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 ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 4 - Lands of Axeoth > Thread: Retrospectives: A HOMM IV review
Thread: Retrospectives: A HOMM IV review This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
Amarok
Amarok

Tavern Dweller
posted August 11, 2011 12:23 PM

Retrospectives: A HOMM IV review

Heroes IV was a game that I didn't give enough attention initially. Coming in as a sequel to one of my favorite games of all time I had lofty expectations, and back then my patience did not extend far enough to get through the differences in the new installment, into the juicy depth beneath.

That's no way to treat a game in this great franchise. I recently went back to the game, and wrote about it here.

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

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted August 11, 2011 03:59 PM
Edited by Corribus at 16:00, 11 Aug 2011.

Hi Amarok.

It's a nice article, though I contest your description of HOMM as an empire building game in the vein of Civilization.  

Beyond that, I think your article makes one crucial error, and that's an extreme misunderstanding of the primary reason fans rejected H4.  To wit, you write:

Quote:
Most fans, being the nostalgic close minded beasts that they are, had trouble embracing the game for what it was (despite a largely positive critical reception) and yearned for the familiarity of earlier installments. I’m ashamed to admit that I was as close minded as any, giving the game only a marginal amount of time. What? Your heroes can DIE?! You can only choose one creature per tier?! No upgrades to units?! This isn’t heroes. THIS IS MADNESS!!!


While this might be true to some fans, and particularly younger fans, I don't think people rejected H4 because it tried to do something new.  I recall well fan reaction to H4's pre- and post-release - while many HOMM enthusiasts were certainly initially skeptical about the proposed changes to the basic HOMM formula, not the least of which was Heroes on the battlefield, I'm reasonably confident that had the game been balanced properly and, more importantly, shipped with an AI that could think its way out of a room with an open door, the HOMM community would have embraced the game readily.  In fact, after the dust had settled, there was a general impression that some of the changes effected in H4 were in fact vast improvements over earlier entries in the franchise.  

(Minus Heroes on the battlefield - I've always believed and continue to believe that not only does this make no sense whatsoever given the basic design of the game, Heroes on the battlefield could never be made to function properly, even in a game that was otherwise well designed.  But that's another issue...)  

In short, I think you attempt to rewrite history a little bit here.  H4 didn't fail because fans hated that NWC had taken the HOMM franchise in a new direction.  H4 failed because it was damn near unplayable due to a crappy AI and unwhelming artistic design.  Two tepid expansions and 3DO's financial collapse (and therefore lack of future support) didn't help, and neither did an editor that turned off a good portion of HOMM's mapmaking base.  Also, if I'm not mistaken, the original H4 game didn't ship with promised multiplayer (delivered in a later patch), which probably helped to kill it before it even got going.

Certainly, H4's failure raised a lot of questions in the community after the fact about whether the big changes to the successful formula, perfected in H3, was to blame.  But that's just the typical finger pointing that happens after a distaster - those changes were the easy scapegoat, much easier to blame than looking for deeper, more fundamental problems both in the game and in the company that developed it.  

Other than that, you write a nice article and I thank you for sharing it.  The only other thing I'd like to point out is your understatement about the AI:

Quote:
Even at higher difficulties it prefers to sit back and let you build up your forces before coming at you. It never tries to catch you off guard with an early strike at some of your resources or one of your towns. It’s like that guy who plays strategy games to see a huge battle after spending the majority of the game in turtle mode and won’t agree to matches unless you have a “no rush” pact for 15 minutes.


The problems with H4's AI go far beyond a general timidness.  It's actually broken.  It doesn't set priorities properly.  It acts as if lobotomized.  I doubt we'll ever know the truth, but I suspect that the AI in the released version of H4 was never intended to be the final AI.  No way.  It was probably alpha version at best.  3DO's financial difficulties likely caused pressure to release the game before the AI was finished, and that, of course, was prelude to disaster.
____________
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

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


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
posted August 11, 2011 04:51 PM

Quote:
It acts as if lobotomized.  I doubt we'll ever know the truth, but I suspect that the AI in the released version of H4 was never intended to be the final AI.  No way.  It was probably alpha version at best.


I wrote a bit about this in my Celestial Heavens article (plug plug plug) and you are quite correct:

Quote:
Assigning programmers originally intended to work on Heroes IV to the new flagship title, New World drew up an extensive, very ambitious and – as one former employee described it – "frankly, cool-sounding" concept [...] Legends continues to attract a devoted, if small, community of players. Unfortunately, though, the overambition poured into its production overshadowed fellow Might and Magic projects [...] and Heroes IV's adventure AI was crippled due to its programmers' prior occupation with Legends.


David Mullich gives the full story here, and Gus Smedstad also spoke about the AI here and here:

Quote:
The adventure AI is a touchy subject. We were under enormous time pressure with Heroes IV, and really the game was released 3, maybe 6 months before it was really done. As a result, I delegated some programming tasks that I probably should not have.

I did write the battlefield AI, which is why it has a substantially similar feel to the Heroes III battlefield AI. The programmer who did the adventure AI was an excellent programmer, but didn't have that much experience with AI or the Heroes series, and didn't get the polish time he needed to bring it up to the level of the Heroes III adventure AI.


Quote:
One thing I really don't like to do is rag on the strategic AI programmer. He was a smart guy, one of the better programmers on the team. He just hadn't done it before, and I guess it never gelled for him.


So you're absolutely correct - the publisher screwed Heroes IV over.
____________
"Those who forget their history are inevitably doomed to repeat it." —Proverb, Might and Magic VIII

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


Adventuring Hero
posted August 11, 2011 06:48 PM

I've always wondered if it's possible for Ubisoft to have a small team work and polish older heroes game, particularly Heroes IV?  I don't understand why the game is just left unpolished.

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


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 11, 2011 10:38 PM

Quote:

David Mullich gives the full story here, and Gus Smedstad also spoke about the AI here and here:



For someone like me, who's likes to read about game design, it's a fascinating read. Thank you.

Quote:
I've always wondered if it's possible for Ubisoft to have a small team work and polish older heroes game, particularly Heroes IV?  I don't understand why the game is just left unpolished.


That's easy to answer :-(. Nubisoft doesn't value Heroes of Might and Magic 4. They want to create simple games. It takes an analytical mind to appreciate the strategic depth of Heroes IV. I think Nubisoft simply lacks that.

Example 1:
Reduction of resources to 4 including gold. In Heroes 4, availability of resources could influence your creature choices.

Example 2:
Quote:

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

Either they're cynical marketing snows, or they really think Heroes 5 universe "is strong and it feels real". With such attitude, is it a surprise I can't recall playing a single game published by Ubisoft ? And they published many PC games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubisoft_games

They just fail to make exceptional games.


In general, there is no practice of picking up a failed game, fixing it and releasing. Just fixing would be pure fan service. Fan service would have some long term benefits, but wouldn't bring much profits. A proper remake of Heroes IV would require completely new graphics. Sound and music is very good, and design is 80% done.

Heroes IV is a huge source of inspiration for me. I think someone should make a game strongly inspired by it. There are precedents. Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic is strongly inspired by Heroes(...) and Master of Magic games. It's a very good game no one can accuse of being derivative.

I fear that the best way to get a good fantasy TBS may be to make one yourself .
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

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

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted August 11, 2011 10:53 PM

Quote:
That's easy to answer :-(. Nubisoft doesn't value Heroes of Might and Magic 4. They want to create simple games.

No, they want to create games that sell.

As I argued in my old CH article On the Ethical Question of Cloning, Ubisoft's decision to abandon H4 and return to H3 design when developing H5 made perfect sense.  I would have done the same had I been running the show over there.  It has nothing to do with wanting to make simple games or not being able to appreciate the "genius" of H4.

(Hope that link works - can't view the page from here).

By the way, I don't see what the problem is with simple games.  Chess is a simple game, and it's been fascinating people for centuries.  Complexity just for complexity's sake does not always lead to a good game.
____________
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

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


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 12, 2011 01:30 AM
Edited by B0rsuk at 01:37, 12 Aug 2011.

Bad analogy. Heroes 4 is not complexity for complexity's sake. Heroes 3 is, with its myriad of semi-useful skills and creatures that are mostly piles of stats, especially if we consider upgrades.

You would do the same as Ubisoft because making money is more important to you than making a good game. I love playing and making games. It is my belief that if you love doing something, you shouldn't do it for money.

I don't choose games to play based on who makes the most money on them. I don't owe Ubisoft money. Heroes V is the first game I haven't bought, and it looks like I'm not going to buy VI either.

And while Ubisoft's desire to make simple games may be orthogonal to their desire to make money, it's hard to argue they're trying to increase strategic depth (like Master of Magic) or breadth (like Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic). No, they are removing things that added depth, like choices, resources, logistics (not the skill), spells, different town types on map (You start with a Castle, a Rampart, and a Tower... no more).

I think Heroes VI will be a mediocre game, on par with C&C 4, and it will sell average at best. It won't sell bad because it will have marketing and flashy visuals. But it won't stand the test of time, I think it will be less successful than Heroes 5.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

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

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted August 12, 2011 01:58 AM

@Borsuk
Quote:
Bad analogy. Heroes 4 is not complexity for complexity's sake. Heroes 3 is, with its myriad of semi-useful skills and creatures that are mostly piles of stats, especially if we consider upgrades.

I wouldn't call that complexity.  I'd just call that more stuff.  Which you're right isn't always necessarily good.  Thankfully, H3 improved upon H2 in ways beyond just adding more creatures and artifacts.

Quote:

You would do the same as Ubisoft because making money is more important to you than making a good game. I love playing and making games. It is my belief that if you love doing something, you shouldn't do it for money.

Thanks for making assumptions about me, but this is a typical Black and White Fallacy.  In short, there's no reason that BOTH can't be important.  In point of fact - in the long run, one can't happen without the other.  

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

Tavern Dweller
posted August 12, 2011 04:48 AM

Quote:
Hi Amarok.

It's a nice article, though I contest your description of HOMM as an empire building game in the vein of Civilization.  


Really? They're both turn-based empire building games in the way that both Quake 3 and Gears of War are shooters. Completely different offshoots of the same genre.

In particular they're both notable for being the two most successful turn based strategy franchises ever released which was the main parrallel I was looking to draw.

Quote:
In short, I think you attempt to rewrite history a little bit here.  H4 didn't fail because fans hated that NWC had taken the HOMM franchise in a new direction.  H4 failed because it was damn near unplayable due to a crappy AI and unwhelming artistic design.


Rewriting history was definitely not my intention. I wasn't heavily involved in the community at the time, but the people I knew that played the game found it initially a very jarring experience. The issues with the AI didn't become apparent because none of us got that far. I think the comment about the art direction is a great one that I missed, and that probably had a fair bit to do with the initial shock we felt when playing the game. I extrapolated that if that was the experience for me and mine, that it would be an issue across the fanbase, and I still think that there would have been some for whom this was true. Point taken though, characterising the problem as the sole thing that drove most people away was poorly put across.

Most importantly though, thanks for the feedback. Very much appreciated.

Quote:
I wrote a bit about this in my Celestial Heavens article (plug plug plug) and you are quite correct:


Great read Couldn't agree more on the frustration aspect.

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

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted August 12, 2011 05:03 AM

I think you should also keep in mind that, going into H4, the fanbase was already severely divided and unhappy - not just with 3DO but with each other.  There was still a lot of resentment over the whole Forge fiasco.  A significant fraction of HOMM fans was already frustrated with where the game had recently been and where they thought it was going, and a general dissatisfaction with H4 may have been in part a ripple effect of an overall unhealthy fan community.  

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


Known Hero
posted August 16, 2011 09:50 PM

Gone trough much, but is still here for us to play and love it

Quote:
When we got the green light to do a second expansion game to Heroes III, my lead designer, Greg Fulton, decided to build the game around the "forge" -- a machine capable of building weapons that could dominate the world and featured in the recently released Might & Magic 7: For Blood and Honor. His idea was to create a new type of town for the Heroes series, the Forge Town, where there would be a mixture of fantasy and science fiction elements. So, in this town, orcs would be armed with ray guns and minotaurs equipped with jet packs.

Now, while this mix of fantasy and science fiction had always been a staple of the Might & Magic RPG franchise, it was new to the Heroes series and there was an angry backlash from Heroes fans. As soon as we released the preliminary concept art, the fans became so upset, they immediately organized a boycott of the game and New World management ordered us to come up with a new concept for the expansion. One fan was so angry at us for even considering introducing science fiction elements into the Heroes series that he sent a death threat to Greg. Naturally, this rattled my designer, but when our management made light of the threat, Greg was so incensed that he quit his job.

This left me with no designer for our next big project, Heroes IV, and when I couldn't find a replacement for Greg in time for the project's start, I took the unusual step of giving Heroes III AI programmer, Gus Smedstad, the dual role of lead programmer and lead designer, since he understood the strategic elements of the game better than anyone except for Heroes' creator, Jon Van Cangehem
by David Millich

Quote:
There are some people I blame. Trip Hawkins really screwed us. And not just indirectly through the collapse of 3DO, either. There was a voice conference call where he accused us of goldbricking, drawing out development to keep our paychecks because the company was circling the drain. This at a time that we were putting in 60-80 hour weeks, and it never even occurred to me that he might fire the team when the project finished. Which did happen 3 weeks after release. Most (but not all) of the programmers got to stay, but people like David Mullich, the best producer I ever worked with, got pink slipped. In any case, that phone call is what saddled us with some really bad "emergency" programmers at the end of the project who did far more harm than good.
by Gus Smedstad

Can't believe what have some of the designers gone trough

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


Known Hero
posted August 16, 2011 09:59 PM

BTW as a fellow Homm4 fan I thank you for the review.

It does deserve a decent look at it, we are all sick from some of the stereotypes that flow around when we mention it's name.

I think that the only problems with the game are the AI and some minor bugs that happen rarely, there were stuff that could've been added as the developers said but what's done is done. But if we talk about balance, skill, spell system, battle mechanics and so on ... I believe this game is just awesome.

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


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 18, 2011 08:09 AM

I think Gus Smedstad would make a very fine designer. If given more time to polish the game. Note that Heroes IV features seem to be choice-centric, and there are lots of interesting mechanics. Caravans, towers that need to be manned, harmful overland spells like Mire, creature choices, redefinition of a "might" hero.

Gus Smedstad was the only fan of Magic: The Gathering and Master of Magic on the team. I'm talking about the alignment/spell system.

I don't think Heroes IV is a good game, mind you. But it's a treasure of interesting ideas for would-be game designers. Team Fortress 2 (the original, with semi-realistic aesthetic) was also a failure in that it was never released, but influential because it introduced some mechanics like medic revive to FPS games.

--------

Heroes IV combat AI is notably better than adventure map AI. Has anyone tried to create battle maps for it ? Maps which are all about tactical combat, and limit the game to them ?

It could be worth a separate thread.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
posted August 18, 2011 08:33 AM
Edited by alcibiades at 08:38, 18 Aug 2011.

I don't think the problem with H4 was that it tried to change on Heroes 3, I think the problem was that it arguably changed a lot of things for the worse. The idea of having to choose between creatures might be good, but removing the creature upgrades flattened the gameplay immensely for me and was a critical error.

Other changes I actually liked - I think the skill system was better than H3 in many ways, although the 5-level implementation didn't work out too well (took too long to max out a skill, hence you never got more than 2 skills, at very most 3, which made for very little variation between games). I think the magic system was win some, loose some, compared to H3. H5 was a good balanc betwen the two imo. I'm one of the few who think the idea of heroes on battlefield is actually a good one, although the implementation was arguably very poor. One critical things is that having Heroes die was just too hard to balance, and hence turned out a bad thing.

But I agree with Corribus that the main issue with H4 - apart from bugs and poor balance, which could be fixed with time, given money - was that the game was just god damn ugly. It simply didn't sell itself at all. I mean, if it had looked amazing, I think people would have wanted to give it a try, and would have come to appreciate it more. But when it looked like crap, there was nothing to keep people hanging around after the initial dissapointment.


PS: Can anybody remember the link to that hysterically funny H4 AI test that someone once posted at Celestial Havens?
____________
What will happen now?

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


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 18, 2011 10:53 AM
Edited by B0rsuk at 11:17, 18 Aug 2011.

re:
alcibiades

I really like the "back to basics" aspect of Heroes IV creatures. That is, no upgrades. On the contrary, I think upgrades were often superficial and added stupid complexity.
- Horned Demons
- Gnolls
- Lizard Warriors (pre-SOD)
- Dendroids
- Zombies

The moment you saw a new creature in H4 you knew it was very different.

>>

I agree with 5 levels of skill being too much. They went too far, I would even say in some ways heroes became less distinct because your freedom to mix and match was limited. The same system with skills limited to 3 sounds optimal to me. That would still be 3 * 4 = 12 levels to max out a skill tree.

>>>

About the magic system - I liked it that no longer everyone could be expected to have some spells. In Heroes 2-3 it's annoying that a spell cast by a master wizard can be easily dispelled by anyone. In H4 Dispel, Exorcism and Cancellation are exclusive to 1 magic school and a bit harder to get. Heroes 3 and 2 practically relied on your ability to dispel the more powerful enchantments like Blind, Paralyze or Berserk. Left alone, they can easily be battle winners.

>>>

Appearance of Heroes IV - I agree, mostly. Adventure map definitely was ugly, often barren and plastic-looking. I don't like the change for less numerous but bigger special locations. But I think battles looked mostly okay. It was interesting to see creatures facing any direction. Some creatures look amazing (Black Dragon) or at least very good (Hydra, in my opinion prettier than the one from Heroes 3). I like H4 titans the most. Evil Eyes, Gargoyles, Mantis, Bone Dragons, Sprites, Bandits look nice. Elementals are likeable and more diverse than H3 ones. I actually like H4 behemoths. While rainbow mane of unicorns looks plastic, for the first time in the series their movement animation is good, they actually look like they're running, and the sparks are well done.

>>>

About combat heroes - I rather disliked heroes being fighting units (Barbarian, Archer). Hard to balance, can be too strong or powerful. But other aspects are very nice:
- line of sight requirement for many spells. You could protect your units from spells by hiding them behind something, NOT using towers in sieges (I think it only worked with Citadel and Castle).
- the ability to affect heroes with abilities (Spell Shackle deals damage to heroes), slow them, blind...
- multiple heroes, particularly spellcasters because they became interesting. 3 per side might be a reasonable limit.
- the ability to just eliminate a hero was interesting, but hard to balance. Stack of devils moves in first turn and annihilates a hero..


So I have an alternate solution which would preserve most of these features. (Line of sight, affect heroes, multiple heroes...):
Heroes would exist on battlefield, but only attached to a creature stack. Sounds like WOG. This would have two benefits.
- durability of heroes would grow in the same way as durability of stacks
- Potential to make might heroes interesting (relative to H3), for example Leadership could be an aura that gives bonuses to adjacent units, or a might hero would provide bonuses mostly to just one stack
Minor benefits:
- slow, tough stacks would gain function of bodyguards for spellcasters
- fast, but low damaging flyers like serpent flies could be valuable for spellcasters too, if they desire mobility and line of sight more than safety
- choices to make regarding how to distribute heroes. A faction with fragile stacks could opt for lower number of more powerful heroes.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

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


Promising
Supreme Hero
posted August 18, 2011 07:24 PM

I think I had mentioned it before somewhere.

Heroes 4 was an excellent game in its own right, but it's not a Heroes game.

It should have been called something like Strategy RPG of Might and Magic since it was so radically different that it alienated many people who were looking for gradual improvement to a familiar design. If it was released as a spinoff tied story-wise to the main Might and Magic series, my opinion is that it would have been received much much better. The thing is that so many people who had been playing since 1 or 2 saw the gradual, deliberate evolution of the game and all the love and effort put into the details of the game but they wind up getting something that not only radically changed the gameplay (not unforgivable if pulled off correctly) but also featured a horrible rushed AI, tons of bugs on release and incredibly shoddy unpolished graphics. I'd argue that the H6 Beta Town Windows are better looking despite lacking the uniqueness of each building being added at once.

That or a whole year should have been added to the development time. If 3DO wasn't such an @$$ company and didn't cut staff, rush development time and generally not listen to fans (rather than overhyping like they did) we would have had a much better game for it, something worthy of Heroes of Might and Magic. I personally wish 3DO never, ever bought New World Computing. But that's the sad state of the world, companies that put love into their games and squeeze out masterpieces become profitable, they become attractive to big conglomerate companies that throw out carbon copies and whatever other junk they can for the masses in as little time as possible.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

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


Known Hero
posted August 19, 2011 12:36 AM

Don't you guys realize the main cause why they chose to make Heroes IV different?

Heroes 3 was the maximum you could get from the first basic engine.
The gameplay of Heroes 1, 2, 3 and 5 is almost the same. The only thing they changed were some factions (added new creatures and towns), some skills, some artifacts ...

When they got to part 4 they said ... hey we had enough of this, the fans will get bored ... lets change some other aspects of the game while still keeping others intact, then the fans will still have the best old game homm 3 and a new one with exciting new features.

They did so but failed to realize that the fans in fact weren't bored. So the fans made homm 5 (with their demands) a game just like 3 with the only difference being graphical enhancements and the skill wheel ... the artifacts, and factions ... and now this is what is happening to homm 6.

The question is what game will we go next? Will it be a new homm 3 wannabe (homm 3 can never be surpassed because it is what it is), by going for a game like that, it's doomed to be overshadowed by homm 3.

And this is my point: homm 5 will always be overshadowed by homm 3, (homm 6 will be too by the things I've seen so far) while homm 4 is the only game for now that cannot be overshadowed because it gazed upon homm 3 and laughed in it's face.

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

Tavern Dweller
posted September 06, 2011 11:16 PM

H4 AI

I'm in huge agreement of Oribus' first response to Amarok's post and I'm really glad this came up...because I've been trying to find a way improve the AI from when I first noticed how inept and yes, "broken" it really was.

I really enjoyed heroes 3, but I enjoyed 4 even more because I love RPG's where I can advance characters, heroes, abilities,..etc.. so the new style of gameplay really worked for me. I think it's more realistic that your hero can take damage on the battlefield, and I love the idea of combining heroes together into an army to make it more powerful and balanced synergistically.

I never had a problem with the graphics or music other than extremely slightly. My main problem was the feeling that I wasn't really playing against anyone because the AI sucked so bad (on the adventure map). I did not get that feeling when playing H3, and based on the reviews for H5 and its retarded AI and playing style that went away from the H4 style, I didn't buy it.

I'm wondering about the H6 style, but like others what I'd really like is a completed H4 game. Heck, I'd even be willing to pay $$$ for it. If they cleaned the graphics and fixed the AI and created some more good maps I'd be more than happy to.

I'm sure I'm not the only one out there that gets pleasure from a game that actually feels challenging and alive, so challenging that you just don't know how you can possibly win, until at some point in the future, if you keep playing over and over, you figure out a new strategy that gives you a chance. There are games like that, and I wanted H4 to be one of them. H3 kinda felt like that to me at times..which was one of the things I loved about it too--at the very least the AI's created a true variable when playing with another human.

In regards to H4, I have both the expansions and I'm wondering, has there been any success in creating MOD's to increase the AI intelligence? And is there a way to download additional maps?

I fear I already know the answers to these questions, but my hope requires me to ask anyway.
____________

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

Tavern Dweller
posted September 06, 2011 11:39 PM

Reply to Corribus

Corribus states: (Minus Heroes on the battlefield - I've always believed and continue to believe that not only does this make no sense whatsoever given the basic design of the game, Heroes on the battlefield could never be made to function properly, even in a game that was otherwise well designed.  But that's another issue...)

Out of curiosity, why do you think Heroes on the battlefield could never be made to function properly. Out of curiosity, would you explain your above statements?
____________

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


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted September 07, 2011 12:55 AM

A bit offtopic, but a guy named kyrub released a patch(es) for Master of Magic. In 2010. Among other improvements there's AI. Kyrub reverse-engineered the game and wrote his own patches in assembly. So much for C++. The list of improvements is several pages long. MoM is such a buggy game that all patches had pages of changelog.

Moral of the story: everything is possible.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0980 seconds