I do wish it remained 2D. I want to see more than is shown on the screen. Maybe they can steal Stardock’s zoom out to a cloth map dealie.
AS I have said elsewhere, the HoMM II review in Computer Games Strategy is what convinced me to buy a PC I could not afford back in the day. It is, honestly, hard to put into words the exhilaration (that’s not right) I felt reading the gameplay description. Seems silly now, but I still remember the excitement. I was reading the article on my lunch break at a Hardee’s restaraunt eating my Roast Beef sandwich. All Apple prior to that and had not had a computer for several years. I think III ended up being my favorite, though.
Ubisoft? sigh I forgot they ran the M&M franchise. Great, likely another great game with an intolerable DRM scheme. Guess it’ll be back to HoMM3 and King’s Bounty I go.
To clarify, Heroes 1-4 were developed by New World Computing, which originally created the series.
Heroes V was developed by Ubisoft, which now owns IP.
Heroes VI being developed by Black Hole Games, who created 2004’s Armies of Exigo and 2006’s Warhammer: Mark of Chaos, both of which were fantasy RTS games. Neither game was horrendous, but neither set the world on fire, either.
UbiSoft bungled a lot of stuff in HoMM V, and then they started whoring the franchise out to make shitty browser games and the like, so my expectations here are pretty low, even though HoMM is one of my favorite game series of all time. That said, HoMM V wasn’t all bad. The campaign was terrible, but the basic game mechanics and UI were nice, and I really, really liked the revamped tactical combat.
And I agree with Rock8man–HoMM II was the best game in the series.
I am one of 5 people, including Jonah Falcon, who liked IV. Can’t explain why as every criticism people have had is pretty accurate. I just love going around the maps exploring and whaling on things and there was enough of that to make me happy. The A.I. challenge in the HoMM series has never been the determining factor as to why I like the games. The brain deadness being a chief complaint with IV.
I love the HOMM series, especially 1 through 3, and will most likely buy this new one when it appears simply out of brand loyalty (though I too am hoping for a return to HOMM3 greatness). But give me a new M&M RPG that incorporates some of the advancements in technology and design since M&M IX and I’d be one seriously happy camper.
I liked IV better than most other folks, too, but it’s still the weakest game in the series, and there’s no way I’d recommend it over II.
Agree on the AI, though. It’s particularly bad in IV, though to be honest, it’s not great in any of the HoMM games. I think the reason why I still liked IV is that bad AI doesn’t get in the way of the game’s RPG-esque appeal, which is the primary reason why I like the games. Even with brain-dead opponents, you still get interesting maps to explore, and challenging battles to fight. And the battle AI in IV is pretty decent, thankfully.
But I’d still play II (and I) before even thinking about touching IV.
IV is really painful memory for me. For over a year I was doing everything but the editor, and I was spread pretty thin. We never did get a real engine / graphics programmer, which I am not. I fully intended to do the AI as I did with Heroes III, but ended up delegating it because of time pressure. That didn’t go well, and I ended up having to do the tactical AI, but I never got time to visit the strategic AI. Combine that with some internal politics due to 3DO’s financial woes that forced bad programmers onto the team and a premature release, and well, you know the result. Very depressing.
I’d suggest II, V & I in that order, though you might OD on the series :)
Evidently a few people like IV, but don’t assume you will just because it’s a HoMM game. If you approach it as one, you will probably drop it in disgust, sharing my opinion that it is undone as a game by its (unique in the series) hero mechanics.
Sorry to hear that’s how it went down Gus. I really did enjoy the gameplay changes and art style in IV. It really shook up the series in a good way. If it hadn’t been for the complete brain-deadness of the strategic AI, I think IV would have been an excellent game.
In retrospect, I think that separating the heroes and armies in IV was a mistake. It made ferrying troops around a bit more convenient, but the “heroes lead armies” convention is such a central conceit in the series, I think that you lost more than you gained. I did like the city building mechanic that IV added, where you had to choose between building upgrades rather than eventually building everything, as you did in the other HoMM games. That was a good addition.
Yeah, I actually enjoyed IV too. I didn’t LOVE it, but I bought all the expansions and played all the campaigns, and I didn’t especially think I wasted my money or time. It just suffers in comparison since its predecessors are two of my personal top ten games ever, any platform, any genre.
V actually fell much flatter for me than IV did. Such a huge part of the series was the crisp, colorful, vibrant 2D world and atmosphere, and not-so-great 3D really killed that. Maybe it deserves another chance, though; I did pick up the expansions a couple of Steam holiday sales ago, so I should try them sometime.
I remember. As I brought up back then here on Qt3, I remember you coming into a Celestial Heavens thread (a big HoMM dedicated site) and voicing your displeasure and disappointment after the fact and after you were no longer with the company. It wasn’t accusatory or sour grapes either. I really felt/feel for you. I guess a new HoMM thread can’t help, but remind you. Now that you are a regular here, each time we talk about IV, I think, “I hope Gus doesn’t come in here”. ;)
I still respect you immeasurably for the work you did on that series.
