|
| Thread: What Really went Wrong with H5? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mike80d
Famous Hero
Map Maker
|
posted August 05, 2011 02:15 PM |
|
|
I'd say the failure to support the original release of the game in a timely manner was the greatest downfall.
Upon release there was no quality way that most normal gamers like myself knew of to play multiplayer w/ a friend. The Ubisoft server was atrocious (it'd crash nearly every 30 minutes), and the AI took much longer to complete its turn than a human would. Hamachi was the only reason I was able to play.. thankfully I found out about it months later.
The game was also too conservative. Most of the creatures were the same ones used in Homm2&3, with little skills added on. The game, therefore, did not feel "new". Only the graphics did.
Too few maps was also an early problem. And it is this very reason that I have been complaining about the Heroes6 10-map release. It seems Heroes 6 is making the same mistake.
Once the above challenges were overcome (by the user, w/o help from Ubisoft), the imbalances of luck/morale/initiative/speed made competitive games too one-sided, and the AI was way too predictable.
My conclusion is therefore that the newness and exploration of Homm5 was ruined by the early game mechanic problems, and the later play of Homm5 was ruined by terrible AI & imbalanced skills/spells.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 02:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But isn't that exactly what makes things pretty interesting? You will have to make a lot more and a lot more complex decisions? There is the additional effect that lots of troops have dispelling abilities and that there are lots of dispelling spells as well, so the battle situation is much more unstable, so there will be tons of effects on creatures which will change permanently.
So the tactical situation changes very fast and you have to take stock regularly to check what effects are on everyone - and what will be the best thing to do at that point, that is, battles between 2 real players will have much less automatic actions.
I guess that depends on how you define tactics. With a lot of extra variables, it's pretty much impossible to plan ahead and predict what will happen. Will that make the game more complex? Possibly. Will it make it more tactical? I'm not so sure. If all you can do is evaluate by the current situation, I won't say game is more tactical, rather the contrary.
I think, I simply disagree. Tactic IS situational, everything else is strategy. So battle STRATEGY is the general consideration,, IF you face off against faction X with this and that, what SHOULD you field generally in terms of spells and abilities and what not, and how should your general battle plan be.
This should be better than, I cast X and then Y, and at that oint opponent has hopefully no answer anymore.
Battle Tactics, however, are the specifics, and ideally, if it's your turn, you have a number of options to act, and what action is best is defined by the actual and momentary situation.
If spells and abilities lasts long, the general situation is pretty stable and not many adjustments will be necessary - you stack effects, like playing cards out, and the better combination will eventually win (provided Luck is with you).
If effects have a short duration, though, and dispelling effects create additional "islands" of situational changes, the situation becomes much more complex.
I think, that this needs much more skill than just slamming spells out in a certain sequence.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 02:39 PM |
|
|
We're down to semantics here, with my level of english, stategy and tactics are synonymous.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 02:52 PM |
|
|
They are not.
Strategy, a word of military origin, refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. In military usage strategy is distinct from tactics, which are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked. How a battle is fought is a matter of tactics: the terms and conditions that it is fought on and whether it should be fought at all is a matter of strategy, which is part of the four levels of warfare: political goals or grand strategy, strategy, operations, and tactics. Building on the work of many thinkers on the subject, one can define strategy as "a comprehensive way to try to pursue political ends, including the threat or actual use of force, in a dialectic of wills – there have to be at least two sides to a conflict. These sides interact, and thus a Strategy will rarely be successful if it shows no adaptability."[1] Strategy has been extended beyond its traditional fields, military and grand strategy, to business, economics, game theory and other fields.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 02:55 PM |
|
|
Well then I disagree with JJ. If there are so many variables that table can turn with almost all the time, I think tactics goes down the drain.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2011 03:20 PM |
|
|
No, on the contrary.
Strategy is the general battle plan. This might be something like, "faction X is vulnerable against Light, so I have to cast Light spells like hell".
Tactics, however, is a question of the actual situation, and not always will you able to do something consistent with your general strategy: it's your unit X turn, and you can wait, defend or attack one of 4 possible targets. You will have to consider the effect of each action, and while your overall strategy may involve the goal to neutralize unit Z of the enemy as soon as possible, the odds for an attack on Z may be too bad for that unit, for example, because opponent just put Stone Skin on it - which means, you must reconsider.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted August 06, 2011 12:10 PM |
|
|
In my words, tactics is smaller scale plans, while strategy is a large scale, long term plan. One important thing to remember is that there's no way to draw the line, different people disagree where it's no longer but and strategy instead.
It could be context-sensitive too. My battle plan "shoot enemies from afar" would be a strategy. "Cast Slow, use walkers to intercept advancing enemies, Blind the one in the bottleneck" would be tactics.
My strategy could be "use a Sorceress town led by a Barbarian to abuse high initiative and damage bonus". Smaller scale details, like "take elves from Sorc town and trolls from Barbarian town", "get Archery skill" would be tactics.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
polaris
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2011 02:00 PM |
bonus applied by Elvin on 06 Aug 2011. |
Edited by polaris at 14:12, 06 Aug 2011.
|
Arguing about strategy or tactics is pointless. Any time people argue about jargon I find it tends to result in flame wars because people use the same jargon to mean different things. It ends up being a debate about whether the definitions are correct instead of a discussion of which concepts are agreed upon.
I look at it like this:
A good strategy game should have relatively predictable results to a given choice. For example, if I use stack A to attack stack B, I should have a reasonably good idea of what will happen before I actually perform the action: Stack B takes so much damage, stack A has such-and-such chance to activate an ability, etc. At the same time, a game is about making decisions. If the decisions are too obvious then they cease to be decisions and the game is not fun. Decisions mean that something about them is unpredictable.
Said another way, a good strategy game is about information. A good player knows how to exploit the information available to him to guide his decisions. A bad player may not understand all the information he is given, or he fails to recognize how it relates to the decisions the game tasks him with making. To me, the easiest way to contemplate the way these decisions are made is to look at where the information is lacking. That means looking at the source(s) of unpredictability. I see two main sources of unpredictability, discussed below:
1) Your opponent(s)
The opponent is an obvious source of unpredictability for us non-mind-readers. Perhaps surprisingly, a good player is more predictable than a bad player because they are more likely to make good decisions. Indeed, this makes them harder to defeat because there are fewer holes in their overall plan that can be exploited (A large part of most strategy games is simply learning how to execute your plan effectively. In my view a good player is simply one who is good at execution).
In games with perfect information, such as Tic-Tac-Toe (#), your opponent is the only source of unpredictability in the game. And if the game is simple enough, as in #, both players can reasonably be expected to play perfectly and the game ceases to even BE a game anymore- it is more like a predictable sequence of events instead. Thus, black shroud and fog of war are common mechanisms used to hide information about the opponent, giving the opponent the appearance of greater unpredictability. Nonetheless, another source of unpredictability is often useful.
2) Randomization (in the game's mechanics)
Any time there is a die roll or a random number the player may be forced to react to an unexpected and unfavorable situation (or unexpectedly favorable). This often simplifies the decision making process because it is less useful to look several steps ahead when a random die roll could radically alter the results of any of the steps in between. This tends to remove minutae from the decision making process because randomization drowns it out, which speeds the game along at a quicker pace.
However, randomization usually favors the weaker player in a matchup. Assuming the game is not one where the first player to move can force a win, then each decision in a game against a perfect player would only be an opportunity for us to make a mistake and fall behind- we would never be able to gain an advantage against this player who always makes the best possible move. So whenever the game generates a random result, it is (in a sense) making a decision on behalf of the game rules, which are decisions made outside the scope of what the perfect player can manipulate. This decision may favor one player. In particular, it may make a result which favors the losing player, and lets him back into the game. In the reverse, a player who is substantially ahead can never benefit from randomization. Although he may be able to win faster with some good die rolls, the end result- that he wins- is not changed. In essence, randomization reduces the possibility of more skill but keeps the game more competitve for players of different skill levels.
It's not about strategy or tactics; it's about information. Finding the right balance of predictability and unpredictability makes the game both fun and challenging.
*some editing*
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 06, 2011 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This often simplifies the decision making process because it is less useful to look several steps ahead when a random die roll could radically alter the results of any of the steps in between.
Excellent post. I think this quote sort of summarizes what I tried to say, except I was not so much talking about randomization as numbers of variables. But the result in my optics is pretty much the same.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted August 06, 2011 11:33 PM |
|
|
@Mike80D
Quote:
My conclusion is therefore that the newness and exploration of Homm5 was ruined by the early game mechanic problems, and the later play of Homm5 was ruined by terrible AI & imbalanced skills/spells.
That's a good assessment.
Are you still playing and making maps? and have you tried 5.5?
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2011 11:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This often simplifies the decision making process because it is less useful to look several steps ahead when a random die roll could radically alter the results of any of the steps in between.
Excellent post. I think this quote sort of summarizes what I tried to say, except I was not so much talking about randomization as numbers of variables. But the result in my optics is pretty much the same.
I disagree. Let's have a closer look at that post:
Quote:
Arguing about strategy or tactics is pointless. Any time people argue about jargon I find it tends to result in flame wars because people use the same jargon to mean different things. It ends up being a debate about whether the definitions are correct instead of a discussion of which concepts are agreed upon.
That could be said about everything, but that doesen't change the fact, that independent of what people may THINK about things and terms, there usually IS a correct definition.
Quote:
A good strategy game should have relatively predictable results to a given choice. For example, if I use stack A to attack stack B, I should have a reasonably good idea of what will happen before I actually perform the action: Stack B takes so much damage, stack A has such-and-such chance to activate an ability, etc. At the same time, a game is about making decisions. If the decisions are too obvious then they cease to be decisions and the game is not fun. Decisions mean that something about them is unpredictable.
So far so good. There is an overall goal, there are options and decisions have to be made.
Also "something" is unpredictable about it.
Quote:
Said another way, a good strategy game is about information. A good player knows how to exploit the information available to him to guide his decisions. A bad player may not understand all the information he is given, or he fails to recognize how it relates to the decisions the game tasks him with making. To me, the easiest way to contemplate the way these decisions are made is to look at where the information is lacking. That means looking at the source(s) of unpredictability. I see two main sources of unpredictability, discussed below:
1) Your opponent(s)...
2) Randomization
In my opinion this is missing completely what "unpredictability" is all about - or what the nature of the unpredictability is about.
To be true to the example. Let's say, it's your turn with a stack, you have no chance to do something with the hero; the unit has a fixed damage output and 4 attack options plus the option to wait or defend. Results are clear and SPECIFIC information is complete.
However, the REAL question - and the source of unpredictability - is actually the question after the significance of the specific action and its result for the development of the battle and your chances to win it.
The same is true for every action: attack a massive stack that may incur losses? Are the expected benefits of winning the battle worth the expected losses.
The bottom line is, that for every possible action you try to form something like a cost-effectiveness chart. The problem is, that the actual effect is difficult to determine in many situations.
That's why the following
Quote:
The opponent is an obvious source of unpredictability for us non-mind-readers. Perhaps surprisingly, a good player is more predictable than a bad player because they are more likely to make good decisions. Indeed, this makes them harder to defeat because there are fewer holes in their overall plan that can be exploited (A large part of most strategy games is simply learning how to execute your plan effectively. In my view a good player is simply one who is good at execution).
is pretty irrelevant. What the opponent does or not does, is relevant not in terms of predictability - he can act as predictable or unpredictable as he wants, the only relevant question is, whether his decisions are better or worse as yours. He can execute his plan perfectly, if the plan is inferior, he will probably lose the game (that, however, is true the other way round as well). You will lose, when you avoid every risk, and you will lose if your risk calculation is wrong, fort example.
Quote:
In games with perfect information, such as Tic-Tac-Toe (#), your opponent is the only source of unpredictability in the game. And if the game is simple enough, as in #, both players can reasonably be expected to play perfectly and the game ceases to even BE a game anymore- it is more like a predictable sequence of events instead.
Correct, because the significance of every move is always clear.
Quote:
Thus, black shroud and fog of war are common mechanisms used to hide information about the opponent, giving the opponent the appearance of greater unpredictability. Nonetheless, another source of unpredictability is often useful.
These things are possible only in games where people can actually play for themselves: they can act without needing immediate information. You might say, if in chess you could deploy your pieces any way you like, the game might feature hidden deployment (fog of war) as well, up until the start of the game. This changes the character of the game, since you have to consider your opponent's options and act on assumption.
Quote:
Any time there is a die roll or a random number the player may be forced to react to an unexpected and unfavorable situation (or unexpectedly favorable). This often simplifies the decision making process because it is less useful to look several steps ahead when a random die roll could radically alter the results of any of the steps in between. This tends to remove minutae from the decision making process because randomization drowns it out, which speeds the game along at a quicker pace.
Yes and no. If the randomization includes possible game-breakers, yes. If not, we are talking about probabilities, and developing strategies to safeguard against adverse random effects or exploit opportunities are part of decision making, and taking action to minimize random effects may just be part of good playing strategy. Clearly, if 45+ creatures kin a stack of "Lots" may spell death, and 25- an easy victory, witzh everything in between it ranging from light to heavy losses, closing your eyes and attacking is worse than not attacking, provided success would hand you the game, in which case it was a coin toss. The correct way is trying to get the information without risking too much. So, no randomization, if correctly implemented, does nothing at all to quicken the pace, since if it actually IS irrelevant what you do, it ceases to be a strategy game.
Quote:
However, randomization usually favors the weaker player in a matchup. Assuming the game is not one where the first player to move can force a win, then each decision in a game against a perfect player would only be an opportunity for us to make a mistake and fall behind- we would never be able to gain an advantage against this player who always makes the best possible move.
This is wrong, because it assumes that there are perfect moves possible without randomization. The basic flaw here is that randomization is just another name for missing information, but as we have seen randomization isn't the ONLY source of incomplete information (see above; another source is the inability to perfectly assess the effect of any given move). So even without randomization there is no perfect move.
Quote:
So whenever the game generates a random result, it is (in a sense) making a decision on behalf of the game rules, which are decisions made outside the scope of what the perfect player can manipulate. This decision may favor one player. In particular, it may make a result which favors the losing player, and lets him back into the game. In the reverse, a player who is substantially ahead can never benefit from randomization. Although he may be able to win faster with some good die rolls, the end result- that he wins- is not changed. In essence, randomization reduces the possibility of more skill but keeps the game more competitve for players of different skill levels.
This is againa wrong conclusion, since the fact that there ARE randomizations, is known, and will have to be part of any valid game plan. "Good player" does NOT mean, that someone WOULD BE good, provided a certain element of the game was missing.
"Good player" does generally mean that players find strategies that will work with high probability.
In fact, in any sufficiently complex game it is impossible to have perfect information, since there are too many options and too many possible moves. Additionally, there is the uncertainty of weighing certain aspects, even in games like chess. There is the material and there is position, and sometimes you sacrifice material for a positional gain, assuming that the position will serve you better than the material, but it's something of a "gamble", and not just because the opponent is unpredictable. It means that the game dynamic is going up a couple of notches.
It has a reason that they say in Chess, that the last mistake is losing. Generally games are much more often lost than won. Generally "defensive play" is easier than aggressive play as well. That's why
Quote:
It's not about strategy or tactics; it's about information. Finding the right balance of predictability and unpredictability makes the game both fun and challenging.
this conclusion is somewhat unrelated. It's not about information, itz's all about ASSESSMENT of any given piece of information OR MISSING INFORMATION.
Example: You look at LOTS of creatures. It's an information, but an important part of it is missing. The question is, how do you assess this info. Is it enough for you to make a decision or not? Are you willing to risk something on it or not? Is this a question of unpredictability? Even if you have full information - how predictable become things?
So it's definitely NOT about information. It's about forming game plans based on the amount of information, about information GATHERING and about the assessment of information.
Example: you play a semi-competetive map - set-up is equal for you and opponent, but not in the last detail. At some point there is a major artifact in your starting area, moderately guarded. Yours is pretty bad. This is a fact, but it will also tell you, that PROBABLY opponent will have a better one, and to make up for that you will have to outplay him: you will have to tighten your game up a notch or two. Since you ASSUME a worse hand than opponent, SOLID play may just not earn you anything anymore, except cementing a disadvantage.
In short, it's all about finding the most promising course of action considering EVERY available AND UNAVAILABLE information.
|
|
polaris
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2011 06:14 PM |
|
|
Jolly, you are talking about how to be a good player and I am talking about what a strategy game is. Most of your arguments relate to things that a good player does or does not do, which is not particularly the topic I was aiming for.
All I said about good players is that they are good at converting the information they have into an executed plan.
Piecemeal quoting with emphasis added:
Quote:
However, the REAL question - and the source of unpredictability - is actually the question after the significance of the specific action and its result for the development of the battle and your chances to win it.
The same is true for every action: attack a massive stack that may incur losses? Are the expected benefits of winning the battle worth the expected losses.
The bottom line is, that for every possible action you try to form something like a cost-effectiveness chart. The problem is, that the actual effect is difficult to determine in many situations.
Quote:
If the randomization includes possible game-breakers, yes. If not, we are talking about probabilities, and developing strategies to safeguard against adverse random effects or exploit opportunities are part of decision making, and taking action to minimize random effects may just be part of good playing strategy. Clearly, if 45+ creatures kin a stack of "Lots" may spell death, and 25- an easy victory, witzh everything in between it ranging from light to heavy losses, closing your eyes and attacking is worse than not attacking, provided success would hand you the game, in which case it was a coin toss. The correct way is trying to get the information without risking too much. So, no randomization, if correctly implemented, does nothing at all to quicken the pace, since if it actually IS irrelevant what you do, it ceases to be a strategy game.
Quote:
This is wrong, because it assumes that there are perfect moves possible without randomization. The basic flaw here is that randomization is just another name for missing information, but as we have seen randomization isn't the ONLY source of incomplete information (see above; another source is the inability to perfectly assess the effect of any given move). So even without randomization there is no perfect move.
Quote:
This is againa wrong conclusion, since the fact that there ARE randomizations, is known, and will have to be part of any valid game plan. "Good player" does NOT mean, that someone WOULD BE good, provided a certain element of the game was missing.
"Good player" does generally mean that players find strategies that will work with high probability.
In fact, in any sufficiently complex game it is impossible to have perfect information, since there are too many options and too many possible moves. Additionally, there is the uncertainty of weighing certain aspects, even in games like chess. There is the material and there is position, and sometimes you sacrifice material for a positional gain, assuming that the position will serve you better than the material, but it's something of a "gamble", and not just because the opponent is unpredictable. It means that the game dynamic is going up a couple of notches.
Quote:
It's not about information, itz's all about ASSESSMENT of any given piece of information OR MISSING INFORMATION.
Example: You look at LOTS of creatures. It's an information, but an important part of it is missing. The question is, how do you assess this info. Is it enough for you to make a decision or not? Are you willing to risk something on it or not? Is this a question of unpredictability? Even if you have full information - how predictable become things?
So it's definitely NOT about information. It's about forming game plans based on the amount of information, about information GATHERING and about the assessment of information.
Quote:
Example: you play a semi-competetive map - set-up is equal for you and opponent, but not in the last detail. At some point there is a major artifact in your starting area, moderately guarded. Yours is pretty bad. This is a fact, but it will also tell you, that PROBABLY opponent will have a better one, and to make up for that you will have to outplay him: you will have to tighten your game up a notch or two. Since you ASSUME a worse hand than opponent, SOLID play may just not earn you anything anymore, except cementing a disadvantage.
In short, it's all about finding the most promising course of action considering EVERY available AND UNAVAILABLE information.
It looks like you and I agree, as that's pretty much what I said, in a lot fewer words. Also you seem to have conflated randomization with unpredictability (see quote 3), and I believe I was quite clear on how I was construing the two terms separately. Again, this is why I don't like arguing about terminology. I make no distinction between how *impactful* unpredictable things are to the game when I call them unpredictable. That is in the task of the player, and a good one will have a better sense of things than a bad one. Clearly you understand this point very well, but I reiterate the point anyway as a contrast, because my post was not concerned with that topic.
I am looking at things from the perspective of what makes the game good, not what makes the player good.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted August 09, 2011 01:56 AM |
|
Edited by B0rsuk at 01:57, 09 Aug 2011.
|
An interesting comment from Rock Paper Shotgun:
Quote:
The greatest problem with 5 and 6 are scale.. You’re no longer feeling you’re traveling lands.. it feels like the end of the map is the backyard of your castle..The units and landscape in battle mode got so detailed that is hard to imagine any more that there are hundreds of creatures fighting ..It’s just numbers..
Music went to hell. and 5′s graphic was cleanly aiming for a korean style..
I dare every HOMM player that he wouldnt have played that much with these games if they didnt have that crazy good atmosphere about it..
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/08/might-and-magic-heroes-vi-preview/#comment-page-2
Anyone else getting this "backyard" feeling ? That there's no scale ? I certainly got the impression maps are smaller, adventure map locations - bigger, etc.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 09, 2011 07:37 AM |
|
|
And interesting read. Sad, but interesting.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
malgore
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 12:30 PM |
|
|
Speaking of H5 - firstly, tech issues with vanilla version made me wait to TOTE release. Waiting for a playable game after release was frustrating. I really hope it will not happen to H6.
Secondly, to me TOTE is one of the series best. Alternative upgrades, magic schools that were distinct, transparent skill system, initiative-based combat system, unique faction skills stand out as series achievements. Sad thing is that partially some of these will be scrapped or strongly reworked in H6.
While many criticize H5 campaign, it must be noted that delivering brand new storyline to established series is never easy. Given that players were already shocked with world reboot in H4, the task of "Ashanization" of Heroes series was a hard endeavour. That is not to say that I personally enjoyed Ashan or campaign characters (Isabel and Findan parts were really lame written). I hope H6 storytelling will be much better.
Visual design was good, but Warcraft and Warhammer influences went to extreme sometimes. For H5 darker medieval tones could enhance visual style and uniqueness imho.
As for gameplay - as noted, there are many balance issues with spells (Divine Vengence, Mass Slow\Haste and etc) and skills (Luck, Logistics and etc). Another issue was linked with unit balance, upgrades (famed Arcanes 8)) and new initiative mechanics. Most of it could be fixed with regular patching from Nival.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 12:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyone else getting this "backyard" feeling ? That there's no scale ? I certainly got the impression maps are smaller, adventure map locations - bigger, etc.
Yup. For some reason the maps do feel small.
|
|
B0rsuk
Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 01:13 PM |
|
|
To be fair maps in Heroes 4 also feel small, for the same reason. Because adventure map locations are so big, you can't fit as many of them into one area.
-====================-
Quote:
I thought I'd share a pretty funny read from one of Heroes V's development diaries circa 2005. Prior to Heroes V's release
(...)
In the diary, Erwan Le Breton, M&M Content Director, and Richard Dansky, M&M World Designer, discussed their intention to create the world of Ashan. Here's an excerpt:
Quote:
12. To conclude why do you think people will enjoy the universe you helped to create?
I think that the best praise we could get for this new universe is that it “feels strong and it feels real”. All of the different factions have very good reasons to justify their existence and their ongoing struggles with the rival nations. All of the characters have legitimate motivations and credible mindsets. The drama is tight, focused on a long chain of major events that covers millennia of spoken myths and written history. Everything is related. Every action has its consequences, sometimes hundreds of years later.
http://bloggingheroes3.blogspot.com/2011/05/retrospective-ubisoft-talks-about-ashan.html
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 03:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyone else getting this "backyard" feeling ? That there's no scale ? I certainly got the impression maps are smaller, adventure map locations - bigger, etc.
Yes. The 3D presentation definitely destroyed the "epic strategy feel" for me. I'd be much happier with a nicely dressed 2D map style, a la H2-H3.
I wish gaming companies would learn that adding a third dimension is not always an improvement. Unfortunately, it seems almost expected any more that a modern game has to be 3D to be good. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 03:40 PM |
|
|
|
The problem is with the legions of kids which firmly believe that if it's not 3D, then it's not worth looking at (and that's literally - the game could be a masterpiece but if it's 2D - run away, junior, it's crap!). Even if this does not apply to a TBS, few producers will ever bother noticing something different from the predominant trend.
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror
|
|
posted August 11, 2011 03:51 PM |
|
|
Many game developers think 3D is a lot more convenient to work with, which is understandable.
However the problem isn't that H5 or H6 for that matter is in 3D, but that it has been done in the wrong way. For some reason they seems to think that everything must have "realistic" proportions, making artifacts, structures and units too small on the map, which makes the entire map feel less epic.
I wish they would return to how it was in Heroes 3 where all the objects on the map have a "non-specific" size, and thusly making the map feel huge and epic. So that it feels like your playing in an entire land not just a small part of it.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
| |
|
|
