Posts from - What are the drawbacks of Heroes 3? (What didn't you like about it?)

At least someone supported me....
At least one reasonable person!!!!!
:D :D :D :D :D :D

Alan tried to discuss not the fourth game, but the fourth game in comparison with the third (advantages - disadvantages), so as not to go off-topic.
If this discussion is off-topic, I ask the moderators not to delete it, but to move it to the appropriate topic.
Comparing the graphics of the third and fourth games: the perspective of the fourth game, the detail of the objects in the fourth game, the animation of the map, the "drawing" - if you want - in these aspects, the fourth game is clearly superior to the third.

and what if I take a Barbarian hero and a Ranger hero from different factions, and they are the same... and where is the point of different heroes?? only in their faces?? and then it will be a mess...

there is still a difference between them: in the priorities at the early stage of developing warfare.
But I agree, the "combat" heroes are largely similar (but, I emphasize, even here there are differences between different factions) - and that's it. This is clearly not enough to consider it a disadvantage of the system.

but the uniqueness of each is much more pronounced

I haven't played the fifth game much (my computer can barely run it, unfortunately), so I won't claim anything, but to say that the uniqueness of each school is not pronounced enough in the fourth game is very misleading.
It is enough. Each school is unique and interesting, even if the lower levels are sometimes filled with similar spells.
Moreover, since we are closer to the topic, we are comparing it with the third game (which I was doing at the beginning). The system of schools in the third game (division by elements) is noticeably inferior, as it does not add anything significant and fundamentally new to the system created by the second game.

The problem is that in one game it looked organic due to the different scales of the hero's army and one castle... and in Heroes, it's an attached wheel that, for the most part, lacks alternative buildings (I advise you to read the relevant topic before saying that different things are built in different situations)... in my opinion, the lack of upgrades is a problem... but no one forbade capturing and developing both castles for an income of 1500...

in the latest versions of Heroes, the "fork" looks very good (which ones have you played?).
Why is the lack of upgrades a problem?
You can develop a city to 3000 or 5000 per day - it all depends on how you develop it.

Once again, not to notice the successful developments of the fourth game is wrong. The third game loses in many ways, and this does not mean that it does not have its own advantages and that I do not like it. I wrote my last messages only to convey this thought - and this is by no means off-topic (although I repeat, if the moderators see it differently, move our discussion with Alan to a more appropriate topic in your opinion).

Added 3 minutes ago
About the magic of the third game: I meant that it "does not fundamentally differ" from the system of the second game.

We will keep arguing:
HMM3 VS HMM4
if you want to argue, please use the appropriate section:
Forward!!! to victory!!!!

"The advantages and disadvantages of HoMM III compared to other versions" - in this case, this is exactly what we are discussing, but specifically for a particular version. The discussion is within the topic, but if the moderators disagree, see my previous message. ))

Okay, stay...
Although I still think that if Heroes of Might and Magic IV had been released later, and with less drastic changes (see my second-to-last post), it wouldn't have killed 3DO, which could have given us something great from the Heroes of Might and Magic series.

It's unknown what she might have given us, but no one argues that the fourth installment is also a masterpiece of the gaming world... there are just more fans of the third game.

I believe that comparing the graphics of Heroes of Might and Magic III with other versions is not entirely accurate, as progress never stops, and later games are naturally more visually appealing. However... I personally prefer 2D graphics over 3D.

:smile30: In Heroes of Might and Magic III, the only thing I didn't like was the Conflux castle, which was introduced in the second part.

I think that Heroes of Might and Magic III is perfect)) and everything in it is top-notch)). Forgive me for my optimism.

There's also Heroes 3.5 WOG... But... the improved hippos are pretty cool there... :D And honestly, the third game is perfect... It doesn't have some "unnecessary" skills (like in the fifth game), and it doesn't have particularly controversial decisions that cast doubt on its similarity to previous games in the series (like the fourth Heroes game - forgive me, fans!!!!!), and the music is 75/25 (in a positive direction, of course).

Yes!!! In the 5th game, the only problem is that it doesn't work for some players. But the 3rd game is perfect!!!

Yes!!! The only problem with Heroes 5 is that it doesn't run on some computers. But Heroes 3 is perfect!!!

Did you read the title of the topic????? What does Heroes 5 have to do with it????? And at the time of Heroes 3's release, believe me, it didn't run on everyone's computer either....

Alan, I'm comparing Heroes of Might and Magic III with other games in the series. That's why Heroes of Might and Magic V is relevant here.

Well, Tim17 is essentially right, "Truth is revealed through comparison"...

Alan And at the time of the release of Heroes of Might and Magic III, believe me, it didn't run smoothly on everyone's computers....
lol, I remember that time, I remember when the first Pentium processors appeared... :)

Well... silly question, I liked everything!...Heroes of Might and Magic III forever!