Songs of Conquest - HOMM2-inspired turn-based strategy adventure game

[Brickfrog]

Building isn't though - 1 turn to build a small building, 2 for medium, 3 for large, and only 1 thing can build at a time (2 with a tech upgrade).

Yeah this is important. The player can't fully upgrade a town in one turn with enough money.

 

[Galdred]

LoL i played a bit and it is very sjws lol. Three missions in the human campaign and it is all about strong independent womxn and negros lol. It feels like all the main protagonists/antagonists and even mythical creatures are muh strong independent womxn.

What, a strong independent woman in a HOMM3 inspired game? That is heresy!

Spoiler

 

[Comte_II]

I wonder what's the overlap between sheep who enjoy games full of stronk rainbow women in armor with sword and fire spell in their hands and pegging fetish. Probably 100%. Swedish Devs deserve faith worse then death

Video games are for kids

 

[ArchAngel]

We haven't had a proper HOMM style game in years and main problem is that protagonist is a woman

It is not,the game does have a lot worst problem,it is pretty far away from heroes lol.

The main problems i found out are;

It lacks animation speed options,that makes the map explopration a button smasher since you have to click three times fast the right mouse button to teleport,and makes combat a slog. It lacks the heroes 3 options for animations,huge decline.

The building mechanics are very limited,quite the decline,you get to max out a town in a few turns. Once you get the meta for a town build you don't bother with other buildings.

There small unit variation for now,you get like 5 units types. Also the army thingy is weird,it is made so you could have stackst,say 9 at max that you could fill with units,any units stack have a max capacity that depends on tech and hero skills. Say the peasants could be max at 50 and then at 100 with tech. Also you could have multi stacks of the same unit,so you could just spam knights the top tier unit of the humans. It feels pretty weird,you end up either steamrolling or getting steamrolled.

Combat is also very basic,you lack the most utility options from heroes,there is no defence button or wait one,just skip turn,you can't just wait with your archers for the enemy to close in. Also there is a weird magic system that get mana bassed on unit turns or something lol.

Another negative that made an impression on me is the graphics,from up away it looks nice,but in the end it is modern pixel art where the art is missing and is just pixels. While heroes looks even more amazing when in higher resolution,this one still looks like squares of paint lol.

There is a few more shit that doesn't feel right....but too lazy to remember.

Nothing you said here is wrong or bad, it is just different or unfinished because this is still Early Acess. If full release has no speed up or down options then we can complain about stuff like that.
How combat works is very interesting, also limiting how many soldiers you can bring based on your hero is also cool. I never liked doom stack gameplay of older titles.

You cannot max out town fast because you lack resources for that. In HoMM if you had unlimited you could also reach Dragons or whatever in 10 turns or so.

Hmmm you are too defensive. I had maxed out towns in less than 10 turns lol,you get teh starting town and then when you get other towns you could max them out pretty fast,for example building upgrade doesn't takes time,thus you could just upgrade the whole town in a single turn if you had the gibz. Also isn't a bit too late for the excuse of early access lol,we had like hundreds of ea games that people said that X will be fixed on release and never is. The speed up is pretty easy to fix,just get cheat engine speedhack,but that is not the point,the point is laziness of it. Also the stacks would have worked if you had like a limit of the similar stacks you could have in your army,now you could just fill all the stacks with top tier units or something that does the job and smash.
The combat is very simplistic,lacks defence,wait and spell variation.There is like 20 spells i have seen and no mage guild or way to buy or learn spells. Also the tactical positioning at the start of combat is retarded.

Here is an example,one of the better ones.

Spoiler

You could put your units only on the blue tiles,and for some reason you can't put it on the others around them. And the fag orbs around are the mana points.

I am not defensive, you are just putting out untrue shit. In HoMM any of the non starting cities you get I can upgrade very fast because by that time I am always rich. And you never do all buildings because you will not be using their crap units due to morale penalty, you will got for best ones so you only build what you need to get there. You can reach that very fast.

 

[Brickfrog]

Video games are for kids

It's weird to me that people care about stories in video games tbh. Of all audio visual media, games are probably the worst at conveying a story.

Most good storytellers are working in tv/movies or writing books. 99% of the time when I'm playing a game it's for the mechanics and I'm just skipping through any non-tutorial text.

Getting mad at a game for having a bad story is like getting mad at a Japanese guy for having a small dick. It's just what it is.

 

[Alienman]

Wrote an early access impression for my blog (that I haven't uploaded yet, but I thought I might share here if anyone is interested):

Spoiler

The HoMM inspired turn-based fantasy strategy game Songs of Conquest is finally here, or well, at least in early access mode. It comes with multiplayer, 2 minor campaigns and skirmish maps against the AI. I'm a campaign guy myself, so this impression will mostly focus on just that. I also want to say, that I'm not a HoMM aficionado. I have played the games in the past, liked them okay enough, but never really got into them that much. My favorite in this genre is probably King's Bounty: The Legend from 2008. With that said, here we go!

Let's start with the good parts. The visuals, pixel art as they are, look absolutely stunning - everything from units, to the world itself. It's all very charming and pleasing to the eyes. Effects, UI, menus and stuff like that are also well-designed. It looks great, and fits the overall setting. It's sleek, especially the effects, and even if they are fast for snappy gameplay, you can easily follow what is going on. There is also a minimum of clutter, which I personally appreciate a lot. The less UI there is, the better.

Sound, and music are of quality design too. I didn't sense anything out of theme, and while functional, the music didn't catch my attention like some tunes do, but as said - it is fine. There is also a troubadour thing going on between campaign missions, so instead of telling you what happened/going to happen using a narrator, it is sung to you. It is different, and it works I guess, but I have a feeling this extra flair is what makes the campaign less of what was expected.

Now to the campaign, and general gameplay. In the campaign I have played so far you play as the noble woman Cecilia Stoutheart, having her father recently die which threw the country into turmoil. You are here to restore order, and figure out what is going on, since it is looking to be more than just a normal peasant uprising. Spoiler - it is undead, unsurprisingly considering it's one of the factions.

First off, the campaign is tiny, only 4 missions per campaign, which there is 2 off. The first two missions on the campaign I'm currently playing acted as a tutorial, or so I think at least, because it was mind-numbingly easy and boring - at least until mission 3.

Mission 3 start a bit different, with you having a bit more freedom on the map, but it is scripted in such a way that if you don't play it 100% correct, you get screwed as soon as you reach the objectives. It seems like that anyway, because it happened exactly the same on a restart. You are supposed to capture villages, and kill enemy generals. But these generals doesn't seem to exist on the map until you trigger a capture of the second town. Then one undead lord spawns behind you at the beginning of the map, going for your initial town. No problem so far, except, that this encounter will probably chew through most of your men. As soon as this guy is killed, the missions spawns in another enemy lord, a fey one, coming for your second city. This means you will have to rush down to face him with a limited army, seeing that there hasn't been any time for replenishment. I knew what was coming the second time around, so I saved all the men I could for this encounter. The town was saved, and I proceeded with the mission.

Then I come across a third city, and as on cue, another fey lord appears after I secured the city with no time to prepare. But at least, this lord was ranked "challenging", which would indicate I could defeat it. There was no way, however. Somehow, this lord had access to magic I could only dream of, and within the first turn of the battle she had wiped out 80% of my soldiers with it. I don't want to say I rage-quit, but the disappointment was overwhelming at this point. I don't have anything against a challenge, before this, the game was way too easy, but this kind of scripted artificial difficulty is something I strongly dislike. This, combined with how generic the campaign had felt so far (story-wise), it drained my will to try again. With 4 missions, only 1 left for me, it is doubtful it would suddenly become engaging/interesting.

The gameplay overall is basically HoMM, with some changes of course. Instead of having your city in a menu, it has an actual place on the map. While it looks nice, I'm a bit unsure if this was a change that was needed, or even requested. It does seem to make it a bit harder to find what building you are looking for since usually your buildings are fairly spread out, and kinda look the same. Another big change is to the magic system. Instead of having unlockable spells through levels or other means, you have everything for your disposal from the get go.

How it works, though, is that you don't use mana for spells, your spells are all depending on what kind of units you have in your army. Every unit produce a special orb of magic when the unit do something on the battlefield, which corresponds to what spells you can use. So having a lot of regular human warriors generate a lot of blue orbs (order I think it was called) which gives you a defensive style of magic, and so on. It's an interesting system, but I think something more classic would have been preferable. It diminishes a lot of the upgrading for your heroes, and it does make them feel a bit more generic.

The combat units feel pretty standard, from range to melee, and after being upgraded they get access to skills to use on the battlefield. Like, rangers get some kind of overwatch system. What was funny here, though, is that my rangers had so low initiative that everyone could go before them, even giants. So I never got to try the overwatch system. When it was my turn, everyone was already in range for attacks, especially so, since everyone seems to make a beeline for your weakest guys. Even running through attacks of opportunity to get to them. Not sure if intended, or the AI is just too focused on the weak ones.

There isn't too much else I can say right now, most stuff is standard affair, the only thing that stands out is the excellent graphics. The campaign (so far), are lack luster and boring, skirmish, which I tried seemed to get a bit bogged down on having way too strong AI unit placements on the map. Maps are not randomly created either, so I would assume you get tired of them pretty quickly, even if you find the game enjoyable. Multiplayer I have not tried, and I will likely not to, it's not my type of thing, so I'm a bit unsure if this game is for me. With a hard scripted campaign, generic, and short, what else is there to do than to gawk at the pretty visuals?

Oh well, I don't want to be too harsh following it's in currently in early access, but for 30 euro bucks you would think to expect a little more, at least a bigger, and more engaging campaign. But alas. Do I recommend the game? Only to the one super starved of a new HoMM like game, otherwise I don't think you will find too much here, yet.

 

[fantadomat]

time,thus you could just upgrade the whole town in a single turn if you had the gibz

Building is limited to one upgrade per turn.

No,it is one construction per turn,you get tech that allows two. But upgrades are done instantly and you could just single turn spam them.

 

[Brickfrog]

time,thus you could just upgrade the whole town in a single turn if you had the gibz

Building is limited to one upgrade per turn.

No,it is one construction per turn,you get tech that allows two. But upgrades are done instantly and you could just single turn spam them.

Fair enough. Still, it's not as though you can get the unit recruitment going that quickly.

 

[fantadomat]

Wrote an early access impression for my blog (that I haven't uploaded yet, but I thought I might share here if anyone is interested):

Spoiler

The HoMM inspired turn-based fantasy strategy game Songs of Conquest is finally here, or well, at least in early access mode. It comes with multiplayer, 2 minor campaigns and skirmish maps against the AI. I'm a campaign guy myself, so this impression will mostly focus on just that. I also want to say, that I'm not a HoMM aficionado. I have played the games in the past, liked them okay enough, but never really got into them that much. My favorite in this genre is probably King's Bounty: The Legend from 2008. With that said, here we go!

Let's start with the good parts. The visuals, pixel art as they are, look absolutely stunning - everything from units, to the world itself. It's all very charming and pleasing to the eyes. Effects, UI, menus and stuff like that are also well-designed. It looks great, and fits the overall setting. It's sleek, especially the effects, and even if they are fast for snappy gameplay, you can easily follow what is going on. There is also a minimum of clutter, which I personally appreciate a lot. The less UI there is, the better.

Sound, and music are of quality design too. I didn't sense anything out of theme, and while functional, the music didn't catch my attention like some tunes do, but as said - it is fine. There is also a troubadour thing going on between campaign missions, so instead of telling you what happened/going to happen using a narrator, it is sung to you. It is different, and it works I guess, but I have a feeling this extra flair is what makes the campaign less of what was expected.

Now to the campaign, and general gameplay. In the campaign I have played so far you play as the noble woman Cecilia Stoutheart, having her father recently die which threw the country into turmoil. You are here to restore order, and figure out what is going on, since it is looking to be more than just a normal peasant uprising. Spoiler - it is undead, unsurprisingly considering it's one of the factions.

First off, the campaign is tiny, only 4 missions per campaign, which there is 2 off. The first two missions on the campaign I'm currently playing acted as a tutorial, or so I think at least, because it was mind-numbingly easy and boring - at least until mission 3.

Mission 3 start a bit different, with you having a bit more freedom on the map, but it is scripted in such a way that if you don't play it 100% correct, you get screwed as soon as you reach the objectives. It seems like that anyway, because it happened exactly the same on a restart. You are supposed to capture villages, and kill enemy generals. But these generals doesn't seem to exist on the map until you trigger a capture of the second town. Then one undead lord spawns behind you at the beginning of the map, going for your initial town. No problem so far, except, that this encounter will probably chew through most of your men. As soon as this guy is killed, the missions spawns in another enemy lord, a fey one, coming for your second city. This means you will have to rush down to face him with a limited army, seeing that there hasn't been any time for replenishment. I knew what was coming the second time around, so I saved all the men I could for this encounter. The town was saved, and I proceeded with the mission.

Then I come across a third city, and as on cue, another fey lord appears after I secured the city with no time to prepare. But at least, this lord was ranked "challenging", which would indicate I could defeat it. There was no way, however. Somehow, this lord had access to magic I could only dream of, and within the first turn of the battle she had wiped out 80% of my soldiers with it. I don't want to say I rage-quit, but the disappointment was overwhelming at this point. I don't have anything against a challenge, before this, the game was way too easy, but this kind of scripted artificial difficulty is something I strongly dislike. This, combined with how generic the campaign had felt so far (story-wise), it drained my will to try again. With 4 missions, only 1 left for me, it is doubtful it would suddenly become engaging/interesting.

The gameplay overall is basically HoMM, with some changes of course. Instead of having your city in a menu, it has an actual place on the map. While it looks nice, I'm a bit unsure if this was a change that was needed, or even requested. It does seem to make it a bit harder to find what building you are looking for since usually your buildings are fairly spread out, and kinda look the same. Another big change is to the magic system. Instead of having unlockable spells through levels or other means, you have everything for your disposal from the get go.

How it works, though, is that you don't use mana for spells, your spells are all depending on what kind of units you have in your army. Every unit produce a special orb of magic when the unit do something on the battlefield, which corresponds to what spells you can use. So having a lot of regular human warriors generate a lot of blue orbs (order I think it was called) which gives you a defensive style of magic, and so on. It's an interesting system, but I think something more classic would have been preferable. It diminishes a lot of the upgrading for your heroes, and it does make them feel a bit more generic.

The combat units feel pretty standard, from range to melee, and after being upgraded they get access to skills to use on the battlefield. Like, rangers get some kind of overwatch system. What was funny here, though, is that my rangers had so low initiative that everyone could go before them, even giants. So I never got to try the overwatch system. When it was my turn, everyone was already in range for attacks, especially so, since everyone seems to make a beeline for your weakest guys. Even running through attacks of opportunity to get to them. Not sure if intended, or the AI is just too focused on the weak ones.

There isn't too much else I can say right now, most stuff is standard affair, the only thing that stands out is the excellent graphics. The campaign (so far), are lack luster and boring, skirmish, which I tried seemed to get a bit bogged down on having way too strong AI unit placements on the map. Maps are not randomly created either, so I would assume you get tired of them pretty quickly, even if you find the game enjoyable. Multiplayer I have not tried, and I will likely not to, it's not my type of thing, so I'm a bit unsure if this game is for me. With a hard scripted campaign, generic, and short, what else is there to do than to gawk at the pretty visuals?

Oh well, I don't want to be too harsh following it's in currently in early access, but for 30 euro bucks you would think to expect a little more, at least a bigger, and more engaging campaign. But alas. Do I recommend the game? Only to the one super starved of a new HoMM like game, otherwise I don't think you will find too much here, yet.

Yeah,on the third map it is time based,not city conquests one. I was exploring around when the undead idiot spawned,then the two fay fagz one after another. The magic one beatable by using the quick combat option lol. Just go for full stacks of archers and melee dudes. The idiotic part was that after that another one spawned and fallowed me around the map,ignoring your other objectives and just forcing you to finish the level once beaten. So i did the chad thing of just running in circles with me protag while exploring the rest. A good trick is to go for the city up north of the starting city early on. It was pretty funny running away from the baron before even the guy going to get the baron lol.

 

[fantadomat]

time,thus you could just upgrade the whole town in a single turn if you had the gibz

Building is limited to one upgrade per turn.

No,it is one construction per turn,you get tech that allows two. But upgrades are done instantly and you could just single turn spam them.

Fair enough. Still, it's not as though you can get the unit recruitment going that quickly.

I never said such a thing,i said that you could fully upgrade a town in a few turns,hile heroes restricted you to one per day. The troops add up pretty much,there is like three useful troops,the archers,melee dudes and champions. You could get the buildings pretty fast. You get all your needed troops from two buildings yo.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

some of you people seem to actually just hate video games more than you like to actually play video games, every release its the same endless whining shit.

If this game had been released 25 years ago, then HoMM3 released now I predict most of the whining would be in the exact reverse direction, saying new Heroes game sucks compared to old incline songs of conquest game...

 

[Hobo Elf]

Wrote an early access impression for my blog (that I haven't uploaded yet, but I thought I might share here if anyone is interested):

Spoiler

The HoMM inspired turn-based fantasy strategy game Songs of Conquest is finally here, or well, at least in early access mode. It comes with multiplayer, 2 minor campaigns and skirmish maps against the AI. I'm a campaign guy myself, so this impression will mostly focus on just that. I also want to say, that I'm not a HoMM aficionado. I have played the games in the past, liked them okay enough, but never really got into them that much. My favorite in this genre is probably King's Bounty: The Legend from 2008. With that said, here we go!

Let's start with the good parts. The visuals, pixel art as they are, look absolutely stunning - everything from units, to the world itself. It's all very charming and pleasing to the eyes. Effects, UI, menus and stuff like that are also well-designed. It looks great, and fits the overall setting. It's sleek, especially the effects, and even if they are fast for snappy gameplay, you can easily follow what is going on. There is also a minimum of clutter, which I personally appreciate a lot. The less UI there is, the better.

Sound, and music are of quality design too. I didn't sense anything out of theme, and while functional, the music didn't catch my attention like some tunes do, but as said - it is fine. There is also a troubadour thing going on between campaign missions, so instead of telling you what happened/going to happen using a narrator, it is sung to you. It is different, and it works I guess, but I have a feeling this extra flair is what makes the campaign less of what was expected.

Now to the campaign, and general gameplay. In the campaign I have played so far you play as the noble woman Cecilia Stoutheart, having her father recently die which threw the country into turmoil. You are here to restore order, and figure out what is going on, since it is looking to be more than just a normal peasant uprising. Spoiler - it is undead, unsurprisingly considering it's one of the factions.

First off, the campaign is tiny, only 4 missions per campaign, which there is 2 off. The first two missions on the campaign I'm currently playing acted as a tutorial, or so I think at least, because it was mind-numbingly easy and boring - at least until mission 3.

Mission 3 start a bit different, with you having a bit more freedom on the map, but it is scripted in such a way that if you don't play it 100% correct, you get screwed as soon as you reach the objectives. It seems like that anyway, because it happened exactly the same on a restart. You are supposed to capture villages, and kill enemy generals. But these generals doesn't seem to exist on the map until you trigger a capture of the second town. Then one undead lord spawns behind you at the beginning of the map, going for your initial town. No problem so far, except, that this encounter will probably chew through most of your men. As soon as this guy is killed, the missions spawns in another enemy lord, a fey one, coming for your second city. This means you will have to rush down to face him with a limited army, seeing that there hasn't been any time for replenishment. I knew what was coming the second time around, so I saved all the men I could for this encounter. The town was saved, and I proceeded with the mission.

Then I come across a third city, and as on cue, another fey lord appears after I secured the city with no time to prepare. But at least, this lord was ranked "challenging", which would indicate I could defeat it. There was no way, however. Somehow, this lord had access to magic I could only dream of, and within the first turn of the battle she had wiped out 80% of my soldiers with it. I don't want to say I rage-quit, but the disappointment was overwhelming at this point. I don't have anything against a challenge, before this, the game was way too easy, but this kind of scripted artificial difficulty is something I strongly dislike. This, combined with how generic the campaign had felt so far (story-wise), it drained my will to try again. With 4 missions, only 1 left for me, it is doubtful it would suddenly become engaging/interesting.

The gameplay overall is basically HoMM, with some changes of course. Instead of having your city in a menu, it has an actual place on the map. While it looks nice, I'm a bit unsure if this was a change that was needed, or even requested. It does seem to make it a bit harder to find what building you are looking for since usually your buildings are fairly spread out, and kinda look the same. Another big change is to the magic system. Instead of having unlockable spells through levels or other means, you have everything for your disposal from the get go.

How it works, though, is that you don't use mana for spells, your spells are all depending on what kind of units you have in your army. Every unit produce a special orb of magic when the unit do something on the battlefield, which corresponds to what spells you can use. So having a lot of regular human warriors generate a lot of blue orbs (order I think it was called) which gives you a defensive style of magic, and so on. It's an interesting system, but I think something more classic would have been preferable. It diminishes a lot of the upgrading for your heroes, and it does make them feel a bit more generic.

The combat units feel pretty standard, from range to melee, and after being upgraded they get access to skills to use on the battlefield. Like, rangers get some kind of overwatch system. What was funny here, though, is that my rangers had so low initiative that everyone could go before them, even giants. So I never got to try the overwatch system. When it was my turn, everyone was already in range for attacks, especially so, since everyone seems to make a beeline for your weakest guys. Even running through attacks of opportunity to get to them. Not sure if intended, or the AI is just too focused on the weak ones.

There isn't too much else I can say right now, most stuff is standard affair, the only thing that stands out is the excellent graphics. The campaign (so far), are lack luster and boring, skirmish, which I tried seemed to get a bit bogged down on having way too strong AI unit placements on the map. Maps are not randomly created either, so I would assume you get tired of them pretty quickly, even if you find the game enjoyable. Multiplayer I have not tried, and I will likely not to, it's not my type of thing, so I'm a bit unsure if this game is for me. With a hard scripted campaign, generic, and short, what else is there to do than to gawk at the pretty visuals?

Oh well, I don't want to be too harsh following it's in currently in early access, but for 30 euro bucks you would think to expect a little more, at least a bigger, and more engaging campaign. But alas. Do I recommend the game? Only to the one super starved of a new HoMM like game, otherwise I don't think you will find too much here, yet.

Good summary. Think I'll just hold off for now, but I will keep the game under my radar. It's not often that we get something like this and I really like the pixel art even if it does look a bit busy in the screenshots.

 

[The Wall]

some of you people seem to actually just hate video games more than you like to actually play video games, every release its the same endless whining shit.

If this game had been released 25 years ago, then HoMM3 released now I predict most of the whining would be in the exact reverse direction, saying new Heroes game sucks compared to old incline songs of conquest game...

HoMM3 had literally 9/10 main cast as black or women? No. Woke hate every single white male cuck who slurps their dick in this thread. H.A.T.E. No amount of money donated to BLM or playttoughs of this shitty game where you conquered map as proud bisexual serpent black queen will change the fact that you are white and that and that only is reason enough for them to hate you and want you dead. Everything I said is what Woke openly say and what most of you already know yet you finance your demise by playing game that is every way inferior HOMM3 instead of, I dunno, playing old HOMM3

 

[The Wall]

Playing and paying for woke game as a white male is akin to Ally soldiers during downtime between battles playing Adventures of Third Reich video game where they as Hitler kill Ally soldiers. On last level they meet 2D versions of real-life themselves and shoot.

Retarded beyond measure

 

[The Wall]

LoL i played a bit and it is very sjws lol. Three missions in the human campaign and it is all about strong independent womxn and negros lol. It feels like all the main protagonists/antagonists and even mythical creatures are muh strong independent womxn.

What, a strong independent woman in a HOMM3 inspired game? That is heresy!

Spoiler

HOMM3 wasn't woke and had bunch of strong white male characters. I can't play as sassy fat ghetto serpent queen. I just can't. You're asking from me to suck cock of New Clown World Order, and to pay them for privilege of blowjob. And to wait 1 year for patches. And to in the end again receive someting mechanically inferior compared to what's subverting (HoMM3). I just can't, friend

 

[Harthwain]

It's weird to me that people care about stories in video games tbh. Of all audio visual media, games are probably the worst at conveying a story.

Most good storytellers are working in tv/movies or writing books. 99% of the time when I'm playing a game it's for the mechanics and I'm just skipping through any non-tutorial text.

Getting mad at a game for having a bad story is like getting mad at a Japanese guy for having a small dick. It's just what it is.

There is nothing wrong with having a good background explaining why you're fighting, even if it's 100% fluff. Look at Warcraft II and Starcraft I for example - all missions are done in mission editor, so all you get is text and voice acting, but playing the same missions without all that is just not the same experience.

 

[thesheeep]

Retarded beyond measure

Is that an application for yet another tag of yours?
DarkUnderlord Seems fitting, what do you think?

Different question: Do you sometimes contribute anything to discussions or is it just this endless "muh fragile masculine ego! Woe is mine! I swear I'm not gay!" whining all the time?
Cause it's really getting annoying and while I don't ignore people for disagreeing with me, I just don't see what you are adding here other than scrolling space between posts that don't waste everyone's time.

 

[wishbonetail]

Video games are for kids

It's weird to me that people care about stories in video games tbh. Of all audio visual media, games are probably the worst at conveying a story.

Most good storytellers are working in tv/movies or writing books. 99% of the time when I'm playing a game it's for the mechanics and I'm just skipping through any non-tutorial text.

Getting mad at a game for having a bad story is like getting mad at a Japanese guy for having a small dick. It's just what it is.

Games can be very different yknow? Saying: I'm playing games it is like: I'm listening to music. It really doesn't tell anything.

 

[Brickfrog]

It's weird to me that people care about stories in video games tbh. Of all audio visual media, games are probably the worst at conveying a story.

Most good storytellers are working in tv/movies or writing books. 99% of the time when I'm playing a game it's for the mechanics and I'm just skipping through any non-tutorial text.

Getting mad at a game for having a bad story is like getting mad at a Japanese guy for having a small dick. It's just what it is.

There is nothing wrong with having a good background explaining why you're fighting, even if it's 100% fluff. Look at Warcraft II and Starcraft I for example - all missions are done in mission editor, so all you get is text and voice acting, but playing the same missions without all that is just not the same experience.

Funny enough, I was thinking about brood war specifically while I was writing that haha. Your right though, the aesthetics and fluff add something intangible.

I'm probably being too mean. It's not like iv never enjoyed a video games story. It just doesn't happen too often compared to most other media that's geared entirely towards storytelling.

 

[smaug]

gameplay:

Battles and animations look smooth

i wish good luck to the devs selling a strategy game to nigs and women.

I don’t think the woke stuff would stop me from potentially buying the game. However, I do hate this pandering because the only people who play it are nerds who happen to be whitoids. Does having a color person (or a stronk female character) suddenly make a minority buy the game and take a vested interest? Lmao

 

[Space Satan]

What a losers, releaseing their game in early access. You wait till Fanstratics - a TRUE successor to HOMM will release another astonishing set or concept artwork next month!

 

[fantadomat]

lol the magic is broken because of the unit cap. Imagine having only 5 archangels and the enemy could spam chain lightning at master a few times a round lol. Level 5 mage could wipe level 20 other heroes with twice the army without any problem,the worst part is that you can't build mage. You get spells from random books around the map,you can't build a mage guild and unlock spells lol. Sooo when some random mage comes and rapes your arse....well tuff luck fagz.

 

[Seethe]

It seems like trying to find out on Kadex whether a fresh release is good or not, is just as a good of an idea to check out whether a fresh release is good or not on 4chan's /v/. 4 pages post release and 3 of them are all "muh niggers, muh women, muh SJWs" every single time now. Holy shit, do yourselves a favor and kill yourselves to escape this misery. Do not bother to reply, just leave your shitty predictable ratings.

 

[GloomFrost]

LoL i played a bit and it is very sjws lol. Three missions in the human campaign and it is all about strong independent womxn and negros lol. It feels like all the main protagonists/antagonists and even mythical creatures are muh strong independent womxn.

God damn it. I want to RP as a white knight saving damsels in distress, not this!

In that case check out King Arthur Knight Tale. Its turn-based, got knights, damsels and then some.

 

[lukaszek]

LoL i played a bit and it is very sjws lol. Three missions in the human campaign and it is all about strong independent womxn and negros lol. It feels like all the main protagonists/antagonists and even mythical creatures are muh strong independent womxn.

What, a strong independent woman in a HOMM3 inspired game? That is heresy!

Spoiler