Talk:Heroes of Might and Magic III

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move[edit]

Simetrical moved this article to [[Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia]]. I think he did it to resolve the clash with the expansion packs. This isn't necessary because:

  1. Any discussion about the expansion packs can go in this article. I doubt enough can be said about them to warrant enough discussion for their own articles.
  2. I renamed the one expansion pack to a more reasonable name so it wouldn't clash.

"Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia" is just way too long for an article name, and most people would end up linking to the redirect ("Heroes of Might and Magic III") and it just wasn't necessary. If you want to move the article to a new name, please discuss it here first. I think the current name is sufficient. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:26, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. —Simetrical (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that you should just call the expansion packs by the expansion names (e.g. Shadow of Death etc). Compared to Heroes 2: Price of Loyalty, the HOMM 3 expansion packs weren't all that significant. But still worthy of a separate entry. They are new games after all. But HOMM 3 complete is the big one to write something on. Most people who have expansion packs now just go and get complete, or straight to WOG. 203.122.218.47 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seancdaug moved it back to Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia. Alex 07:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. We don't need it named with it's subtitle. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I might agree with that choice in a vacuum, it should be pointed out that all the other Heroes pages use the full name with subtitle. I believe that consistency should take precedence and they should all be named with the subtitle (or a proposal put forward to rename all the pages of the base Heroes games, since I think we can all agree that the expansions should be named fully). As long as there's a redirect from Heroes III to the real article, I don't see what the problem is. SnowFire 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I for one think they should all use the shorter version. There is a much higher chance that someone will link to the shorter version, and we want to avoid redirects as much as possible. As far as the expansions go, all their material should be included in the main article. Can so much be said about them that they require their own article? If so, they alone can use the full name with sub-titles. But the main articles should use the shorter ones. Anyone else want to chime in on this? — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the expansions (e.g. Heroes of Might and Magic II: The Price of Loyalty) could be shortened to just the subtitle (e.g. The Price of Loyalty). There'd be little chance of a conflict. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would we "want to avoid redirects as much as possible"? They exist for exactly these kind of situations. The article title should reflect the precise title of the game, which in this case is "Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia," in the same way (for example) that the title of Coca-Cola reflects the official title of that product, as opposed to its more common, but technically less "correct," name of Coke. – Seancdaug 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pics[edit]

Sadly I don't have the time right now, but someome should add pictures to this article. Remebmenber that both screenshots and logos are fair polciy for image use. Dave the Red (talk) 20:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to get some soon. Alex 05:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

How do you add pics? 203.122.218.47 18:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As in, how to capture them, or upload? If you're on a Mac, just use Cmd+Shift+3 or Print Screen button of a PC to capture, then use the upload tool on the left bar/toolbox, along w/ "what links here", "related changes" etc. Alex 07:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added the game icon. But made a typo in the edit summary. "Extracted from.." --Sorin 16:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes III Complete[edit]

I've edited and shortened the Heroes III Complete part of the article. First of all, I think that various speculations on the reasons as to why the expansions packs and the Complete edition were released how they were doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Also, the remark that AB and SoD cannot be played at the same time is false - if you install the original game, then SoD, then AB and finally reinstall SoD over AB, you get SoD where you can play all 3 campaigns and all standard maps from the original and the expansions, and you can create maps that combine all features in the editor.

Drst 15:22, March 31 2006 (CET+1)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Heroes of Might and Magic III → Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia — A bit of history. This article was originally created at simply Heroes of Might and Magic III. In January, User:Seancdaug moved it to the full title, Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia. In April, User:Frecklefoot moved it back. In June, User:Sikon moved it back to the subtitle. Now, Frecklefoot has moved it back to simply Heroes III again. I feel that rather than have a slow-burning move war, we should resolve the proper location of the article in a discussion.

Myself, I feel that the article should be at the full title. Aside from the issue of precision, there is a very good reason: disambiguation. Let's take a look at some of the other article titles in the series:

That's a lot of subtitles. Having the subtitle in the article makes it abundantly clear which game is being referred to. What is the odd one out here? Heroes IV, which has no official subtitle. This fact is made quite clear simply by article naming. For that matter, the same thing is noticed in the M&M base titles. Compare Might and Magic VI: The Mandate of Heaven and Might and Magic IX (no official subtitle), for instance. For consistency's sake, I believe that we should maintain this- if you have a subtitle, it is in your article name. There is also the alternative of simply removing all the subtitles from "main" games, but I do not feel this is wise- Heroes II has its subtitle quite prominently on the main box, so it would seem rather odd to remove it.

In fairness to Frecklefoot, while "The Restoration of Erathia" is the official subtitle, it's not displayed very prominently. I rechecked the CD-case. "The Restoration of Erathia" is not listed on the front... but it is displayed as the header on the back. Make of that what you will. SnowFire 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Oppose the move back to the full (very long) title. I can understand the case for desire for disambiguation, but all those other titles listed are expansions, not base games. My preference is ease of linking: how many people are intuitively going to use ''[[Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia]]'' instead of simply ''[[Heroes of Might and Magic III]]''? About zero. So there will be dozens of links to a redirect page until/unless someone comes in cleans them up with a direct link. For the expansions, the full subtitle is fine. But for the base games, almost no one—no one—uses the title & subtitle. If you are concerned about consistency, currently the other articles use the shortened version (which is why I moved it—to make it match up with the others). What I say about this title goes for them too: the title plus subtitle is almost never used. I don't even know the subtitles unless I look it up somewhere, and neither do most other players, I would suspect. Anyway, that's my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to clarify on one bit. The other articles do not use the shortened version currently. The subtitle, if there is one, is fully spelled out. As noted above, see Heroes of Might and Magic II: The Succession Wars (the original, not an expansion) or Might and Magic VI: The Mandate of Heaven, both of which have the full titles spelled out.
As for redirects, as User:Seancdaug pointed out in the above older debates, so what? That's what they're for. Check out, say, Reserve Officers' Training Corps- the "What links here" shows that most people link to ROTC, and that's okay. WP:R has a section "Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken;" it includes, in bold, "Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]." This, to me, implies that linking to redirects is generally fine in cases like this, and if the page is moved, there would be no need to "correct" links. SnowFire 17:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked at Heroes of Might and Magic IV and Heroes of Might and Magic V, but I guess neither have subtitles. But I stand by my vote above. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move —Mets501 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Heroes of Might and Magic III → Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia — Sorry to reopen old wounds, but I was hoping we might be able to get a little more finality this time around. The above request obviously failed to reach consensus, what with only two people participating, so the status quo was maintained. But it's still slightly conspicuous that this game follows a different naming convention than other titles in the Might and Magic franchise, and there's enough of a history behind this controversy that I thought it might be worthwhile to have another stab at consensus (no offense to User:Frecklefoot). The strongest argument in favor of the move seems to be ease-of-linking, which redirects certainly appear to take care of. On the other hand, Wikipedia naming conventions argue for precision. Moreover, the actual, official title of the game is "Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia." As an encyclopedia, we should reflect that, not a shorter title concocted because it's more aesthetically pleasing. I hope we can reach a decisive consensus this time around, regardless of the outcome (though, given past experience, I guess that may be wishful thinking...). – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC) – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes[edit]

  • Support This should be at the correct title, the name of the game is not "Heroes of Might and Magic III". TJ Spyke 00:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' The title is a little long, but it is the correct name. DS9 Voyager 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per arguments in previous move. Frankly, the original move debate probably should have reverted it to the full name in the case of no consensus, since it was done in response to a move that didn't go through the Requested Move process, and the full name had a considerably longer "tenure" as the default, don't rock the boat title, but I went over this with Mets501 some time ago. For what it's worth, Mets501 and myself agreed that it would be nice if there was at least some kind of "common law" rule of thumb on subtitles; Mets501 made a request at the CVG Wikiproject for comment (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games/archive18#Video game subtitles in article titles), but it didn't meet with much interest, alas. (I just noticed this recently, but if this move request succeeds, I'd be tempted to do a unilateral move over at Frontier (computer game) - it has a subtitle obviously on the box, and unnecessary parentheses can be dispensed with.) SnowFire 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per previous arguments by others. ~Gertlex 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of the unusual practice of having multiple "HoMM #" that are distinguished by their subtitles. This is not necessarily an endorsement of using game subtitles in general (though I would support a move to Frontier: Elite II). --Groggy Dice T | C 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per previous arguments. I also do not quite see how having a not-quite-that-long title (as opposed to a long title) will ease linking. - Cyrus XIII 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Oppose votes[edit]

  • Oppose For reasons already discussed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subtitles for movies/books/video games,etc. are included since they are part of the title. DS9 Voyager 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Erm. While I support the move, books are a bad example. Subtitles are routinely chopped off book article entries. Of course, that's mainly because old-timey books felt the need to fill the entire intro page with verbose subtitles like "A Discourse on Proper Methods of Page Moves and Merges in Wikipedia under the Moonlit Sea," even if that didn't appear on the cover (see The Origin of Species for one example). This phenomenon hasn't really affected computer gaming, however. SnowFire 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reception[edit]

I feel there is missing something in this article. The Reaction to it. I mean, to my understanding, it was a great game. But here i only read about the story and gameplay. 62.194.170.62 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLOODY GREAT GAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.165 (talk) 01:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There, I added a Reception section. While not poetry, I hope it gets the point across. Feel free to expand. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy Guide[edit]

Does anyone have access to the strategy guide for Heroes III by Prima? I have it somewhere but I'm not entirely sure how to reference it. Anyway, I was wondering if it would be worthwhile putting in the table which details costs for a fully upgraded town of each alignment. We could use it to illustrate the differences between the costs of the towns-it is clear just how much wood a Fortress needs and just how expensive the Tower and Dungeon are. Unfortunately the details for the Conflux town are not included as the guide was released before the expansion packs came out, but I'm sure that we could work out the cost ourselves. Thanks for your input. TheTrojanHought (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think such information would be too detailed for the 'pedia. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, it was just a suggestion. I'll try and improve the resources section a bit more-resources required to recruit level 7 creatures etc. TheTrojanHought (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skills[edit]

Should there not be a section mentioning the different secondary skills available, with a brief description of what they do. Eg "Navigation - increases movement rate over sea" etc, or is this be classed as being too much like a strategy guide? Thanks. TheTrojanHought (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why you just removed the section on "Skills" please? Thank you. TheTrojanHought (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I provided it in my summary. WP:GAMECRUFT. Or if you prefer, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. A list of skills that have no real-world context is not of interest to anyone except those who are looking for hints on how to play the game, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. There have recently been discussions about this sort of content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there's still a lot of stuff in the article that ought to be cleaned up or removed. The list of skills was simply the easiest and most obvious thing to deal with. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of skills doesn't really give any hints on how to play the game, it merely briefly explains the skills in the game to somebody who has never played the game before. It's not as if I put "don't choose "Learning" as it's useless!" or anything. TheTrojanHought (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the point. Say that you're a layperson who has heard of the game and you would like to find information about the game, such as what the game is about (story overview), or what kind of game it is (gameplay overview). Chances are exceedingly good that you are NOT looking for: how much damage each unit does; the names of specific items that can be equipped; or what skills can be chosen for your character, because none of that has any meaning until you are actually playing the game. At the point where this information does become relevant, you are looking for a manual or game guide, which Wikipedia is not. You don't have to offer advice ("don't choose Learning") to be a manual ("explains the skills in the game to somebody who has never played the game before"). If you want to say something about skills, the appropriate way to do it would be to state simply: "As they level up, heroes can learn from over 20 different skills that can improve their effectiveness" or something like that. That is sufficient to describe the game mechanic. The guidelines I have pointed you to explain the justification better than I can... if you still have objections to this, I encourage you to bring up the discussion on the policy pages or at the Video games project. Other editors may be able to offer you some insight that I cannot. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The articles for the expansion packs are stubs that merely provide additional story information. The real-world context of these games would be highly redundant to reproduce in each article. Once these sections are cleaned up they could easily be merged into the main game article and discussed together with an overall approach, along with each title's reception. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both expansions are more notable and popular than any others in the series (barring, perhaps, Heroes V's ones). If these two were merged with their main article, would it not become necessary to start merging the less notable expansions too? Alternatively, what more could be added to the expansion articles in order to prevent a need for merging? 86.44.197.164 (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of popularity, it's about what can be written. If the expansions were to be treated with their own article, they would have to contain the same information found in a normal game article, such as information about development, sales, critical reception, historical significance, etc. (Note that even the main game article lacks this sort of comprehensiveness, so this cleanup effort is actually aimed at all 3 articles, but obviously we have to keep one.) It would have to be demonstrable that there is enough of this content to warrant splitting -- e.g. a single sentence or short paragraph addressing each isn't really a convincing reason to maintain a separate article. Also, please note that, aside from the Heroes V expansions, which I am holding off on for the time being, I have, in fact, also proposed cleaning up the expansions for 2 and 4. As an example for expansions with significant independent coverage, see Brood War. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least information on development and critical reception is available and can be added to the Armageddon's Blade article - I'm unsure if sales figures exist. Shadow of Death was somewhat less well-covered. I will make an attempt to improve upon Armageddon's Blade, and if a merge is still seen as absolutely necessary some of the added material can be salvaged for the main article. 86.44.192.141 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3[edit]

Rather than being baited into another vote, I would like to see the following points discussed and an actual consensus achieved based on the saliency of arguments from each side. Here are my reasons for asking that the subtitle be dropped from the article name.

  1. Context. Articles in the encyclopedia should be arranged foremost by subject, which is not always one-to-one with the release of individual products. Discussion of Heroes 3 and its expansions is largely unified/unifiable. The title using "Restoration of Erathia" specifically excludes the expansions, necessitating that other articles be created, which in relation to the merge proposal above, is not the best approach. The combined length of the articles, especially after a cleanup effort, would not warrant a split.
  2. Canonical title. You can see from the box art that "Restoration of Erathia" doesn't appear anywhere on it. Nor does it appear in the manual -- you can examine it for yourself here.[1] The RoE phrase appears to be used mainly for retroactive disambiguation, not as a proper title. Again, disambiguation is not necessary, and may even be counterproductive, per the merge proposal above. The only place that the phrase does appear (its point of origin) is on the game's title screen. However, the appearance of text on a title screen does not imply that it is intended as a subtitle (this would open a can of worms, as then Gran Turismo should be Gran Turismo: The Real Driving Simulator, for example). RoE is also not trademarked, while "Armageddon's Blade" and "Shadow of Death" are. This again reflects that NWC/3DO did not intend for the original game to have a canonical subtitle.

Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always been in favor of the move. I don't see why it has this overlong title. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm late on this one and I agree with the shorter article title, but the "Restoration of Erathia" subtitle is on the manual - the very first page of the file you linked. It's also on the front of the paper manual in the original release. It's also on the box (on the back). 79.73.160.78 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links need trimmed[edit]

I was just looking at the external links for this article. Do we really need:

They're little more than fan sites and far from "official". At least the first two are semi-official, being links to two major web sites. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a repository of links. These three links can easily be found by anyone who knows how to use Google. And if Google can't find them, then they're likely not important or popular. So, does anyone object to my snipping them? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HoMM 3 HD (High resolution patch)[edit]

so why it should be deleted from the article? (Idot (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

All of these assertions need to be backed up by reliable sources, not the testimony of anonymous wiki editors. Also, you are free to remove those other topics if they are unverified. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of mines/resources??[edit]

Can a short and/or longer list of that be added?Naki (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All resources are already mentioned in the article, but not in the form of list. I think there are other things which are more necessary to be added in the form of list than resources. Making a list of everythin would make this article harder to navigate. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! Did not see that, thanks...Naki (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

minor issue[edit]

<quote> 

The Tower is associated with arcane elements of fantasy, and armies are composed of wizards,
magical beings, and animated constructs.    
Towers are at home in Arctic environments. The might hero is the Alchemist and the magic hero is the Wizard.
The kingdom of Bracada is of the tower alignment.
 The Necropolis is a ghost town of the undead, borrowing inspiration from the classic horror genre.
The might hero is the Death Knight and the magic hero is the Necromancer. The kingdom of Deyja is of the necropolis alignment.
   The Dungeon houses monsters that live in underground caverns, including the "evil" dragons.
The might hero is the Overlord and the magic hero is the Warlock. The kingdom of Nighon is of the dungeon alignment.
   The Stronghold is populated with brutish, tribal creatures associated with barbarism.
Goblinoids and organic giants make up the bulk of the army. 
Stronghold units are at home in the deserts and wastes. The might hero is the Barbarian and the magic hero is the Battle Mage.
The kingdom of Krewlod is of the stronghold alignment.

<quote>

1)It's not spesicifly said Bracada was a kingdom, all i find is it ruled by a "Gavin Magnus" in Solmyr(a genie hero)'s profile text and in the past called "Wizard-Empire of Braccadum".

2) the necromancers of Deyja , as far as i know, weren't a kingdom, atleast not until they ressurected King Gryphonheart to command their armies. but they almost instantly rebelled when the reanimtated king didn't obeyed their command and instead took control himself.

3) Nighon was not a kingdom... it's described as a warring, primarly underground nation of independent Overlords and Warlocks, unified temporarly by Muture in an sequel expansion (Heros Chronicles: Clash of the Dragons) and allot of them allied with Eeofol and did a joint invasion with the devils on Erathia in HE3.


4) Krewlod was described as a clan-based "barbarian nation", ruled by a Duke Winston Boragus ( on a few, rare occations titled king) whose later overthrown during the "'Festival of Life'", one of the Armageddon's Blade expansion campaigns by Kilgore. Is it really correct to label it as a kingdom? I think not.

allsow, how are one suppoused to get "reliable sources" from old games such as this one, when their homepages doesn't have barely any information at all?

Seems a bit overzelous/exaggerated.. --Byzantios (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Castle/Faction lists[edit]

@SnowFire:: These are clearly trivia per WP:GAMETRIVIA, trying to re-label it as a "cast list" is facetious at best, a similar argument for incl. the Civs in Civilization games could be made but it wouldn't hold water for those articles either. I know coz I went thru the wringer over the damned tables in them. This is gaming wiki fodder and not encyclopaedic. Having said my piece, I leave it entirely in your (and other editors') hands, as I'm just not invested enough in the series to get further in this kind of debate again. -Oosh (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but while I agree the writing is a bit Wikipedia-of-2006ish, I do feel that the information is pretty key here - Gametrivia to me would be the likes of a chart of recruitable creatures w/ their stats & purchase prices. Simply talking about what the actual castle types are seems game, as otherwise the article would be very vague ("you recruit fantasy creatures, like... like... dragons & stuff. But not at all castles."). Easier just to spell it out, there's not that many of 'em. SnowFire (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eik Corell: / @The editor who edited this page: - various forms of a castle/faction list have floated in and out of the article over the years. As the above suggests, I'm actually in favor of keeping some form of it. Eik: Yes, similar lists are often gamecruft elsewhere - however, in the Heroes series, the castle types are incredibly core to the game, and covered in any reasonable review of it. Put things another way, it's like talking about StarCraft without explaining Terrans, Zerg, and Protoss. The castles are the different gameplay styles and really what Heroes is all about, so some coverage of them is merited. Now I agree that we shouldn't have lists of every individual unit, stats, etc., but covering the themes? That seems fine. SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any real additional information present in the latest additions that don't run head-first into WP:GAMECRUFT. Instead, it seems like all the important information is already covered in the "towns" sub-section which mentions the amount of times, that they feature their own creatures and heroes, that some lean towards this and that, etc. On the other hand, it could be improved, though, e.g explaining what leaning towards one thing or another actually means. Maybe one or two examples could be used, mentioning that the different themes, for example the Necropolis featuring traditionally undead-type units as opposed to another one. I think that's the best improvement that could be had; Explaining what a leaning means, that the castles have different themes, and what a "leaning" of a castle actually means for the player. Eik Corell (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes III HD rerelease[edit]

Ubisoft recently announced they're releasing a remastered edition, based on the base game without expansions. Is it something that should be mentioned in the article in a new section, or have its own new article? 213.192.11.4 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gameguide Tag[edit]

I just attempted to edit the section that has been given the gameguide tag. I've removed a few references that may have been deemed too minute to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article, but don't see what else can be removed. I'll leave the tag up for now, but think it can be removed. The information about the types of castles is very structured and consistent, and in no way encroaches upon territory that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'll give this a few more days before returning to it. Brewspoker (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I mentioned above, I don't think it's unreasonable to include the castle list. It's something that can *approach* game guideyness if there's too much detail, but it isn't much different from, say, saying you can play as the following 5 classes in Diablo-esque games. SnowFire (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Heroes of Might and Magic III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"stand-alone expansion"[edit]

What in the world does this mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.151.173.219 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

EW Scoring Tools[edit]

More than 10 or all stings used in the game are from EW Scoring Tools from EastWest Studios.

Is there worth a mention?

TudorTulok (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered this myself by an accident (or actually by subscribing to the ComposerCloud from EastWest). I was quite surprised! If the fact is mentioned by a published magazine or online magazine, we could reference this. Otherwise, I think it would be classified as original research, even though it's true. cun 20:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial releases[edit]

I added a section with unofficial releases of Heroes 3, but my changes were reverted due to "Not notable unless covered by a reliable third-party source". I am convinced the releases are notable enough. Other wikipedias have articles for WOG and HOTA. Each of these article has a number of sources. The releases are extensively mentioned in community websites, but there are very few mentions in english out of these communities. Game reviews in commercial sites are often paid by game publishers. Accepting only such sites as reliable sources would create a bias toward those who can pay and is against WP:NPV.

In addition, a source already used in the article mentions these releases. Either this source is sufficient to establish notability or it must be removed.

I suggest keeping the section as part of the article. I can add some of the sources from the russian articles as references. -- Martinkunev (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources on those articles consist mainly of vk.com (a russian social networking site) and various Russian and a few English forums and fansites. Fansites and forums do not qualify as reliable sources, and they're certainly not third-party sources. Rather they are user-generated and self-published sources, which are generally not acceptable. The sources that would be acceptable would be established industry people or websites akin to what is listed on WP:VG/S. Looking at the blogpost, maybe I'm missing something but it does not seem to mention any of the titles you linked? Instead it deals with a remake or re-release by DotEmu which has done a few re-releases of old games. Sticking to established and acknowledged experts a cornerstone of Wikipedia's guideline's guideline on sourcing, WP:V. While in some cases game publishers have paid game review sites, this is not a general occurrence and these sites not having covered this game is hardly an issue of neutrality. Eik Corell (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of sources from magazines: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. These are all third party sources and quite popular websites, which are established in the industry. WOG and HOTA are mentioned in the comments of the blogpost in ubisoft, but so is the source of the sentence "The expansion packs were not included because the source code for those releases was lost." which is in the article. That's why I say either this sentence should be removed or the comments are a reliable source for WOG and HOTA. There are also other parts of the article which are unsourced or with an invalid sources, including a large portion of the Reception section. If we were to keep only sourced content, we probably need to delete half the article. Even if the sources I listed were not reliable, this would hardly justify removing unsourced content at random. -- Martinkunev (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Igromania is listed as reliable. Gamer.ru I can find just a few mentions of, and it has an alexa rating of 4000 within Russia, but I'm not familiar with the source. As for lki.ru and pcmania.bg, I can't find any mention of them on WP:VG/S, or elsewhere on the English wiki whether in articles or discussions. As for the blog post, I think you're misinterepreting it -- the two expansions it's referring to seem to be the two official ones titles "Armageddon's Blade" and "The Shadow of Death", not the two unofficial ones, so there's no real problem with that info. I'm not familiar with gamer.ru, lki.ru and pcmania.bg, and I'm a bit generally hesitant to use these sources because the picture I'm seeing is that the notability of these projects is somewhat limited to Eastern Europe. As part of other sources, Igromania and maybe gamer.ru could be fine to use, but they seem to stand somewhat alone in light of what I mentioned. I've asked for some input regarding this matter on the talk page of WP:VG regarding this issue, so hopefully we can get some clarification or some kind of consensus. Eik Corell (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PC mania is alexa #531 in Bulgaria. It was probably the most popular gaming magazine in the years 2000. For mentions out of eastern europe, senscritique is #170 in france. Some english language sources: [8] [9]. The german wikipedia mentions the releases, but the only source it provides is the official site of VCMI. I found a couple of polish sources: [10] [11] which are relatively high ranked in poland. Also mentioned by the wine project. I think this is enough to indicate notability. -- Martinkunev (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The senscritique, igdb and the Wine directory entry are all user-generated content, as for acidcave, this seems to be a fansite so that's not really appropriate either. The polter.pl one I'm not familiar with either, however, PCGamesN is a very welcome source and could probably be used on its own to support mentioning the "Horn of the Abyss", this gets around my concern with limited notability at least with that title, as long as the coverage in the article is proportional and concise. Since Igromania is listed as "other reliable", I'm on hand slightly leaning towards mentioning that as well, and on the other, left wanting another bigger source to augment it. About VCMI, I found a source that's listed as "situational" on WP:VG/S, with the latest consensus being that if there's an author name attached to the piece, it counts as reliable, and there is so that could be usable for mentioning that particular project. This source also mentions in passing the "In the Wake of Gods" expansion. That article is mainly about the VCMI project, and mentions in passing that the aforementioned expansion can be loaded. Looking this up, I was wondering if maybe this could be enough to support the igromania source, but the guidelines on reliable sources say that sources should be directly relevant to the subject matter, so that seems to be a no go. So the only problem really left remains my skepticism about using igromania and the other sources. Also because I opened the door by mentioning Alexa ratings, I have to be clear on that -- WP:RS is basically the policy that determines whether something is a reliable source, for example having editorial policies, also being established as experts in a field. The alexa ranking was my way of seeing if at least they were popular, which could imply that they're big enough to have those kinds of things. Anyway, I will be looking into adding mention of the Horn of the Abyss expansion and the VCMI project with the PCGamesN and Softpedia sources. By the way I found the Softpedia search with a google search, so maybe there are more sources hiding amongst the google clutter for both of the unofficial titles. Eik Corell (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For more sources, please check out onet.pl(Alexa 6 for PL) mentioning HotA twice for the Polish championships of '18 and '19. For championship of '20 please check out the official link, where you can see that the championship is backed by NVidia steelseries and Acer Predator and is using newest version of HotA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.158.112 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a one sentence blurb for Horn of the Abyss, with two references. The PCGamesN source alone gives this project enough notability for it to have a one-sentence sub-section in this article. Samboy (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more source mentioning Horn of the Abyss, Wake of Gods and the HD mod: [12] Martinkunev (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heroes_of_Might_and_Magic_III&oldid=1207481731"