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

But the Inquisitor is a spiritual continuation of the European Catholic medieval inquisitors-killers: ] There are no radical differences, except for the fantastical nature of the world itself.

I, however, want not inquisitors-killers, but mysterious monks:rolleyes:

HERE’S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY: In Heroes of Might and Magic III, the developers had imagination, but lacked the technology. In Heroes of Might and Magic V, they have the technology, but it seems their imagination has run dry... Oh, if they had the resources back then! All other installments are unnecessary; you can't make them any better! :) :)

I agree, because WOG emerged at that time, largely based on "Heroes of Might and Magic III".

THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO SAY: in Heroes 3, the developers had imagination, but lacked the technology; in Heroes 5, they have the technology, but it seems their imagination has run dry... oh, if they had the resources back then – they could have skipped all the other installments, because you can't make anything better! :) :)

Well, if we're going to talk about it, then "back then" refers to the time of Heroes 2. That's when they took the world by storm – few people played the first part, but the second became a hit of all time... And the third, fourth, and then fifth parts were already anticipated and supported by legions of fans.

By the way, the Nival Interactive team really lacks imagination. No matter how you look at it, the castles of Humans, Elves (Light), Mages, Demons, and Necromancers are practically copied from Heroes 3. Don't tell me that by swapping the griffin and the swordsman, the developers changed the castle.
And for the Mages – do Rakshasas and Nagas have even a couple of fundamental differences? Well, at least in the number of arms, right? :p
The Elves removed the Gnomes – and that's something to be thankful for, considering the complex relationship between these races in all fantasy worlds, and otherwise... they even took the Fairies and Druids, which is also not the developers' idea – it's from the second part of the game, sorry.
Replacing the Black Knights with Undead in the Necropolis is too little to consider it a significantly changed castle.
The Demons, of course, have completely different Cave Lords, and the Nightmares and Succubi refresh the set of creatures. But at the same time, the Imps, which still steal mana, the Cerberuses, which are just as useless (despite the explosion), the Demon – a unit for the sake of having one, they had to come up with something, but they couldn't – and the Devils, which left all players puzzled: what are they supposed to do? A lump of meat that can't do anything special (summoning the Lord is a one-time thing for the entire battle, and I'm talking about such perks as attacking multiple squads, retaliation, etc. – in general, about what the unit does constantly).
By the way, the Succubi caused some confusion. Considering that they are demons who seduce men and feed on their life and sexual energy, they behave rather strangely when attacking men's hearts... with fire to the face – BAM! :eek: In Disciples, they were more adequate – they didn't beat anyone up, at least. Although the retaliatory shot is a good idea, at least it's fresh.
Yes, and one more thing... in general, the Succubi and Demonesses here are quite attractive, but if they are going to seduce mortal men... then it would be nice if they at least shaved their legs. :p

I'm glad to see posts like this... First, people were yelling and jumping at Nival's door for two years, demanding "give us the third Heroes game"... and now it turns out they lack imagination... and the fact that new abilities appeared, etc., is just a minor detail. By the way, NWC didn't show much imagination either, cloning four castles without changes from the first game into the second.

Alan, thanks for the support! :)

gamehuntera, well, you don't seem to care how they look from a canonical point of view; I do. By the way, I also like them much more aesthetically than in 3 or 4. And they die very beautifully in 5.

This is just my personal opinion, and there are as many opinions as there are people; I believe that Heroes 5 is a 3D version of Heroes 3!

But do the Rakshasa and Naga units for the Wizard faction have at least a couple of fundamental differences? At least in the number of hands, right? :p

By the way, I noticed an interesting oversight in the description of the Rakshasa princesses; it says that they have a "many-handed" attack, when in fact they only have 2 hands!:D That is, they were originally planned as pure Nagas, only in the form of cats (which, by the way, I thank the developers for:)). In Heroes 5, only the Rajahs have six hands.

In fact, there is nothing to criticize the Nivalis team for – at least their artists – for their lack of imagination. They took and completely reworked several castles – they moved the Wizards to 1001 Nights, they finally made the Elves officially Elves (and not nature or sorceresses), and I won't even talk about what they did with the Warlocks... They completely revamped the world (I'm talking about the scriptwriters). No, they have imagination!

And, by the way, I would like to see what all the hardcore fans would say if Nivalis really made new races instead of the old ones....:D:D:D

gamehuntera, well, you don't care how they look from a canonical point of view; I do. By the way, I also like them aesthetically much more than in 3 or 4. And they die very beautifully in 5.

But I don't like them. No, if you look at the composition as a whole, it's still tolerable. But when you see, say, a sword. A sword! But what kind of sword is that! It's a ritual staff, darn it. To bless water.

Or the hood, the facial features. Anime has no place in Heroes : (

The only good thing is that the textures are pretty good. But the style just doesn't work.

the difference is that the third game is perceived as a complete work of art; it's immediately obvious that people made it with love. It has a certain spirit. But the fifth game is just about making money.

Interestingly, I see it completely differently!
In my opinion, only 2 games were made with genuine passion. What an atmosphere!
The third, in my opinion, is purely about money. The fourth one too. But the fifth game, to some extent, returns to the traditions of the second... The developers wouldn't have introduced so many details or developed the world (notice that in the fifth game, a cohesive and quite extensive world was created for ONE game; in the third, the world was used for a whole bunch of games, including the Might and Magic RPG) if they hadn't put their heart into it. And they would have kept a whole bunch of old heroes – fans would have shed tears of gratitude for new adventures of Sandro or Crag Hack.

Still, there is one point that I personally find hard to argue with: Heroes 3 is a logical evolution of Heroes 1 and 2 (unfortunately, not King's Bounty, whose gameplay is still considered unsurpassed, despite the disastrously outdated graphics). Furthermore, Heroes 3 became the peak of turn-based strategy evolution at the time (even though NWC moved away from the King's Bounty gameplay). Do Heroes 5 represent at least an approximate similar phenomenon? Unlikely (IMHO). Something was taken from Heroes 3, something from Disciples... in general, it's quite modern, but predictable and unremarkable, although it is interesting in its own way, undoubtedly.

Any game is worth the money! And as for minor details, they are being implemented everywhere now.

I don't know about predictability... maybe I'm just not very bright, but I imagined the 5 heroes to be COMPLETELY different...
And Heroes 3 just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and it was already a well-established brand; around the same time, Age of Wonders came out, a unique game of its kind, with amazing ideas and much better than Heroes! But it didn't succeed because all fans of turn-based strategy games were busy playing Heroes 3...

In general, I would rank my priorities (in descending order) in the Heroes series like this: 5, 2, 3, 1.

Added after 41 seconds
But I completely agree that Heroes 3 is an evolution of Heroes 2 and 1.

2 Ganymed and everyone who shares the same opinion... I've written about this many times, so I'll be brief.


Don't you understand how the gaming market has changed since the release of King's Bounty?
Back then, computers were mainly for programmers and people somehow connected to the computer business, i.e., very logical and educated people... It was absurd to imagine in 1992-93 that someone would buy a computer solely for a child to play games... It's not surprising that shooters as a mass-market genre developed much later than quests, old-school RPGs, and tactical strategies (maybe you remember Panzer General and similar games). But when technology started to develop rapidly, prices fell, and many programs appeared to make it easier to interact with PCs (because not many 10-14 year olds had the strength to master the MS-Dos command line), then the development of more dynamic game genres began... Now, there are quite a lot of casual players, in a good sense of the word. And they occupy a fairly large part of the market, and if a game is not aimed at them, at least partially, then it will simply fail in sales. Plus, again, we should not forget about the development of consoles, which are now practically indistinguishable from PCs in terms of technical capabilities, and what games are popular among console gamers. After all, most current projects are multi-platform...

Well, in general, I've written about this many times, and I hope it's clear now.