u/General-Jerk

I’ve thought this since the demo, honestly. The parry feature is just so nice on that unit, that giving them a good special AND better initiative makes me feel vanguard is the objectively worse choice. Besides, Kings seem to fulfill the “defensive” role, whereas the vanguards are (as the name suggests) front runners. Shouldn’t they be the ones first to the fray? Maybe it could be a “Bull Rush” type focus ability that is tied to morale bonus… dunno just spitballing.

Anyone have a good counterpoint to this? Maybe I’ve been using them wrong. (Also worth noting that in the demo, Riposte did not work on vanguards, which I haven’t tested on EA yet)

The other week I posted some of my initial thoughts on the first revealed portions of the campaign. While my initial impressions of the EA have been widely positive, I had stated some reservations about some campaign elements.

Having finished it, I actually would backtrack a bit on my opinions of its layout. Act 1 was solid. I enjoyed the hell out of each different challenge, and getting the opportunity to somewhat choose my path. I more thoroughly enjoyed the challenges associated with the free roam style once I disassociated my previous requirements for it to be more similar to the HoMM3 campaigns.

There are just a FEW lines of dialogue I’d love to see them rework that did have me cringe a little, but overall I got into it. I liked the story, and the characters all felt unique.

I’m eager to see what else Unfrozen gives us!

To start, I will say I’m a huge fan of what Unfrozen has created here, and I haven’t been this excited about a HoMM game since III. There are so many things they are getting right, and I’m having a blast playing everything they’ve offered so far.

HOWEVER, I do still have a couple of concerns for the current EA version, and one is the campaign.

What I like:
-the general setup of the story: mysterious new entities and a chosen pathway/alliance for the end goal
-free roaming hero adventure mode is interesting, and makes for some clever missions/submissions
-the map art is beautiful, and while I know many would disagree I also really like the character art as well

What I don’t like:
-the style and sound of the dialogue. Hearing the queen and various agents discussing their course of actions feels…. cheap? I’ve heard someone else describe it as amateur unofficial DLC type content, or homebrew D&D content. I would much rather see some serious investment in voice actors, writing, and better stylistic cutscenes and dialogue interactions that gave me more of a feeling of intrigue and weight to the situation itself. Heck, even taking the voices completely OUT would be a pretty good compromise. This is so far the only time I’ve agreed with the “it feels like a mobile game” sentiment.
-bring back more “standard scenario with a flair” style. I think most players prefer a campaign to essentially be a series of stylized scenarios where you start or quickly acquire a castle, then play as normal but against very specific challenges. There doesn’t need to be so much free roam hero scenarios.
-and again, I mentioned this before above but wanted to specifically call out the writing: it’s really important to have good written dialogue, and certain lines like “by my grandpa’s horns!” admittedly took me out of my immersion. I’m sorry, but I can’t picture a big, seasoned Minotaur warrior saying “grandpa” unironically.

I haven’t had many complaints so far, but this one felt important to me. Anyone else have similar or opposite feelings on this?