The only thing that bothered me about the strategy map in that movie was that it looked a bit empty. The thing I have always loved about the Heroes games is that the map is just teeming with… stuff. You couldn’t walk three steps in HoMM2 without tripping over some cool map feature or magical item or monster, and it really lent a “kid in a candy store” feel to the whole game. The strategy map in that movie looked sort of barren. Hopefully that’s just because it was a hacked together demo map.
And yeah, Heroes II is still the best of the series.
I really liked the gameplay and look of III, but I didn’t think this looked too bad, although if the move to 3D means there’s less stuff on the maps, that’s not going to make me happy.
Well, it’s not like you don’t already have 100,000 realtime games to play. Can the folks that like turn-based games keep even one franchise? Or do we get nothing?
Seriously, I can’t think of any good reason to make this game realtime. The whole game structure is built around the one day turn cycle. You’d have to make so many changes making it realtime, you might as well just make a whole new game anyway.
Not listening; I like the turn-based combat. But there’s nothing gained by having turn-based map movement, except making the player mouse over and click the end turn button every ten god damned steps. See the aforementioned King’s Bounty, which did this far more elegantly despite being kind of the first draft of HOMM.
Ok then, name me one single game about recruiting fantasy armies and having them square off in turn-based battles with real time map movement that I didn’t already mention in this thread.
If you have real time map movement with turn based combat, the whole game would have to be real time - city management, resource gathering, etc.
At that point it would pretty damn silly to have everything else in the game running in real time except for the combat. The end result wouldn’t resemble anything like a HoMM game and would alienate whatever fanbase the series has left.
Trick question. There aren’t many (any?), because that’s not a great combination. Rome: TW was originally going to use that formula (well, with realtime battles, but still a two-tiered affair), but I suspect that they found that running the top tier in realtime is highly problematic, especially in multiplayer, and doesn’t really gain you much since the game get interrupted all the time for combat anyway.
In HoMM it would be doubly problematic, because on a basic level the game is a race to all the goodies sitting on the map. But it’s meant to be a tactical race; if the only thing limiting you from getting there first was how quickly you can click… well, let’s just say that I wouldn’t care to play that game.
I thought it was odd I was the only one that seemed to feel that I wanted one or the other. I loved both aspects of the game but sometimes I was in a empirical mood and other times I was in the ‘get in and fight some tough tactical battles’. But when I played I would often at some point in the game think I wanted to play a R:TW RTS’y game and that would be a great addition if it was optional with the other empirical strategy.
I guess some people want their TBS, to be turn by turn or not TB at all and I’m one of them. At least until they figure out how to get the right mix.
