Posts from Heroes of Might and Magic V [Game Discussion]

Well, I played the beta. So, here's my opinion.
IMHO.
The game really has huge potential. The developers have definitely been working hard all this time. But it's not ready for release yet. At least six months of further development are needed. Let's get started.
Interface.
It's inconvenient, not functional, and frankly overloaded with useless buttons. You can only find out the name of the week under favorable circumstances:) As well as the effect of the name:)
There are excellent examples of transferring the interface from 2D to 3D without changes, but only by adding the necessary buttons. The most striking example is Warcraft III.
Here, there is no button to view the kingdom:) You can't buy buildings individually:) In short, I didn't find a single plus or even a slightly convenient button:)
I don't even know what to change here. It's probably easier to create a new interface from scratch.
Battlefield
It's a bloodbath:) Multiplied by ATB, but still a bloodbath:) Keep the same number of turns, but increase them by a factor of two. Otherwise, it's genocide for thick-skinned units:) It's still playable with small armies, but not with large ones:)
ATB
I don't know about you, but the bar freezes for me:) Or it throws up things like changing the turn order at the last moment, even when there are no disturbing effects:) And it's impossible to balance. All my arguments to Dion in the corresponding forum are 100% valid. ATB is not needed here.
And the fact that the first turn is absolutely random is a complete nonsense:)
Hero
OP:) With just one Witch, you can defeat any group without casting a single spell:) It's annoying, but possible. And there's no need to talk about Griffons and Ballista:)
Magic
It's crazy. In the guild, I got all 4 empowered spells for Haven:eek: And for the Necromancers, not a single one from Dark Magic. And there were no walls either. But the mines are good:) You just need to know how to use them:)
Skills
Out of 4, 1 is great:) But the number of frankly useless ones is huge. And, surprisingly, they only offer useless ones:)

The game has potential, and it's huge. But for now, the game is completely raw. It feels like an alpha:) There's nothing to talk about, they just need to work and work:) I won't call them heroes:) Not yet. The decorations didn't make an impression. But there is already a desire for progress.
At least six months of refinement and intensive testing:) Otherwise, we'll get something even worse than a 4:)
Bless on undead is crazy:eek: And raising more skeletons than there were units on the battlefield:eek: As well as BD for mechanical creatures:eek:

That's a really solid argument, dear Katrine. I agree about the interface, and I also want to add that sometimes it's very inconvenient to mess around with the camera. As for ATV, Fields, and especially skills, I strongly disagree – name just two or three useless skills or abilities. Everything here is much more logical than in the third game. As for Empowered Spells, they shouldn't appear anywhere except in the Dungeon. This is a bug. In general, Nival Interactive isn't hiding the fact that they were against an open beta test, and the current beta is a very raw build in which many things have been cut. The only task of the open test for Nival is a stress test for the multiplayer servers. Think about it: it was announced that the game would be around 2 GB, but the beta is around 800 MB. It's like judging comfort while sitting in a half-assembled car... And I think Nival should be given the opportunity to implement what Nival wants, and not what you or I want personally, because as a player of the third game, and you as a player of the fourth game, have absolutely different, sometimes contradictory, views... I think you will agree with me that the fifth game is not a clone of the third game, as many who haven't seen the beta say.

Regarding ATVs, terrain, and especially skills, I strongly disagree – name just two or three useless skills or abilities. Everything here is much more logical than in the third game.

Since we have a division into skills and abilities, I’ll say right away that all skills are useful:) except for the 4 schools of magic. One or two are enough. Well, that’s a matter of taste.
But the abilities that are given for a skill are meaningless. For example, Ranger Shots. Considering how it is upgraded, it is easier and more useful to cast a spell every turn. And you can shoot anyway.
Similarly, Relation Strike for Haven. It’s not needed, but they offer it every turn.
Tent/Ballista. If you don’t have them in your castle, they are useless. But they offer it. That is, I have a ballista, and they persistently offer me a tent. But where will I get it? What do I need it for (ability)?
Also, skills with luck. For the Ranger, only Lucky Strike is needed out of the three, and the rest are neither fish nor fowl, they just take up slots. I don’t rob resources with the main hero. Why do I need this thing with increased gathering?
And in each skill, it’s the same. At least one ability is meaningless, but in order to avoid randomness, you have to take it.

Think about it: it is stated that the game will weigh around 2 GB, but the beta weighs around 800MB. This is like judging the comfort while sitting in a half-assembled car.

But the chassis characteristics can and should be evaluated in a half-assembled car. Everything else is just attributes, but the heart is the chassis. The same applies to Heroes; the heart is Multiplayer. I don’t see any problems with fitting a normal multiplayer version into 800MB.:)

And I think that Nival should be given the opportunity to implement what Nival wants, and not what you or I want personally, because as a fan of the third game, and you as a fan of the fourth, our views are completely different, sometimes contradictory... I think you will agree with me that the fifth game is not a clone of the third game, as many who have not seen the beta say.

I agree with the second part. I don’t completely agree with the first. Nival shouldn’t do what I or you or anyone else wants, but they are obliged to listen to our opinion because we are all potential buyers. And they don’t listen to this opinion at all and perceive even the slightest criticism very painfully.

Regarding the uselessness of skills, it all depends on the tactics you choose. Many abilities in the beta don't work as they should, and "uselessness" is purely subjective. For example, getting trophies after a battle is not great when playing on normal difficulty, but when playing on impossible, every resource counts. I agree about the dropping of abilities – I often find that one of them "freezes," meaning it appears again and again, even though I absolutely don't need it. But I can resolve this by leveling up the skill. However, I agree that something needs to be done about this. Regarding the chassis: remember the pre-alpha? Many people judged it then, but how much of it actually made it into the beta in a significant way? Regarding the conflicting opinions: the opinions about Nival are the most contradictory, and there are VERY MANY of them. It's like cooking for a family: you listen to the wishes of all the members, and it's impossible to please everyone. One wants borscht, another wants squid in maple syrup, and a third wants pancakes with condensed milk. If you listen to everyone, the result will be mass poisoning and two weeks in the hospital. Of course, it's a simple example, but it's very illustrative

Dear Fizik, I haven't played the beta, but I did play the infamous, supposedly stolen alpha, and the numerous screenshots from the beta posted on this forum give a great idea of what the game is like. In particular, the graphics, which I found appalling. And, in particular, the fact that essentially nothing has changed. And I think it won't change, despite what the sweet-talking sirens from Nival want us to believe. Because to fix it, they would have to remake the game, which, of course, the developer won't do. Do you want specific examples? I'm afraid I have too many, and you won't have the patience to read them:rolleyes:. Here are a few: the elf and the skeleton (sorry, I don't know their names) are blatantly copied from Disciples; the girls in leather panties and bras (a masochist's dream) are just a typical cliché of mediocre games; they shouldn't have chased after full 3D for the game; it ruined the map, and therefore deprived the game of its beauty - because the player spends most of their time looking at the map, and no one wants to look at this ugliness; in their development, Heroes aimed for baroque, which manifested itself in the enrichment of the interface, characters, map, and castle and management panels with BEAUTIFUL details, but here we see, one might say, a rollback to poster-like graphics: simplicity at the expense of aesthetics; finally, many of the pictures are copied from Heroes 3, but transformed into cartoonishly exaggerated proportions and a simplified drawing style. In general, dear Fizik, you're trying to appear simply fair, but in reality, your statements feel very biased. Are you by any chance from Nival? And have you actually played Heroes 3-4, not just to get acquainted with it, but out of love? (no offense). I'm afraid that when you play it, you won't need to ask for specific examples. And I'm not crazy enough to download other people's mistakes in gigabytes from the internet. And I, and many of my friends who are fans, we were expecting even more delicious graphics, more branches of development and buildings in the castles, more castles, more units, more objects on the map, even more beautiful maps in the 5th installment, but we got a turn-based Spell Force with elements of Demigods on the Heroes 3 engine. In my opinion, that's enough for the project to fail. Sincerely, Animik.

I must disappoint you: I have nothing to do with Nival (to my deepest regret: D). Moreover, I missed most of Nival's games. As for my gaming experience:), it's quite extensive, about 10 years (starting with King's Bounty and ending with Heroes 4 and WoW) - it was Heroes, along with Civilization, Warlords, and Warcraft, that "shaped" my gaming worldview. I'm not trying to be fair:), I'm just expressing my opinion, just as you are. The difference between us is that I know a little more about the 5th Heroes game and I'm trying to consider the continuation of my favorite series from all sides. Regarding the graphics, I'll say that the transition to 3D damaged something, but at the same time added something positive that wasn't there before. Although, personally, I'm also against 3D, and not just in Heroes, but you need to look at the situation from all sides: Most of today's potential Heroes fans will simply ignore the game if it doesn't meet current standards (just as those who started with, say, the third game, subjectively consider the second game primitive (in my opinion, it's the best game in the series)). And as a result, Ubisoft will get less money. As banal as it sounds, these are the principles of the modern world, and they have always been a priority - starting with King's Bounty and ending with the fifth game - whether you like it or not. Although, visually, Heroes 5 is head and shoulders above any 3D strategy, believe me, the alpha graphics are significantly different from the beta (in the alpha, there is no "height difference" as such, most effects and shadows are disabled, and the detail of objects is significantly lower than even at the "Very Low" level in the beta). Regarding the development of Heroes - 3DO also tried to create a 3D Heroes game, the difference is that, unlike Nival, they didn't have the resources, and their unsuccessful attempt under the Heroes 4 brand predictably failed and led to the company's collapse. Personally, I don't respect 3DO because no one has ever conducted such a cynical "milking" of fans. Each disk of the Heroes Chronicles (3) cost almost as much as the original game, and there was NOTHING new in it - today's fan-made WOG is significantly better than these praised "updates"... As for your expectations... it's entirely up to you, and I'm not going to try to dissuade you from anything. I'll just say that graphics are not the main thing in a game of the Heroes level - if the game is slightly improved, then in its main components, tactics, and development, it can be compared to the legendary third Heroes... and more doesn't always mean better :). Sincerely, Physic

And as a result, Ubisoft will receive less money. As banal as it may sound, these are the principles of the modern world, and they have always been a priority - starting with King's Bounty and ending with Heroes V - whether you like it or not.

That's quite a statement.
Actually, Heroes 1 was an author's project (not by Mr. John Van Caneghem) but by John Van Caneghem's wife. It was her merit in creating this incredibly popular series. And it was indeed an author's project.
The same goes for Heroes 2. These games were not created to make money.
Heroes 3 was already a product of a merger with 3DO. And even though I started with Heroes 3, I still spend a huge amount of time playing the first and second games. NWC always treated Heroes as an author's game. This was one of the keys to the series' success. Popular games (including those made by Nival) never become hits. If a developer sets out to create a popular game for profit, the game will be successful, it will make a profit, but can Heroes V be included in the same list as Fallout, Diablo, Warcraft, Ultima Online, Doom, Quake, Half-Life? The answer is a definite no.
Many accuse our forum of being biased towards Heroes 5. They have a right to. At least the only opponent of Nival lives here. And that's me. NecroFill and WhiteHawk, despite their negative comments, are not opponents. We've argued about many topics countless times. They like some aspects of the game. They trust Nival. They just openly talk about their complaints.
There are also people like you, Fizik, Dion. You believe in the developers 100%. That's your right, and no one is going to take it away. But the Nival forum is full of these optimists. Any opinion like "this is wrong" and you are immediately silenced. As happened with the discussion about the battlefield. Critics are not allowed to say a word.
And now, tell me, who is the beta released for? For optimists or pessimists? Only for the latter. Because it is they who can pay attention to the flaws. But all their posts are ruthlessly cut. They are silenced. A person who sees a problem in the beta cannot talk about it because they will not be listened to. This is a typical approach of Russian developers. And as long as it remains this way, we will be driving a Lada Kalina when we could buy a Ford Focus for the same money.

And have you ever played Heroes 3-4, not just to get acquainted with it, but out of love?

This is a question for all the defenders of Nival. If the answer is yes, then I'm sorry, but somewhere you are lying to us. Make up your minds. :)
Heroes 5 has not progressed at all since the alpha version. The current beta is just a demonstration of new features and graphics. There is no balance, no gameplay, no interface, not even in its infancy. And they say the game is ready for release. It's not just not ready for release, it's not even ready for testing. It's a complete "0". Yesterday, I played the beta all day. And what? With 20 gargoyles, I cleared the entire map using only one turn. Fireball, and that's it. And so it is every time. Where is the tactics here if any unit in any quantity dies instantly from a single spell? From the first week to the very end, I didn't go to my Castle. I came right before the battle. And what? Against the opponent, I used the same fireball. And he couldn't do anything. :)
And where is the tactics here? It doesn't even exist in the project.
Heroes of Might and Magic V - "a game for housewives"
I do not recommend it to anyone else. :)

Heroes of Might and Magic V - "a game for housewives"
I don't recommend it to anyone else.:)

Powerful!!! :)
We all remember what happens when housewives (cooks) have the deciding vote in solving matters of state importance ;)...

I can't fully participate in the discussion yet, as I still haven't touched the beta... but I trust Katrine's opinion regarding gameplay and balance assessment... Of course, I'll judge the graphics and interface myself - that's a matter of taste...
But the fact that balance is completely absent is currently an indisputable fact...
I'm already afraid that there won't be enough time for Nival to finish and polish everything by June (by the way, the postponement for Nival was secured specifically by us - the pessimists, not the enthusiastic optimists who have produced nothing useful so far other than pink drool...) :(

I'm crying – a lot and hard! I used to think the worst thing in the Heroes series was HOMM4! But there, the heroes were just generic, and the graphics were awful! The developers at Nival are definitely talented – they've managed to break EVERYTHING!!!

Dear Katrine,
I don't know what you think about the First Heroes and Canningham's wife in particular, but you forgot that Kings Bounty is the founder of the TBS genre, and like Heroes, it was a commercial project. Due to the gaming industry at the time (who would pay for a subscription when they could just copy the game from a friend?), it couldn't generate the profits it could today. And to claim that Canningham and Co. were altruists and didn't try to make money from Heroes is at least wrong...
As for the beta, Nival did NOT plan to release an open beta; it was a very foolish initiative by Ubisoft, and now they are paying the price. It is well known that Nival released a build for the beta that was far from the latest (my words are confirmed by the fact that the castle building system in the beta was abandoned at least six months ago), and this beta has no real meaning for Nival other than as a stress test for the servers. And the mass hysteria will not yield any results; moreover, it is even beneficial for Nival.
As for the love for Heroes, I sincerely love Heroes 3 and just as sincerely hate Heroes 4. Compared even to Heroes 5, it is simply poor and looks like a banal attempt by a drowning man to grab at a straw, although in reality, it was the most important nail in the coffin of Heroes. By the way, I don't know how NWC felt about their project, but Heroes dominated, and it treated fans like cash cows... unlike it, Ubisoft and Nival give you the opportunity to criticize them :) and at least pretend to listen to the fans - otherwise, even if you write 100 petitions, no one would listen to you.
P.S. I don't know, but in communicating here, it seemed that my opinion annoyed many people: D... if this is the case, then I apologize, but I express my position independently, as I have no incentive to defend Russian developers, since I am Ukrainian: D

Who said that housewives like Heroes 5? I know at least a few who were enthusiastically playing Heroes 3 and 4, but Heroes 5 didn't interest them and even caused rejection. It seems to me that in this regard, the failure of Heroes 5 is 100% guaranteed, considering that it is generally difficult to interest women in computer games. I think that here the phrase "Not recommended for children under 12" should be changed to "Recommended for children under 12". Because that's approximately their level – these are infantile, puffed-up skeletons with glowing eyes, musclemen with faces of comic book superheroes, undead, demons, scantily clad, long-legged beauties wrapped in belts, knights in puffed-up armor. All that's missing are cyborgs and transformers (I almost suggested a new faction).
:confused: I don't understand why the respected Fizik constantly talks about the failure of HoMM 4? May the Nival creations continue to sell for so many years and in such quantities. I'm not even talking about Heroes 3, which continues to sell steadily, and even Heroes 1 and 2 can still be easily found on sale. This is an unprecedented case in the history of computer games. Personally, I think that Heroes 4 was successful in its own way. True, the faces of the heroes have faded, and their intelligence has become duller, but the beauty of the map made up for all the minor shortcomings. The cliffs alone were worth it, and there were a huge number of different types of trees. And all this is drawn with great imagination and is very picturesque. The developers' miscalculation here was rather commercial – they could not direct all the profits from these mega-sales into their own pockets. :( As for the prices of the expansions, I note that creating a good, beautiful map is not an easy and lengthy process, and it is much easier for the user to pay a certain amount and start playing than to create 20 maps themselves.
I, like Katrine, started with Heroes 3, welcomed Heroes 4, and now I play them alternately, when I get tired of one, I switch to the other. Recently, I got acquainted with Heroes 1 and 2 – I laughed to tears, the characters are so amusing in their naivety. I was transported back to the era of weak computers. The maps, of course, are very simple. But despite all this, the game turned out to be very soulful. I would gladly play it if it weren't for the later versions.
In contrast to this magnificence, Heroes 5 made the impression of some kind of commercially calculated hack, where ideas were borrowed from many existing games. Because of this, the game turned out to be faceless, somehow castrated – because all the best things were amputated from Heroes, as if to save them (as someone wrote earlier). In fact, it seems that this was done so that they would be easier to fit into the not-so-large mind of the game designer, or the project manager, or someone else from the developers. :mad: And what were the words, like: "Heroes, this diamond, was given to Nival as the best." And what do we see? In my opinion, the best way for Nival is to change the structure of the castles beyond recognition and release the game under a different name – it will turn out to be a mediocre turn-based strategy, at least something new on the market of turn-based strategies. And start making Heroes from scratch.
:eek: Fizik's statement that there is no visually better strategy than Heroes 5 sounds naive. Dear Fizik, you urgently need to broaden your horizons. And as for the trendy features, without which the game supposedly will not be accepted by the new generation: firstly, these trendy features are for whom? It seems only for the developers, for whom this is a great reason for loud advertising statements; secondly, today's teenagers are enthusiastically playing Heroes 3, and there, I note, there is no zoom, camera, three-dimensionality, and DirectX 9.c.
And this is not just my opinion, a dozen or two of my acquaintances, who are fans, will easily sign under my statement, which is why I speak with such confidence.
Katrine, you are not alone in your opposition to Nival, I agree with you on almost everything, Nival deserves eternal shame and our contempt for such deeds. :( Amen.

Animik, why so many emotions? Most of the criticism is irrelevant. How many times do we need to say that the beta is just a very simplified piece of the game? In almost every aspect, the game will be much better than the beta. The only exception is the combat tactics, although even that is not certain, as you can always add a couple of tricks to change the proportions of the battle. I won't even mention the graphics and development; if you're interested, read above. Regarding the redesign of cities and the release of "non-heroes," don't you think that in that case, fans from all over the world would tear them apart? The game just needs to be finished. The interface is something we can really discuss, and the discussion about combat combined with magic is somewhat relevant. But everything else is just empty talk because the subject of the conversation is undefined.

As for the beta, Nival DID NOT PLAN to release an open beta; this was a very stupid initiative by Ubisoft, for which they are now paying the price. It is known for a fact that Nival uploaded a build for the beta that was far from the final one (my words are confirmed by the fact that the castle building system in the beta was abandoned at least six months ago), and this beta carries no meaningful load for Nival other than as a stress test for the servers.

Let's reason. What did we have before the beta release? Practically nothing. There was no info. And then a 8*10 map pops up. Moreover, according to the testers, this map wasn't tested at all. They were testing the rubber-band map, and 8*10 appeared at the last moment. Accordingly, this map is still a very controversial point.
Nival was forced to release the beta to calm the fans. Except that what they released doesn't qualify as a beta. I'm actually wondering if they even launched it themselves? Many bugs are so obvious. Was it that hard to do?
What do official Nival representatives say? Development is finished, balance polishing is underway. No changes will be made to the interface or game mechanics. The fact that they returned to some interface doesn't make it any easier. This interface is as foreign as the previous options. Changing a perfect interface is the worst thing they could have come up with.
What do they want from the beta? Suggestions regarding balance and bugs.
The bugs are clear, but nothing is clear about the balance.
How can penultimate level creatures (2 upgraded Treants) be killed by 2 simple Gargoyles? How can 10 Pixies kill 5 upgraded Griffins? What suggestions can there be here? There's nothing to talk about yet. What has Nival been doing all this time? :)
According to beta testers, the open beta has become better, but if this is "better," then what was it like at the beginning?
Why is the growth of the last level over a month weaker than the growth of War dancers over the same period?
These problems are so obvious that I don't even want to talk about them. Just like the fact that a unit that is simply a melee fighter is now completely useless. On such a map, he is blocked and waits for his death. Only complete noob players would build Minotaurs, Hydras, Rakshasas, and other walkers. The benefit from them is "0".
How can they say the game is almost ready if work on the balance hasn't even begun :)
As for the 4th game, you are wrong. The 4th game fully paid off and brought huge profits, but even that turned out to be too little to plug the holes in the budget. And yet NWC were already working on the 5th. Add-ons were released with the sole purpose of stretching it out until the release of the 5th. They didn't make it, but they certainly didn't drive the final nail in.
Nival doesn't know how to make strategies. And TBS even less so. Although I don't even know if Heroes can be called a TBS. To kill turn-based combat, one must be either a genius or an idiot (I suggest everyone choose their favorite option).
My opinion is unequivocal. The 5th is a very raw product. But it has good potential. It is important to realize it in the release, and not make a million add-ons like with Blitzkrieg. (That's even worse than 3DO. They cost more and there are more discs).
Your opinion regarding 3DO is your full right. But don't make Nival out to be idealists. People who haven't played Heroes (and that is a fact) cannot make an adequate sequel to the series. They killed everything and are relying on PR. Most likely it will work (people go to both Shames... sorry, Watches). But then a cross can be put on Heroes of Might and Magic and Might and Magic (and the final nail in the coffin will definitely be Dark Messiah).
NWC loved their creation, Nival does not. That is the whole secret of developing hits. You have to do it with soul.

Regarding the redesign of cities and the release of "non-heroes," don't you think that in such a case they will definitely be torn apart by fans from all over the world?

First they will buy the game. And then, although the army of fans is numerous, most of them are just admirers and generally people far removed from Heroes. Fans can be ignored; others will appear in their place.

P.S. I don't know, but while communicating here it seemed that my opinion irritates many... if that's the case, I apologize, but I express my position independently, as I see it (I have no incentive to defend Russian developers, since I am Ukrainian)

No, why though? All points of view should be represented. :)

:confused: GvozD, I don't share your faith in the goodness of Nival; it's not possible for a beta version to differ significantly (let alone radically) from the final version. And it's unlikely that Nival will be the first to become such a headache, radically reworking the beta. I think the outcome is already predetermined. <flame and unsubstantiated statements> However, Nival probably isn't too concerned about this; the game will be bought by many fans of the series who were swayed by the name and didn't bother to visit this forum, and Nival will still get its modest profits. But this won't increase respect for Nival.
And shifting the blame to Ubi won't help here – Ubi has established itself as a company that produces quality games. Perhaps Ubi is rushing the release of the game because the game's graphics are already outdated and initially mediocre (despite the praises that Nival sings to itself), and in a year, it will be completely terrible. :mad:
:eek: Just listen to this song about the small number of polygons: they made their lives easier and are presenting it as a brilliant discovery! And as a result, we have square trees and hexagonal spears. Well, for 1998, it's not bad!
:( In my ears, I hear the death knell for Heroes.

I think the landscapes are beautiful :)
It's just that the castles and heroes clash with them. Even when it comes to their homeland.
Well, graphics are purely subjective. I personally like M&M 6 the most in this regard. But to demand that they make Heroes on their engine is just ridiculous :)
I'm against 3D in Heroes, but I can't say that the designers didn't do their job well. They did a good job.
But the creative team who came up with the appearance of the monsters...
Well, that's definitely subjective.
But tactics, interface, magic, etc. - that's something worth discussing.