- Comparison of creatures from Heroes 5 with creatures in Heroes 3. Auto-translated

:cool: The creatures look more impressive in the third installment of Heroes, but this doesn't affect the gameplay of the fifth game in any way.

:cool: The creatures look more convincing in the third Heroes game, but this doesn't affect the gameplay of the fifth game in any way.

For me too, the creatures in the third game are more convincing, even though the graphics are poor, but the fifth game also made an impression, even though I don't like some of the creatures there... that's how it is... for example, these are dragons, in Disciples and the third game they were more menacing... or gargoyles - Tubms, and not statues;) peasants - with a beer belly and a rope around it, fat faces!!! green, cartoonish, plague around zombies and skeletons, etc.

in part 3, everything is drawn better.

IMHO, there are much more in the third game. What is that brick-like gargoyle? Or the negro-titan; I won't even mention the 5th level demons, they're nightmares, like rhinoceroses, and the imps too; and the genies, I won't even mention them... the mages in the 5th game certainly look more like mages, but still, it seems that they are better in the third game. The gremlins from the 5th game are like the gremlins from the movie, like Gizmo =) The snakes are funny, like elephants.

I like the units in both Heroes games! In Heroes 3, I prefer Spectres more than in Heroes 5! Of course, each part of the game has its drawbacks, but it's still interesting to play Heroes 3 sometimes (to reminisce about the good old days) and to improve my tactics and knowledge in Heroes 5!

I like the gargoyles in 3 more than in 5. And the genies too. The titans in 5 are cooler, though.

For example, I don't understand why the main argument for the third part's graphics being better is that they look more realistic. A fantasy world shouldn't look realistic. Reality and fantasy are as different as night and day. A lot has been said about gargoyles here, and I agree that in the fifth game, they don't look very appealing, but they actually have the ability to turn into stone, so it's quite natural that they look like stone. But let's forget about the gargoyles and talk about dragons. Dragons are the highest creatures in the fantasy world, the most beautiful creatures. In the third part, they look, I'm sorry, like pregnant kangaroos, not like dragons. Maybe it's beautiful, but not for dragons. And what's with the name "rusty dragon"? Why is it rusty? Did they forget to lubricate it? Is it some kind of mechanical thing? If there's a rusty one, there must also be a non-rusty one with an anti-corrosion coating. And how do they move, waddling from one foot to the other? In the fifth game, the dragons are very beautiful, almost like living creatures, very carefully made, and they inspire real admiration with their strength, speed, agility, and grace. Cyclops are creatures of enormous size and enormous physical strength. In the third game, they are only slightly taller than ordinary people; you wouldn't even believe they are cyclops, more like people who have lost one eye. Now, let's talk about humans. Pikemen, swordsmen, cavalry – basically, it's just a castle. They are just a bunch of weaklings. Thin arms, thin legs, how can they fight when they should break their legs just by walking? Looking at them makes you want to feed them. And why are the cavalry, sitting on a horse, practically the same height as the infantry? There are no such horses, or maybe they are riding donkeys. In general, in the third game, all the creatures are the same height. Come on, a small imp can't be the same height as a devil. I understand that you are looking at this through the prism of perception, that is, you like the third game, and everything in it is wonderful, but we need to look at these things objectively. And the objective truth is that in the fifth game, the graphics are much better, almost perfect, although, of course, there is nothing perfect in the world. I would also like to note that even in the second game, the graphics are much better than in the third, at least the dragons are also very beautiful there, although they look a bit like statues, but still.

It’s important to remember that in Heroes of Might and Magic III, the battles are in 2D, while in Heroes of Might and Magic V, they are in 3D. If in the third game, a cavalry unit or a cyclops is shown in full size, several units might be obscured behind it, as the camera cannot be rotated. In the fifth game, the units are, of course, more beautiful, considering the years that have passed between the two games, but even if the dragons look like "pregnant kangaroos," they don't get tiresome because you can feel the excellent work of the designers, even though technically, the third game wasn't perfect for its time. In the fifth game, the units seem somewhat lifeless, while in the third game, they look alive.

Yes, you need to get used to the 3D graphics... I like the third game because, subjectively, there seems to be "more space" on the map... the atmosphere is more, let's say, fantastical... (IMHO)=))

I really don't understand how you can compare "two different cuisines." Although, in principle, it depends on what you're comparing. If it's based on appearance, then... I'd probably go with the third one.

I’m probably going to say something that not many people know, but the graphics in the 5th installment are actually better.

Hehe... it's better if you keep the 3D graphics in mind. But the art style in the 3rd game appeals to me much more than in the 5th. P.S. Although I like the details on the units in the 5th game (the squires have belts with pouches, a dagger, etc.).

Yeah, the style in the third game is perfectly consistent.

As for the third installment, everything is on a larger scale there, and the style is perfectly maintained, but what I love about the fifth game is its wonderful combat sequences and the complete immersion in battle!

The third installment maintained the style much better, without a doubt.

Added 1 minute ago
Although, in my opinion, Nival created a fairly realistic depiction of the world of Ashan, and I thank them for that.

Added 7 minutes ago
I agree; sometimes you just want to reminisce.