The other big problem, as others have reported here, is the 3D graphics. Necropolis had Death Knights and Necromancers etc.) and instead went with a lazy, boring single class for each faction. The biggest problem for me was how they went away from the 'Might' and 'magic' hero classes for each faction (in Heroes 3 for example, Rampart had Rangers as the 'Might' hero and Druids as the 'Magic' hero. They also found a compromise between the use of heroes in combat for Heroes 3 and 4 namely that you CAN get an attack in on an enemy stack (doing a little damage) but the hero cannot himself be attacked.Īnd there are a few things that are much worse in Heroes 5. There are a few things that Heroes 5 (I only play the Tribes of the East version) does better than Heroes 2 & 3: Better skill system, more difficult AI (if you are into that). I miss some of the extra features that 5 brought to the table. It's even a little hard going back to 3 now. Really, if all you care about is gameplay, Heroes 5 is just as good as Heroes 3. It's fun going with a smaller, scrappier force and winning close battles due to that initiative bonus. Agrael in particular was a lot of fun - a demon hero whose special ability is a passive bonus to initiative. I've even enjoyed the campaign, if only because you have access to heroes with interesting abilities that aren't available in the scenarios / multiplayer. It's not without its warts - I always prefer 2D to 3D, so that's unfortunate, and the voice acting and cutscenes are just painfully bad. Developing heroes is more in-depth and interesting, and there are many more skills to choose from, including some specific to your faction (not just necromancy, either).
I never really played the campaigns of the older ones, so while I enjoyed the feel of the atmosphere (especially Heroes 2) it still all seemed pretty generic fantasy to me. I came into the HoMM series with Heroes 2, and I've been playing these games for over a decade.
0 kommentar(er)
