Posts from Which Might and Magic universe are you referring to?

They did the right thing, and it was logical; I'm not arguing with that. The problem is that this is still what they are being criticized for.
Sincerely.

They did it wrong and illogically, like idiots. And it's very sad that some people have convinced themselves of nonsense like "developing the history of the old world would mean coming up with another Reckoning," which doesn't follow from anything. And, funnily enough, the people who say this mostly admit that Ubisoft wouldn't have the creative ability or imagination to properly continue the story (without the need for a "new Reckoning"), while at the same time defending the world they created as a replacement.

P.S. All four points are a load of nonsense in the parts that concern the old universe, full of misconceptions. Probably due to a lack of familiarity with it. If you're interested, I'll answer each one separately later.

Interesting.
But, again, I don't see the point in opening a poll in the first place – it's obvious that Might and Magic will win, not Arcomage, and are you going to ruin the latter even more? Guys, this is ridiculous.

It's very sad that some people have convinced themselves of nonsense like "developing the story of the old world would mean coming up with another Reckoning," which doesn't follow from anything.

If the authors of the old universe have stooped to this level, then no one else will do better. And the principle of a long series is also important here: Ubisoft decided not to make a heroic Santa Barbara, is that a bad thing? Everyone knows that in these series, as well as in full-length films consisting of several parts, each new series is dumber than the previous one, even if it initially captivates.

But, again, I don't see the point in opening a poll in the first place – it's obvious that Might & Magic will win, not Arcomage, and ruin the latter even more? Guys, that's just funny.

I don't see what led to such a judgment. In this thread alone, many people have expressed their sympathy for Arcomage.

Ubisoft decided not to make a "Heroes" version of Santa Barbara. Is that a bad thing?

Is it? In my opinion, Santa Barbara with only Griffons in Ashan is quite challenging.

"Quite a few people have posted in this thread, expressing their fondness for Ashan."
I was bothered by the fact that Ashan was called a "small world." But Ashan is only about five years old. And Might & Magic has been around for twenty-five years. Feel the difference. Frankly, judging by the release chronology of Might & Magic, the world of the Ancients was only just beginning to take shape at that time – there was no sign of Enroth.
P.S. Okay, if Ashan is Ashan, then Enroth is Enros, and Axeot is Axeos. Sorry, just a burst of emotion.

Really? In my opinion, the Ashan map with only Griffons is quite challenging.

Well, yes, the sixth map is like that :) But I'm not taking it into account, there are many other strange things in it.

No, it wasn't just the sixth installment; even in the original fifth game, before CoH and DM, there were quite a few issues. And these games only made things worse.

I liked the story told in Heroes of Might and Magic V; it was interesting.

Why dredge up the past? The old world, old stories... Who cares about that?

Why dredge up the past? The old world, old stories... Who's interested in that?

You might as well say that in a group of DnD players.

I don't like the storylines in the Heroes of Might and Magic games at all; none of them have stuck with me. They're all just clichés about enslavement and revenge. Maybe it's because the heroes, who lose and destroy tens of thousands of troops, stand there with poker faces, looking at a fallen tree and contemplating their difficult fate, which doesn't seem very convincing. This is especially true for the fifth installment, where at least there are decent scripts during the missions. In other games, the storyline is generally vague and very generic. It's not surprising, because I think the way the storyline is presented in this series is inherently flawed. Spending half a day traversing a large map just to get three sentences of text about some supposed storyline seems completely pointless. It's a mismatch between the effort expended and the result obtained. Also, there's something inherently wrong with trying to inject a "pretentious" storyline into a game like this. In King's Bounty, for example, the entire "storyline" consists of the king sending you to find an artifact, which can be found on the map, with pieces of it held by powerful bosses. So you wander around the map, fight through neutral creatures, collect various bonuses, and build up your army as a tool. I like this kind of game; it's self-contained. The point of the game is the game itself. But what about Heroes of Might and Magic? The attempt to give meaning to the actions is too cumbersome. In reality, I doubt that even half of the players complete the Campaigns, and some never even start them, because you either choose or generate an interesting map and play on it. You complete the map, you defeat everyone, you collect treasures, you get a line in the high score table, all the women are yours, and you have a good time. Maps have descriptions and can even have small, amusing events that break up the otherwise monotonous Gameplay. But what about the Campaign? In which you do absolutely the same thing, but over several maps with the same hero, who is no different from a random character in a skirmish, because he doesn't do or say anything, or with the same castle, receiving a rudimentary, sparse briefing between scenarios that doesn't even come close to being a scripted scene (inb4 limitations of old games), and consists mainly of statements like "you defeated the enemy, clear the next map"? Given the nature of the game, in which you can't do anything except collect resources and engage in endless battles, the Campaign doesn't offer anything Gameplay-wise compared to a single map, and any influence on the storyline is felt only slightly more than in Snake or Tetris. There are games in which the storyline is the main focus, primarily obvious RPGs; in them, you can't play any other way. And then there's Heroes of Might and Magic, in which you play for the process, not to find out that your flawless actions have helped you move on to the next map, where you'll start all over again. I hope my point is clear. This is just my personal opinion.

The old universe isn't limited to just the Heroes games (just like Auchan isn't), even though I'm tired of repeating that. And I wouldn't agree that the previous installments (before the fifth) had a poor storyline. The main difference is that the story was presented through text, and with that kind of presentation, you either follow the plot and read the texts, or you don't.

The storyline in Heroes 1 isn't great, but there's not much of it there anyway. Although, on the other hand, the letters from Morglin Ironfist in the manual are written very well.

The old universe isn't limited to the Heroes series (just like Auchan), even though I'm tired of repeating this.

This is perfectly clear to everyone. The discussion was about which universe is preferable, and the arguments revolved around the storylines of different parts of the Heroes series. My opinion, as described above, is subjective, as stated in the last sentence of the post.

Here, the main presentation was in text form, and with such a presentation, whether you like it or not, if you want to follow the plot, you need to read the texts.

That's a bit of a stretch. In this specific case, as a brief but relevant analogy, one could recall, say, the Legacy of Kain series. Many people like the first Soul Reaver, and I personally like it much more than the second, but despite this, I would absolutely agree that it has almost no plot compared to other parts. I accept this fact freely, regardless of my love for the game series and the game universe, as I try to evaluate it objectively. I'm not saying that the back-and-forth in Zelda-like locations has a deep philosophical subtext, references to the smallest details, or reveals complex plot lines, and that to understand it, you need to not mindlessly run and jump, but carefully construct a diagram of the plot on paper. Isn't that right?