Well ive played them both, and I must say I enjoy them both! Each are a slightly diffrent experience.

Can someone please explain to me how HOMM4 is different from the other in the series. With some examples please. :D

This has been discussed before

As a stand-alone game, H4 is good, but when you begin comparing it with H3, it's quickly obvious why it was a failure.Maybe H5 could revive the series, but somehow i doubt that, even though it's being made by Nival, of Rage of Mages fame most notably

To sum up my own opinion of the game:
+You get to send your heroes into battle, which also gives you the possibility to slay enemy heroes. (will usually cripple the opposing armys strenghts.)
+The new battlefield allows more tactic to be used. like the quicksand spell which can allow you to create a great big detour for any land-based creatures.) HoMM3,s battlefield seemed somewhat small in comparison.
+Looks somewhat better.
+You can choose what second, third and fourth level creature you wish to play each time you start a game, making it possible to command different creatures that utilise different strategies.
-The campaigns are to some degree ruined. I,ve noticed that the Nature campaign f.e has been totally overbalanced giving the enemy to many advantages and you get stuck early in the campaign. I just had to quit trying, it was hopeless.
-does not give you the Heroes feeling that you get from the first three games.
-Creatures does no longer have the possibility to be upgraded.

A couple of good +\- points to keep in mind.

HOMM 4 wasn't that bad. It was just different from the rest of the series by making heroes a real army and not just an invisible booster. The problem (for me) was that in chosing that new direction they fell way behind Age of Wonders 2 which is superior to HOMM 4 in every way. Even if i am an early gamer (i played king's bounty and every Heroes game after, and loved them all) and had a sentimental attachment to the Heroes series, i still can recognize a good game when i see one. Age of Wonders (1 and 2) borrowed heavily from lots of games (MoM, Heroes, Warlords) but became superior to each and every one of them. Heroes 4 compares really poorly to AoW 2. So if you want to play "stand alone" heroes who don't need an army to fight, play AoW 2. :Titan:

Thanks for the info guys.


If I remember correctly Age of Wonders was in development for like 89 years and after it was released people were saying how it borrowed from HOMM, but the developers kept saying that it was the other way arround (or something like that) and that they did not borrow anything from HOMM, only that it looked like it because it was released after that one.

I liked the first HOMM but not very much, I loved AoW and saw the HOMM4 for a low price so I am thinking of getting it.

Nah, AoW's a big HoMM rip off. Better racial system (although they're not very well differentiated in the beginning), but gets boring even quicker though - the campaign is dull as sin, but its multiplayer is ok.

Strange, I remember it faring no resemblence to HOMM at all, then I also noticed that it was much better, then I noticed that the game had actual BALANCING.

Lord I missed that in HOMM