Posts from Do you still play Heroes of Might and Magic III after the release of Heroes of Might and Magic V?

So, for me, Heroes 5 is the worst game in the entire series, and here's why:
Probably many have noticed (if not all) that the 5th part of this great game is like the 3rd part plus a few additions from the 4th. What has really changed? Yes, the graphics. The fully 3D game looks very beautiful, BUT... is it fun to play?
With the 3rd part, you could sit for hours and play Multiplayer with friends, and it was always interesting. And to this day, I think the 3rd Heroes is the most interesting part. Is it possible to have the same with Heroes 5? I'm sure not.
When the beta version of the 5th part was released, I remember the hype surrounding it. Not only was it supposed to become a cult classic, but it was supposed to be the best in the series. But that didn't happen. Back then, I think gamers even wrote some kind of petition to the developers to properly finish the game.
On May 20, 2006, the game was released for sale, and I bought it on the first day. Hmm. The game initially hooked me, but very quickly the interest in it began to fade. During all this time, I played it twice with a friend online. And then, if someone suggested playing the 5th part, I refused because it wasn't interesting – it was all the same. The same creatures. The same castles. In general, I didn't see anything new, cult, or interesting in this game. The 3D graphics are actually very unusual.
Therefore, all that remains is to regret that the great NWC fell apart.
There will be no more such exciting parts of Heroes as 1, 2, and (the most awesome) 3. I think it would have been much better if everything had ended with the 4th part.

Yes, indeed, the 5th version disappoints in everything except for the graphics. Couldn't they have taken all the best from the earlier versions and increased the number of castles, creatures, added new management options on the battlefield, added some skills, etc.? And in general, they could have consulted with fans about what and how to do, and then it would have been another hit like the 3rd version, but as it is...

So, what’s so bad about Heroes of Might and Magic V? Yes, it’s not perfect, but a lot of new and interesting things have appeared in the game, even things that weren’t in Heroes of Might and Magic III.

Well, what’s so bad about Heroes 5? Yes, it’s not perfect, but a lot of new and interesting things have appeared in the game, even things that weren’t in Heroes 3.

Heroes 5 isn’t bad at all... it’s a great game, but not perfect! :)
But for many, Heroes 3 is an ideal, a standard, and so on. Also, Heroes 3 isn’t as demanding as Heroes 4, and especially not as demanding as Heroes 5. ;)
P.S. Of course, some people will continue to play Heroes 3 even after playing Heroes 5, and vice versa... but you can only stop playing Heroes 3 when you stop playing games altogether :smile03:

Yes, I still don't understand why so many people dislike the fifth installment. You could say it's a new version of the third game, with improved graphics, a changed storyline, and a few new features.

The fifth installment is a decent addition, and it has its own unique feature – namely, "initiative." I think it's an interesting mechanic.
But the third game remains and will always be the best.

For me, they are all equally good; the first three games win only because they are the beginning, the classics, and essentially the foundation for the fifth game.

I only played the fifth game once. It wasn't very good... Nothing compares to the third game!

On the contrary, there are many good things. And the ATB scale is a truly excellent idea. It's strange that good graphics usually attract people, but in this case, it seems to repel them.

to eXeCuToR
The fifth installment simply doesn't compare to the third... besides, they are games from the same series... the overall concept in the fifth game is completely different... and yes, the graphics are undoubtedly better, but the fifth game has significantly lost in terms of strategic and tactical gameplay...
Simply put, the third game is like chess - it doesn't need fancy graphics or complexity, although the castles and monsters in the third game are beautifully drawn... the playability and popularity still surpass the fifth game... as we can see, by a significant margin!

yes, the graphics are definitely better

it would be great if the third game had the graphics of the fifth and the unpredictability of the first =));));)

to eXeCuToR
Well, the fifth game just doesn't connect with the third... besides, they are games from the same series... the concept in the fifth game is completely different... of course, the graphics are better, but the fifth game has significantly lost in terms of strategic and tactical gameplay...
The third game is like chess - it doesn't need beautiful graphics or fancy features, although the castles and monsters in the third game are beautifully drawn... the gameplay and popularity are still higher than in the fifth game... as we can see, by several times!

I didn't quite understand what you mean by "different concept." I don't see any losses in the fifth game in terms of strategy; I only see advantages. If it's not too much trouble, show me where it is worse in your opinion.

On the contrary, there are many good things. And the ATB scale is a truly brilliant idea. It's strange – good graphics usually attract people. In this case, for some reason, it repels them.

Because graphics aren't important for a strategy game, especially a turn-based one.
The main thing is that the game should be engaging and captivating for a long time. The 5th installment isn't engaging...

Because for a strategy game, graphics aren't important, especially for a turn-based one.
The main thing is that the game is engaging and keeps you hooked for a long time. The 5th installment doesn't engage...

Why doesn't it engage? Many people wouldn't agree with you. I'm one of them. For example, I found it engaging. And if a game is engaging and also has good graphics, is that a bad thing? I like it.

If it's not too much trouble, show me what you think is worse about it.

It will definitely be difficult to show :)
I can describe a couple of points:
1. The factions are very strongly divided in terms of development... as a result, there is a greater dependence of the army on the hero and vice versa... for example, the point of making a "non-native" hero strong is lost.
2. More complex calculations of magical action - slightly off-putting.
3. ATB scale - a great idea, but not for everyone (see point 2)
P.S. In general, it seems to me that the balance in the 5th game depends more on luck than on skill, although I haven't played it much yet, so I might change my opinion :)