Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
I didn't expect anything, as the fourth installment was my first "Heroes" game, and after I got into it, I appreciated it highly because of its vast strategic possibilities. After all, graphics and gameplay are secondary. The most important thing is that there is room for strategic and, importantly, tactical (less developed in the third game) planning. I started with the fourth game, and therefore my perception of the graphics and everything else is the opposite of the opinions and feelings of many players who started with the third game. After the fourth game, the graphics of the third game seemed quite simple and primitive; there was no three-dimensionality, and the creatures were worse drawn. The hero and combat system was also very different, which I also didn't like, as I was already used to and had mastered the tactics and strategy of the fourth game, while the third game seemed simpler. As for the many bugs and shortcomings, this is a pattern: whenever the system becomes more complex (I think no one will argue that the fourth game turned out to be more complex), it is impossible to foresee everything. The balance between the factions was again worse than in the fourth game.