Posts from - Comparison of creatures from Heroes 5 with creatures in Heroes 3.

If we're talking about aesthetics, both are good...
It just doesn't make sense to compare the Sylvan elves from parts 3 and 5. THESE ARE DIFFERENT STYLES! Part 3 is more similar to parts 1 and 2, while part 5 is closer to Disciples 2 and Warcraft...
Personally, I like the appearance of the creatures in both parts, but I believe that in part 5 they focused on RACES and a few monsters, while in part 3 they focused on monsters, united into one city-race...

And you know what...
Heroes 3 is closer to a fairy tale.
Heroes 5 is a grim fantasy...

For me, the creatures from Heroes of Might and Magic V are still better. I don't know why, but I like them more...
P.S.: This doesn't mean I've stopped liking the creatures from Heroes of Might and Magic III!:D

I love the creatures from Heroes of Might and Magic V! They are definitely better and more cleverly designed, considering which creatures should be placed in which castle.

I like some of them selectively. Regarding the most "controversial" creatures:

Djinn - I like Nival's idea, but I can't objectively evaluate 3D models of this quality.
Gargoyles - I like the "furniture" versions. At least they aren't the stretched-out gargoyles from Heroes 2 and the incomprehensible little devils from Heroes 3. A gargoyle should be as compact and hunched as possible, and its entire appearance should remind you that it's made of stone. Do you feel the "stone" in Heroes 3? I don't believe it...
Mages - these snotty old men who sneeze and wipe their noses every two minutes. They look like old junk dealers from some Arabian tale, and they probably came from there. They are one of the few characters that I really(!) like in Heroes 5. I respect Nival. In Heroes 3, they are a rather standardized character (especially the white-bearded archmage).
Cerberuses - in Heroes 5, they are lizards, not dogs. I don't like the body, but I like the head.
Peasants - they were disliked in Heroes 3, and they are still disliked in Heroes 5. Apparently, things aren't so bad in the kingdom, since we see fat people with slightly dull faces who have grown bellies. In my opinion, the ideal peasant (if we consider the series as a whole) is the one from Heroes 2, but compared to the "collective farm women" from Heroes 3, the version offered in Heroes 5 is quite good. At least you can tell they are men.
Devils - are these hunchbacks in armor the same well-built, handsome devils from Heroes 3? I don't believe it... xDDD I somehow initially mistook them for ogres. A big minus to the designers of Heroes 5.
Vampires - I don't understand why these creatures must necessarily look like Dracula from the "Van Helsing" movie with Hugh Jackman... After all, their animalistic faces from Heroes 3 look much more original.
Liches - a solid 5+ for Heroes 5. Not so much for the appearance, but for the special effects and animation (the close-range dagger attack...). In Heroes 3, liches are ragged princesses. )))

they became more appealing, in my opinion, of course:
Griffins - here, the graphics are delightful, reminiscent of the fifth installment.
Angels - one of the most beautiful creatures in the game, I like them much more than in the third game.
Goblins - ears, a hat, and a mortar in their hands. This is much better than a cap and a weight.
Mages - now these are real mages. A scroll, a turban on their head... everything is as it should be.
Djinn - quite original, some may like it, and I do.
Titans - in this case, I prefer the fifth installment; they look more convincing.
Devils - also beautiful, especially their faces.
Ghosts - this is where the beauty lies. The ghosts from the third game are nervously smoking in the corner...
Liches - it's a mixed bag here. But they look good.
Wyverns - much better than some incomprehensible green mass.
Cyclops - size and a club in their hands. This is a real cyclops, not a beaten-up goblin with a cobblestone in its paws.
Ugliness:
Gargoyle - so much has been said about it that I won't repeat myself. In short, they ruined the monster :(.
Ents - also quite ugly.
Golems - they looked cooler in the third game, even though they were a pile of scrap metal, but they were appealing, unlike this.
Unicorns - in the fifth game, they are just awful. In the third game, they had some nobility. But here? Just a horse from the Puszcza Białowieska forest. Nothing more.
Zombies - something big and stinky. Logically, yes, but I don't like their appearance at all.
Minotaurs - from princes to paupers. They were kings, but now they are slaves. They used to be my favorite creatures, but not in the fifth game.
Dragons - a completely separate story. Just plain ugly. A banal lizard with wings.

In my opinion, the creatures in the third game look better. Even with good graphics quality, everything seems blurry in the fifth game.
I think it would be good to compare the dragons, especially. In the third game, they look like dragons, albeit in a slightly unkempt way. But in the fifth game, they look like beautifully made lizards with wings (especially the green ones).
But in general, comparing games from different eras, with different concepts and technical capabilities, is difficult.

You know...
Heroes 3 is closer to a fairy tale.
Heroes 5 is a harsh fantasy...

That's true... And I noticed something else...
The developers of Heroes 5 were probably big Tolkien fans or just fantasy enthusiasts, which is why they divided everyone so clearly. Elves with elves, dark creatures with dark creatures (a lot of attention is given to the long-eared ones), and they even managed to split one single creature (a dwarf) into 7 (!!!) pieces and create a whole new race. :eek:
I'm against such a rigid division; it's a cheap trick. In Heroes 3, elves and dwarves somehow managed to coexist, and it was normal, even original, if you think about it, what a diverse group of people they are.
That is, the fact that elves are with elves, and dwarves are with dwarves is, of course, good, logical, and correct from the point of view of fantasy basics, but is it interesting? original?
It's easiest to take something from elsewhere and put it into the game, but not everyone can come up with some unusual moves.

I like the monsters in Heroes of Might and Magic III more, even though the graphics in Heroes of Might and Magic V are better; the monsters in the latter seem unattractive.

I think CONSERVATISM plays a huge role here for many forum users. You are used to playing your favorite Heroes 3, and all the new features are perceived aggressively by you. I, for example, started with Heroes 5. I liked it very much, and I wanted to see the classics, so I started playing Heroes 3. The first impression was simply terrible. The creatures seemed so ugly, and the graphics were so poor! Then I got a little used to it, but to say that the creatures in Heroes 3 are better drawn is, frankly, complete nonsense.

I really enjoyed it, so I wanted to revisit the classics and started playing Heroes 3. My first impression was simply terrible. The creatures seemed so ugly, and the graphics were so poor.

But why compare the graphics of games created at different times? If anything, it's better to compare ideas and concepts, but not the technical implementation.

I guess I'll do a little comparing myself, just for fun.

Humans
The helmet on the upgraded griffons in the 5th game detracts from them:( The un-upgraded ones look like a good continuation of the concept of this monster from the 3rd game.

The knights (also known as crusaders) in the 5th game turned out to be more generic, but still beautiful. (Although their power was significantly reduced:rolleyes:)

The monks in both games are somehow not quite right. At least the upgraded ones. The un-upgraded ones look decent.

The cavalry is better in the 3rd game (upgraded).

But the angels in the 5th game were designed brilliantly:)

Elves or Rampart

I liked the archers more in the 3rd game, largely because the first upgrade in the 5th game resembles Rambo soldiers more than fantasy characters.

It's a pity that there are no pegasi in the 5th game....such a great unit:( :o

Unicorns...

Unicorns are just awful in the 5th game. In the 3rd game, they had some nobility. But here? They're just a Prozhivalsky mare. Nothing more.

And there's nothing more to add...

The dragons in the 5th game didn't turn out as well as the other units.

Wizards (last, because I don't feel like writing anymore:) )

The gargoyles are probably better in the 5th game than in the 3rd, although they don't look that great on their own...

The golems...well, they're okay in both games, they'll do:) In my opinion, in the 5th game, they're just redrawn versions of the ones from the 3rd.

The mages...just average

The djinns. In general, in my opinion, the best djinns were in the 2nd game(!:eek:), in the 5th game, the headless version just doesn't work.

Giants and titans. In the 5th game, they simply look better due to the graphics. There's really nothing new to add about them, in my opinion.

That's how I killed half an hour:D

What are you talking about? We have two amazing games! Which one is better? Both are great! And the creatures in both look fantastic :) :) :) :) :)

Of course, comparing Heroes of Might and Magic V and Heroes of Might and Magic III is like comparing a musket and a crossbow – both are designed for the same purpose but were created at different times and in different ways. Heroes of Might and Magic III, despite its graphics, appealed to me with its atmosphere, while Heroes of Might and Magic V offers a new perspective and an improved version of the old. To each their own.

H3 uses sprite graphics, what kind of detailed rendering are you talking about? :smile04: But in general, I think the unit design (we're discussing this aspect, not just the graphics?) and everything else is one of the strongest aspects of the third game.

Generally, I like almost everything. I'll try to compare and point out what I didn't like:
In the fifth game, I didn't like the goblins; they were clearly better in the third.
Also, in the fifth game, I didn't like the hellhounds; the dogs in the third game were somehow more vibrant.
I didn't like the Devil in the fifth game either. He has some kind of unserious club :-)
The ghosts are better in the fifth game. They should be like that, incorporeal.
The zombies are better in the third game. In the fifth game, they look like piles of crap, and they're also green.
Well, that's it. I can't think of anything else right now. If I remember something, I'll write it.