Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Library of Enlightenment > Thread: What went wrong in Heroes of Might and Magic III
Thread: What went wrong in Heroes of Might and Magic III This thread is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT»
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted August 12, 2011 11:31 PM
Edited by Fauch at 23:34, 12 Aug 2011.

lol, people complain about spells being weak, but then for them, a normal situation is when they have an army of 5000 archangels

and then you complain about the game being imba, when the game was never designed for such huge armies?

if you cast it on 20 archangels, that's 750 damage, which seems low for a spell like implosion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted August 12, 2011 11:38 PM
Edited by Salamandre at 23:39, 12 Aug 2011.

Bah what? Some maps require up to 24 months to finish. The growth follows, don't be jealous, not our fault that H5 can not be played beyond tiny maps

AI strength too btw.
____________
All my Era II mods

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted August 13, 2011 12:43 AM

The truth is, that both games get out of whack when they leave certain parameters. If troops are too plentiful certain creature abilities and spells get extraordinary powerful, while others are useless.
The underlying problem is the balance of might versus magic. If a might hero has 10 attack points more than a magic one, it means, that the might hero will do 50% more damage, depending on the troops involved that may be a lot.
If a magic hero has 10 more power than a might hero, it's difficult to make up for that in every situation, because POWER is no passive stat that aids creatures.
Generally this works within certain parameters only.

Which you have to accept. If you play a specific single map, it doesn't matter. The map is set-up in some way that will give you a run for your money.
If you play MP, though, whether competetive or not, you are well-advised to keep to certain parameters with the map.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 13, 2011 01:23 AM

I generally avoid such maps (where level 7 creature stacks exceed 20 or 30). Not my thing.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Warmonger
Warmonger


Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
posted August 13, 2011 08:30 AM
Edited by Warmonger at 08:57, 13 Aug 2011.

In H5, however, 10 spell power could make a huge difference with Conjure Phoenix, Vampirism, Divine Vengeance, Puppet Master, Frenzy, Deep Freeze and Wasp Hive.
On the other hand, most high-level spells in H3 was spellpower-independent apart from poor damage spells, that is. And Summon Elementals was used mostly to drain mana of AI hero, sometimes just for cover, but never as a strike force.

Yes, combat spells were definitely more interesting and enjoyable in H5 than H3.
____________

The future of Heroes 3 is here!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted August 13, 2011 09:05 AM
Edited by Salamandre at 09:17, 13 Aug 2011.

H3 has WoG and H5 not


____________
All my Era II mods

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SkeleTony
SkeleTony


Hired Hero
posted August 23, 2011 08:42 AM

Quote:

Now Heroes 3. Can you describe, in short (1-2 sentences) classes like
- Cleric/Demoniac/Alchemist
- Druid/Heretic/Necromancer/Battle Mage
- What's the difference between Barbarian and Overlord ?
- How about Witch and Wizard ?

How they differ from each other ?



Cleric is the "magic" hero for the Castle town type. Castle can only achieve level 4 mage guild and every town type has different percentages to get different spells. Demoniac is a "Might" hero for the Inferno, so starts with better combat/might abilities than Magic abilities. Alchemist is the "Might" hero for the Tower, etc.

necromancers start with necromancy skill(a pretty significant advantage). Only Warlocks(IIRC) can even get necromancy aside from the Necro-heroes and they have a low chance to do so.

But the real point you are missing is that the goal of having all these different hero types was to achieve the effect of having both a "might" and a "magic" hero for each town/faction, that fit that town's theme/flavor(i.e. druids and rangers for the nature/woodlands themed "Rampart"). Any statistical variance between them is just icing on the cake.

Don't get me wrong; there is plenty wrong with Heroes III. Little things like the Stronghold's "Magic" hero should have been a "Shaman", not a "Battle Mage"(which is stupid and does not fit the theme/genre well) and more important things like replacing sensible creatures for various town types with nonsensical replacements(i.e. the Troll, which would have been perfect as the boulder throwing siege unit for the Stronghold being replaced by Cyclopes etc.).

Useless spells are a problem for both games and equally so. Heroes II is in many ways much worse in terms of magic than Heroes III. Having singular and "mass" versions of the same spell count as different spells is stupid. However Heroes III would have been better served by increasing the mana cost of casting "expert" and "master" level spells to correspond with the increased effects.

I love a lot about Heroes II. better graphics than any other game in the series, best music. But heroes III is the best game in the series overall. It could have been much better(especially if they had not let silly teenagers from the Astral Wizard site dictate the "Forge" town be replaced by the stupid, boring and absurdly unblanaced "Conflux") but it is still pretty great.



____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SkeleTony
SkeleTony


Hired Hero
posted August 23, 2011 08:45 AM

Quote:
H3 has WoG and H5 not




This is not a good thing IMO. WoG is a mess.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 25, 2011 11:15 AM
Edited by B0rsuk at 11:20, 25 Aug 2011.

Quote:

necromancers start with necromancy skill(a pretty significant advantage). Only Warlocks(IIRC) can even get necromancy aside from the Necro-heroes and they have a low chance to do so.


Witches can get it too. But it's pointless. Morale cost is too high. Unless you only use Minotaur Kings, which make a great Necropolis suplement due to always positive morale.

Quote:

But the real point you are missing is that the goal of having all these different hero types was to achieve the effect of having both a "might" and a "magic" hero for each town/faction, that fit that town's theme/flavor(i.e. druids and rangers for the nature/woodlands themed "Rampart"). Any statistical variance between them is just icing on the cake.


No, I'm not missing it. But differences between hero types are often marginal. I like Heroes 2 and 1 because each hero type is distinct. How about a few examples...

Primary skills (chance), attack defense power knowledge

Knight: 40 40 10 10
Knight10+: 30 30 20 20
Ranger: 35 45 10 10
Ranger10+: 30 30 20 20

Wow ! A whole 5% difference, which fades away with level 10.

Overlord 2-9: 40% 35% 15% 10%
Overlord 10+: 30% 30% 20% 20

Differs from Knight and Ranger by 5%. Identical since level 10.

Cleric 2-9 20% 15% 30% 35%
Cleric 10+ 20% 20% 30% 30%

Heretic 2-9 20% 10% 35% 35%
Heretic 10+ 25% 25% 25% 25%

See ? The difference is at most 5% for each stat. As if they were generated from a template. There are more examples like this.

What I meant earlier was: in most cases heroes are not distinctive enough that you would remember the differences. I'm sure there are differences in secondary skills between Heretic and Cleric. Can you name some without looking into spoilers ? Me neither.

Quote:

and more important things like replacing sensible creatures for various town types with nonsensical replacements(i.e. the Troll, which would have been perfect as the boulder throwing siege unit for the Stronghold being replaced by Cyclopes etc.).


It's not that nonsensical. Greek myths have cyclopes throwing boulders. The definition of a cyclop is consistent, too, unlike Troll. For example, these are trolls too:



The only parts most troll myths agree on:
- big nose
- very hairy

Quote:

Useless spells are a problem for both games and equally so. Heroes II is in many ways much worse in terms of magic than Heroes III. Having singular and "mass" versions of the same spell count as different spells is stupid. However Heroes III would have been better served by increasing the mana cost of casting "expert" and "master" level spells to correspond with the increased effects.



I don't agree. In my post above I counted good/bad spells per level of mage guild and was quite satisfied with the result in Heroes 2.
The difference between Bless and Mass Bless: one costs 3 mana, the other 12. That's pretty big. Many times I wished I had normal Slow so I could save mana.
If Heroes III had different costs for basic and expert buffs, then many people would hesitate to upgrade skills to expert. Unless you'd come up with a way to choose basic or expert. You'd have to make a more complicated interface for that.

Quote:

I love a lot about Heroes II. better graphics than any other game in the series, best music. But heroes III is the best game in the series overall. It could have been much better



I don't think Heroes III is the best game in the series. Best music - okay. Heroes III is a good game, one of best for sure. But my definition of a good game is different. Do you play board games ? Then you may know the terms "Ameritrash" and "Eurogame". They are two different styles of board games. It's not always possible to classify because there are hybridss, of course.

Ameritrash:
Quote:

Ameritrash is "a catchphrase for 'American style boardgames.' In general, this means games that emphasize a highly developed theme, characters, heroes, or factions with individually defined abilities, player to player conflict, and usually feature a moderate to high level of luck.


Arkham Horror is a good example of Ameritrash. Dozens of tokens, items, monsters and stuff. Strong emphasis on theme. Mechanics - not so much, there's a lot of mostly pointless stuff that only serves to make the atmosphere richer.

Eurogame (part of description):
Quote:

Eurogames have a definite theme, however, the theme most often has very little to do with the gameplay. The focus instead is on the mechanics; for example, a game about space may be the same as a game about ancient Rome.


Tigris and Euphrates could be called Eurogame. The focus is indeed on mechanics. There are few different tokens. It's quite abstract, or high level. But everything found in that game has a purpose. Puerto Rico would be another one.

-----------

I think Heroes 2 is closer to Eurogame, while Heroes 3 is closer to Ameritrash (Arkham Horror etc). Heroes 3 has lots of hero types, units, upgrades, very busy visual style. But in many cases they don't mean much or differences are superficial. Heroes 2 has less stuff, but differences are much more pronounced. Heroes 3 has a detailed story, but it gets old after the first time... This makes Heroes 2 a better game in my opinion, because I dislike clutter. I don't mind having fewer options if they're all viable.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
cookiesareyum
cookiesareyum

Tavern Dweller
posted December 11, 2011 10:55 PM
Edited by cookiesareyum at 23:12, 11 Dec 2011.

Hello all.  I registered just because of this thread.

I just started playing the campaigns of heroes 3 after a long time, and I have to say that I observed a lot of the same things borsuk observed.  I just wanted to add in my 2 cents on it.

1) Heroes all look same.  Agreed, but this actually fixes something that was prevalent in heroes 2 - if you picked warlock or wizard, you were more or less stuck with a magic hero even if you wanted a might hero to start with.  In that sense, I think it's a necessary evil to have alchemists and heretics that are hard to differentiate.

Also, I've yet to find how the specials work.  What does Crag Hack do that some other hero can't do with expert Offense?  Is it that much stronger?  


2) Magic.  Totally agree here.  You really don't need even a lvl 2 guild in most games of heroes 3.  You can go for Berzerk and TP if you really are going to build lvl 4, and of course DD on lvl 5, but mass haste and mass slow are way too powerful for their level.  

Death Ripple and Destroy undead are even more useless than they were in heroes 2, especially since HP counts per week have increased dramatically.  If they made those spells cost, say 3 or 4 mana, it would be great, but otherwise why bother?

Damage calculation from spells suffer also for the same reason...spell power is more or less useless in heroes 3 after just a couple levels of it, and mainly for the duration of mass haste and mass slow.

Leveling fire magic is useless outside of Berzerk.  +dmg is negligible even for armageddon.  The specials for blind are completely outweighed by the specials for slow, haste, and prayer (although I think water is somewhat useless too compared to earth and air).  Then there's DD and TP too...

Overall, heroes 2 got magic just about right.  Some were useless but most were not.  Heroes 3 put a lot of spells in the snow tier.


3) Secondary skills.  They seemed to have just added a bunch of crap to heroes 3 in this department.  Logistics is as strong as ever, Eagle eye, Mysticism, and Navigation as useless as ever, Wisdom is now crap unless you're aiming for specifically Berzerk, TP, or DD, and then they added crap like Artillery and First Aid.  Agreed that Estates is now much less useful than what it was in heroes 2.


4) Creature stats are overly complicated.  Agree here.  I think heroes 2 got it right here...there was a lot of synergy and clear rivalries.  However, heroes 3 added a lot of balance to the game - knight and barbarian in heroes 2 on most maps were just total crap compared to the other classes.  Sorceress was not much better.  So, in that sense, I think the complication is warranted for the sake of balance.  On another note, there were really no useless creatures in heroes 2, except of course the peasant, and that was done on purpose I believe.  

In heroes 3, the magog, the walking dead, dwarves, zealots...it seems every class has that one creature that you will never buy under any circumstance.


5) Town building - I think the well was the most ridiculously overpowered building in heroes 2 - I'm glad they got rid of it, and I agree the replacement (augmenting the castle) is better both thematically and strategically.  I like how they modified the statue into the city hall.  Unfortunately the blacksmith as a standalone building is totally useless.


6) I played heroes 2 online a lot way back when, and I don't remember any rules associated with it, except that you had to stick to official maps.  There were no rules in game, which is how I prefer to play any strategy game, and in my opinion is the gold standard regarding balance.  In that sense, given the ridiculous amount of rules needed to play heroes 3 online (most of which I unfortunately agree with), something really, really went wrong in the balancing department.  


7) Lastly the campaigns.  Yes, heroes 2 was perfect.  The way they did the campaign in heroes 2 was so good I bought heroes 3 without even reading reviews.  Man, was I disappointed...only 3 missions per story arc.  Only ONE mission with Inferno.  The carryovers are awkward and from my experience buggy.  The story is totally disjointed.  Terrible.


All in all, I could see where they attempted to fix a lot of balance issues with Heroes 2 (balance the classes, titan vs dragon more even, get rid of the well, etc), and they largely succeeded.  Unfortunately, it created a slew of new balancing issues that were even more glaring than what they fixed (it's not might vs magic, it's might OVER magic, holy hell so many creatures, witches and alchemists are terrible, try playing multiplayer without any rules).  This was evident when I first played heroes 3, and this discussion succeeded in highlighting the good and the bad.  Cheers.

Oh, and one last thing.  Heroes 2 really grew on me because of the campaigns.  Heroes 3 really repulsed me for that same reason.  I really respected the complexity they brought to the game, but it didn't make it better in my eyes.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted December 11, 2011 11:09 PM

Quote:
This is not a good thing IMO. WoG is a mess.


Is in your head a mess because you have no clue what is it. Imagine someone invents the universal cloth. If it rains, the cloth protects from wet, if there is sun, the cloth protects from sun, if it snows the cloth protects from cold. When you go to swimming pool you can keep this cloth, it will be absorbed by skin. When you get out of water, you will get it again. If you want to let it at home, just undress. If need to go to a reception, it becomes a smoking, if need to have sex, it becomes a condom.

That is WoG, a versatile and universal flexible platform which covers every aspect of game you could dream of. Under the condition you have some ideas on what to do, not just messing around. The guy who made it was millions of light years far away from any H5-H25 developers.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
c0ldshadow
c0ldshadow


Known Hero
666 Demons Rise from the Dead
posted December 12, 2011 06:48 AM

changes that should have been made in heroes 3 to improve the "bad" skills:


1) eagle eye - on expert level, should be a 60% chance to learn level 5 adventure spells cast by other heroes (per time the spells are cast)

2) first aid - on expert level, it should automatically restore full health to the top stack of all creatures once per round.  no tent required on expert level.

3) scouting - on expert level, it should allow the hero to dig 2 holes per day for the grail

4) learning - it should also allow heroes to reveal the grail puzzle more quickly

5) resistance - on expert level, should be able to cast expert level magic mirror twice per combat at no cost.

6) mysticism - on expert level, once per week should automatically be allowed to replenish all spell points at will

7) scholar - it should apply to level 5 on expert.  scholar heroes should be able to "demolish" a mage guild and rebuild it all over again if they are not satisfied with the spells given.


i believe the above changes would make some of these skills more balanced

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted December 12, 2011 06:48 PM
Edited by B0rsuk at 19:04, 12 Dec 2011.

Quote:

That is WoG, a versatile and universal flexible platform which covers every aspect of game you could dream of. Under the condition you have some ideas on what to do, not just messing around. The guy who made it was millions of light years far away from any H5-H25 developers.


That is another way of saying it's amorphous and directionless. It's the Nethack of turn-based strategy games. A bunch of "wouldn't it be cool if..." ideas held together by duct tape, with no high-level thinking put into it.  And they're incompatible with each other.

Another examples of this are DooM, and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Both games are played a lot to this day, but the hordes of DooM source ports are incompatible with each other. In fact, most of them can't even play their iconic demonstration videos that come with the game ! Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is still played, but servers use a lot of crap like "funny" mods with sound samples from movies, music and popular culture. Or "funny" gameplay modification like poison, leveling up to level 10 (up from 3), etc.

Modding can be very nice, but without a clear vision for a mod the game community splinters and degenerates. I'm more interested in total conversions.


=====================
Hello there, cookiesareyum ! I'm pleased to hear you've found this thread interesting.

1. "Stuck with a magic hero"
I'm not advocating that you should only have access to 1 hero type. More like something they've done in Heroes IV - you can recruit one of multiple hero types. Say you could start the game as Knight faction with a Knight, Barbarian, Sorceress or Wizard hero. There's no need to create 2 heroes for each faction.

7. Campaigns. People have their favorites and it was very fun to play the campaign as (mostly) your fave faction. Then you bragged to your friend how easy mission X were because of creature Y you had. Heroes 3 felt limiting to me. Actually I'd say I liked... Heroes 1 campaign the most ! It was purely a game, with barely any story in the way of your fun.

Finally let me say there's a nice open-source project to revive Heroes 2. It already runs on a bunch of small devices. I'm talking about fheroes2. Of course, it requires the original data from the game. I don't have many complaints about it, but it has a fatal (fixable) flaw: its AI is barely functioning. Programming AI is hard and the one they have at the moment makes Heroes 4 AI look smart.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted December 12, 2011 06:56 PM
Edited by Salamandre at 18:58, 12 Dec 2011.

I fail to see what you are trying to say. You can't aim for a total conversion if you don't have the source code or a way to overwrite it, as WoG does. Of course, I specified, ideas must match.

We have many ideas about how H1-H6 could be better but we can only modify H3 to endless extend, for others we shall whine to developers and wait for in-probable answer. Then a new Heroes version is out and previous is forgotten.

The purpose of the thread being "what is wrong in H3", I only say that, due to WoG availability, nothing is anymore wrong, as a definitive concept. If you don't like something, just change it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Warmonger
Warmonger


Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
posted December 12, 2011 07:20 PM
Edited by Warmonger at 19:22, 12 Dec 2011.

WoG becomes troublesome when people create mods and combine them at random. That's certainly an issue, but the problem are people, not the engine itself.

WoG allows great game enchancement if used wisely and in balanced way. Or not used at all - you cna wlays turn it off when you need original gameplay.

However, most WoG mods are made of random rule changes, just because this engine does not allow "regular" extensions, like new creatures or artifats, especially not in an easy or consistent way. So people try random modifications and end up with a complete mess. That's what I'm hoping to change.

Coming back to the topic... nothing went wrong with H3, it was the best game possible at the time it was created. However, after like 12 years it has gone elsewhere and its future is uncertian.
____________

The future of Heroes 3 is here!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted December 12, 2011 07:58 PM

I don't know any released WoG  mod which is based on random rules change.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SkeleTony
SkeleTony


Hired Hero
posted December 12, 2011 09:57 PM
Edited by SkeleTony at 22:52, 12 Dec 2011.

Quote:

Quote:

But the real point you are missing is that the goal of having all these different hero types was to achieve the effect of having both a "might" and a "magic" hero for each town/faction, that fit that town's theme/flavor(i.e. druids and rangers for the nature/woodlands themed "Rampart"). Any statistical variance between them is just icing on the cake.


No, I'm not missing it. But differences between hero types are often marginal. I like Heroes 2 and 1 because each hero type is distinct. How about a few examples... (*largely irrelevant examples snipped)


See ? The difference is at most 5% for each stat. As if they were generated from a template. There are more examples like this.

What I meant earlier was: in most cases heroes are not distinctive enough that you would remember the differences. I'm sure there are differences in secondary skills between Heretic and Cleric. Can you name some without looking into spoilers ? Me neither.


Again, as I have said probably a dozen times now(in various threads), yes Heroes III(and II for that matter) could have made this aspect much better. But it is still better than Heroes II IMO because having only one hero type per faction and only 6 factions, even IF you or anyone else thinks they are distinct enough stat-wise just makes for a poorer game. Better to have many factions each with their own "might" and "magic" hero types. Where H3 messed up was by not putting enough thought and effort into the development.

Quote:
Quote:

and more important things like replacing sensible creatures for various town types with nonsensical replacements(i.e. the Troll, which would have been perfect as the boulder throwing siege unit for the Stronghold being replaced by Cyclopes etc.).


It's not that nonsensical.


It IS. It would be like replacing 'Elves' in  the Rampart with arrow-shooting 'Pixies'. Just because you or I could find pictures on the web of fairies shooting arrows does not excuse this.

Quote:
Greek myths have cyclopes throwing boulders. The definition of a cyclop is consistent, too, unlike Troll. For example, these are trolls too:




*Sigh* Two can play that game.

Cyclopes:







EDIT:Also what you call "trolls" above is, at most one troll, a hippo, a kangaroo etc.

See? Anyone can find "inconsistent" artist renderings of ANY fantasy creature. Also what relevance does this have?! I mean apart from one's personal cosmetic leanings in regards to what depictions look best, who cares whether the trolls look like LOTR trolls, Warhammer trolls, hairy big nosed trolls, D&D trolls, etc.? Ignoring the largely irrelevant classic mythological depictions(because heroic fantasy within the RPG/strategy boardgame scene, tends to not jive with classic mythological depictions for MANY creatures) you can find a LOT of consistency for creatures like trolls being boulder throwers(hence why Heroes II got this right) whereas the idea of creatures lacking depth perception(re: cyclopes)...not so much.

Quote:
The only parts most troll myths agree on:
- big nose
- very hairy


You are ignoring a TON of trollish 'mythology'. Perhaps in childrens books and cartoons most trolls may well be big-nosed and hairy most of the time but again...I do not see the point of stating this while ignoring the Warhammer/warcraft/*insert pen and paper or PC game depiction here* trolls that tend to be big, green and not like children's 'trolls'.

Quote:
Quote:

Useless spells are a problem for both games and equally so. Heroes II is in many ways much worse in terms of magic than Heroes III. Having singular and "mass" versions of the same spell count as different spells is stupid. However Heroes III would have been better served by increasing the mana cost of casting "expert" and "master" level spells to correspond with the increased effects.



I don't agree. In my post above I counted good/bad spells per level of mage guild and was quite satisfied with the result in Heroes 2.


I am glad YOU were satisfied. I was not.


Quote:
The difference between Bless and Mass Bless: one costs 3 mana, the other 12. That's pretty big. Many times I wished I had normal Slow so I could save mana.


Yeah, we already agreed that Heroes III should have increased spell costs for "advanced" and "expert" spells. But you are still ignoring the fact that many of the 'different' spells in Heroes II were just 'mass' versions of the same spells. This is crap. heroes III was on the right track by actually making DIFFERENT spells and tying the 'mass'(and other variances) to skill levels, even if they missed details like increasing spell costs for the (generally)better versions.


Quote:
If Heroes III had different costs for basic and expert buffs, then many people would hesitate to upgrade skills to expert.


I do not play multiplayer(for a LONG time) so it may be that your point stands for that type of game but I have NEVER come across a situation in Heroes III where I wished I had a lesser version of a spell. I tend to make sure my Knowledge/mana is not going to be an issue when I play though so...YMMV.


Quote:

Quote:

I love a lot about Heroes II. better graphics than any other game in the series, best music. But heroes III is the best game in the series overall. It could have been much better



I don't think Heroes III is the best game in the series. Best music - okay.


Heroes II(that is '2', not '3') had the best music I think everyone agrees(I don't think I have ever seen ANYONE until you just now say that III had better music.).

Quote:
Heroes III is a good game, one of best for sure. But my definition of a good game is different. Do you play board games ? Then you may know the terms "Ameritrash" and "Eurogame". They are two different styles of board games. It's not always possible to classify because there are hybridss, of course.


Let me stop you right there because your bias is showing. Here in America we have a supposed news network called "Fox News" that does what you are doing here...a LOT. Using loaded terms and skewed semantics and such to characterize one side as "trash" while the other is just "game" is a bit stupid. I am familiar with the terms though, yes.

Quote:
Ameritrash:
Quote:

Ameritrash is "a catchphrase for 'American style boardgames.' In general, this means games that emphasize a highly developed theme, characters, heroes, or factions with individually defined abilities, player to player conflict, and usually feature a moderate to high level of luck.



ROTFLMFAO! Oh yeah...nothing like broad, unqualified generalizations to make one's case eh?

Arkham Horror is a good example of Ameritrash. Dozens of tokens, items, monsters and stuff. Strong emphasis on theme. Mechanics - not so much, there's a lot of mostly pointless stuff that only serves to make the atmosphere richer.


I have played it. Not my cup of tea. I LOVE "Ameritrash" buit the "Ameritrash" games I play have strong emphasis on game MECHANICS AND THEME. You see it is not an either/or situation, nor is any of thi9s specific or even generally true of either American or Euro games. A perfect example would be the classic American RPG RuneQuest that blended outstanding game mechanics with great thematic elements and mythology. It did both and better than any other RPG ever developed before or since. "Warhammer fantasy Roleplay" was developed by the Brits and had atrociously bad game mechanics(game seemed to have been developed without ANY playtesting at all!) but was very heavy on "theme". Same goes for GW's other games like "Blood Bowl" and even Warhammer Fantasy battles/40k.

Quote:
-----------

I think Heroes 2 is closer to Eurogame, while Heroes 3 is closer to Ameritrash (Arkham Horror etc).


I think this is nonsense. BOTH Heroes II and III have nearly identical mechanics...same 4 primary attributes, both use secondary skills, combat and magic both work(for the most part) the same etc. because they are basically the same game system. Heroes 4 deviated a good deal in some ways but I think even calling THAT one different mechanically would be dubious.

Quote:
Heroes 3 has lots of hero types, units, upgrades, very busy visual style.


Not much to disagree on there. Heroes II had better graphics and music, most of us agree. But even this is subjective, cosmetic stuff.


Quote:
But in many cases they don't mean much or differences are superficial.


Yes, again Heroes III was FAR from perfect. I cannot even count the number of things they did wrong or could have done much better. But there was a lot in Heroes II that was...lacking as well. Not enough hero classes, not enough factions(Oh No! Ameritrash!), not enough spells or secondary skills, units, buildings, a random map generator, campaign editor, interesting artifacts/items, paper doll inventory etc. And a lot of the above are elements that effect gameplay as well as cosmetic aspects.


Quote:
Heroes 2 has less stuff, but differences are much more pronounced.


I think you are overstating the differences and understating the value of the thematic elements.


Quote:
Heroes 3 has a detailed story, but it gets old after the first time... This makes Heroes 2 a better game in my opinion, because I dislike clutter. I don't mind having fewer options if they're all viable.


Pong is a video game with few options, all of which are viable. It is a crappy game compared to Asteroids. I am not saying that heroes II is like Pong or that III is like asteroids in all or even most ways but my point is that you seem to be putting forth a sort of false dichotomy here...
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SkeleTony
SkeleTony


Hired Hero
posted December 12, 2011 10:16 PM

Quote:
Quote:
This is not a good thing IMO. WoG is a mess.


Is in your head a mess because you have no clue what is it. Imagine someone invents the universal cloth. If it rains, the cloth protects from wet, if there is sun, the cloth protects from sun, if it snows the cloth protects from cold. When you go to swimming pool you can keep this cloth, it will be absorbed by skin. When you get out of water, you will get it again. If you want to let it at home, just undress. If need to go to a reception, it becomes a smoking, if need to have sex, it becomes a condom.

That is WoG, a versatile and universal flexible platform which covers every aspect of game you could dream of. Under the condition you have some ideas on what to do, not just messing around. The guy who made it was millions of light years far away from any H5-H25 developers.


False analogy for starters. The false analogy is a logical fallacy that invalidates the case you are trying to make.

WoG is a freaking mess with no fixed point or direction. The guys responsible seem to have just took EVERY SINGLE IDEA that popped into any teenager's head and then implemented them with a 'duct tape and chicken wire' approach(since they did not have access to the actual code I presume). An accurate analogy would be the one I gave before about someone building a bicycle and attaching all manner of gizmos like fans, floodlights, car stereos etc. to the handlebars using duct tape and such. Sure that bike has a lot of stuff on it but it is not going to be fun to ride that thing or try to use the stuff attached.

One thing that every real game/mod designer worth his/her salt learns is that you have to balance things like theme, play balance, features/options and actual gameplay. It is best to focus on a few important features and get them right and then expand cautiously(if at all). Most of WoG's stuff does not make sense thematically and even IF you can find a way to Gerry-rig features onto a game using scripting languages or whatever does noit mean you SHOULD.

Most of what WoG does just screams 'Amateur teenaged game modders at work!'. And this does not even take into account the absolutely horrible campaigns and scenarios that come with WoG.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SkeleTony
SkeleTony


Hired Hero
posted December 12, 2011 10:44 PM

Quote:
WoG becomes troublesome when people create mods and combine them at random. That's certainly an issue, but the problem are people, not the engine itself.

WoG allows great game enchancement if used wisely and in balanced way. Or not used at all - you cna wlays turn it off when you need original gameplay.


Have you ever tried doing this? Because what happens when you try to "turn it off"(even completely uninstalling it without doing a  clean re-install of H3)you still have 'WoG-isms' messing with heroes III(such as tavern rumors specific to WoG for one example).

Quote:
However, most WoG mods are made of random rule changes, just because this engine does not allow "regular" extensions, like new creatures or artifats, especially not in an easy or consistent way. So people try random modifications and end up with a complete mess. That's what I'm hoping to change.


Good luck with that but the problem is that A) the creators of WoG were not good designers, lacked focus and direction and lacked a good understanding of the heroic fantasy genre. And B) They did not have access to the source code and so they Gerry-rigged all of these bad features with the(sorry about repeating this phrase but it is the best description of the problem) 'duct tape and chicken wire' approach.

Quote:
Coming back to the topic... nothing went wrong with H3, it was the best game possible at the time it was created. However, after like 12 years it has gone elsewhere and its future is uncertian.


False. As much as I love Heroes III it was no where NEAR the "best game possible at the time". There are dozens of very simple fixes/improvements they could have made but H3 seemed rushed out the door(even taking bad ideas from young teenagers at the 3DO forums for unit names/upgrades) and then the Armageddons Blade expansion mess where actual adults who DID know the genre and had great ideas were told they had to throw them out because a handful of kids at the Astral Wizard site thought the Might and Magic games should not have any sci-fi elements(apparently the kids never played the M&M RPGs).
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted December 13, 2011 03:52 AM

You could just say you don't like it. WoG is fan made, and it is not a mod but a modding platform. By making the most complete user manual ever they clearly gave the message about what is. The options are just advertising, to show capabilities. There can't be real developers because there is no salary. Hopefully, because we saw what real ones gives us.

Warmonger is right: H3 is the best possible for that time. Still today, it is massively MP played, while H2 is not, just in case you or others still think H2 was better. H2 died once H3 came out. H3 is still played while H6 is out.

Quote:
Most of what WoG does just screams 'Amateur teenaged game modders at work!'. And this does not even take into account the absolutely horrible campaigns and scenarios that come with WoG.


These people deserve respect for what they achieved, in their free time and because their dedication. I've seen often arrogant lurkers spitting on everything, while they are not capable to create a single pixel for Heroes games. So, before going so harsh, I suggest you do earn your opinions, so you can experience on the field what is needed. Are you a professional designer so you can safely affirm their work is horrible? A professional programmer maybe? Scenarist? Then I will listen to your carefully selected semantics.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1504 seconds