Rodor: Well, and what would say the veterans? People who played HoMM series from the first game or even the original King's Bounty?
What would be your verdict? Are these modern remakes worth to waste time and money on them?
As I could guess, there's no turn-based strategical mode and you just fly here and there (something like it was in Etherlords series)? Isn't such
only-tactical-battles-oriented gameplay too repetitive and tedious?
For example, in Disciples series where you have similar concept of a hero with pack of upgradable units with him/her, you should solve some strategical problems along with tactical battles that gives some breadth and depth to the gameplay.
So the main question is: can these games be interesting enough for more TBS-minded person like me (think of Disciples, Heroes, Age of Wonders, Master of Magic)?
Thanks in advance.
KB is more M&M than HoMM in my opinion. There is no strategical component besides the battles (and preparing for some of them). The focus is on composing your army and level up your hero, bolstering him/her with appropriate abilities.
The environment is very likely to the HoMM environment with lush and colorful or in case of the undead lands, moody graphics.
Though the gameplay on first glance might give the impression of repetitive battles, it is nothing like that at all. Supported by nice battlefields and ever changing opponents the battles provide ongoing challenges throughout the game.
It is also great fun to roam the country, following your quest for glory and an immense amount of side quests of all sorts, which contribute to the game experience.
I like HoMM, AoW, various Civs and Civ clones as well as RPGs and have enjoyed the renewed KB series very much.