Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Are there any HoMMs worth playing past the third one?

Haplo

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
6,138
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Honestly at a certain point all this III rehashing gets boring. The series could do with some fresh ideas.

V felt like a clone of III with som extra abilities stacked on top. Either remake it with modern graphics or do something ne, if I wanted to play III I would play III.

:deadhorse:
Nope.

I mean sure, you may not like it. But saying it's like III with minor variation is just... wrong.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
Honestly at a certain point all this III rehashing gets boring. The series could do with some fresh ideas.

V felt like a clone of III with som extra abilities stacked on top. Either remake it with modern graphics or do something ne, if I wanted to play III I would play III.

:deadhorse:
Nope.

I mean sure, you may not like it. But saying it's like III with minor variation is just... wrong.

I liked it. Because it was a clone. I mean check the units, most of them is the same with the same abilities.
 

Haplo

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
6,138
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Honestly at a certain point all this III rehashing gets boring. The series could do with some fresh ideas.

V felt like a clone of III with som extra abilities stacked on top. Either remake it with modern graphics or do something ne, if I wanted to play III I would play III.

:deadhorse:
Nope.

I mean sure, you may not like it. But saying it's like III with minor variation is just... wrong.

I liked it. Because it was a clone. I mean check the units, most of them is the same with the same abilities.

Uh huh. No?

Let's see, Dungeon?
HoMM3:
Troglodyte
Harpy
Beholder
Medusa
Minotaur
Manticore
Dragon

Now HoMMV:
Scout
Blood Maiden
Minotaur
Dark Rider
Hydra
Shadow Witch
Dragon

Okay, so they share... 2 units: Minotaur and Dragon. Upgraded Mino Guards have Double Attack in V. Stats aren't the same. So how are these the same?

Rampart/Sylvan shares 4 units. Inferno 3 units. Necropolis: basically 5. Haven/Castle: 5, but power is changed, especially for Griffins and Monks. Tower/Academy - okay, practically all, apart form the Naga/Rakshasa style change.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,184
Location
Bjørgvin
After III the developers could only go wrong.
Make a game that is too different to III and people will complain. Make a game that is too similar to III and people will complain.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,939
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Honestly at a certain point all this III rehashing gets boring. The series could do with some fresh ideas.
After III the developers could only go wrong.
Make a game that is too different to III and people will complain. Make a game that is too similar to III and people will complain.
Yup.
I think the series is more or less in a dead end.

Of course, you could still do a game that combines good ideas from previous titles, but... I think the past titles have shown that at least the IP owner has no interest in doing that properly.
Best to let a series die at some point, I'd say.

Then again, I'd be interested in a new Dark Messiah.
 

Maggot

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
1,243
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire
eifmqn.jpg
 

ClaviculaZ

Novice
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
36
Heroes V undeniably has the deepest gameplay and allows for the most strategical matches. I would go as far as to say that its gameplay is objectively the best out of the series. In my opinion, people dismiss it due to its art direction and horrible taste (with regard to characters, story, creatures etc.). I played V first and III later on and I was blown away by how "pure" the game feels, like lost childhood memories. Also, there's a certain touch of class in it, in comparison to which Heroes V to VII feel like a Skrillex-song interrupting a Mozart concerto. That difference in the general feeling of the game is the only reason which I can see why someone who likes H2/3 would not like H5.
 

Haplo

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
6,138
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Haplo yes but Haven copied almost all units, same with necropolis and some other towns.

Yes, I have admitted this. Some are more similar, some are less. In some cases there are HUGE gameplay differences. Gating for Inferno, Bloodrage for Orcs, hit&run combo tactics for Dungeon. Sylvan may play similar at the core, but the Ranger hero abilities opens many interesting options. In the end I guess Haven, Necropolis and Academy game play is the closest to III. Still some interesting differences such as personal unit artifacts for Academy.
 

Doma

Augur
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Norway
HoMM II and III are the the obvious classics, but I really like a lot of what IV brought to the table.

For instance, the fact that units can move on their own and the introduction of the caravan system. No longer do I need to hire 5-6 trash heroes to do a hero-chain from my main castle to the frontline and main hero.
Also, in the same vein, No more "all units at Day 1 of week". Production is spread out, so that it no longer becomes the "attack on day 7 game".

The fact that heroes can fight on the battlefield also brings an extra element into the game. I loved playing as the Barbarians and having a freaking beastly warrior just fuck shit up on his own.

Oh and the soundtrack is fantastic, but that is also the case in II and III.

Homm II was my first one so its hard to claim a favourite one, but damn I do like me some Homm IV.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
Meh. HotA (plus the HD mod) proves beyond any doubt that "more of the same" approach for the series definitely makes sense and you can still squeeze a lot content and improvements from it without changing the formula too much. And it's hand down best HoMM release since AB (so also better than SoD and HC addons for III).

Regarding the question in op: the standalone TotE addon for V is worth playing, but it's definitely one of the most love/hate games I ever enjoyed, with some great (best in the series!) things and some horrible ones.

I don't want to get dragged into another IV shitstorm, but imo despite some decent ideas it's simply a bad game.

VI has one good change (removing randomness from hero development) and is just a festival of hurr and durr beyond that.

I still did not play VII, but from what I gathered it's already been officialy abandoned in an unfinished state, so...
 

Jokzore

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
623
I know Im gonna catch a stone to the face for this but after its 27 patches and expansion I think VI is just fine. Im not a HOMM purist though, its just something i use to fill the void in between CRPG disasters.
 

Haplo

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
6,138
Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
I was discouraged by the huge hp bloat of units in VI. The art direction went a bit over the top as well. On a side note, it's sad the devs imported assets from this entry, worst graphically, into MMX. Well, at least we got a proper, tactical, turn based MMX, which is more then I could have hoped.

I was also put off by the unfinished state of VII.
 

MilesBeyond

Cipher
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
716
IV is a game I really want to like, but I just can't. I'm really not a fan of the visuals or the UI, and a lot of the gameplay changes leave it feeling more like a poor man's Age of Wonders or especially Lords of Magic than an HoMM sequel. It had some really cool ideas. I loved how your hero's class changed based on the abilities you acquired, I enjoyed the concept of the heroes themselves fighting in the battles, and the way you need to choose between creatures is interesting, if perhaps not an improvement. But it just ends up not grabbing me at all. Plus the AI is absolutely horrific. Maybe the worst I've seen in a strategy game, or at least close.

V is a tough one for me. I appreciated that it was a return to form and scratched the same itch as I, II, and III. I also think it added in some cool new mechanics. Like the things Haplo mentioned. I loved the idea of splitting Speed and Initiative into different stats. I loved the idea of alternate upgrades. I loved the reasonable Mage Guild costs (lol). I appreciated the new skill/ability system, and thought it added some interesting new dynamics to hero development. I loved the way each town had a unique ability. But it's a game that I never spend very long with. It's just so incredibly slow. There's a ton of extra, unnecessary animations and heroes feel as though they have less movement points (I actually don't know whether this is objectively true or not. I just know that in V it feels like I'm spending more time waiting for my heroes to get places than I am in III). Most of all, the AI turns are absurd. They take a ridiculous amount of time.

That last one is the reason why I don't play much of V these days. I get tired of how much downtime there is. The time that it takes for the AI to do their turns is often actually longer than my turns. Long turn times are a big no-no in any TBS, but in a franchise like HoMM that is built on being simple and quick-playing (relative to other 4Xs, that is), it's a cardinal sin. It's just not something I have the patience for - especially since in any strategy games, long turn times are almost always going to be the product of poor optimization, not the game's complexity. The fact that I can have a mid-range rig a decade after V comes out and still be sitting there twiddling my thumbs for ages is not a sign of an efficiently programmed game.

I also wasn't a fan of the town level mechanic. I liked it at first but after getting more experienced with the games it ended up feeling too restrictive, and eliminates a lot of choice.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
The town level is one of the new mechanics in V that sucks ass. It completely kills any variety in build ups and C&C related to it, which was pretty much the biggest appeal of playing on higher difficulties in the previous games. It's a typical "railroad everything" approach to achieve perfect balance for multiplayer games.

Re the movement points, I'm also not sure, but another bad thing about V is how small and cramped the strategic maps feel. Some of the scenario maps were literally castle and mines in its nearest vicinity plus a straight road to the opponent's hub. Lame as hell. VI had exactly the same problem btw.
 

MilesBeyond

Cipher
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
716
The town level is one of the new mechanics in V that sucks ass. It completely kills any variety in build ups and C&C related to it, which was pretty much the biggest appeal of playing on higher difficulties in the previous games. It's a typical "railroad everything" approach to achieve perfect balance for multiplayer games.

Re the movement points, I'm also not sure, but another bad thing about V is how small and cramped the strategic maps feel. Some of the scenario maps were literally castle and mines in its nearest vicinity plus a straight road to the opponent's hub. Lame as hell. VI had exactly the same problem btw.

Absolutely! Yeah. There were so many decisions to make in building up your town that could completely change the outcome of the map. You were constantly forced to choose between economic development, military quality, military quantity, or something in between. In V it's like "Do I want to get my level 3 creatures, upgrade my level 2 creatures, or get a city hall? Haha! JK! My town level is too low for two of those and the only one I can do is upgrade the level 2 creatures." You're still left with some choice, but it railroads you pretty hard.

It also gets rid of some of the fun parts of III. Like the way Stronghold could get to Behemoths in the first couple days, but might not get to Cyclopses until the second month. Or how Castle couldn't get Gryphons until after it already has Swordsmen. Every town in V is stuck following roughly the same tech tree.

I did like that in V, the towns felt a bit more balanced. III had some pretty stupid shit that way. Conflux was pretty much an instant "loliwin" button, and so was Necro in the hands of a decently skilled player. Meanwhile Inferno had very few redeeming values, and the only way the town was playable was through Demon harvesting, which was way more touch-and-go and required way more skill than Skellie harvesting.

I've actually got a three-tiered system for III's balance:

Balanced towns: Castle, Rampart, Stronghold

Map Dependent: Fortress, Tower, Dungeon (Tower and Dungeon require rich maps, while Fortress tends to shine on poor maps)

Imbalanced towns: Conflux, Necropolis, Inferno (Conflux and Necro OP, Inferno UP).


Man. Necro is so good. The thing with the town is that even without the Necromancy skill, it would be a damn good town. Vampire Lords, Liches, and Death Knights are so badass, and easily make up for Walking Dead and Wights being pretty crap.
 

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
it's DREAD Knights, peasant

IV would be my favorite if the campaigns weren't full of one way portals that lets the AI just ship their heroes and troops into your back yard. it often forced me to split up forces and drag the game on much longer than it had to.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom