Re: OT: HOMM V
Maybe it's just that I haven't played HOMMV online, but I found everything about the game good... except the actual gameplay... and I don't really know why. The systems of the heroes, cities, and the creature variety all seem to have integrity and potential.
My personal feeling on HoMM's failing, either looking only at V or at the whole series, is that the game has an enormous slippery slope problem. The nature of the game is such that one army, one hero, or one city is always so meaningful that to lose just one battle or have one of your cities taken over basically means you've lost the game. Conversely, you can tell how a game will end long before it's actually ended by looking at which side won the first battle. This is because as stacks grow, they become more powerful faster, not slower. Shooters/casters can annihilate almost any neutral army without suffering casualties as long as they have a critical mass, and melee stacks can wipe out any enemy stack without fear of retaliation as long as they have a critical mass.
So basically, and I'm pretty sure I'm making not too bold an assertion here, the only place in HOMM games where a player's skill can determine whether he will win is in his judgment of which neutrals he is powerful enough to attack. If a player gets his army wiped out by neutrals, then he's basically lost the game but if a player can fight the toughest neutrals he can take on, he'll have more gold, items, and experience to fight others with.
HOMMV is boring. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
My 2 cents.
|
Threaded Mode