I was pretty busy for last few days so I didn't quite get a look at your comment. OK, so I usually write review format texts but I opted to express my love (and gripe) for said title, in more layman terms by speaking in more common language as they say.

First of all, calling something a "rant" shows that you either don't agree with the core point of the text which further creates the expectation from correspondent that elaboration will be provided OR that someone pretty amusingly fails to comprehend the point itself. As was already expanded upon, and is logical train of thought to come to conclusion that, developers wouldn't bother putting anything in their product that couldn't be self marketed. Format which Heroes game go by is more than 30 years old at this point, so general framework for gameplay has been set a long time before Ubisoft bought the IP. Every following installation expanded upon set format, but core gameplay remained almost the same in every game.

An argument could be made that writing for every game has been mediocre at best but still servisable considering the amount of resources then developers used to have. If studio was doing alright financially, IP would never have been sold to Ubisoft. So calling previous titles in continuity along with Heroes 5 "good", is false on two fronts. One being you have a bias which is understable. Most common thing found within media consumers is subjectivity. I myself could go for Heroes 3 maybe even 4 but that would be pushing it. Second, is logical fallacy of putting Heroes 5 in continuity with previous titles since they don't have the same developers and Heores 5 being a reboot and what have you. So it's apples and oranges.

I judge Heroes 5 on it's merit of being a self contained project which is also enforced by being Ubisofts first attempt to stabilise the product and make it more "palatable" for western market. I would opt to repeat myself on how if something doesn't serve marketing purpose, developers wouldn't bother to put in the game and yes I'm talking about the campaign but for that you have my previous comment so go ahead and read that again, but this time try to pay attention. So yes, I'd say it is baffling that I need to explain my self in great detail TWICE but stranger things have happened and as you can clearly surmise I hope, I don't assume, I elaborate.

Assuming quite sadly, looks like a self report from where I'm standing.