Because of some NDA, I'm sure I can't say certain things about the HoMM V beta I was recently participating in. I've stopped participating, of course, and Nival (the company who is now working to continue NWC's legacy through the series) has totally alienated me from the series and from their company, by making a very stupid choice. Their choice was to ignore Heroes IV (the most recent in the series; right before NWC and 3D0 went broke) and pretend as if Heroes III was the last game in the series. Oh yes, every once and a while you might glimpse a tiny element of the game that came from Heroes IV, but anything significant it offered to the series has been abolished. Now, many people will like this. Every game that's made has haters. Apparently, the crew at Nival were haters. The excruciating problem on my end, of course, is that the worst thing I could forsee happening was for these haters to become the new crew to propel the Heroes of Might and Magic series forward.
To add insult to injury, Gamespy (where I normally read reviews) has done a complete 180 and decided to throw Nival a bone for their work by assigning a like-minded hater to preview the game. Allow me to rant about Gamespy's preview for a moment.
"I have been very disappointed lately by the way Gamespy has been reviewing certain games. Games that are mainstream (like this one will be) tend to get starry eyes from the reviewers and just about all the negatives about some of these games go completely ignored. The perfect example is the preview. Gamespy:
Spiffy:
Should correct many of Heroes IV's mistakes; Ghost mode; graphically beautiful; elegant UI.
Iffy:
New 3D city screen is a bit confusing.
What the previewer fails to mention is that Heroes IV got 4/5 stars from Gamespy *despite the fact* that it shipped without multiplayer and with bugs. Not only that, but none of these supposed corrections are mentioned. That's because it's not true. What is true is that Homm V has gone back to a previous iteration in the series (Homm III) and decided to start over again. That's not something I will fault them for, but Allen Rausch from Gamespy doesn't seem to be able to write an objective preview. If he was being objective, it might look more like:
Spiffy:
Will not suffer from any of Heroes IV's controversies; Ghost mode; graphically beautiful; elegant UI.
Iffy:
Did Nival throw the baby out with the bath water? Even the best and/or 'harmless' features of Heroes IV were left out. How will this affect fans who enjoyed the last game?
But I suppose projecting your personal opinions about a computer game is what some of the reviewers at Gamespy are best at; even if it means they can't even be consistent with their own past reviews. I just hope Allen isn't the one with the final review of this game."
And so, for all of you who remember Heroes of Might and Magic, if you loved HoMM III and either never played IV or didn't like IV, then you will love this game. If you were a fan of Heroes IV in any way, you will scratch your head constantly and ask yourself every five minutes, "why did they take THAT out of the game?!"
And so there is my message to Byonders.
ID:7962
 Jan 24 2006, 10:15 pm (Edited on Jan 24 2006, 10:22 pm)
|
|
|
Jan 25 2006, 8:46 am
|
|
OneFishDown
 |
i haven't played HoMM IV, and i didn't even know that V existed, but, just because something is in the prequel, that doesn't make it a good feature. HoMM III had a map editor (not sure if IV did), so if you wanted more of the same, just make more maps for yourself. its impossible to make a sequel innovative without losing some fans of the series. no matter what changes are made, some people won't like it. to really be objective, you'd review the game on its own merits, not how it compares to other games in the series. sticking by the same HoMM "formula", they could have made a good game and kept most of the fans of the series. but, by trying something new they might get many new fans, even if its at the cost of losing some fans of the series.
|
I agree with the notion that it is objective to review a game based on its merits as it stands alone, but I also think that when a game exists in a series, part of the responsibility of the reviewer is to also cast it in a comparative light with its predecessors. I don't see that as being non-objective; I see it as part and parcel. If it's a different reviewer, I think it only makes sense for them to be informed and educated by having not only played the entire series thoroughly, but also having read all the reviews of the previous games as well.
If the reviewer has *not* played through the entire series, then she ought to do as you say and refrain from making any comments about the previous games in the series, and review the game as if it were the first. | |
I never played HOMM IV, but III was addictive fun. Hopefully V will be fun.
| |