Posts from What is your opinion about Heroes IV?

The topic has run its course. The provocations have become weaker. The interest has faded.
It's boring, gentlemen. Boring...

By the way, I almost forgot. I couldn't figure out what was wrong for a long time. Now I understand. In Equilibris (which is what most people play online now), the Resurrection spell appeared on the 5th level of Life. And that's why I couldn't find it in the list on Hugolka... :D

The topic has run its course. The provocations have become weaker. The interest has faded.
It's boring, gentlemen. Boring...

Yeah, that's probably true. But when some newly registered forum user who is passionate about something appears, the mudslinging begins – and when they've had their say, they move on to other topics that genuinely interest them, and everything quiets down until the next such "thinker" appears.
It's like a "trial by fire":) Even I had to go through this not so long ago :o, but as far as I remember, it didn't get as bad as it did this time:rolleyes:.
But this topic, nevertheless, will always be relevant...:)

Regarding the graphics, I can add a few things. I've already written several times about the locations of the buildings, and now I'll talk about the graphics in general: The Ogre Cliff, in the Stronghold Castle, looks AWFUL, like a huge stone head. It doesn't resemble a cliff at all. Let's remember the third game; there was a huge cliff with a terrible cave filled with Ogres. Was that beautiful? :D The Magic Forest (in the Forest Castle) looks like a wasteland, with 5-6 saplings in the middle. It feels unnatural. And the volcano with the Phoenixes is just a hill, with fire constantly erupting from the top. In the third game, there was a huge fiery tornado – it looked much better. The Portal (with the Manticores) shines, but there's no movement in the light (it's a lifeless shine). :confused: The Black Forest (where the Nightmares are) is definitely NIGHTMARISH:D. There are a couple of fir trees and that's it, and it shines. All of this is in the middle of a mountain. :confused: And the Dragons:eek: The pedestal, with a small rock on top – it's AWFUL!!!! And so on. Of course, not all the buildings look bad, but there are some. And when you attack a Castle, it's just ridiculous. The moat is a small stream of water (and there isn't even a real moat; the water is on the grass). :confused: The wall:D:D is like a fence, up to a Titan's waist. :D:D But you can't fly over it without a penalty (you'll stop right behind the wall), so you have to break down the door. :D:D And then, lo and behold, our dragon can fly over a 0.5-meter fence (without a penalty). This kind of logic is frustrating and ruins the impression of the game. :cool: To conclude, I'll say that the graphics in the game play a very important role, because it's unpleasant to play when you see such a mess. If they redo the graphics in the fourth game, life will be much better. :) I don't believe that the graphics in the fourth Heroes game are better than in the third. In terms of graphics, the third game blows the fourth out of the water, and I won't even comment on Heroes V. P.S. In the third Heroes game, there are also some funny things, like a Tower in the desert (with snow when it's +40 degrees). :D:D But there are far fewer such blunders than in the fourth game. I'll say this in defense of the third Heroes game: the most important thing in this game is not the graphics (although they are quite good), not the sound (although they are made "in theme"), and not even the music (and if you don't like it, you can easily put in your own) – the main thing is the absolute clarity of the controls. You feel like you're in a virtual helmet, and almost every action doesn't lag behind your thoughts. How did they manage to do this with such a low level of realism??? And what's noteworthy is that you don't get tired of the game for a very, very long time. The fourth game doesn't have this, which is why it's less loved by the people. Well, that's all for now. Goodbye to everyone; I'm going to another topic, but if anything: I WILL RETURN!!!!!!:smile51: :smile51: :smile51:

Shurick, you're awesome!:smile52: The only thing I like about castle sieges in Heroes of Might and Magic IV is that there are no "free" towers that shoot at my weak archers. Otherwise, I completely agree with you about the issue of sieges.

And what's noteworthy is that you don't get tired of the game for a very, very long time. The fourth installment lacks this, which is why it's less popular among players.

Players like it less because most of them are afraid to break stereotypes – they can't accept the game as it is and start complaining that this doesn't look like that, or that doesn't look like this, and so on... Yes, it doesn't look like that, yes, it's different, but that's the essence of the revolution, the unique feature of the game. You yourself kept talking about diversity, didn't you!? Here's diversity for you – the game is very different from the traditional worldview of the Heroes series. So, make up your mind – do you want diversity, or what...? I just can't figure out what you're trying to prove to us here?
All the fans of the fourth installment love their game, they adore it – and no matter what nonsense you say here, the result of your efforts will always be ZERO!!!

Oh well... I couldn't resist...

And that's it, basically, GOODBYE to everyone, I'm going to another topic, but if anything:
I WILL RETURN!!!!!!

I fully and completely approve of this statement.

I’M HERE BECAUSE YOU CALLED!!!!!!:D :D Actually, I came here by mistake. Since I’m here, why not write a few lines?

People like it less because most of them are afraid to break stereotypes – they can’t accept the game as it is, and they start complaining that this doesn’t look like that, or that doesn’t look like something else... Yes, it doesn’t look like that, yes, it’s different, but that’s the essence of the revolution, the highlight of the game. Didn’t you yourself talk about diversity? Here you go, diversity – the game is very different from the traditional worldview of the Heroes series. So, make up your mind – do you need diversity, or what...? I just can’t figure out what you’re trying to prove here?
All the fans of the fourth installment love their game, they adore it – and no matter what nonsense you say here, the result of your efforts will always be ZERO!!!

You didn’t understand me completely. I want to say that Heroes 4 is good only in itself. Let’s imagine for a moment that we changed the name of the game and that there are NO previous versions of Heroes!!!!! The game will immediately become more appealing because there is almost nothing to compare it to. It’s good only in itself (it doesn’t bite, it doesn’t bark at passersby:D :D), but it can’t stand the comparison with other versions (remember the graphics:rolleyes:).
Stereotypes must certainly be CRUSHED, but people need to be prepared for this gradually. Improvements need to be made little by little, not like this: out of the blue, here you go...
The fourth installment is a kind of point of contention and disagreement, located between Heroes 3 and 5. I meant diversity within the game itself, not between the versions.
In the versions (in the sense of being different from all other versions, which is what was done in the fourth installment), you either create a super game or you crash and burn. There is no third option. Let’s remember (those who know) the same Gothic: the first one was super, the second one was FOREVER, and the third one was RUBBISH:smile18:, because it doesn’t look like its predecessors at all, it’s like a completely different game, but it continues the old one.:confused: The same thing happened here.

P.S. I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m just expressing my point of view, that’s all. And I completely agree with the inscription above – “UNSUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT”. You can’t call the fourth installment “HEROES”, you just can’t. A game that is unlike previous versions (and, moreover, was made haphazardly) is a continuation of the old game.:confused: It’s the same as Counter-Strike being a new version of Far Cry:D. It’s stupid and wrong. And there is NO highlight in this. That’s why (and for everything written above) people didn’t accept this game.

That’s all. If you need anything, let me know.:)

Uff! I finally finished reading the entire thread on this topic! It's the most prolific topic. It wasn't just a read; it was interesting. Of course, I should have expressed my opinion about the series as soon as I registered, but there were so many pages, and I like consistency, so I decided not to write anything until I finished reading it all (I read it over a week with breaks). And then I thought: how many years have people been discussing, playing, and sharing their impressions, and I only discovered this now (I felt a little bad for myself), and yet I've been playing for a long time. But never mind, I'm going to catch up ). I really enjoyed the conversation and discussion about the game between Shurick and shnurov hl. Shurick's first post was a little irritating to me, because I think all the drawbacks he mentioned are actually advantages, and the tone and language weren't very good, but without that post, there wouldn't have been the wonderful replies from shnurov hl and others. I especially liked the tact, argumentation, and even wisdom in shnurov hl's replies ). It's clear he's a smart person who loves Heroes 4 (it's nice to find like-minded people). And I would describe Shurick after reading the thread as: silly ), but with a good heart (Shurick, don't be offended, I mean it affectionately). And I also thought that this topic shouldn't end with Shurick's opinion (despite my respect for him) that Heroes 4 isn't a "Heroes" game, but some other game. So I simply have to express my opinion: HEROES 4 IS THE BEST GAME IN THE SERIES!!! I agree with all the arguments that have been made here in favor of this opinion. Heroes 4 definitely meets all the requirements of a strategy game and the Heroes series. It has castles, magic, various races with their own specific characteristics, a ton of creatures with their unique abilities, hero development, and artifacts. And there's a connection to the previous Heroes world, describing the destruction of that world and the emergence of a new one. Some scenarios even feature heroes from the "old days": Tarnum, etc. (the scenario is called "old heroes in search of a new kingdom," or something like that). That's how it should be. The old gives way to the new, but in the new Heroes 4, no matter what anyone says, there is continuity with the old. Heroes 4 retains the spirit of the heroes, which has always been important and which, despite differences in preferences (some people like 3, some like 4, and some like 5), unites all fans of this excellent game series! It's truly a unifying game! And that means Heroes 4 is a full-fledged continuation of the series, captivating the player and drawing them into a whole world of new and amazing discoveries and adventures! They have their own charm and allure. You just have to figure it out; of course, 4 is much more complex than 3, and many people are too lazy. Although, even I, who spent a lot of time studying and improving the game in Heroes 4, am now too lazy to figure out the intricacies of playing 5 ). But as shnurov hl rightly said, it's difficult to be a good professional in all the games in the series, so I also stopped at Heroes 4, because otherwise, a person will play everything, but poorly. It's better to play some games well. It was rightly noted that it's very important which part of Heroes a person started with. Maybe I love Heroes 4 the most because it was my first game. After 4, the battles in 3 seemed simple to me.

Maybe I love Heroes 4 the most because it was my first game. After playing 4, the battles in 3 seemed simple to me.

My first Heroes game was Heroes 2. In Heroes 3: The Price of Loyalty, I almost knew the entire readme by heart, which contained all the quantitative characteristics of spells and monsters. But the fourth game is still the best. If you compare the third and fourth games, it's like checkers and chess. That's it.

My first Heroes 2. In Heroes 3, Price of Loyalty, I almost knew the entire readme by heart, which contained all the quantitative characteristics of spells and monsters. But the fourth game is still the best. Comparing the third and fourth games is like comparing checkers and chess. That's it.

I completely agree. The third game is simpler, which is why so many people like it. But when something more complex appeared, everyone just got too lazy to figure it out. The fourth game develops strategic thinking more than the third. As was rightly said, there are more options in the fourth game, both on the battlefield and when choosing development. In the third game, everything is limited to recruiting high-level creatures from different castles into the hero's army, if there is access to different castles, and the hero gaining skills such as: earth, air, water, logistics, wisdom, etc. Here, a lot has been said about the individuality of heroes in the third game and its absence in the fourth. But if you think about it, what kind of individuality is there? It's just an illusion. For example, two opposing heroes meet in the final. One is pumped up in attack/defense/spellcasting/knowledge, and the other is too. The difference will only be in the parameters: if you have a warrior hero, then attack and knowledge will be developed first of all, if a ranger, then defense and knowledge, if a mage, then spellcasting and knowledge. And if there are good artifacts, then even this difference is leveled out. And the skills are approximately the same, since all players try to get approximately the same skills listed above. Do you agree, friends? It turns out: the same parameters, the same skills, and spells (approximately). The only difference remains in the set of creatures in this army. There is no individuality of the hero here. The only uniqueness of the hero is specialization, and that's it. And it is on this one specialization, which, in fact, if we are honest, does not play a special role in the final battle, that all statements about uniqueness are built. Of course, if we take such heroes as in the campaigns, with a special specialization, such as snipers, wizards, then the specialization matters. But if the specialization is in creatures, then it's not very good.

My first Heroes 2. In Heroes 3: The Price of Loyalty, I almost knew the entire readme by heart, which contained all the quantitative characteristics of spells and monsters. But the fourth game is still the best.

I dare to suggest that The Price of Loyalty is not the third game, but the second. It's an add-on to the original Succession Wars.

Once something more complex appeared, everyone simply became too lazy to figure it out.

Naturally, this is always the main limiting factor. No matter how much I criticize the fifth game, this problem should be addressed first. But on the other hand, if I knew that heroes in the fifth game stand on the battlefield, and not next to it, and that you can take not one hero into your army, but both or four heroes, and that you can kill both or four heroes on the battlefield, then I would overcome this typical laziness. Otherwise, why bother when there is no goal.

Here, a lot has been said about the individuality of heroes in the third game and its absence in the fourth. But if you think about it, what kind of individuality is there? Just one illusion.

You might not believe it, but when I was reading posts on this topic, I couldn't understand what they were talking about for a long time. At first, it seemed to me that the fourth game actually has individuality in the form of advanced classes, but what about the third game? And then, after a glass of beer :D, it dawned on me what individuality in the third game is. And, in my opinion, this specialization is nowhere near as good as the advanced class system. Well, if it were there, it would be better, but the loss wouldn't be significant. Especially if there is a replacement.

... in the third game... all players try to get approximately the same skills, listed above. Do you agree, friends?

I agree, friend. I've tried to play the third game online many times, but I've never been able to connect, no matter how much the GameSpy experts advised me. Of course, many years of offline experience and hotseat games don't allow me to boast about my knowledge of the third game, but I'm sure that in reality, it happens as you described. In the fourth game, unlike the third, the development of heroes is determined by several factors at once. These include your own starting Castle and the opponent's starting Castle, artifacts on the map, quests, the density of neutrals, the size of the map, and so on and so forth.

I dare to suggest that The Price of Loyalty is not Heroes of Might and Magic III, but Heroes of Might and Magic II. It's an add-on to the original The Succession Wars.

Does this mean I mistook the graphics of Heroes of Might and Magic II and played with it in Heroes of Might and Magic III? :smile35:

What does that mean? Did I misunderstand something about Might and Magic II and play with *that* in Might and Magic III? :smile35:

And all without a connection. What a horror! :D

I must disagree with the notion that the third game is inferior ("the third game is like checkers, while the fourth is like chess"). The fourth game is certainly interesting, but it's far from perfect, and I doubt it's better ("smarter") than the third. I'd say that in terms of the ideas behind the game, the fourth might be a step above the third, but the flawed implementation negates all potential advantages.
In the fourth game, the ideas in the combat mode are particularly well-executed (counterattack simultaneous with attack, 1/4 shot power to the other end of the field, mana for creatures with magical abilities, the hero as a unit, potions, etc.), but the overall presentation leaves much to be desired: the battlefield is awkward, and it's inconvenient to calculate the squares, and I won't even mention the castle siege – if THIS (the siege in Heroes of Might and Magic 4) isn't absurd, then what is?:D? Here, I completely agree with Shurik. As for the "classes" awarded when leveling up 2 or more skill schools, something similar appeared in the third game in the Trial by Fire expansion, as well as other additions that add variety to the gameplay (such as the bank, creature experience, and tax on their upkeep, etc.). If something similar to Trial by Fire or Warlords of the Wastelands had been released for the fourth game, maybe I would have returned to that installment:rolleyes:...

In the fourth installment, the ideas in the battle mode are particularly well-executed (counterattack simultaneously with the attack, 1/4 of the attack power goes to the other end of the field, mana for creatures with magical abilities, the hero as a unit, potions, etc.)

In my opinion, the hero development system is also very interesting. Although, I am personally a little disappointed by the skill clones in different schools of magic: Spirituality, Demonology, Wizardry, etc., and accordingly Healing, Occultism, Enchantment, and the like. In principle, they could have added more differences, which would have added even more variety to the player's development. However, obtaining advanced classes already adds a lot to the game, to be honest.

The battlefield is somewhat awkward and it's inconvenient to calculate the cells.

It's inconvenient, of course, but everything comes with experience.