Skip to content

Posts from Оценка HoMM V Tribes of the East

No ratings yet — be the first to rate!
Open
Game rating: 6–10 points
115 voters
Single choice
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
In reply to Loken
User Avatar
Auto-translated
Loken;154060
8. I initially wanted to give it a 9, but... I hesitated. I remembered how much I liked the alternate maps, and I was tempted to give it a 9. But I couldn't. The game still lacks something. And that is a decent single-player mode. No matter how you look at it, I haven't completed any of the campaigns. At most, I reached the 3rd mission of the dungeon in the original game.
And the non-campaign mode becomes quite boring rather quickly, and I agree with that. The fifth installment is good, no doubt, but... something is missing compared to the third game. It seems like they got rid of the simplistic maps, like in the original + Lords of the Realm, and they started drawing them in a more or less decent way, instead of simply dividing them by the number of players and placing the same terrain in each area, but... still. In the third game, the gameplay itself was somehow... more diverse, or something. It's all about the maps. The editor there didn't follow any templates... and the game itself felt... hmm... easier. I don't know why. Maybe more art, more terrain, various random factors. I can't explain it. In short, an eight.
That's the point: there are many random factors in the "third" game, while here everything is predictable. If you deviate slightly from the course, you fall behind, and the chances of a favorable outcome become very small. In the "third" game, there were always chances: you could suddenly find a great "collection" of artifacts and you'd be in a good position. Here, there are no such "collections" that can significantly affect the course of the game (I can't say anything about the "dragon collection" - I haven't managed to collect it). Comparing it to the WOG version of the "third" game is pointless - it's like comparing apples and oranges. I still remember many interesting games in the "third" game (even though some of them took place five or seven years ago), but I haven't had any equally memorable games in the "fifth" game (and I probably won't).
ДУРАКОВ ОЧЕНЬ МАЛО, НО ОНИ РАССТАВЛЕНЫ ТАК ГРАМОТНО, ЧТО ВСТРЕЧАЮТСЯ НА КАЖДОМ ШАГУ.
Прошу прощения у Arandor-а. Я слишком резко отреагировал. Просто очень люблю спорт. Извини...[/SIZE]
User Avatar
Auto-translated
They released "Stronghold" too quickly... they could have spent more time on it. I really miss the storyline...
I'm primarily interested in the plot.

Andrey: What does "part three" have to do with this? This is a review of part five, not a comparison with other games.
User Avatar
Auto-translated
still, the game is missing something. and that something is a proper single-player. no matter how you look at it, I haven't finished a single campaign. at most, I got to the 3rd mission of the dungeon in the original.
Among people who have completed all campaigns of various installments and try to be reasonable in their assessments, rather than "I played the third (second, etc.) as a kid and loved it, so everything else is garbage," there is a general consensus that the story of the original fifth game is absolutely unbeatable, but the best individual campaigns are those about Roland and Archibald (the second) and Goldoth (the fourth). The campaigns in Lords and Horde are clearly inferior to the original, but still noticeably ahead of the third game, where the campaigns can only be played out of good old nostalgia.
still, the gameplay in the third was somehow... more diverse, you know? the thing is the maps. the editor there certainly didn't work on templates...
Decent maps for the third game accumulated over the years; in the original package, there aren't that many, or rather, there are few.
and the game itself felt... mmm... easier. I don't know why. maybe more artifacts, terrain, various random factors.
A ton of artifacts and randomness can only be considered a plus when playing against the computer, but that really gets old.
That's the thing; in the "third" game there are a lot of random factors, but here everything follows a set path. If you deviate a bit from the course, you fall behind and your chances of a favorable outcome become very slim. In the "third" game, there were always chances: you suddenly assemble a great "set" and you're on top. Here, there are no such "sets" that can significantly influence the course of the game (I can't say anything about the "dragon set" — I never managed to collect it).
In the fifth game, the options for gameplay and development became considerably greater. Although, for instance, in the third game, a hero had 8 skill slots, 6-7 were non-negotiable, and the last 1-2 were randomly chosen from skills of the "second tier of importance." Some real variability only appeared in TE. And you're wrong about sets; besides the Cloak of the Undead King, none were decisive — Control was decisive. I remember in one game, my friend suddenly assembled the Alliance, but I got the Portal. I immediately broke his shackles, and he had no chance. Random upon random — nothing else. But in the fifth game, there are definitely some cool sets: the dragon one, the dwarf one, the necro one. Any of them greatly increases your chances of winning.
As for comparing the WoG version with the "third" game, it's not even worth talking about — it's night and day. I still remember a lot of interesting games in the "third" (even though some of them took place five to seven years ago), but I haven't had any such memorable games in the "fifth" (and probably never will).
Most likely, you just aren't very good at playing the fifth game. I personally observed how a die-hard third-game fan with similar views was painstakingly and tediously taught the advanced basics of the game for just one faction (the orcs), of course in games where he was getting torn apart. That sparked a desire in him for a rematch in the third game. He created a game, and after a few turns, he killed it himself, saying that after the fifth game, playing the third is impossible, primitive, and uninteresting.
User Avatar
Auto-translated
If they had told us, what would they have talked about in the sixth installment? As I understand it, the current trend is similar to what happened with Half-Life; the story will be revealed in small portions to make more money...
So many centuries
So many Gods
We were the prisoners of our own fantasy
But now we are marching
Against these Gods
I'm the wizard, I will change it all
Valhalla - Deliverance
Why've you ever forgotten me


19.08.2008 СК Олимпийский.Я запомню это навсегда!!!

Как играть онлайн в Герои 5??Ответ здесь
User Avatar
Auto-translated
The developers are doing a great job fixing their mistakes – remember the original Heroes of Might and Magic V. There was no editor, and the maps were terrible. And look at the Tribes of the East. In my opinion, it’s quite convincing.
Не создавай себе проблем, они тебя сами найдут
User Avatar
Auto-translated
There are now quite a few more options for gameplay and development in the fifth installment.

They just can't seem to gather all the best features from all the parts. :)

In the 5th game, I find it frustrating that there's no proper scouting option (sending a hero into enemy territory is costly, and if with a decent army, it's almost certain death; with a single unit hero, you can't learn much about the enemy hero – you can see the stats, but it's unclear what skills they're developing. In the 4th game, you could attack with a high-speed unit and view all the information about the enemy hero and all their skills (although you still couldn't see the magic).)
And the need to keep the entire army together is also a drawback,
many tactical and strategic opportunities are lost. Perhaps this is a feature of the turn-based mode, but in this case, Heroes is inferior to Warlords 3.
In reality, only a "hit and run" tactic seems to work.

By the way, in Heroes 4 and 5, half of the success in the final battle is determined even before the battle itself (in the 4th game, it's the arrangement of stacks and artifacts, and in the 5th game, it's the skill development (that's why the skill tree is so branched, but the probability of getting certain skills ruins everything. At least the percentages are known, but sometimes it starts dropping all sorts of useless things in a row: D). Before the game, you have to spend a couple of hours figuring out the skill wheel. :)

In general, I don't have much online experience, but it seems to me that Heroes 5 is not a strategy at all, but rather some kind of RPG, "who can level up their hero better by the finale." I think everyone has already learned how to defeat neutral creatures with almost no losses.

And tell me, what is more critical: leveling up the hero faster, regardless of losses, or waiting with the neutrals and preserving the army?

Again, I'll refer to the fact that I don't have much experience, but it seems to me that the developers failed to maintain this balance – "leveling up vs. army." A hero of level 15-17, but with a full army, can defeat a level 18-20 hero who has lost a couple of reinforcements.

By the way, has anyone used the strategy of undermining the enemy's economy in the 5th game?

Or, what about taking a castle – has anyone conducted the final battle as a siege in an online duel?
Каждый может быть героем ...
User Avatar
Auto-translated
Starhan, I agree that the combat and battle tactics in Heroes of Might and Magic V have been significantly reduced. As for undermining the economy, it's simply about capturing enemy mines or ambushing a town when there's no army present.
Не создавай себе проблем, они тебя сами найдут
User Avatar
Auto-translated
I don't know, what's the point of playing if you can find out everything about your opponent for free? It just doesn't seem interesting to me...
Армия баранов под предводительством льва сильнее армии львов под предводительством барана.

God save us everyone
Will we burn inside the fires of a thousand suns...
User Avatar
Auto-translated
I lied a little :) You can invest a lot of money and learn a lot in the Thieves' Guild.
Well, I don't know, what's the point of playing if you can find out everything about the enemy for free? It's not interesting...
:) In my opinion, it's more interesting to play when you and your opponent know a lot about each other, and there is some way to still influence the outcome, rather than just hoping that the opponent chose Chaos and is building up resistances and immunities, but it turns out they are supporting themselves with Light.
As for undermining the economy, it's just capturing enemy mines or ambushing a city when there is no army there.
In Heroes 4, you could grab the enemy's mines with a thief (who is invisible on the map) or with any other fast hero, and if you run into an enemy, you can escape, because it doesn't cost much :) and immediately be safe in your own Castle. And in Heroes 5, I can kill such a saboteur with a new hero with a 1st growth. Besides, towards the end of the game, there are usually enough resources, and if not, there is always the market. I'm warning you in advance, this is not about the early game, because different rules apply there. Here is another small poll: when is the gap between heroes of 3-4 levels especially critical? Added 5 minutes ago
Starhan;156822
:) In my opinion, it's more interesting to play when you and your opponent know a lot about each other, and there is some way to still influence the outcome, rather than just hoping that the opponent chose Chaos and is building up resistances and immunities, but it turns out they are supporting themselves with Light.
By the way, in this regard, the ghost mode is a very interesting idea. I read that you can take control of neutral creatures in battle. Here, the enemy hero is really in the palm of your hand. It's strange that people don't try to play with it. It really forces the enemy to move quickly because they can do a lot of nasty things
Каждый может быть героем ...
In reply to Magnus
User Avatar
Auto-translated
Magnus;154320
Can you tell me what? The second campaign has no plot at all, and everything gradually transitions into the third. As for the third: how to kill Biara, the "Hammers of Fate" had more interesting campaigns..., but here... and the ending didn't please me either; they could have told us more, at least about Arantir, who mysteriously disappeared after the first campaign, or about Railag....
I agree, the ending was disappointing. I never understood what happened to Railag. At least Arantir appeared in "Dark Messiah." I didn't like that everything ended with finally killing Biara, and then what? They could have come up with another campaign where you could play as the Dark Messiah or against him, thus putting a definitive end to the whole story.
But overall, I'd give it a 9 out of 10 for the interesting Necromancer campaign and the new features.
Auto-translated
Throughout all the campaigns of the original game and both expansions, not only Biara was killed. However, Kha-Belekh, Dark Messiah (Sareth), Isabel, Frida, Duncan, and many other characters survived. Therefore, there is potential for continuing the series.
User Avatar
Auto-translated
Well, overall, I really didn't like the increased minimum system requirements. My computer broke down – I had to update the drivers, and then take it to a service center to update the BIOS. IMO, it wasn't worth making things so complicated just to introduce an alt-grade. Therefore, 7.
Военное дело просто и вполне доступно здравому уму человека. Но воевать сложно.
User Avatar
Auto-translated
I give it a 10 out of 10, everything is quite fresh and interesting. I haven't finished it yet, but the overall plot is good. I just want to ask if there will be a sequel and if it should be specifically for Heroes 5, or maybe for Heroes Next. In principle, this is a topic for discussion, although there might already be one, I don't know. What do you think? It would be interesting to hear the opinions of others, especially about Next.
Борьба и единство противоположностей -
вечный двигатель мира сего.
In reply to Starhan
User Avatar
Auto-translated
Starhan;156822


by the way, the ghost mode is a very interesting idea in this regard

I read that you can take control of neutral creatures in battle with it :)

that's when the enemy hero is really in plain sight.

it's strange that people don't play with it.

it really forces the enemy to move quickly because they can do a lot of nasty things.

It's not just that people try not to play with it, they avoid it like the plague, because it turned out to be so poorly implemented that it's unbelievable...
I agree about the thieves...It would have been better to add such a category. I like the thieves in Disciples...They have much better logistics than the main ones, and there is an opportunity to steal artifacts from another hero or in the store...How would it look to have the ability to steal one random artifact, for example, in Utopia Dragons...I think it would be great.
So many centuries
So many Gods
We were the prisoners of our own fantasy
But now we are marching
Against these Gods
I'm the wizard, I will change it all
Valhalla - Deliverance
Why've you ever forgotten me


19.08.2008 СК Олимпийский.Я запомню это навсегда!!!

Как играть онлайн в Герои 5??Ответ здесь
In reply to ValgallaWolf
Auto-translated
ValgallaWolf;157254
People don't just try to avoid playing against him; they avoid him like the plague because he's so poorly implemented that it's ridiculous...
I agree about the thieves...It would have been better to add such a category. I like the thieves in Disciples...They have much better logistics than the main faction and the ability to steal artifacts from another hero or in a store. How would it look if there was a possibility to steal one random artifact, for example, in Utopia Dragons? I think it would be great.
You can even create such a thief yourself. Max out logistics, scouting, and stealth, give him 1 creature of level 4-5, and as a result, he will be able to scout, travel very far, and it's not a fact that the opponent will attack him, even if he has the opportunity, since he has no idea about the strength of this hero's army. He just won't be able to steal artifacts :)

Of course, I mean a secondary hero.
O God of Earth and Altar,
Bow down and hear our cry,
Our earthly rulers falter,
Our people drift and die,
The walls of gold entomb us,
The swords of scorn divide,
Take not thy thunder from us,
Take away our pride.


G.K. Chesterton: English Hymnal

Statistics