Please stop bashing at HoMM 4 | Forums

[Kaz_Ander]

Hi all


When I read most threads of this forum, I see 90% of the posts bashing at the 4th in the series. The things is, I don't expect everyone to agree on one thing, or even saying they liked it (which is better than just saying it is bad btw ), but I do have that strong impression that it has become kinda "cool" to say HoMM 4 is ****, without so much as an argument (not saying that for everyone ), or maybe even one should be ashamed to like the game.

What started this thread from me is me wanting the HoMM 5 devs to know that there are people who actually liked ideas from HoMM 4, and it would be a good thing to put some of them in use in the 5 - at least consider its advantages vs HoMM 3 for instance in a general thinking about how the game should work.
I played HoMM 3 and 4 both extensively, and I like both. I do however tend to like HoMM 4 a little better, for some reasons. I like both games for different reasons, they have both flaws and huge qualities.

Let's get practical:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>graphics: we're talking about different generations of games here, although HoMM 3 is by no means completely outdated (I played it yesterday, so I have a pretty clear idea of what it looks like ). I, for one, found HoMM 4's graphic style very pretty, with a feel a "magic" about it. Just about everything on the map view is nice for the eye, and fits so well with the HoMM spirit. It has a downside, though, the game being increasingly system-heavy as the number of things displayed on the screen does as well. Anyway, this is just to make a point here, but it is not relevant for HoMM 5, the game being in 3D and all
<LI>musics/sound FX: this is ONE strong point of the series in my opinion. I like musics in both series, with maybe a slight preference for HoMM 4's, but maybe that's because I heared them more of late HoMM series is actually one of the few games where the music plays so much part in the game, and one of the very few where it actually IS good.
<LI>Being a huge RPG fan, I liked the RPG side in HoMM 4. It was taken to higher heights, with good and intricated stories in the campaigns. Please, keep the stories (and it seems it's going that way)
<LI>Caravans/units moving independantly: I think everyone will agree with the caravans system. Using heroes as means of transporting troops was not the best option, and it really didn't help with the game immersion factor. It was really one feature that was missing from HoMM 3.
As for the units being able to move without a hero, it really depends on how the game is done. I liked using units as scouts or ressource gatherers, but in some ways in shifted the focus from the heroes to the units themselves. It does make more sense to allow the units to move freely on their own, but both ideas can fit in the game.
<LI>Heroes on the battlefield: I am one fervent believer of heroes on the battlefield. I think it added much more strategic options. Having your heroe(s) killed on the battlefield for instance could have disastrous effects on the whole battle. However, what I didn't like was the god-like stature of those heroes from, say, level 20 on. Although heroes should be mighty opponents, they shouldn't be invincible gods. I would really appreciate at least the heroes being stronly involved in the battles (which is where it seems to be going to).
<LI>Skills/classes: I liked the ways heroes evolved depending on the skills you chose for them in HoMM 4. It added another dimension to the heroes. However, except for the classes, HoMM 3's system was pretty good, too
<LI>Units: I kinda liked to have to make a choice in the units I chose to create in a town in HoMM 4. Will I make Nightmares or Efreets ? I also liked that ALL units were very distinct and had their own specificities, even the low level and most basic ones.
However, I loved upgrading units in the 3, and the 4 should have had more units. I think a mix of 3 and 4 on that point would be best
<LI>Towns: towns were definitively better in HoMM 3: more of them, more disctinct (HoMM 4's kinda all look the same), more things to do in them. I don't know if having the same kinds of buildings at the same place in the different types of towns was good or not - it was practical should be say, but I for one didn't mind having to look around a bit to find the building in the 3; plus after a short while you know where it is.
I prefer having a few units available each day rather than a whole bunch every week. It doesn't really make sense to have units available only every week, and it doesn't make sense either to go from a puny army to a mighty force over one night. It affected the way you built your town: in HoMM 3, you planned to build all unit producing buildings before day 7, and tadaa, you had a plethora of units available the day after.
I liked some minor improvements in the 4, like being able to buy all units in the town at once.
<LI>Combat mechanics: two different approaches really. I talked about heroes before, so I won't go over that point again here. Actually, this probably is where the main difference between 3 and 4 shows: 3 was more strategy than 4, whereas 4 had a stronger RPG side. In that light, the combat grid, center of many disputes, is not really an issue. I mean, I like the grid in the 3, but I didn't miss it in the 4. True, the 3 had more strategic options, but 4 wasn't focused so much on that. There was still much strategy involved in the 4, but it was not focused so much on the grid, but rather on spell choice, unit choice, and heroes development. It seems like 5 will be going more towards strategy, and therefore should probably have a grid. But I say it is not a must depending on how the game actually plays.
I liked the simultaneous reply from other units. I never understood why units could go and attack a stack, and not take any damage, just because they acted first. This made some units (or rather stacks) virtually invincible in 3 for instance, where you could wipe out an entire army without so much as a scrach, just because you had a better morale. Simultaneous reply makes more sense, and you have to rely on other strategic options to minimize damage in your ranks: missiles, spells (initiative for instance), unit capabilities (no reply). However, I would not apply simultaneous reply for range units as it was for HoMM 4: I would go for attackers fire, then defenders reply.
There are other issues about combat mechanics, of course, but I really think there were just different in the two games, that does not mean one was better than the other overall.
<LI>Siege was definitively much better in HoMM 3: citadels and castles gave a true advantage, catapults (and their related skill) were an important element. Siege was as it should be: very hard for attackers.
<LI>I liked being able to see if a map had an underground part like in the 3. Really missed that in the 4
<LI>I liked the random generator for replayability purposes, although it should be largely improved
<LI>And...ok, HoMM 4's AI was not...brilliant, to say the least [/list]



So, as a conclusion (at last !). This thread is not here to start a war between HoMM 4 haters and HoMM 4 fans. It is merely to show HoMM 5 devs both sides, and show different ways of thinking the game, which may seem opposed, but that I would rather see as parallel.
Also to say that there are people who love HoMM 4, too, and that elements of its gameplay were great, so they should not just be dismissed because HoMM 3 is better (they say ). Both are great, both have elements worth being drawn upon. I, for one, don't expect HoMM 5 to be all HoMM 4, or all HoMM 3, but rather a unique game which has strong inspirations from both or other worthy titles. I do expect though HoMM 5 to have that unique feel, because this is what had me come back to those games again and again. HoMM games are among the few which are always installed on my harddisk.

So please, don't start flaming, warring, etc on this thread. Do bring great ideas and comparisons for the devs, so they can see why people like that or that better, and build a HoMM 5 for the whole community

PS: Sorry I was so lengthy

[Ethric]

Hear hear!

H4 was unfinished, thus it had some pretty big and noticeable flaws, but if they had been given time and resources to finish it I'm quite sure it would have been much better.

[MacSoftish]

I would never bash at anyone liking Heroes 4, however I will bash Heroes 4 for beeing a dissappointment for me. I had such high hopes for that game, but I just couldn't get over some of the changes they had made to the Heroes formula. Dont get me wrong, Heroes IV had some great ideas going, but the overall feel of the game just didn't cut it for me.

But now, I have Heroes V to look forward to!

[killroyan]

Hey Kaz_ander, good analysis and agree with almost everything. I liked the heroes on the field but if this would be the case for V then they should tone them down a lot. Give them more hit points but less damage. Give them a certain magic resistance that decreases damage. 80% magic resistance in IV was still 100% damage if the spell would hit. I don't like that.

Upgrading and sieging the way it was in III was way way way better. I disliked the fact that I could complete my castle in two weeks. Far too short. I want more buildings and upgrades.

Immortality potions should be removed or become very high level items that are very hard to get. They broke the game for me and I never used them to make it a bit more interesting but found out that some maps can't be won without them.

[Yuri_Kenobi]

Heroes IV >

It was fun a few days, but Heroes III has always been fun!

[Kaz_Ander]

MacSoftish> I would never bash at anyone NOT liking HoMM 4 either , if that's a relief :lol:

I started this thread mainly because I felt like it had become like an habit to say HoMM 4 is **** and so on, when I felt, even if you didn't like it, HoMM 5 could still draw great things from it


killroyan> thanks Agree on the heroes, as I said in my post as much I'd like to have heroes back on the field, they have to be seriously re-thought balance-wise, or we'll end up again with god-like creatures. I haven't really given any thoughts on how they should do it, mainly because they already said the heroes wouldn't be on the field anyway (or at least would not take part to the fighting)

Agree on the number of towns/units/buildings/siege options as well, just make it more; but also more consistent like in the 4 maybe, as I explained in my post

Yuri_Kenobi> Can't counter your smiley-argument
Well, you didn't like HoMM 4, what can I say

[FCY-JMDK-WLKY]

I've always said I liked HoMM IV. I said it in my first post in the first thread of this forum (if you don't believe me, check here ). And I definately agree with you on pretty much everything you said. There were parts in HoMM III that were better, and vice versa.
Besides, I was the one who started a club for HoMM IV likers on the first day here (again, check that thread if you don't believe me )

[EpsiTrog]

Agree with most points.
Only I don't agree that sieging a town in heroes 4 is easy. I would prefer a combination of heroes 3 and 4. I did not like the shooting towers in heroes 3 and did like the idea that can put your own creatures on tower.
Anyway I agree a system with a Catapult and crush the castle is very nice. Is good point from heroes 3 and it give extra tactic

[UndeadDontDie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kaz_Ander:
+ graphics

Well, I liked the graphics in both games, but IV's looked a bit unfitting, can't really say why.

+ musics/sound FX

I really liked the music in all games as well, though I liked II better than III and III better than IV.

+ Being a huge RPG fan, I liked the RPG side in HoMM 4.

Well, I don't play HoMM for the RPG, I play for the strategy, because its TBS, because its addictive and because it takes place in my favorite time (AKA medieaval-fantasy)

+ Caravans/units moving independantly:

I liked the Caravans which allowed you to move units around without the need to hand-hold them, but I disliked how units could move independantly of the hero, it made turns longer, more frustrating and was no fun at all :/

+ Heroes on the battlefield\

Both systems were fun, but I liked III better because it meant that your hero was much harder to kill yet more balanced (and it actually makes much more sense, since no leader actually fights in combat.
That doesn't really matter though since they already decided to have them more involved than in III but less so than IV.

+ Skills/classes

I loath the IV Skill system.
In III all heroes had access to atleast basic magic (putting the magicless heroes closer to the magic ones) and a profficient magician could know all spells in the game and be profficient with using them all, while the IV system forces you to one or maybe two spell categories and improving your skill in each magic type felt much less rewarding.
In short, Expert Wisdom + Expert Fire Magic + Expert Air Magic + Expert Water Magic + Expert Earth Magic is much much more fun (>&gt than Grandmaster Death Magic (and a whole lot of bull that comes with it) + Grandmaster Chaos Magic (and a whole lot of...) + Grandmaster Nature Magic (and a...) + Grandmaster Order Magic (and...) + Grandmaster Life Magic (a...), and also a lot easier to achieve...

+ Units

The unit choices pretty much messed up the game, it meant you only had 5 unit types to create in your city and a whole lot less variety as well as revoking all the upgrades (which were very cool).
I want it like it was in III.

+ Towns

Agreed.

I prefer having a few units available each day rather than a whole bunch every week.

While it does make more sense to have a day by day purchasing system it also decreased strategy options.
In III you could plan on arriving exactly when the requiered amount of units would generate and you could plan to take cities on saturday so you can gain a few more units to guard with and deny the enemy of some defences.
In IV if you needed (lets say) two units of units type X in one day, you'd have to hope that "8 units each week" meant that the two would come exactly when you needed them.
It also produced quirks such as "3.5 units each week" O_o.

+ Combat mechanics

Well, this is a strategy game after all, so I hope the strategy side of it is the one emphasized upon.
That's also why I liked 3 much more, for allowing you to plan tactics upon different units speeds (as well as ruining enemy tactics with spells like "Slow" "Haste" "Expert Slow" and "Expert Haste" as well as "Prayer" ("Expert Prayer") etc.
As 3 year old would put it "GGriid|| R|_|1|=ZZ!!11!oneone1eleven".
Also, allowing units to strike before retaliation allowed for some more cool tactics (again, basing alot on speed) and meant that you should accidentally lose units to weak monsters guarding treasure. You should also notice how that means ranged units are WAY better since you can used to avoid any casualties while you can no longer use melee units for that purpose, unless fighting ranged units (which again emphasizes ranged units).
I especially disliked the simultaneous attacks between two ranged units which allowed for stupid things (such as blocking an enemy's retaliation with another unit) and didn't make much sense at all.

+ Siege was definitively much better in HoMM 3

Agreed.

+ I liked being able to see if a map had an underground part like in the 3

Having as much information as possible is always good in any case.

+ I liked the random generator for replayability purposes, although it should be largely improved.

Agreed, I only got Heroes III Complete for the map generator the regular game lacked.

+ And...ok, HoMM 4's AI was not...brilliant, to say the least

Same goes for III's =P
But I'd rather have a good and fun game against stupid opponents than have a very bad games against smart opponents, and besides, we have multi =P

So please, don't start flaming
*flame* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT: In case you didnt notice, my replies are INSIDE the quote.

EDIT II: Um... Annoying sig! Die Die Die!

[Krydor]

After all the patches and Mods, I have really enjoyed H4. I must admit that I was very disappointed when I first played it and with good reason. However in the end I found it impossible to go back to H3 after H4 approached something near its potential. If you haven’t played a fully patched H4 with the Equilibris mod I suggest giving it a go. If you still don’t like it then fair enough.