|
| Thread: Sarah's Dungeon designs |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
posted August 09, 2015 10:42 AM |
|
|
I love how all the fan-made faction proposals can be divided into two groups-
1: Nothing new at all, just change what was in the past accompanied by artwork of your choice.
2: Add something from your local - unknown folklore and try to pass it as more original then it is.
In both cases its just droping names and pictures without much thought other then ones taste.
This one is clearly the first case.
|
|
alexine
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 11:29 AM |
|
|
Make something better then 
____________
We´re beautiful like diamonds in the sky ...
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 12:30 PM |
|
|
I love how all the ubi-made factions can be divided into two groups-
1: Nothing new at all, just change what was in the past accompanied by artwork of your choice.
2: Add something from popular games - cliche creatures and try to pass it as more original than it is.
In both cases its just dropping cliches and mainstream fiction without much thought other than Erwan's taste.
This one is clearly the first case, as they just copy-paste h6.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 12:33 PM |
|
|
LizardWarrior said:
I love how all the ubi-made factions can be divided into two groups-
1: Nothing new at all, just change what was in the past accompanied by artwork of your choice.
2: Add something from popular games - cliche creatures and try to pass it as more original than it is.
In both cases its just dropping cliches and mainstream fiction without much thought other than Erwan's taste.
This one is clearly the first case, as they just copy-paste h6.
+1 :-P
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 12:44 PM |
|
|
alexine said:
Make something better then
Why should I? There is enough of this trash in the altar of Wishes. True some of it is very polished, and has been given much love and work by its creators, but most of them should just be deleted. Yours, mine, his, her just scrap the flood, cut it off like a loose thread.
These topics serve only 2 purposes.
- For people, who actually think their opinion matters to express themselves.
- To fill the forms space.
Lizz made a good point with the parody of my post. That the creativity in the genre is limited. Either you copy myths, or popular culture.
But as soon as you try something more daring it's either already been used somewhere, be it D&D, Warhammer, Zelda or Pokemon, or you end up with something so generic there it has no appeal at all.
It is even hard to come up with original concepts for classical creatures to make them stand out.
Like the strider topic. Its design is nothing new. You may not know it by name, but when you see it for the first time, you know you have seen it already in the past.
Yes it's hard to please the fans, And I wish the brand that it would lose one side of this coin. It's direction, or the fans.
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 01:02 PM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
Lizz made a good point with the parody of my post. That the creativity in the genre is limited. Either you copy myths, or popular culture.
But as soon as try something more daring it's either already been used somewhere. Be it D&D, Warhammer, Zelda or Pokemon. Or you end up with something so generic there it has no appeal at all.
It is even hard to come up with original concepts for classical creatures to make them stand out.
I don't disagree that it's hard, but they could at least try, there are games out there that despite their appurtenance to a genre filled with cliches they can come up with something original, even revolutionary. In general, games copy those stereotypical races/creatures because they have been tested and used with success, so they come packaged with public recognizance and their own audience (dwarves, elves, orcs), they are more from a marketing standpoint, it's easier to attract someone if you use familiar ideas that already trigger a resemblance inside the audience's mind. It's not about coming with new ideas here, it's all about marketing.
Dave_Jame said:
Yes it's hard to please the fans, And I wish the brand that it would lose one side of this coin. It's direction, or the fans.
A new game makes its fans via direction, but ubisoft doesn't try to do that with originality, they want to appease fans of already existing franchises and "borrow" them.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 01:06 PM |
|
|
It is one thing to design something new, it's another thing to design something new that blends in with (near-)perfection with that which already exists. In that respect, I can't help but consider the Diablo series of games. Besides the well-known Undead for instance, they introduced a whole boatload of creatures that stood their own ground and yet felt complementary to the existing "default" creatures.
I'm just not getting that vibe from say the Strider/Soulless in Dungeon yet ...
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 01:17 PM |
|
|
LizardWarrior said:
I don't disagree that it's hard, but they could at least try, there are games out there that despite their appurtenance to a genre filled with cliches they can come up with something original, even revolutionary. In general games copy those stereotypical races/creatures because they have been tested and used with success, so they come packaged with public recognizance and their own audience (dwarves, elves, orcs), they are more from a marketing standpoint, it's easier to attract someone if you use familiar ideas that already trigger a resemblance inside the audience's mind. It's not about coming with new ideas here, it's all about marketing.
You can see this best on games, that try to create something which in the end ends up with many similarities to an existing stereotype. Make a slender, thoughtful magical race, and more then once you will hear it being associated with the Elven stereotype. People then ask what is worse. To blandly copy everything proven by time, or try to innovate and create something new that could as well be the same thing with a change of colors.
And then there is the problem of Iconic features. Once somebody has managed to create something original, all other similar concepts will be compared to it. It doesn't actually even have to be original, but Popular. WC is a great example of this. Generations change rather fast and young people now do not know what was popular 10 years back and 20 years is something ancient to them. That is why some concepts from 20 years back now look very original since they are not in the spotlight.
Edit: When was writing this, I was thinking about concept for the old Talisman board game and Fighting Fantasy gamebook illustration, but now I realize that 20 years back is 1995, and what I was thinking about is almost 30 years back now. 30 years... wow kind of sound heavy from a sudden.
LizardWarrior said:
A new game makes its fans via direction, but ubisoft doesn't try to do that with originality, they want to appease fans of already existing franchises and "borrow" them.
The question is, will it work in the end? If the game manages to create it's own dedicated audience, all those veterans here, who closely follow the development, even though they have lost interest in the game, will be just empty voices echoing in the void of the past.
If the game manages it. Right now, I see only that approx. 50% of old fans dislike it. But the game can't live on nostalgia forever. We need new blood, and new blood didn't play H2, or H3, at this time, they might as well didn't even play WoW.
|
|
leiah2
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 01:27 PM |
|
|
|
@Dave_James: You are making me so sad! D:
|
|
LizardWarrior
Honorable
Legendary Hero
the reckoning is at hand
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 01:39 PM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
You can see this best on games, that try to create something which in the end ends up with many similarities to an existing stereotype. Make a slender, thoughtful magical race, and more then once you will hear it being associated with the Elven stereotype. People then ask what is worse. To blandly copy everything proven by time, or try to innovate and create something new that could as well be the same thing with a change of colors.
You seem to pull a strawman there. So it's better to copy something as cliche as it is and don't even bother to make one because it will be "compared", compared, not being called a copy, but compared. Also, why make them slender and thoughtful and magical? You can make them strong thoughtful crustaceans or wise marble giants, also make them slender thoughtful magical race of bipedal grey creatures with 4 eyes and 3 arms and no one will ever compare them with elves. There are so many combinations you can do, and to be frank elves aren't even that original, they are just humans with pointy ears, you can have thoughtful slender magicians that are still humans, elves from norse mythology are more like will'o'wisps , with dwarves it's the same thing. You speak like there's some shortage on imagination, maybe they should hire people with actual ideas instead of people like Erwan, they got a whole department on story while they buy models from 3rd party. "Creating" something and just changing colors at something that already exists isn't creating at all, it's 'subtle' plagiarism.
Dave_Jame said:
And then there is the problem of Iconic features. Once somebody has managed to create something original, all other similar concepts will be compared to it. It doesn't actually even be original, but Popular. WC is a great example. Generation change fast and young people now do not know what was popular 10 years back and 20 years is something ancient to them. That is why some concepts from 20 years back now look very original since they are not in the spotlight.
I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and tell that NWC heroes didn't have copied creatures from DnD or other sources. But again you are missing the point. It's not about using something that hasn't been used before by any legend/book/game/movie, it's about not over-using cliche things that have been wh0red so much in the past years, be it now or 20 years ago, we still saw the same orc, elves, dwarves and their respective variations. Those were always in spot-light and always re-used.
Dave_Jame said:
The question is, will it work in the end? If the game manages to create it's own dedicated audience, all those veterans here, who closely follow the development, even though they have lost interest in the game, will be just empty voices echoing in the void of the past.
If the game manages it. Right now, I see only that approx. 50% of old fans dislike it. But the game can't live on nostalgia forever. We need new blood, and new blood didn't play H2, or H3, at this time, they might as well didn't even play WoW.
3rd time in a row you are missing my point. It's not about which one is right, or old vs new. It's about Ubisoft trying to get a larger audience as possible through ever mean, if they want to go with Ashan and the new generation, then so be it, cut any connection with heroes and go Ashan all the way, rename the franchise, make totally new full-ashan factions like Free Cities, Sanctuary, Dragon Knights and let the old fans with their old heroes. Then they gather their new audience which like the game for what it is. Or continue Heroes legacy and stick with the veterans and keep the old formula and universe, expand the factions and existing concepts made by NWC. But no, ubi tries to do both things, they want a bigger audience from both old fans and fans from other franchise which they attract with "borrowed templates", also they want to make their own audience, but ubi has to learn that there's no positive middle way, they just want milking as profit matters at the end of the day.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 01:59 PM |
|
|
I tried to write my posts as neutral as possible, not to prove a point or anything, but to provoke discussion. Something rather rare in these forum lately. By your reaction I suspect it worked. :-)
I'll respond only to the final part, since the test is a logical, and more direct, reaction to a purposely vague statement I made.
You wrote about original factions, how Ubi could go full Ashan and leave the old fans with their old games.
But Can they really? Can they when some of them are so vocal, regardless of their true interest in the game. You yourself are a person who openly tells, that you will most likely miss this game.
In the end, there is a question in the air waiting to be debated. How much can you change in order for the game to still be a Heroes game.
My personal favorite example is H-IV which I characterize as a good game, but a bad Heroes. What can you change? Names? line-ups? mechanics? With our obsession of creation continuities, following the development of each feature, drawing comparisons. What can we change in order to maintain the formula?
Some might say that the mechanics are the core. But at the same time the biggest debates are about aesthetics. Not that their would not be many discussions about some questionable mechanic choices.
How much can we change for the game to keep it's soul. And how much must we change in order to make it fresh and new...
|
|
GenyaArikado
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 02:42 PM |
|
|
|
I think that Ubi has done a good enough job giving its own twists to archetypes and making its own visual style. It may not be revolutionary but frankly, the closest thing to that can think of was back in 2003 when Warcraft 3 made its version of the drow be good and the original elves, along with making good orcs. Oh and perhaps DA too where elves are subjugated, but that kills the elcen fantasy hard for me.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted August 09, 2015 03:49 PM |
|
Edited by Galaad at 15:55, 09 Aug 2015.
|
Quote:
What can you change? Names? line-ups? mechanics? With our obsession of creation continuities, following the development of each feature, drawing comparisons. What can we change in order to maintain the formula?
Some might say that the mechanics are the core. But at the same time the biggest debates are about aesthetics. Not that their would not be many discussions about some questionable mechanic choices.
How much can we change for the game to keep it's soul. And how much must we change in order to make it fresh and new...
I think the core of the franchise relies in an abstract concept I will do my best to define: its spirit. As long as this gets respected, to me you can change almost everything.
Let’s try to define the spirit: as I see it things can basically be narrowed in three major parts, each of crucial importance for the success of the formula: mechanics, visuals, setting.
Mechanics
Mechanics are how the game will play, independently of all the rest, and therefore the most restrictive area. Each change has to be well-thought, in order to make a successful innovation and not killing what was working in the past. Again, Nival with Heroes V came up with a more advanced skill system, proposing abilities dependent on skills on top of skills at level up therefore offering a richer hero development, and racials specials to be faction affiliated. While the ultimates were broken, the whole design was rather great and no one shouted for blasphemy, but rather tried to find solutions in order to fix and improve the system further. This is example of good innovation, expanded the system without breaking it, and it proved to be successful.
Which ingredients are to remain, which can be extended, which can be modified?
We all agree we have a town, where we can recruit troops and heroes to develop. From there we need to know how the town will develop, namely, building order, gold and resource cost, prerequisites, how the troops will play and what are their respective stats and abilities, and the impact a hero will have on the army, depending on how he developed.
About the development of the hero, IMO the most critical mistake of Heroes VI –and to some extent, VII- is the negligence of the random element. While some players complained about “not getting the skill they want”, they also didn’t bother to understand how the system works, hence how to have it go to your advantage, and most importantly, how to adapt in a situation where everything didn’t go as planned. As it happens in war, not all goes according to the plan all the time, and the brilliant strategist is the one who will find his way among unasked for constraints, and let’s face it, there is no bigger thrill to win when all seemed to be lost. True, there are in all iterations some skills considered useless – although still useful in specific situations, also depending on how a map is designed- but then, what is there to fix, a system which made its proof in terms of addictiveness and intelligence, or some skills which could have been better thought-out/designed? I think the latter. Make better skills, better spells, and I don’t see how it can’t benefit the core system of hero development. Same goes with creatures, why do we have to get straight out replicates abilities between units, especially when the approach seemed itself wanting to be closer to Heroes III, with lesser abilities, but in Heroes III, these abilities were awesome, and unique, for the most part. Gorgon’s Death stare or Dread Knight Deadly strike just made these units stand out from the rest.
All this is a small part of the how the gameplay feels and why we love it.
With wog came an additional resource, Mithril, additional buildings, additional artifacts, additional creatures, expanding even more the possibilities of the game, even better, providing an in-game menu where all scripts are available to enable or disable depending on the game you want to play. This should be the future of the series, as it allows taste to decide as well.
Visuals
Some people keep criticizing fans for worrying about cosmetics, behind the argument that, what is the point of a game benefiting of gorgeous graphics if the game mechanics are not interesting/challenging/breathtaking. While it is a totally valid point, the visuals also have a fair share of importance since they define the atmosphere, the world the player will dive in, and therefore will have a strong impact on its immersion. This is why we want beautiful townscreens, environment, well-designed creatures etc. The problem Ubi games brought with these, as I already said in the discussion thread a while back, is that they redefined the atmosphere of the brand and the world we are being dove into is too far apart from the one we loved in Heroes IV, Heroes III, and of course the unbeatable Heroes II, who for many had the most brilliant magic in terms of immersion. Some people might not care, others radically prefer visuals from Ashan, but it doesn’t change the fact the visual identity of the series has been drastically altered and clashes of tastes inevitably happens between fans from what is already two different worlds.
Nevertheless, even with what I see as a lost of identity, this new one being under-budgeted for what IMO these series are worth, it doesn’t make up for. But going back to the original point, changing the immersion is changing to some extent the spirit.
You may be surprised, but I would be the first one to be glad with all new factions, all new creatures, as long as I can feel the game is a Heroes one, meaning I can get a strong similarity with its predecessors, namely the original from the creator JVC with NWC. Just look back at H5 Sylvan concept from NWC, with units such as Catelf, Lionman, or even Firewolf and Sphinx. Who said we didn't want new units?
Setting
I think the setting is highly undervalued by most people, as it is mainly texts few bother to read or even get interested in. It is no less than the very foundation of all, and current setting totally disrespects what once was, by doing things such as introducing Dark Elves into the Dungeon, transforming what once was a magical, nature-oriented town into LotR, having the lore applying a ruthless diktat over the game etc, we all know the record by heart by now, and probably I should keep the details for a more fitting thread, as I am the last one now wanting to fire up again the lore wars, as almost all arguments from both sides are now heavily overused.
Bottom line is, I am firmly convinced we have a huge freedom in being very innovative with this awesome series, as long as we know how to respect it, and not turn it into another one, maybe good but still another and different game which wouldn’t have much left to do with the brand aside from the name and a few other things (shudders while still thinking of VI).
When I look at how Heroes I evolved into II, how II evolved into III, how the mechanics of III evolved into V, I do trust there is a way to have a wonderful Heroes game worthy of the title, greater than any other one, even capable of dethroning III, released some day, and I will keep that hope even in the darkest of times.
____________
|
|
Rakshasa92
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 10:10 AM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
I love how all the fan-made faction proposals can be divided into two groups-
1: Nothing new at all, just change what was in the past accompanied by artwork of your choice.
2: Add something from your local - unknown folklore and try to pass it as more original then it is.
In both cases its just droping names and pictures without much thought other then ones taste.
This one is clearly the first case.
Minotaurs and Medusa's were once also unknown folklore, they only grew so fast because of that horrible D&D.
If people looked somewhat further they would see there are much more interesting creatuers out there such as Akhlut, Ahuizotl, Kaw Kaw, Pertyon, Leucrotta, Harionago and Bakekujira for examples.
And even the minotaur self is boring compared to the Sarangay (with crystals), Arzshenk (demonic minotaur) and Erchitu (giant white minotaur much like the thing from the Labyrinth, being tortured into anger by smaller demons)
So what you say is a big error said by an Ashan fan (like always)
I've seen a lot of fantasy stories, movies, games and what not in my life, but Ashan is with Eragon one of the worst.
Quote:
I think that Ubi has done a good enough job giving its own twists to archetypes and making its own visual style. It may not be revolutionary but frankly, the closest thing to that can think of was back in 2003 when Warcraft 3 made its version of the drow be good and the original elves, along with making good orcs. Oh and perhaps DA too where elves are subjugated, but that kills the elcen fantasy hard for me.
For such an self-promoted "diva" you sure have a strange love toward Ashan... You probably like the beautiful colors as they match with your wigs.
|
|
keldaur
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 12:56 PM |
|
|
I would had never played dungeon if it didn't have dark elfs. "What made something interesting" could be not interesting to others.
I started playing heroes with heroes 2 and 3, but i was a child back then and my memories are fuzzy (too many games being played!), but the Heroes of Might and Magic that managed to get me was Heroes 4 and its campaign.
When i played Heroes 5 i was actually annoyed at not being able to use my heroe directly in battle, because that was how i envisioned on my limited scope what a heroes game should be. Was it better Heroes 4 system ? No, but i only manage to understand and enjoy Heroes 5 system through playing more and removing my own expectations of what a heroes game should be. Like i gave an honest try to Heroes 6 system but at the end it didn't work for me because it removed the thrill when you level up a hero to see what skills you can choose.
I think the problem around here is that there is a hollistic approach (with good intentions tho) to what a Heroes game should be, and some of it is fueled by previous horrible interactions with Ubisoft (Heroes6).
____________
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 01:04 PM |
|
|
Rakshasa92 said:
Minotaurs and Medusa's were once also unknown folklore, they only grew so fast because of that horrible D&D.
If people looked somewhat further they would see there are much more interesting creatuers out there such as Akhlut, Ahuizotl, Kaw Kaw, Pertyon, Leucrotta, Harionago and Bakekujira for examples.
And even the minotaur self is boring compared to the Sarangay (with crystals), Arzshenk (demonic minotaur) and Erchitu (giant white minotaur much like the thing from the Labyrinth, being tortured into anger by smaller demons)
So what you say is a big error said by an Ashan fan (like always)
I've seen a lot of fantasy stories, movies, games and what not in my life, but Ashan is with Eragon one of the worst.
If D&D is horrible, why are there so many creatures from Heroes 3 and 4 that are inspired by them? While it is true that there are that many creatures out there, you have to ask yourself: will it fit into the faction? For demonic minotaurs sound more for Inferno faction. Crystalic minotaurs, but sound quite fragile... or at least an excuse to give them spikes. For Ubi, that is.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 01:44 PM |
|
|
Rakshasa92 said:
Minotaurs and Medusa's were once also unknown folklore, they only grew so fast because of that horrible D&D.
If people looked somewhat further they would see there are much more interesting creatuers out there such as Akhlut, Ahuizotl, Kaw Kaw, Pertyon, Leucrotta, Harionago and Bakekujira for examples.
And even the minotaur self is boring compared to the Sarangay (with crystals), Arzshenk (demonic minotaur) and Erchitu (giant white minotaur much like the thing from the Labyrinth, being tortured into anger by smaller demons)
So what you say is a big error said by an Ashan fan (like always)
I've seen a lot of fantasy stories, movies, games and what not in my life, but Ashan is with Eragon one of the worst.
Great reaction Rakshasa, I really hoped this would catch your attention Due to a single fact. You are the single one incarnation of a person who uses interesting creatures to fill in boarin blanks based on stereotypes. I realized this when I was reading through your QP in the neutrals topic where you suggested to replace elements with random mythological creatures.
In other words you took interesting source material and wanted to use them as fillers based only on one of their qualities. It was like using gold and silver to mend your old frying pan because its made of metal.
And your reaction again is the same. You did exactly as I wrote later took mythological concepts and made them into colore/material coded creature stereotypes (Aka White crystal Minotaur). You used this to explain what the creature is, but none of it makes the creature unique and interesting.
A salamander is more then just a lizard that is associated with fire a Kelpie is more then a water horse, and yet you turn them exactly into this. There is more behind the myth of the Cyclops than the one eye, there is more behind the medusa, then the snake parts of her body. Emphasising on only few features, especially when these features are the core problem of fantasy, aka stereotypes (be it elements, races, national affinity) degenerates any potential good idea. A creature created on a myth should build on that myth, not be frankly used tu fill a gap. That is what your hated Ubi does, but you do the same. Don't replace generic, with degraded ideas. Don't try to be original for originalities sake.
And about your fantasy experience. I think you still have a lot to learn, watch, and especially read, when you think that the two you mentioned are the worst.
I hate eragon, like nothing else, and yet I know there are much worse then it.
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 01:48 PM |
|
|
Dave_Jame said:
Rakshasa92 said:
Minotaurs and Medusa's were once also unknown folklore, they only grew so fast because of that horrible D&D.
If people looked somewhat further they would see there are much more interesting creatuers out there such as Akhlut, Ahuizotl, Kaw Kaw, Pertyon, Leucrotta, Harionago and Bakekujira for examples.
And even the minotaur self is boring compared to the Sarangay (with crystals), Arzshenk (demonic minotaur) and Erchitu (giant white minotaur much like the thing from the Labyrinth, being tortured into anger by smaller demons)
So what you say is a big error said by an Ashan fan (like always)
I've seen a lot of fantasy stories, movies, games and what not in my life, but Ashan is with Eragon one of the worst.
Great reaction Rakshasa, I really hoped this would catch your attention due to a single fact: You are the single one incarnation of a person who uses interesting creatures to fill in boaring blanks based on stereotypes. I realized this when I was reading through your QP in the neutrals topic where you suggested to replace elements with random mythological creatures.
In other words you took interesting source material and wanted to use them as fillers based only on one of their qualities. It was like using gold and silver to mend your old frying pan because its made of metal.
And your reaction again is the same. You did exactly as I wrote later: took mythological concepts and made them into colore/material coded creature stereotypes (Aka White crystal Minotaur). You used this to explain what the creature is, but none of it makes the creature unique and interesting.
A salamander is more then just a lizard that is associated with fire a Kelpie is more then a water horse, and yet you turn them exactly into this. There is more behind the myth of the Cyclops than the one eye, there is more behind the medusa, then the snake parts of her body, you know thiœ, I know you do. Emphasising on only few features, especially when these features are the core problem of fantasy genre, aka stereotypes (be it elements, races, national affinity of the original myth) degenerates any potential good idea. A creature created on a myth should build on that myth, not be frankly used tu fill a gap in a spreadsheet. That is what your hated Ubi does, but you do exactly the same. Don't replace generic, with degraded original ideas. Don't try to be original for originalities sake.
And about your fantasy experience. I think you still have a lot to learn, watch, and especially read, when you think that the two you mentioned are the worst.
I hate eragon, like nothing else, and yet I know there are much worse then it.
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 02:15 PM |
|
|
keldaur said:
I think the problem around here is that there is a hollistic approach (with good intentions tho) to what a Heroes game should be, and some of it is fueled by previous horrible interactions with Ubisoft (Heroes6).
Mind you, I actually like Heroes IV, the only real problem for me was heroes on the battlefield, but by chatting with some friends I came to think the idea was simply badly implemented due to the game being underdeveloped, not needing an army at all to be able to take castles of full armies was just lol. The kind of change you have to be extremely careful into implementation, as it affects drastically the playstyle. Open for debate at the very least.
Of course, it still is a rather big change and is perfectly understandable most players don't like it. Although, I'm glad Ubi didn't try it since they already have trouble designing simple things such as skills or spells.
@DaveJame
Since I gave you a detailed answer and you apparently ignore it, I'll take it either you agree with me or simply ran out of arguments. 
____________
|
|
GenyaArikado
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2015 02:40 PM |
|
|
Rakshasa92 said:
For such an self-promoted "diva" you sure have a strange love toward Ashan... You probably like the beautiful colors as they match with your wigs.
Oh yeah, they do
keldaur said:
I would had never played dungeon if it didn't have dark elfs. "What made something interesting" could be not interesting to others.
I dont go "there" but yeah its true. The fact Sylvan and Dungeon keep winning everything they get pitted against should start tipping people here that elves are generally liked as much as they may loathe them.
|
| |
|
|
