Hey guys! I just bought both Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and 4. I hear that everyone raves 3 is the absolute best, and 4 is the absolute worst? What exactly do the two have in diffrence that makes them so opposite? Ive on'y played HoMM 1 and 2, and I wanted to complete my collection. Just curious as to what makes 3 the best, and what makes 4 the worst??

it's not right to say that HoMMIV was worst. it's a pretty adequate game on it's own, BUT it's doesn't continue the tradition of other hero's games, if you'll excuse me saying so- it's more like MoM than HOMM :D
and HOMMIII was just the latest one before this- so, sinc it didn't have any *risky* features, and had most the gamers complaints (at the time ) addressed it was naturaly proclaimed best (like II in it's time).

I liked them both. 5 Looks promising :P

IV is really crap. I would never even consider wasting money on that game again, considering I knew what I know now.

III is good... But begin to show signs of age.

Heh, well i'm here aren't I? Signs of age aren't a bad thing to me. Thanks for the feedback guys, I look forward to hearing everyone's continued opionions. However, I require sleep. G'night!

HOMM 4, like M&M 9, wasn't done by New World Computing. The owner of 3DO, who had purchased NWC, pulled away the titles and gave them to other people for releases. In the case of M&M 9 it was an abject failure, because the development team had never actually released an RPG, before. HOMM 4 was done by more experienced people, but its reception was mixed. Not for the first time, I wish a company hadn't sold itself to a much larger outfit to get money it needed for development--only to lose its own products in the end.

Yeah, sucks. MM was one of my favorite series. Ahh the memories of MM6. Nine was so pathetic I played it for 5 mins and turned it off.

I did a review for a now-deceased magazine, and banned the thing. It was a terrible come-down from one of the really venerable and most beloved RPG series around.

I like HOMM4, it's great. Only thing I miss from HOMM 3 are some of the cities.

I quite like HoMM 4, but the campaigns are only slightly improved on their naffness in HoMM 3 (slightly better characterisation though) - there is more roleplaying than strategy a lot of the time though.

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