Auto-translated
I disagree. And secondly, do you think the graphics in the first and second games were less cartoony? You are currently reasoning like a grandpa who plays dominoes, who doesn't recognize computer games in principle and who exalts the interest of playing dominoes to the seventh heaven.
Thanks for the "grandpa who plays dominoes," I had a good laugh, even though the analogy is out of place and incorrect (I hope you won't argue with this, as we are initially discussing graphics, and furthermore, your comparison lapses into a different (fundamental) difference).
As for the cartoonishness: You aren't asking a yes/no question; you are moving into a comparison. Were HoMM I and II less cartoony? – yes, less so (but that doesn't mean they weren't cartoony at all!). Now let's also remember the release years and think about what was possible to do with sprite graphics back then, alright?
And let's talk about the trend I mentioned in the post you are replying to: let's look at the transition of sprite graphics again from I to II and then to III. I personally claim that the cartoonishness of the graphics is decreasing. Now let's look at HoMM V: the degree—which is exactly how you are reasoning (more or less)—of cartoonishness has increased. At the same time, one must not forget the graphical capabilities available to the developers of each part (which, by the way, martians also mentions).
LFB
well, since we're talking about graphics... the transition to 3D in the fifth game was successful, but I agree with those who miss the graphics of the third. simply out of all the Heroes games, this is the only part where the rendering is less cartoony, more serious, so to speak. for those who don't understand what I mean, look at how the manticore looks in the fifth =)
if it was technically impossible in the times of the second, today's developers had a choice—and it's a pity they chose a cartoon...
Yes, the transition to 3D was successful, but there was a loss of individuality (see my posts above, I spoke about this). Otherwise, I completely agree. Thank you.
To hell with the plots, the main thing is that they are logical; plots are secondary, gameplay + nuances are primary... For example, why does a Castle, destroyed after a siege, recover immediately? Could this process not have been made gradual? And why spend so much effort on alternative upgrades if, for example, repeat upgrades for some unit types could have been made?! And why can everyone have exactly 7 squads under their command? Many such small "whys" can be asked, and that's where the interest comes from...
As for the plot, I hope that in the 6th part, it will become alternative; the ability to influence events is what makes a game truly interesting!:cool:
Regarding destroyed castles: please understand that by striving for greater realism, you lose the structure of the world. This is a game rule, even if it may seem illogical to you. It is foolish to nitpick the degree of realism, for example, in the game "Monopoly" (the game name can be changed, it's just the first thing that came to mind);
Regarding alt. and repeat upgrades and the number of squads: this is called balance. Understand, for example, that the difference between alternative and repeat is too great (just look at the meaning of the words).
And furthermore, it is precisely from these "many such small whys" of yours that the game is formed, that the uniqueness of the gameplay is created. For example, demanding more realism from all games means dragging everyone in one direction (remember the simplifications and accepted rules, otherwise you'll simply be playing a computer simulation of life). But this is not a call for a total rejection of realism and logic (any extremes are bad!).
