Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from What were your expectations for Heroes 4?
I actually started exploring the world of Heroes with the fourth installment. So, I didn't expect much from it (since I hadn't played the third one). I really enjoyed it, played it for quite a while, and then the fifth one came out and hooked me even more! But I'll say this: the fourth one is no worse than the other Heroes games, and even better in some ways!
P.S. Dedicated to all fans of the third game - I've never played the third game, I've only watched others play it, and I don't think I'll play it either, I guess I'm the only one on Earth like that! Well, it just annoys me, and that's it!
Тот, кто находит удовольствие в уединении, либо дикий зверь, либо Бог (с) Аристотель
I wasn't expecting anything, I just got tired of playing Heroes of Might and Magic 3 for 2 years straight (a lot and often) and tried Heroes of Might and Magic 4... and ever since then, I've been playing Heroes of Might and Magic 3 very rarely (probably the last time was a year ago), but I can't get enough of Heroes of Might and Magic 4. :D
I tried Heroes of Might and Magic 5 - no, I didn't like it.
I was, of course, looking forward to an upgrade for Heroes 3. What I got was a completely different game. At first, I didn't like it at all – it seemed too complex and unattractive. Then I got hooked, and now I'm surprised that I ever liked the third installment.)))))))) Initially, I was disappointed. A complex, three-dimensional battle map, the extremely important role of heroes (it took me a year to understand that you need to take more than 2 heroes into your army), the complete disappearance of my favorite faction – the Swamp (hydras, which turned into disgusting and useless creatures – don't count), the disappearance of my favorite heroes and the plot of the third game. But gradually, I learned to appreciate the merits of the fourth Heroes. It is a complete design and stylistic masterpiece (Heroes 3 and 5, in my opinion, look terrible), the dominant role of heroes on the battlefield (after all, we shouldn't forget that the series proudly bears the name Heroes of Might and Magic), smooth graphics, even if not cutting-edge – but it runs without lag, and the adventure map is, in my opinion, the most beautiful of the entire series in the fourth game. Of course, the appearance of some units leaves something to be desired (elf-bums, black druids, punk wizards, etc.), but many creatures look more beautiful and appropriate than in the other parts of the series – for example, the fourth game has the best angels, magic dragons, and crusaders. In short, I was waiting for an upgrade to the third game – but I got a completely new game. Which I liked much more than the third, and, ultimately, more than the fifth. Mainly because of the excellently developed magic, design, and heroes.
Could you please specify what you mean by the word "awkward"?
A large number of objects that are stylistically disharmonious with each other. This is especially noticeable in the third game. In my opinion, the first versions (The Restoration of Erathia, Armageddon's Blade) were still quite acceptable in this regard, but the subsequent ones, and especially Heroes of Might and Magic 3.5, are quite different... The power-up buildings and creature dwellings are completely different, as if objects from several different, although related, computer games were mixed together. There is an abundance of weak units (of course, you can create many beautiful things in the campaign, but when generating a random map, the large number of creatures with a limited role is depressing). In general, the map of the adventure looks inadequate most of the time. Snow is replaced by green grass, then by volcanic craters. The type of monster does not depend on the ground it stands on. Therefore, during the clearing of territories, you have to deal with "guests" from completely different castles. For example, fighting water elementals on volcanic soil... In the fourth game, most of the randomly generated monsters correspond to the type of terrain, and the landscape looks harmonious. In the fifth game, there is a cartoonish style, excessive (in my opinion) brightness, and the potential of the graphics is clearly not used to the maximum. In the fourth game, on the contrary, the maximum possible was extracted from the outdated 3D simulation and isometric view. The maximum number of landscape objects, the maximum atmosphere, the maximum fantasy. Can any of the experienced map makers from the fourth game boast that they had to use all the landscape objects present in the game? For level design and map development, the fourth game has the best tools.
Как можно сделать мутную воду прозрачной? - Не трогай её, и она очистится сама. :smile04:
A large number of objects that are stylistically disharmonious with each other. This is in the third game. In my opinion, the first versions (The Restoration of Erathia, Armageddon's Blade) were still quite reasonable in this regard, but the subsequent ones, and especially Heroes of Might and Magic 3.5...
Well, hello, why bring Heroes of Might and Magic 3.5 into this as an argument?:confused: Heroes of Might and Magic 3.5 is not the third game as such, but the work of amateur enthusiasts. It may or may not be liked, but it should not be referred to when discussing the third game as such. I'll make my own add-on tomorrow with monstrously ugly monsters, and will that immediately discredit the original game?Tralosk
Therefore, during the clearing of territories, you have to deal with "guests" from completely different castles. For example, fighting water elementals on volcanic soil... In the fourth game, however, most randomly generated monsters correspond to the type of terrain, and the landscape looks harmonious.
Well, this is a bit of a stretch.:smile38: They are generated randomly in the fourth game as well. If that's the case, on what landscape, other than water, can water elementals look harmonious?:rolleyes: However, you won't encounter them on every map. They stand among the hummocks and bushes, gurgling, you see...
Tralosk, dear - why attack one of the games in order to praise another? The second, third, fourth, and fifth games are all good in their own way, and none of them has flaws that are monstrous enough to be considered a failure. Just look at our forum to see that each of the games in the series is loved.:smile01:
I don't intend to "attack" anyone. It's just my opinion that the fourth installment of Heroes of Might and Magic is the best. Because they are much more beautiful, stylistically consistent, more diverse in design, and more fantastical and epic than the others. This is just my personal opinion. So, if one set of heroes is more beautiful, does that mean the others are uglier? If one is more straightforward, does that mean the other is more crooked? And when I'm asked "why are they more crooked," I answer. But that doesn't mean that the third and fifth installments are inferior. I don't think so, and I haven't said that. It's just that the fourth is better, that's all.
Как можно сделать мутную воду прозрачной? - Не трогай её, и она очистится сама. :smile04:
I didn't expect anything from Heroes 4, as I didn't even know about its release. My first game was the third installment. And after that familiar third game, I looked at the fourth one :( I didn't like it for these reasons: 1. Few races, and even the names are silly. 2. I didn't like that troops can move without a hero. This means you can distribute ten imps into ten armies and have them collect all the easy loot, go to enemies and collect loot from them. 3. I really didn't like that there are very few creature levels (only 4, right?). 4. I didn't like the selection (of the last level). 5. I really didn't like the daily growth (it's just absurd). You can buy troops every day and send them to the hero. 6. There are fewer artifacts, and there are no composite artifacts at all. 7. After the third game, mixing troops in cities seemed ridiculous. 8. The battle has an idiotic mechanic - a ranged unit cannot shoot at an enemy unit if another unit is standing in front of it. 9. I didn't like the graphics - it's just garbage, not pseudo-3D. 10. The buildings inside the cities don't look good at all. If in the third game, as the city was built, each building complemented the others, then in the fourth game, the building pictures are just randomly stuck together.
1) I would ask you to refrain from using words like "idiotic," "crap," and other similar terms.
Now, regarding the topic at hand.
There are few factions, and the names are idiotic.
But each one is completely unique.
I didn't like the fact that troops can move around without a hero.
It turns out you can distribute ten imps among ten armies and have them collect all the free resources, go to enemies and collect their free resources.
That's exactly what people do. This speeds up development and eliminates the need to hire an extra hero to collect resources. And no one will let you collect resources from enemies;)
I really didn't like the fact that there are very few creature levels (only 4, right?)
But the choice compensates for this – there's something to think about.
I didn't like the choice (at the last level).
Do you prefer it when there is no choice?
I really didn't like the daily increase (it's just absurd).
You can buy troops every day and send them to the hero.
You can't send many, and you can wait 7 days and then buy them back, like in the third game.
There are fewer artifacts, and there are no assembled ones at all.
Actually, there are, they appear in the first add-on.
After the third game, mixing troops in cities seemed absurd.
In what sense? In the fourth game, morale also decreases. It just works a little differently, but in my opinion, it's more reasonable.
It's idiotic in battle – an archer can't shoot at an enemy unit if there's another unit in front of him.
In what way is this idiotic?
I didn't like the graphics – it's just crap, not pseudo-3D.
Well, that's your personal opinion, but as I wrote earlier, I would ask you to refrain from such statements.
Inside the cities, the buildings don't look good at all. If in the third game, as the city was built, each building complemented the others, then in the fourth game, the building images are simply stuck on top of each other.
Unlike other parts, the appearance of the city depends on the landscape of the map (a combination of soil type and buildings), and the image of the city on the map changes depending on its type (village, fort, Stronghold, Castle).
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
I was hoping for a breakthrough similar to the one between the second and third installments.
But I couldn't fully appreciate it (if there was any), because I had a 12-inch monitor or something.
Everything seemed very small and unclear, so I didn't end up playing them.
Когда я умер, небыло никого, кто бы это опроверг клан "Vampires" P.S. ...но против креста Я не пойду никогда...
I didn't expect anything from Heroes 4, as I didn't even know about its release. My first game was the third installment. And after that familiar third game, I looked at the fourth I didn't like it very much because: 1. There are few factions, and their names are ridiculous. 2. I didn't like the fact that troops can move without a hero. It turns out you can distribute ten imps into ten armies and go around collecting free loot, go to the enemies - collect their free loot. 3. I really didn't like that there are very few creature levels (only 4, right?). 4. I didn't like the choice (of the last level). 5. I really didn't like the daily growth (it's just absurd). You can buy troops every day and send them to the hero. 6. There are fewer artifacts, and there are no composite ones at all. 7. After the third game, mixing troops in cities seemed absurd. 8. It's idiotic in battle - a ranged unit cannot shoot at an enemy unit if another one is standing in front of it. 9. I didn't like the graphics - it's just crap, not pseudo-3D. 10. The buildings inside the cities don't look good at all. If in the third game, as the city was built, each building complemented the others, then in the fourth, the building pictures are just stuck on top of each other.
1. There are six factions in the fourth game, and eight in the third (initially). I don't see a big difference. Moreover, the storyline in the fourth game is the clearest, most definite, and most logical of all the Heroes games. It's always clear why, for example, Order is an ally of Death, or why Might doesn't get along with everyone. The campaigns in the very first version of the fourth game detail the reasons for the emergence of this particular world order - a six-polar one. How the refugees from the destroyed kingdoms of the old world - Erathia, Bracada, Avlee - found refuge in the new world, fought each other, and formed alliances... As for the "ridiculous" names, keep your opinion to yourself. No one needs your unpleasant IMHO. 2. The enemy will never be able to collect "free loot," because first, you need to break through the defense, and secondly, even the dumbest AI will actively defend itself against single imps. And the fact that troops can move without a hero is natural, given the daily growth in the castle and the presence of the fog of war. The fog of war is revealed by placing single, weak units on the border of your kingdom, and a dragon can fly out of the castle and find the hero's army. It's all logical. 3. But there is a choice. There are a total of eight completely different creatures in the castle. There were only seven in the third game. 4. Yes, you want everything at once and in large quantities? Titans and dragon golems right away, and then go and destroy enemy hydras with black dragons? In fact, the need to make a choice diversifies the game much more than the upgrades that were in the third game. Choice requires strategic thinking and the ability to predict the situation. 5. Who's asking? Most of the time, armies are not interested in accepting "reinforcements" of 2 hobbits, 2 gnomes, and 1 mage every day. As a rule, everyone buys troops as needed - when a serious battle is coming. And some units, such as the black dragon, only grow once a week. 6. I can also sit down and play the second game for five minutes, and then say that there are "not enough artifacts" there. You just didn't take the time to learn the game before criticizing it. In fact, the fourth game has a very rich collection of artifacts, as do all the other parts of Heroes. 7. What do you mean by "mixing"? Do you mean the ability to hire a hero of an allied faction, for example, playing as Chaos, and order a necromancer? 8. Well, in life, it's the same... why should we shoot through enemy units? Moreover, I'll immediately disappoint you: even many spells in the fourth game cannot be applied against an "covered" army that the mage cannot see. 9. I have nothing to say about that... I just think that Heroes 4 is the pinnacle of perfection in isometric and 3D simulation. Only a person without taste could say otherwise. 10. You're just not used to the interior design of the cities. It's no worse than any other series of Heroes. It's even a little better than in the third game - now the ground on which the city stands is displayed, which sometimes changes it beyond recognition. For example, the Academy of Order looks very interesting underground.
P.S.: I still feel that my post will not convince Zik68. If a person has decided that the fourth Heroes is wrong, then he will most likely remain with that opinion until the end of the Heroes series... or his own. Although such sharp reactions to the game are generally common... conservative people, accustomed to the third game, are often annoyed by the completely different order in the fourth. But you shouldn't say that this is a "completely different game." It's still Heroes, although it has been greatly transformed :smile12:
Как можно сделать мутную воду прозрачной? - Не трогай её, и она очистится сама. :smile04:
7. What do you mean by "mixing"? Do you mean the ability to hire a hero of an allied faction, for example, playing as Chaos, and order a Necromancer? ... 10. You're just not used to the interior design of the cities. It's no worse than any other game in the Heroes series.
7. Apparently, by "mixing" troops in cities, they mean rearranging them compared to previous versions. I, and probably not just me, also found it difficult to get used to Griffons in Sylvan and so on. 10. And the castles really look cheap. I've already written about this.
7. Apparently, "reshuffling" troops in cities refers to their rearrangement compared to previous versions. It was also difficult for me, and probably not just me, to get used to Griffons in the Sylvan faction, etc.
Oh, really. And the fact that in the second game, Griffons belonged to the Warlock faction (evil), and in the third game, they belonged to the Knight faction (good) – didn't that bother anyone? :rolleyes: In the third game, compared to the second, the reshuffling was much more significant (if necessary, I can list them all by name, but you'll get tired of reading my post :D), and nothing, everyone is playing.
And in general, I'm surprised by you all, why are you all answering so thoroughly to an openly rude post – or rather, not even a post, but an attack. The person won't understand: he just doesn't like the fourth game, and judging by the tone of the post, he has much more intolerance than years lived. But of course, you can answer him point by point... but I don't feel like it. Seriously. :smile01:
Oh, really? But the fact that griffins were available to Warlocks (evil faction) in the second game, and to Knights (good faction) in the third game, didn't bother anyone?... And I'm generally surprised by you all, why you answer so detailed to an openly rude post - or rather, not even a post, but an attack.
It bothered me too, but I didn't get used to it right away. And sometimes attacks are justified, what can you do?
Lord Vampire
