What is your opinion about Heroes IV? Auto-translated

By the way, it makes sense regarding the skills. I hadn't thought about that before.

regarding the comparison of the 3rd and 4th installments, if anyone else wants to do it, start by comparing WAR3TFT and:D :smile12: :smile20: WoW.

I started playing the second Heroes game a long time ago, then the third one came out, and I played it, then the fourth one came out, and I played it. In other words, I played them all and skipped classes in school to do so :D. Only with the release of the fourth game did I stop going to school. In general, I tried them all. I like the fourth one the most; the interface is simpler, the buttons are conveniently placed, everything is neat and beautiful, the graphics are great, and I think the magic system was improved, and the castles were better distributed. Of course, the AI is a bit dumb. I installed the fifth one, played it, and deleted it; 3D isn't for Heroes :o, and it's not just that...
In general, the fourth one is the best, I just wish there were more XL maps.

I started playing Heroes 3 and 2 almost at the same time. Heroes 3 had just been released. Then I got hooked on Heroes 4. After that, I played through all the campaigns of Heroes 1 just to get acquainted with it. It turns out that heroes like Crag Hack and Yog are real veterans. They were already in the first Heroes game! The fifth game is also decent, but it lacks something, some kind of soul. Today, the fourth Heroes game still evokes a lot of enthusiasm.

The fourth installment is the best, while the third one is disappointing. It's a hundred times better than the third. The lack of upgrades (meaning you don't even need to worry about aging while developing your city :-)), a huge number of spells (enough to fill all the shelves of a vast library), tactics (skills, building choices, simultaneous attacks, and so much more), and finally, ultra-mega heroes participating in battles. That's why I love it. What's your opinion? In my opinion, it's the best game in the series, period.

In my opinion, this is the best game in the series, and it's precisely because of the presence of heroes on the battlefield. Combining the features and skills of heroes is a very interesting activity. The army generally takes a backseat because a combination of powerful heroes can defeat any army in Heroes 4. The game's strength also lies in the fact that your skills really matter, and it's not just luck (lol, 200 wyverns joined me). If you want, you can defeat an army 1000 times larger than yours. + Heroes on the battlefield. + Extremely interesting Campaigns. + The ability to choose a castle upgrade path. + All hero abilities are very useful. + Reasonable limitations on necromancy, summoning, and diplomacy. + Beautiful and diverse creatures (the Black Dragon is a masterpiece). + Reasonable morality and luck system. + The most user-friendly interface of all the Heroes games. + Very beautiful music. + Each creature has abilities. - Cities are poorly drawn and not epic. - 4 levels of creatures, and they cannot be upgraded. - Few assembled artifacts. - Generic heroes without special abilities. - Stupid AI. - Weak balance between some races. - Not all castles have a full set of "their" abilities. ----- NO MAP GENERATOR!!! In principle, this is really a slightly different game with a greater emphasis on RPG.

I really like this part; it’s truly very interesting and worth paying attention to. Considering that the project was released during a financial crisis and was, essentially, unfinished, I rate it 5 out of 5. The game is very good and even evokes nostalgia, bringing back pleasant memories...

I enjoyed it; it was fun to play as Lysander.

Generally, I played the fourth game the most – much more than the other parts. And, accordingly, I liked it more. Firstly, the graphics are beautiful compared to the third game, and I don’t like the maps in the fifth part. But in the fourth game, the maps are picturesque, and I really want to send my hero on his horse across them. The combat system is more well-thought-out and interesting. As Thorimdark said, the combination of skills and its development is a very interesting thing, although all the heroes lost their individuality because of this. Instead, the developers wrote a kind of biography for each hero – here you can see the efforts of the authors and their soulful approach to the task. In general, it’s a very atmospheric and interesting game (the main emphasis is on conducting battles, so the developers probably didn’t finish the cities properly).

I really liked Heroes 4, it's much better than Heroes 3.

I didn't like it. Compared to the third installment, it's like night and day. The crude, pseudo-3D models, after the beautifully and artistically drawn 2D graphics of the third game, and the screeching music that you won't want to listen to for long. Yes, some of the ideas are interesting, but they are terribly implemented; it feels like they had six-year-old children sitting in the studio all the time, controlling the process: "Let the heroes fight too! They will be the coolest, they will be just SUPERHEROES!!!!" And it's all in that spirit. You can play it for a little while out of curiosity, but it definitely won't stand the test of time.

The main drawback of the fourth installment is that it was not fully developed, but I am sure that if the developers had more time and resources, it would have been a great game. The ideas were excellent – to avoid having players manage armies with heroes, and instead allow them to send the heroes themselves, and to have multiple heroes in an army (why not, after all, the game is called HEROES, and they should be the center of attention). The races were divided into strictly categorized factions – strength, nature, life, death, chaos, and order – I like this arrangement better. And the ability for heroes to participate in battles themselves. There are many positive aspects. And in general, I respect this part the most because it was created by the original creators of the Heroes series; they know best what to do with it, unlike Nival Interactive with the fifth installment – they made it purely for commercial reasons (although it is also a colorful and engaging game).

The main drawback of the fourth installment of Heroes of Might and Magic is... the heroes. Why bother with troops when you can carry a group of heroes and crush everyone?
The fifth game is better, yes. It's more polished and enjoyable.

The main drawback, in my opinion, is the fans of other installments. Nothing personal, it's just my opinion.

Well, you can defeat an army with just a few heroes, but only if those heroes are well-leveled, which isn't easy to achieve. It requires a lot of investment in terms of resources and time, potentially more than it would take to build an army. That's where the balance lies. So, the game is essentially saying: improve, players, level up your heroes – they are the most important thing... Although, it's frustrating when these under-leveled heroes constantly die in battles and you have to revive them again and again.