Posts from What were your expectations for Heroes 4?

Actually, I didn't expect the heroes to be so replayable – as regular units – in a way, this is wrong, because heroes are precisely the primary targets for enemy archers... and they die quickly. :( Furthermore, even after winning, it looks strange – the creatures wander around with the coffin of their leader – in reality, they would, of course, but not for so long – and they also rush into battle against enemies.
The death of a hero is quite unsettling and significantly weakens the army, especially considering that the spells in the fourth game are powerful! :rolleyes:
The choice of creatures initially pleased me, but then it became annoying that you can't have both at the same time. Furthermore, it's a pity that the developers didn't come up with a system for arranging troops like in the fifth game – this would help to protect the hero from archers by placing slow units to shield him, and fast units much closer to the enemy's front lines.
Furthermore, simultaneous attacks – so to speak, you can't avoid losses – is a bit annoying.
Also, the ability of the minotaur to completely deflect attacks with a certain probability is questionable – it's interesting, but deflecting the attack of a stronger creature – in particular, the breath of the Black Dragon – is nonsense or a flaw.
Everything else looks quite realistic

The fourth game is a good one! Of course, if you forget about the third one;)
And the campaigns in "The Succession Wars" are very good, in my opinion! They are interesting and quite challenging - especially the last one! And there's no point in arguing about which castles should house which creatures - if you're not used to something, it doesn't mean it's bad!
The only downside is the lack of reconnaissance... Sometimes you don't have enough time:(((

Again, just my opinion. I don't claim to be right and I respect yours, Alex Ghost. This is how I see it... the innovations of the 4th installment:

Actually, I didn't expect the heroes to be so replayable - as ordinary units - in a way, this is wrong - because heroes are the primary targets for enemy archers... and they die quickly.

This is both the essence and the highlight at the same time. The hero is a participant in the battle, a participant in the events. He doesn't stand aside and do nothing. He is responsible for his army and for himself. It won't be easy to take down a hero who is well-equipped. In the early game, use the "Immortality" potion. The army, in turn, doesn't stand still and constantly distracts attention from the hero.

Furthermore, even after a victory, it looks strange - the creatures wander around with the coffin of their leader - in reality, of course, they would, but not for so long - and they also rush into battle against the enemies.

Well, they don't wander around... why would they wander? Let them go to the Castle, there should always be a hero there. If not, hire a new one. You can't do without a hero. There's no point in fighting monsters.

Furthermore, it's a pity that the developers didn't come up with a system for arranging troops, like in the 5th installment - this would help against archers - you could place slow units to protect the hero from arrows, and fast units closer to the enemy's front lines.

Well, it's already similar. You can also place the hero on the rear flank, covering him with someone from the front. Archers are generally better kept in the rear. They will even just get in the way of other warrior units...

Another questionable aspect is the minotaur's ability to completely reflect attacks with some probability - it's interesting, but to reflect the attack of a stronger creature - in particular, the Black Dragon's breath - is nonsense or a bug.

Honestly... my minotaur has never reflected the Black Dragon's breath. Maybe because I don't remember playing Chaos against Chaos :D

Everything is good in the 4th part! :cool: It's just a matter of personal preference! :cool:
Personally, I like the 4th part more than the 3rd! :D But I don't dismiss the 3rd part either! :D :cool:

The initial impression wasn't great, but two things helped.
1. One teacher said, "The first impression is almost always misleading. As you interact more, it almost always changes."
2. Someone said, "Don't compare it to the 3rd game; treat it as something separate and slightly different, and you'll get much more enjoyment out of the game."
And now, someone suggested "Heroes IV Equilibris" (special thanks to OptiMAL), and I'm getting even more enjoyment out of the game.

With the release of the fourth installment, my opinion of the Heroes series declined... :( I was expecting something completely different... something new, something better... but I got... bland gameplay, an army that runs around (I'm referring to the caravans; the fact that the army runs around is fine), Shadow of the World (tolerable, but still), a terrible transition from 2D to 3D graphics, and even calling it 3D is a stretch((( The troops are confusing, there's a large variety of them, and most importantly... NOTHING significantly new :( And the fact that 3DO barely managed to release it speaks volumes... it's full of unfinished elements, lack of foresight... a hastily put-together game, and the same goes for the expansions(( P.S. IMHO!

I was most hoping for better rendering of creatures and landscapes; everything else was fine. It was a pity to part with Jelu and others – they really did him dirty in the fourth game...

In the end, it turned out to be not a continuation, but a completely new game.

Okay, Jelu isn't here, but there are other heroes from 3, and most importantly, Sandro is still here!
And in the 5th game, they're all new (so what if the world is new, the 4th game also had a new world, but they kept the old heroes...).

An improved version of the third game!

Added 1 minute ago
This is what I was waiting for.

From Heroes 4, I expected an improvement over Heroes 3 and better graphics.

I was hoping that it would be possible to destroy the castles of other races and build castles of your own race in their place, but they cut that feature! :smile06:

> What did you expect from Heroes 4?

The poll is missing at least one option. Personally, I was hoping for a nod to Heroes 2. I didn't like the Third game from the moment I saw it, and I still don't. Heroes 2 is a rare and wonderful work of art for me. I expected Heroes 4 to bring back the warm colors of the Second game, restore some of the cartoonishness, remove upgrades, allow units to travel on their own, and eliminate the four-elemental magic system that was introduced in the Third game. Thus, a significant number of my hopes for Heroes 4 have come true.

Some things, however, did not come true, but these are mostly minor desires related to the design of the units. I also hoped that they would provide, if not the infamous True 3D, then at least the ability to rotate the map. This did not happen. Also, it seems that my desperate mind once wanted the ability to build new castles (but it doesn't anymore)... Well, it's not a big deal. Heroes 4 is wonderful, almost as wonderful as Heroes 2. I continue to consider the Third game, with its blue tables, ubiquitous upgrades, pretentious musical score, shamefully designed emblems in the style of "family underwear," and quasi-photographic hero portraits, as some kind of misunderstanding.

That's it.

BTW, it's really interesting: am I the only one who doesn't like Erathia, Blade, and Shadows?

>
By the way, it's really interesting: am I the only one who doesn't like Erathia, Blade, and Shadows?

:) At first, I didn't really like Heroes 3 (we were playing HotS 2 at the time). But, what can you do – a new version came out. We decided to play HotS in the third game. And gradually, we got into it. I don't want to discuss the graphics and the infamous balance of power, as well as the plot and who is related to whom, and also about which creatures should live in which castle. The game is made – you just need to play it :) In essence, the third game is not much different from the second. And therefore, it is playable. Moreover, 1 and 5 are the same as 2 and 3, only less playable, at least because in the first one there are no markets, and in the fifth one, they ignored the difference in turn speed between slow and fast units when the hero travels with them on the map. However, the fifth game wins everyone over with its graphics and still has a lot of interesting things with the battles. Well, the first game is the ancestor :) Therefore, in essence, all these versions are playable and interesting. The fourth game is also Heroes in essence, but it is made in such a way that it is very different from all the above-mentioned series. At the same time, it is no less playable. I got from it exactly what I expected. A clear difference from all the Heroes series, and at the same time, it is a game in the Heroes style :) The essence is the same - castles, heroes, magic, artifacts, units, turn-based strategy :)

Added 9 minutes ago

with the release of the fourth game, my attitude towards Heroes changed... :( I expected something completely different... - something new, better... but I got... no gameplay, an army running around (in caravans). P.S. IMHO!

:) Strange. I, on the contrary, didn't see anything new, no particular differences in 2, 3, 5 compared to the first Heroes :) In the fourth game, everything is new - the gameplay is different from all the series. Who is a hero in 1, 2, 3, 5 without an army? Nobody. In the fourth game, the hero is a god and a king, and the troops are given to him as help, without which, by the way, he can manage on his own in many cases. But in all other versions, the hero cannot even move on his own; he must have at least some cheap and weak unit in his pocket :) And what are these complexities and how are they related to the realities that you like to talk about?

Added 5 minutes ago

with the release of the fourth game, my attitude towards Heroes changed... :(

Personally, with the release of each new version of Heroes, I have a desire to play it. And that's what I do. And now I participate in offline tournaments for all versions of Heroes. I wouldn't say that I play very badly there, so it's easier for me to compare the versions of Heroes in terms of playability and in general :)

:) That's strange. I didn't notice any significant differences between versions 2, 3, and 5 compared to the first Heroes game. In Heroes 4, everything is new – the gameplay is different from all other installments. What is a hero in versions 1, 2, 3, and 5 without an army? He's nothing. But in Heroes 4, the hero is like a god and a king, and the troops are given to him as support, and in many cases, he can even manage on his own. In all other versions, the hero can't even move on his own; he absolutely needs to have at least some cheap and weak unit in his army. What's the point of such complexities, and how is it related to the realities you like to discuss?

I also expected a more compelling argument from Heroes 4, rather than just monsters moving around the map on their own. However, I think the caravan is a perfectly acceptable feature – buying monsters without having to visit their dwellings is, in my opinion, more of a plus than a minus.
I expected more from the graphics, but I don't see the point in discussing it, as some people even like the graphics in Heroes 2.
What I liked the least in Heroes 4 is that you have to choose between monsters; either this one or that one, but not both at the same time. They should have allowed us to have both!

After the third game, I expected the fourth to be even more interesting and engaging... but I was disappointed, as I mentioned above!