but in this context where Dungeon=Dark Elves it does not fit very well. I too agree the style of dark elves they used in H5 (slu-tty) is not appropriate. They should have went more towards the classic drow concept which is also sexy and carnal but in a less exaggerated way. The original concept art was pretty nice 
Also the shadow mistress should be replaced by a Beholder which essentially fulfills the same requirements (higher level + spellcaster).
|
|
Danny
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 11:16 AM |
|
|
|
Ubi Facebook update confirms the creature is Hellhound & Cerberus after all.
|
|
MattII 
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 12:42 PM |
|
|
|
Then it proves that Ubi doesn't even do research, because both creatures are obviously 'Orthrus'es.
|
|
kornuletz
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 12:48 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I noticed (and disliked) the wrong number of heads too...
Hellhound can have as many heads as they want but Cerberus should have THREE.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 01:15 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 13:15, 20 Oct 2010.
|
|
The mythological accuracy is a bit irrelevant here as Cerberus is an unique dog, there are no Cerberi. The same is valid for Orthrus - also an unique doggy. And the Minotaur. And so on.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 01:35 PM |
|
|
|
The same could be said for a lot of creatures, but that doesn't matter because the Heroes series isn't treating other mythologies as biblically canon, just as inspirations. Besides, it doesn't change the fact that the only difference between the two is that one is wearing armour, and that isn't really a brilliant reason for a name-change.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
