Posts from Heroes' Path: a design post-mortem

Hello, my dear friends. Everyone should know this.
Alexander Mishulin
Graduated from VMiK MSU. Nearly 8 years in the industry. Spent a year writing reviews and walkthroughs for various games in magazines; spent the rest of the time working at Nival Interactive. Participated in the creation of "Cursed Lands" as a mission designer, and "Demiurges" as a game designer. Later worked as a lead designer on projects such as "Operation: Silent Storm", "Silent Storm: Sentinels", and "Heroes of Might and Magic V". Currently holds the position of creative director.

Introduction

This article tells the story of how Heroes of Might and Magic V was created (mainly from a design perspective) and the problems we encountered along the way. Let's start by recalling the history of the Heroes of Might and Magic game series.

In 1990, King's Bounty was released. Formally, it does not belong to this series, but in fact, it is its progenitor, as it laid the foundations for the future gaming legend.



Five years later, on May 31, 1995, the first game of the series was released: Heroes of Might and Magic I; this game is remembered least of all, remaining in the shadow of its predecessor and successor, but it would be unfair not to mention it. Already in this game, one can see the interface and strategic map appearance that became classic for a long time.



A little over a year later (October 31, 1996), the next game was released, which almost everyone remembers and which some fans still consider the best in the series — Heroes of Might and Magic II: Succession Wars. The graphics changed significantly, as did a number of gameplay concepts. Later, an expansion called Price of Loyalty was released for the project (subsequently, expansions would become an integral feature of the series).



On February 28, 1999, Heroes of Might and Magic III: Restoration of Erathia was released, the most successful representative of the series in terms of sales. The graphics changed drastically, but otherwise it was the same game (which fans had waited for so long). It should also be noted that the third part is remembered by many for its unthinkable number of expansions.



After a multitude of add-ons to Heroes III, the most controversial part of the series was released (March 29, 2002) — Heroes of Might and Magic IV. Many changes were introduced to the game regarding the core Gameplay. Some fans considered this game the best in the series, while others found it too revolutionary and "wrong" for the franchise, preferring to remain loyal to the previous part, Heroes of Might and Magic III.



If we combine all the data (excluding the numerous official expansions to Heroes III) into a single list, we get:

* King's Bounty (1990)
* Heroes of Might and Magic I (31.05.1995)
* Heroes of Might and Magic II (31.10.1996)
o Price of Loyalty (30.04.1997)
* Heroes of Might and Magic III (28.02.1999)
o Armageddon's Blade (30.09.1999)
o Shadow of Death (31.03.2000) ...
* Heroes of Might and Magic IV (29.03.2002)
o Gathering Storm (26.09.2002)
o Winds of War (23.02.2003)

Throughout this time, the series was created by New World Computing and published by 3DO, but in 2004 3DO went bankrupt, resulting in its IP being sold at auction. The Might and Magic franchise (including HOMM) was won by Ubisoft.

It is also worth noting that besides the Heroes of Might and Magic series, there are a number of related games. The most famous among them is the same-named RPG series Might and Magic (I-IX). There were also various attempts to take the world of Might and Magic beyond the genres of RPG and TBS — and beyond the PC. The main direction for "stepping outside the box" was the action genre — Warriors of Might and Magic and Crusaders of Might and Magic; on PC, there was an attempt to ride the wave of Counter-Strike's popularity — Legends of Might and Magic. And there was a direct attempt to bring the "Heroes" series (specifically its progenitor King's Bounty) to consoles — Heroes of Might and Magic: Quest for Dragonbone Staff. But none of these games — neither the action titles nor the "port" — were successful.

Let's divert from "Heroes" for a moment and recall how a franchise works.



Suppose we initially had a great game, then we released a sequel. As is known, a sequel targets almost the same audience, but with a slight shift to capture new people. A new game will attract only part of the first game's audience (almost always someone won't like the sequel), but on the other hand, the game will attract a new audience and expand (accordingly, the circles overlap and the second circle is larger than the first). The second sequel works by the same laws, shifting the audience once more.

Returning to "Heroes" and looking at the same picture, we realize that for this series, everything happened differently.



The beginning was standard: the first "Heroes" came out, then the second, which overlapped almost completely, then the third, which was a standard sequel for the franchise — many new players, some old ones dissatisfied... Then the fourth "Heroes" were released, which split the series' fans into two audiences — followers of the third and followers of the fourth, with very little overlap. Based on the audience we wanted to cover with the fifth "Heroes", it becomes clear what goals we had during development: to unite the warring fan camps and bring them together in one game of the series.

It is well known that working on a game in any major franchise is a struggle between innovation and tradition, and the HOMM series is no exception. Obviously, during the development process, one must find a delicate balance: avoiding situations where players say something was done but it's just a repetition of a previous game in the series, while simultaneously preventing outrage over changes that are too large and "kill the series." It seems to me that in the fourth "Heroes," the developers went too far with innovation and were misunderstood by many users, which essentially caused the fan split. The conflict between innovation and tradition manifested actively during the development of the fifth game in the series, but we will talk about this a bit later.

To make it easier to link design events to the development process later on, I will demonstrate which project stages fell into which time periods:

* Start of work on the project - November 2003
* Completed Pre-Production - February 2004
* FPP (First Publisher Playable) version - June 2004
* FPP2 version - October 2004
* RP (Reference Playable) version - December 2004
* E3 version - April 2005
* RP2 (Reference Playable) version - March 2005
* Beta test version - January 2006
* Gold Master - April 2006

Just in case, I will decode what some of the version names mean:

* FPP - a version that contains several game elements and where Gameplay is already visible. However, not all components of the game are present in this version, only very basic ones. It was the FPP version that, after it leaked, was actively sold by pirates in Russia as an alpha version of HOMM V.
* FPP2 - a modified FPP version taking into account the publisher's wishes.
* RP - in Russian game dev, such a version is more often called an alpha; in American dev — a Vertical Slice. This is a finished game in miniature, using one mission as an example; it has all the elements, but not all content has been created yet; mass production begins after this.
* RP2 - a modified RP version taking into account the publisher's wishes.

During the design process, we encountered four major problems, which we will examine in order of increasing complexity:

* Problems with the game script
* Problems with in-game interfaces
* Problems with introducing the third dimension into the game
* The struggle for tradition

Problems with the script

The script for HOMM V began to be created almost simultaneously with the start of work on the game — a number of options were devised, the best was selected, detailed, and sent to the publisher. After that, for 9 months, the script remained in limbo. Then, closer to September, a team began to form at Ubisoft responsible for the development and integrity of the Might and Magic world across all projects. Corrections gradually began to be made — sometimes small, sometimes large. As a result, the script was agreed upon only in February 2005, and about half of it had been changed.

It is clear that the game script does not exist in isolation; many different game elements are linked to it, for example, the design of all campaign missions, which also had to be significantly changed (even though their production was already underway, and sketches and prototypes had been approved back in the spring of 2004).

The publisher took over the creation of all dialogues (based on the script basis). We successfully discussed and approved all mechanisms for delivering information to the player — specifically regarding dialogues. The deadlines for creating game dialogues were missed several times. It is clear that dialogues do not exist in the game by themselves; they must be delivered to the player somehow — in this case, through dialogue scenes. These scenes had to be created by a small dedicated team in crash mode based on draft English texts (received in October 2005). The final texts (thank God, requiring only minor corrections in the dialogue scenes) appeared only at the very end of development — 1.5 months before the game's release. For reference: there are about 200 dialogue scenes in the game.

Conclusions:

* Excellent tools are needed for working with all game elements related to scripts, dialogues, and texts;
* When working with a large publisher, you must be prepared for re-dos of quite large volumes;
* You should not agree to re-dos just like that; re-dos should be formalized as an addendum to the contract. It is entirely possible that if re-dos are required due to the publisher's fault, you will be able to secure additional funding or a deadline extension — such agreements should also be included in contract addendums.

Info from site http://www.dtf.ru

There will be a continuation after someone creates a post. Otherwise, they will be merged and exceed the allowable character limit.

I'm curious why the art style changed so drastically in the second expansion, "Tribes of the East"? This mainly concerns the drawing of the units (not their 3D models, but their avatars). It seems like a different person drew them. For example, let's compare the first upgrade for the Elves with the alternative one. The first one is so delicate and refined, so fantastical in its design, while the second one is crude and almost carelessly executed. The Dryads have blue, puffy faces, and the Wind Dancers have giraffe-like necks. Why was it necessary to change the art style in the middle of the game, and why change it for the worse?

Ah, yes, I remember reading it. Lux, please also leave a link to the DTF forum.

SandroXXL, absolutely. It'll just end up being about 4 messages. I'll provide the link at the end of the last one. I'll put it in each one)
Interface Problems

The second major problem we encountered during the development of "Heroes" was the interfaces. The main difficulty lies in the fact that the interests of many parties collide within the interface—it is influenced by the publisher, the history of the game series, and ultimately, the desire to make it more user-friendly. Let's look at how the interface changed during development using the base interface—the adventure map—as an example.



This is one of the first versions, quickly put together in "Photoshop" (those in the know will see many familiar elements). Ideologically, this version is very close to previous games in the series, except the interface was moved from the right side to the bottom of the screen, which is simply necessary when transitioning from 2D to 3D. This version was rejected by the publisher as being too "heavy," meaning it occupied too large a portion of the screen.



The next option—much "lighter" and airier—was rejected as not intuitive enough, with overly complex elements.

The next option—much "lighter" and airier—was rejected as not intuitive enough, with overly complex elements.



This is exactly the version that made it into the FPP. The lightest and airiest, while still maintaining the functionality of most interfaces—"pop-up messages" were introduced instead of the heavy windows that previously appeared when collecting resources or visiting structures. It was rejected by the publisher as "too cartoonish"—too whimsical and not serious enough; consequently, along with the overhaul of the game's artistic component, the interface was also redesigned.









Essentially, these are all the various options that did not make it into the game for a variety of reasons. Gradually, we arrived at a single element that everyone liked—a set of grouped buttons in the bottom right corner. This element made it into the final interface.



In the end, there were 9 interface redesigns. Presented here is the last of them, which made it into the final version of the game. Some elements can be opened and closed to free up game space.

Actually, such a laborious history applied not only to the adventure map, but also to other interfaces; for example, here is the evolution of the city interface:









And now let's do the math. Initially, we counted around 70 interfaces in the game, but during production, it became clear that we had slightly miscalculated and there were around 120. And each one underwent a careful acceptance process by the publisher. 120 multiplied by 9—that's over 1000! You can imagine the scale of the catastrophe.

What follows from this?

* You need excellent tools for working with interfaces, for configuring, modifying, and implementing them into the game…
* You need to plan for several iterations immediately, at least 2-3 redesigns;
* You need to estimate immediately (and preferably correctly) how many interfaces will be in your game and how complex and comprehensive they will be;
* And, of course, you should not agree to redesign interfaces already approved by the publisher just because; these should be added as a contract supplement, and additional time and money should be negotiated.

Problems with introducing the third dimension into the game

The transition to 3D seems like one of the simplest changes. Many games have already done it successfully, and almost all have been praised for it—you don't notice any pitfalls right away. But they exist, and they affect almost every element of the game design, starting from the most obvious—map construction—and ending with interfaces and game mechanics.

Changes are happening on all fronts:

* In cities
* On the strategic map
* On the arenas
o Changes related to creature size
o Changes related to the grid (transition from hexes to squares)
o Changes to the size of the arenas themselves

From the very beginning, we conducted a series of experiments and decided that, unlike previous games in the series, the relative sizes of creatures would be more honest (and we also wanted to make truly large fantasy creatures in the game). This is mainly related to the transition to 3D imaging, in which such conventions look significantly worse than in 2D. That is, you cannot fit all creatures into one square; otherwise, the sizes would vary wildly, and a cavalryman sitting on a horse would end up much smaller than a standing peasant.



Friends, continuing... Reflections.
The continuation will follow once someone creates a message. Otherwise, they will be merged and exceed the allowed character limit.


Info from the site http://www.dtf.ru

the first two artworks are excellent, but starting with the third, it already looks like Varik's style :[br][/br]and I like the first version of the human city more than what we have now
oh well, it's a pity they did it this way

P.S. If I'm not mistaken, there was a similar topic somewhere, or maybe these articles were posted in some thread (in the news or somewhere else).

and I also like the first version of the human city more than what we have now

I agree. The final version is the result of the authors' excessive creativity. In my opinion: it's too much.

Hey, I don't think there was a thread about this, but I did post some screenshots from the article somewhere, although I can't remember where.

As a result, the decision was made to have large and small creatures (occupying one cell and more than one cell). Now let's see what happens if we have such different creatures while our field is divided into hexes. Here is the diagram for a creature occupying 1 hex:



Legend:

* Light-colored hexes denote adjacent cells;
* Dark ones - hexes occupied by the creature;
* The circle denotes the usable area; the creature must be inscribed within it if we want to avoid overlaps between creatures on a static image;
* The line from the boundary of the circle to the center of an adjacent hex is the distance at which a strike should land to avoid deaths by heart attack (the weapon swept past) or brutal violence (the implement went straight through).

For a creature two hexes in size, the diagram will look like this:





As we can see, there are two options:

* A round creature - the usable area of such a creature is very small, and there are already problems with attack distances;
* An oval creature - the usable area is larger, but there are many problems with attack distances - it's enough to compare diagonal and horizontal attacks. Additionally, such a creature is not universal (due to a lack of central symmetry); controlling such a creature on the battlefield and choosing a position for it is very difficult (especially considering that the direction of the creature on the field indicates its affiliation as "friend" or "foe").

For a three-hex sized creature, the diagram will take the following form:





As seen, the usable area is very small (it seems slightly larger than a one-hex creature - in reality, it's obvious that the creature's area increased by 1.33 times), while problems with attack distance are quite high - just compare the bottom two segments.

Specifically, why we talk so much about the usable area of a creature:



In this example, two creatures occupying 3 hexes each stand side by side. Visually, the two creatures will stand far enough apart that a passage the width of another such creature will be visible between them, but due to the occupied hexes, no one will be able to pass through. If a player plays with the grid turned off - which is an option - they won't understand why they can't pass.

And finally, an example of a truly large creature:





Here there are minor problems with attack distances and no problems with usable area; however, the creature itself occupies 5.33 times more than a one-hex creature (and 7 times more game area). The difference becomes very large, the creature becomes very easy to block on the battlefield, it will look imposing, but playing with it will be very difficult.

But the main problem arises with long and stretched creatures (for example, riders on horses). They occupy a visually very small usable area. In the case of hexes, we are forced to use the largest creature template for them, resulting in a huge difference in attack distances and a massive blocked space on the battlefield despite visual emptiness.

Based on all the above, the decision was made to move the field to a square grid. At the same time, obviously, we took a step away from the series' legacy. Oh, how many times during the project's development could one hear "bring back the hexes"... But the transition to 3D required exactly this change. Squares are not devoid of all the mentioned problems, but the difference is very significant.

Let's look at a creature occupying one square; the legend remains the same:



It was decided not to use creatures sized 2 by 1 (for the same reasons as in the case of two hexes) due to positioning difficulty and the importance of direction.





A creature size of 4 cells is much more convenient than a creature of 7 hexes. It has a good usable area, only 4 times larger than a creature occupying one cell, and its effective area is 4 cells (not 7, as in the case of hexes).






It's clear that this doesn't solve the attack distance problem (it was solved by other means - moving closer to the required distance and covering it with a special effect). But it solves the problem of placing two large creatures side by side and the effective use of arena space.

Let's see what happens next; here is a frame from the FPP version:



Small creatures are almost invisible on this arena - if it weren't for the number "100" in the top left next to the peasant, he might not even be noticed. As seen, we have large, bright, and beautiful creatures in our game, much more detailed than in previous games of the series.





And since we have large beautiful creatures, we want to show them so that the player can examine them; accordingly, one large arena is not a good option.

In the early stages of the game, the hero's army is small - a few different creatures, most often small (occupying one cell), and he fights small groups and simple creatures. Later, he gets large (4-cell) creatures, which are clearly visible on current arenas (they act as a focus). So it was decided to use two arena sizes. For early battles with a small army - a small arena, and for battles with a large army - the current one. An image of the then-current arena can be seen slightly above, and the small one below:



This decision was made long before FPP; this is a frame from the same version, just from a different battle. In this way, we solved almost all problems but created one new one - the balance of these two arenas. Either there needs to be a "Move" parameter that changes between arenas (either presented as two different parameters or simply changing - in both cases, the solution is clunky), or in some cases it will be advantageous to use one arena over another. We'll have to devise complex laws for arena appearance to minimize abuse of this system.

We finally abandoned this system late, around autumn 2005. And moved to a single arena (except for sieges, as a siege is a special case where the scale of the Castle needs to be shown, so we continued to use the large arena for it). The size of this arena was 8 by 10 tiles.



There were no problems with this arena: creatures are clearly visible, battlefield tactics are present, and it plays great. But then closed, and later open beta testing of the game began. Our beloved fans cried out "Arena is too small!!!", and - whined (as one person from our team put it - a very appropriate word) for 2 more tiles. They managed to scare the publisher so much that he made a forceful decision to add 2 tiles in length and width, thus the arena took its current size - 10x12 tiles.



As can be noticed, the problem of small creatures returned, but not in such a vivid form (look at the little demon in the top right corner). It should be noted that increasing the field does not increase the player's tactical opportunities, as many fans believe; it... decreases them. Since the value of one cell decreases, the margin for error becomes larger, meaning the battle becomes slightly less dependent on the player's tactics. It is also clear that changes in arena sizes led to changes in combat mechanics, which required additional refinements and rebalancing.

The example of arenas clearly shows how the introduction of a third dimension led to very large changes affecting the entire combat system in the game. But equally significant changes affected other aspects as well.

Info from site http://www.dtf.ru

1 more message remains)...

The continuation will be after someone creates a message. Otherwise, they will be combined and exceed the allowed number of characters.

Only 1 message left)...

Well, if it's still relevant...