Top Hat said:
This is not exactly true - in Heroes 2 campaign for completing certain maps you were rewarded with "creature alliances" (wandering creatures of that kind would join your cause), the Ultimate Crown artifact or a carry-over army. In Heroes 3 and 4 the heroes in the campaign carried over, usually including their spells at least.
I know. Where did those heroes lost 50 bone dragons, 80 vampire lords and 25 archfiends though? Along with about 175000 gold?
"Campaigns" = ovens. Now.
I don't really think it was meant to have ever been a tactical warfare simulation. It was essentially a chess-like game with a bunch of shiny treasures and simple resource management thrown in.
Absolutely. Problem is, when I play a strategy game, I expect it to be based on rules, not on exceptions.
Chess is a game of strategy too, or am I missing something.
It's mostly a logic game with elements of strategic planning. An interactive puzzle for two.
Curious thing though, a typical casual gamer would put chess sims on "strategy" shelf, while a hardcore shelves them as puzzle/logic/traditional. Speaks a bit about primary HOMM target auditory as well.
I agree, but you haven't really explained why you think it's silly.
Sunday respawn of units (fixed by HOMM4...to universal cry of outrage from the fans, no less!). Strange recruitment costs based solely on game balance. Demand to take over special locations instead of producing abundant resources via labour of population (a town sits in the middle of a forest yet needs to capture a "sawmill" 3 days away to get wood? R00fles). Heh, no population at all, by the way... Gold and gems enough for any man scattered all across the maps with nobody except a bunch of "heroes" to bother about them. I could go on and on...
I want my strategy games to be "realistic" (i.e. believable), not a fancy chess-like exhibition of exceptions and puzzles.
Also, in all your anti-Heroes rambling you forgot to mention one of the most important blunders in the game - diplomacy, or a lack thereof.
Well, diplomacy is a weak point in many of the best strategy games, and some do well enough without it at all (those very Dominions, for example, due to being primarily multiplayer-focused). Singling out HOMM would be unfair in the least.
Not everything has to be OMG emo wrist-slitting dark gothic seriousness.
Yes, but coupled with everything else mentioned above, it gives a pretty sad picture.
If you couldn't tell from the screen shots on the box or on the Internet that that was their style, and you knew you wouldn't like that style, why the fuck buy it?
Well, it was made by the same people who made Might and Magic, which weren't exactly Mr. Serious in terms of RPGs. So what were you expecting?
Oh, I was well realizing what HOMM is and what it is going to be back when HOMM1 was just released. So as far as the games themselves are concerned, they are exactly what I expected them to be, and I don't mind that at all, to each his own. What I did not expect however, is that it would be considered a pinnacle and perfection of turn-based strategy gaming ten years onwards. Kinda sad, really.