|
| Thread: Changes can be scary |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
posted November 23, 2010 08:48 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 20:50, 23 Nov 2010.
|
Quote:
It is very funny to always compare the new game with the successful old one (read: Compare H6 with the old H3). Some confidently said "Heroes 3 has the best gameplay, this one suck as hell" is it true? is it just merely exaggerated?
Disagree and agree respectively, I don't like a fair few of the changes we're seeing here, but the gameplay mechanics of H3 are threadbare and tatty, and have been for some years.
Quote:
In spite of how do I feel about Starcraft 2, it sold well. Just like Heroes, should we only re-skinned Heroes 3? Starcraft 2 sold well without any major changes, not even a single new race. It should worked well on Heroes as well, we know that Heroes 3 is the best game of the series.
No, that would be terminally stupid move IMO, what they should do is use the H5 mechanics as a base, but make sure they're BALANCED and UN-BUGGY.
Quote:
But are you seriously ignore the fact that the new Tier-system and the new line-ups are so interesting?
No, and in fact I'm quite interested in what they're doing with some of the lineups, although IMO Haven and Necropolis aren't different enough (and totally clichéd).
Quote:
No, I don't want a re-skinned game of the old game. If you want it, fine just install Heroes 3, it will run on your grandparent's PC well I believe. I want something new, something I can explore when the first time I install the game on my PC. I want to have the game evolved in a good way. Just like they did when creating Heroes 3 out of Heroes 2 Core.
Hey, I'm fine with 'new' gameplay, in fact I welcome some of the changes they're making, I just don't agree with their reducing the resources, and those new 'auto-grab' mines, and I'm not totally convinced of the new heroes skill system, although I'll hold back on criticising the towns too much until I have a better idea of what we're actually getting (although with the removal of the Mage-Guilds and Markets is IMO not a promising start. I'm also complaining about the new art style, or namely, the fact that it still feels like out heroes are going for a walk in the park, making heroes look like the entire army, rather than as they did with 1-4 and making them obvious icons for the army, (ie, towering above the forest and even mountains). I also do like some of what they're doing, namely the AoC (apart from mines and dwellings) looks interesting, the new tier system IMO has potential, the whole idea of town conversions is iffy at the worst, and the raft of new creatures looks decidedly cool (I've been wanting a shape-shifter for a while, albeit
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 09:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Heroes 6 vs Starcarft 2
Why not sticking with successful formula like Starcraft 2 did?
I know, some will consider this option but the answer is NO. I don't want to play a hell of the exactly same game re-skinned in beautiful 3D. I want innovation, I want to have this surprising feels when exploring the new features. Yes, I want something to explore when buying a new game. (...)
When innovation worked out, flawlessly done they create a legendary game. Heroes 3 and Starcraft are the example how changes based on good innovation and executed flawlessly may create a long-lived-legendary game.
(...)
No, I don't want a re-skinned game of the old game. If you want it, fine just install Heroes 3, it will run on your grandparent's PC well I believe. I want something new, something I can explore when the first time I install the game on my PC. I want to have the game evolved in a good way. Just like they did when creating Heroes 3 out of Heroes 2 Core.
Of course, Changes ARE scary. But changes based on great Innovation and done flawlessly are the ones give birth to Legendary-Class game up to now.
There are many things to add to this discussion. First of, I have to say that the Heroes 3 to Heroes 2 comparison is perhaps the worst you could ever bring up in the context of the points you try to make: Heroes 3 was exactly what you say you don't want, i.e. a re-skin of Heroes 2 with a couple of new factions and skills added.
But to add constructively, I'll say you can roughly view game developin as consisting of three different actions:
- Adding features
- Removing features
- Changing features
I know this is simplifying, but let's just stick with the thought for a while. The point I want to make is that:
- Adding things is (almost) always good. For game fans, more is generally better.
- Removing things is (almost) always bad. Of course there can be downright faulty features, but again, although I'm often in favor of "less is more", computer game features is not one of the things that fall under this parole.
- Changing things is obviously the middle ground here, and this is where things get very tricky. Because changing things can be good, but you need to change it for the better (obviously). And what "better" is can be very subjective.
Take the resource system change scheduled for Heroes 6. There can be a possibly valid reason for doing it, but they walk very close to the line of "removing features", and you can see how badly it's gone down with this fan community.
We recently discussed this very topic in another thread (Game Development and Fan Nostalgia). My point of view is that Heroes 3 was so succesful because and not in spite of the fact that it was more like Heroes 2.2 than a new game. It took a great game and made it better.
Heroes 4 failed (by and large) for the same reasons: It changed so much that it was in fact a whole new game. And it might have been a great game (I don't think it was, but it could have been) but that wouldn't guarantee success with the fanbase - after all, when I buy a new Heroes game, I want something that is similar to the previous games (which I obviously liked, otherwise I wouldn't buy the new version).
That doesn't mean that I want exactly the same game, but as a consumer, what I want is probably more in the style of new and extra features rather than changed features. The whole faction discussion is a perfect example of this.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Momo
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 12:10 PM |
|
Edited by Momo at 12:12, 24 Nov 2010.
|
While I commend the OP for such a deep-thought approach, I don't think that once you look right and throughly at it, "change" isn't the real point of the problem.
All sequels are something that must tie to the previous chapter but hold its roots, understanding what can't be changed and what needs to be changed in order to be successful with fans (I think I've red an article from Mark Rosewater on the subject once). Changes are going to happen, that's not really up to discussion, the central point is how many (potential) players/customers will appreciate the changes. And not all the changes are equally good (or bad) for the sole point of being changes.
Just to make a single example, there are those who find the continuous restyling of the same factions quite boring. On the contrary, I appreciate HoMM exactly for its ability to always return to the same fantasy tropes (knight, mages, undead, devils, elves...) and try to innovate them while keeping them familiar and affectionate a-la Final Fantasy series. They try to keep both of us happy by keeping some factions and innovating others, but there's no way ALL of us are ever going to be satisfied with EVERY faction lineup.
In the end, as games evolve they gain something, lose something, gain followers and lose them, and as the dust settles all that matters is if globally speaking this "trade" was worth it in terms of players' disappointment/satisfaction.
Take for instance the decision of reducing the factions to five. Reducing the factions helps balance, simplicity and symbolism making the game elegant (no wonder that great games like Starcraft of Magic The Gathering always kept the same, small number of "factions" so to speak); however, you end up killing some beloved towns and reducing diversity and unpredictability, possibly forcing yourself to patch the game and add factions later -something that, I bet it, the developers of HoMM VI already planned doing- wich in the end contradicts all your previous design choices. All you get is that the original game feels less rich and the players feel money-milked, while you must release patch over patch to balance the game and its renewed factions.
In the meanwhile there are new players to try to satisfy too and usually this means letting old fans down. Starcraft II: sure, a SC veteran may find him/herself conned as he/she got basically the same game after a 12 years wait, but my girlfriend who played SC for only a year finds SCII the coolest thing since slicest bread. The veteran whould've wanted new features, more complexity, more options, the new player finds Starcraft II a great game on its own (and possibly even too deep and complicated) and couln't possibly follow up with an "advanced" SCII.
Summing it up (sorry for the wall of text) as you pit all pros and cons of change against the other they just nullify each other and the subject becames no more "are you in favor of against change conceptually speaking?" but rather "were these changes for the better?
|
|
mancubus
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 01:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Still, I'm antsy about the speed at which we might completely buy out the town.
Anybody else worried about that?
I am, pretty much. Thought about that several times, actually. Town upgrade process should last longer than like three turns and completion should feel like an achievement of its own, not just a brief formality. I would think that Ubihole should know how much so many of us love this leveling up thing, be it hero-related or in town context... but you never know 
Imo this question deserves so much more attention.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Art style is obviously different
Exactly the same thing.
"Area control" is optional, "boss" isn't that new of an idea, town conversion is in WoG, Advanced Hero classes were in H4, H4 was RPG-like, etc. A few minor new features - and not even a graphical update - and it's worth calling a new game?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 11:21 PM |
|
|
What do you call a new game then? You play a Haven Crossbowman who can level up to level 100 and can at one point become either Specnaz sniper or Waffen SS machine gunner, explore the surface of the moon where the burrowed Asha keeps in store for you FPS action, puzzles, party-based tactical battles with options for real time and turn-based fights, dragon-riding simulator, economic simulator where you trade with the lost 3 resources until you build a financial empire and buy the rest of the factions, mini belote and chess games with randomly encountered Inquisitors and Succubuses, political simulator where you have to win against the Democratic Party of Urgash and of course a point and click adventure where you are supposed to solve the mistery of The Third Cerberus' Head? Or maybe this won't suffice for a trully new Heroes game? 
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 11:37 PM |
|
|
mvass, you would make an excellent art critic. Think about it
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you call a new game then? You play a Haven Crossbowman who can level up to level 100 and can at one point become either Specnaz sniper or Waffen SS machine gunner, explore the surface of the moon where the burrowed Asha keeps in store for you FPS action, puzzles, party-based tactical battles with options for real time and turn-based fights, dragon-riding simulator, economic simulator where you trade with the lost 3 resources until you build a financial empire and buy the rest of the factions, mini belote and chess games with randomly encountered Inquisitors and Succubuses, political simulator where you have to win against the Democratic Party of Urgash and of course a point and click adventure where you are supposed to solve the mistery of The Third Cerberus' Head? Or maybe this won't suffice for a trully new Heroes game?
That was the most awesome thing I have read all day 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted November 24, 2010 11:48 PM |
|
|
@Zenofex: Holy ****.
They better ship the game with one awesome mod tool so someone can realize that awesomeness.
____________
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 01:15 AM |
|
|
@mvass
Try comparing the Imp next time.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 01:37 AM |
|
|
Creature experience is hardly a new idea. It was even integrated into H3 with WoG, and yet it's still pretty much the same game. So far, between every HoMM game there has been a change in art style (whether for the better, as in H1 to H2, or for the worse, as in H3 to H4) and graphics. But not this time. H2 was not H1. H3 was not H2. H4 was definitely not H3, and H5 is not H3 either. I don't see anything as big of a leap here as heroes in combat or the initiative bar were.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
admira
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 03:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That was the most awesome thing I have read all day
I second that
@Alchie: I think it is pretty obvious, the transformation from Heroes 2 to Heroes 3 is major. IMHO it re-worked many things to be called a non re-skinned game. Here is some list that makes me feels that Heroes 3 is not Heroes 2.2:
1. The increase in creature tier to 7
2. Get loose the variant upgrade into all creature with 1 upgrade
3. Heroes' Specialty (gotta love that)
4. Major line-ups changes
Compare them with Heroes 3 leap into Heroes 5:
1. Racial Skill
2. Skill Wheel
3. Initiative system
4. Alternate upgrade (Not in original release and first expansion, mind you)
But both are offer greater change, IMHO the changes in Heroes 5 is very refreshing the main problem with Heroes 5 is that too many flaw on the game (Bad Bugs, corny voice act, bad presentation on the story, Bad AI, Spike Lag even in high-end PC just to name a few), the re-skinning in Starcraft --> Starcraft 2 is much much worse than the 2 games but they did it flawlessly. Believe me, when I say re-skin and you got the exactly same game (with improved graphic), then try to play Starcarft and Starcraft 2. it is a good game but really they don't really innovate anything new, just a minor creature line-ups, and in my point of view they are strictly bind with the fact that Starcraft 2 must be applied to Sport purpose or you will get Korean Rampage if you changed too much.
Starcraft 1, is another example, would you dare to say that Starcraft 1 is Warcraft 2 on space? I believe you wouldn't. Why? Because they innovate enough with some crazy idea and changes, the template is similar, you will see the Warcraft 2 template here and there, but it is not Warcraft 2. Why? Because they innovate greatly not only a skinned game and I believe they were not under pressure when developing Starcraft 1 compare to Starcraft 2 did.
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 05:42 AM |
|
|
@mvass
H1 and H2 art style is quite similar
 
 
 
The art style change from H5 to H6 is much greater than this.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 06:00 AM |
|
|
The difference in art style between H1 and H2 is larger in-game than can be seen from such screenshots.
And you can't compare artwork of H6 creatures with in-game screenshots of H5 creatures. They're going to look different. You have to compare the in-game looks.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 06:17 AM |
|
|
Not much different from the artwork itself.
Edit: Btw you yourself compared H6 Pit Lord artwork with ingame model of H5 Pit Lord.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 06:43 AM |
|
|
Maybe it's subjective, because to me those in-game models look like something that could have conceivably been in H5.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 06:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually what concerns me the most is town management.
With the removal of mage guilds and the market place in a state of flux due to the resource changes (which I'm also, whilst optimistic, not entirely confident about) will we have enough stuff to build? and choices to make when building.
Fortunately, we're supposedly getting 4 faction unique structures which you're only allowed to have two of in a specific town.
Still, I'm antsy about the speed at which we might completely buy out the town.
Anybody else worried about that?
And whilst I agree with you swamp, lets stop dragging other games into the matter at hand.
Actually considering the opening post, that might be hard in this specific topic....
It'd be foolish to not use other games as examples; other games are the perfect place to find both change done right and change done wrong.
I do agree that the mage guild and resource changes are a bit problematic; I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one, though. If it doesn't work, they can always change it in an (inevitable) expansion, and the series does need some innovation.
I am curious to see how they are gonna mix up the town prereqs with the Mage Guilds gone.
As far as the models/art style go, I think that they wouldn't look of place, necessarily, in 5, but they definitely look different. It's a much more "realistic" style, for lack of a better word. Definitely like the direction they're going with that; 5 was a bit too Warcrafy/anime-ish for me. I don't necessarily have a problem with those styles, but that's never been the aesthetic approach for Heroes.
____________
They can take my swamp, they can take my town, but they will never take my FREEDOM!
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 06:49 AM |
|
|
|
Graphics wise maybe similar yes but their artstyle for me is noticeably different. Seriously, just try compare the new Imp and the old(H5) Imp. The new Imp is definitely Lovecraftian while the H5 Imp is a cartoonish pokemon style type.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 08:06 AM |
|
|
I'm not saying the new Imp looks like the old one. But it doesn't look different in art style. The new Imp would have fit in well with the H5 creatures, while, say, the H2 Peasant would have noticeably stood out in H1.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2010 09:04 AM |
|
|
Seriously, many people are complaining that the artwork, say the breeder, doesn't fit into HoMM series and now you're telling me that the Lovecraftian style can fit well in H5? Try telling this to them, see how they react.
It's clear to me that our idea of artstyle is not even the same. For me, Lovecraftian style and cartoonish pokemon style are two different artstyle. I don't know what your idea of artstyle is because to me you basically keep telling me that Lovecraftian and cartoonish pokemon are the same. My best guess, your thinking that graphics=artstyle and are disillusioned by the similar graphics between H5 and H6.
|
| |
|
|
