During PAX Prime, we had the opportunity to check out Marvel Heroes, a game that even the developers liken to the Diablo series. Find out what we discovered during our hands on time and during our interview with David Brevik. Leave your thoughts in the comments.

I'll admit to being a skeptic about Gazillion's Marvel Heroes when I first heard the notion that it was going to only allow players to play as existing Marvel Heroes and not create their own super-powered people in tights. Part of the fun, a big part, of City of Heroes and Champions Online is that you're creating you're own hero or villain. As fun as it is to play as Wolverine, I still want to show my creative side and make my own story up. But after talking with David Brevik, Marvel Heroes' Lead Designer and the father of Diablo, I am inclined to believe Gazillion is onto something. And after playing it? It feels more like what Diablo 3 could have been than what we were offered. I'm not saying D3 isn't fun, but rather that Marvel Heroes feels more like the next evolutionary step of the revered Action RPG. 

Read more of Bill Murphy's Marvel Heroes: David Brevik's Diablo 3.

This game would be great single-player-wise. Oh wait, we have that (UA and UA2).

It looks fun, but I want to create my own guy, regardless of what Bendis says.

Originally posted by remyburke
TBH, if it's Diablo-esque, adding a character creator wouldn't make me play it anyways. Hate this style of game. Not sure why, but I always have. /shrug

Have you considered that maybe you play them wrong?

Don't hate me. Or ban me! Just having fun.

The "create your own character" thing is a silly argument, I can't believe people are still holding onto it. It's an ARPG, what game of this style do you know has huge amounts of character customization? You're at a 3d isometric angle, those details are never seen in the first place. As for playing an established character instead of making one, it's no different than an MMO with classes. In some games you play a warrior class, here your class will be 'Deadpool'. Sounds pretty friggin' awesome to me.

I'm looking forward to it. I've wanted another Ultimate Alliance game for a long time, something new, and an MMO version means they'll keep adding new content without me having to spend another $60 and 4+ years waiting between sequels. Works for me.

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

The "create your own character" thing is a silly argument, I can't believe people are still holding onto it. It's an ARPG, what game of this style do you know has huge amounts of character customization? You're at a 3d isometric angle, those details are never seen in the first place. As for playing an established character instead of making one, it's no different than an MMO with classes. In some games you play a warrior class, here your class will be 'Deadpool'. Sounds pretty friggin' awesome to me.

 

I'm looking forward to it. I've wanted another Ultimate Alliance game for a long time, something new, and an MMO version means they'll keep adding new content without me having to spend another $60 and 4+ years waiting between sequels. Works for me.

I don't always Roleplay, but when I do I prefer to roleplay my own creations.

I can roleplay pretty much anywhere (without having to climb trees, even). I could roleplay that I'm deadpool. I understand the character and I could pull it off. However, as with DCUO, I didn't want to roleplay The Batman, I wanted to roleplay The Boilerman. Given the ability to burn with the power and wavelength of a red sun by the exobites, I soon discovered that I had to encase my body in a suit of armor designed by John Henry so that I could be around my mentor, Superman, without causing him harm. Nearly one-hundred years old at the time of Braniac's attack, I found my body rejuvenated and strengthened. With a sense of justice seemingly lost on the current generation, I took my fight to evil wherever I could find it; eventually earning a spot in the JLA. Using large hammers that I learned to wield on my time working the railroads, I patrol the suicide slums: my old home, now lost to decay.

I could go on with my backstory, but you get my point. This game may not be an RPG, so maybe I'm off the mark. And that is ok too. But I don't need and online-only Ultimate Alliance anymore than I needed an online-only Diablo.

from the fine folks who brought you Hellgate London...

a marvel themed online game!

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

The "create your own character" thing is a silly argument, I can't believe people are still holding onto it. It's an ARPG, what game of this style do you know has huge amounts of character customization? You're at a 3d isometric angle, those details are never seen in the first place. As for playing an established character instead of making one, it's no different than an MMO with classes. In some games you play a warrior class, here your class will be 'Deadpool'. Sounds pretty friggin' awesome to me.

 

I'm looking forward to it. I've wanted another Ultimate Alliance game for a long time, something new, and an MMO version means they'll keep adding new content without me having to spend another $60 and 4+ years waiting between sequels. Works for me.

I don't always Roleplay, but when I do I prefer to roleplay my own creations.

 

 

I can roleplay pretty much anywhere (without having to climb trees, even). I could roleplay that I'm deadpool. I understand the character and I could pull it off. However, as with DCUO, I didn't want to roleplay The Batman, I wanted to roleplay The Boilerman. Given the ability to burn with the power and wavelength of a red sun by the exobites, I soon discovered that I had to encase my body in a suit of armor designed by John Henry so that I could be around my mentor, Superman, without causing him harm. Nearly one-hundred years old at the time of Braniac's attack, I found my body rejuvenated and strengthened. With a sense of justice seemingly lost on the current generation, I took my fight to evil wherever I could find it; eventually earning a spot in the JLA. Using large hammers that I learned to wield on my time working the railroads, I patrol the suicide slums: my old home, now lost to decay.

 

I could go on with my backstory, but you get my point. This game may not be an RPG, so maybe I'm off the mark. And that is ok too. But I don't need and online-only Ultimate Alliance anymore than I needed an online-only Diablo.

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

*snip that crap

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Honestly, I don't know what half of your post is about.

I don't care how anyone else plays their game (there is a wrong way, I hear). What matters to me is how I play the game. If you are going to give me a ROLE PLAYING GAME, I prefer to make my own character. Prefer is the keyword. If I can only play pre-established, lore-heavy characters, I'll likely pass. It is totally different than playing "just another warriror with the same look as everyone else".

If by his Diablo 3 you mean another game ill have no interest then you're correct.

I had expected so much more from this game.

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Then why are the developers and others constantly referring to David Brevik's expereince with Diablo and stating that the gameplay is so similar to Diablo? An excerpt from a IGN inverview below you can see what people are saying (full interview is  here:)

As Charles Onyett pointed out in his first look at the free-to-play Marvel Heroes, it really is hard to talk about this game without bringing up Diablo. Marvel Heroes' enemies erupt into loot upon death, the camera is in an isometric perspective, you level up and customize your character to suit your play style -- all of it operating exactly like Diablo.

And with no mentions of persistant worlds, cities or leveling zones yet. So as of now, all we can go on is that it's just like a single player ARPG that requires a online connection. But if they don't want it compared to Diablo, then maybe they should compare it to Guild Wars. Which is another argument all together. Either way I'll be playing it as I do all online and offline games that interest me. But to criticize one company about online only and brush aside another for doing the exact same thing is beyond bias.

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

*snip that crap

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Honestly, I don't know what half of your post is about.

I don't care how anyone else plays their game (there is a wrong way, I hear). What matters to me is how I play the game. If you are going to give me a ROLE PLAYING GAME, I prefer to make my own character. Prefer is the keyword. If I can only play pre-established, lore-heavy characters, I'll likely pass. It is totally different than playing "just another warriror with the same look as everyone else".

 

I can tell you don't know what it's about, because it's obvious you weren't actually reading it. Both my reply to you and my original post were in reference to the general argument, not about how you specifically want to play the game. Believe it or not, I really don't care about that. Also your definitely of Role Playing is incorrect, "role playing" means specifically to play a role. There's really nothing difficult to understand about that. A role can be anything, including a specific person. That is after all what acting is all about.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Then why are the developers and others constantly referring to David Brevik's expereince with Diablo and stating that the gameplay is so similar to Diablo? An excerpt from a IGN inverview below you can see what people are saying (full interview is  here:)

As Charles Onyett pointed out in his first look at the free-to-play Marvel Heroes, it really is hard to talk about this game without bringing up Diablo. Marvel Heroes' enemies erupt into loot upon death, the camera is in an isometric perspective, you level up and customize your character to suit your play style -- all of it operating exactly like Diablo.

And with no mentions of persistant worlds, cities or leveling zones yet. So as of now, all we can go on is that it's just like a single player ARPG that requires a online connection. But if they don't want it compared to Diablo, then maybe they should compare it to Guild Wars. Which is another argument all together. Either way I'll be playing it as I do all online and offline games that interest me. But to criticize one company about online only and brush aside another for doing the exact same thing is beyond bias.

 

Everything you said there is a strawman, it has nothing to do with anything. Mythos Global is an ARPG, the "kid" version of this game is an ARPG, Lineage Eternal (when it finally exists) will be an ARPG, and so on. They're all also MMOs. They're not single-player games with multi-player option forcing people to be online anyway for the single-player gameplay. That they share similar gameplay styles is irrelevant.

EDIT - By the way, if you're only getting your information from this site, that would explain why you're in the dark. "All we can go on" is a lot more than in the article you quoted. Do some research on the game (don't take that as sounding cocky, I don't mean it to) and you might be surprised. Originally I expected it to be like an adult version of Super Hero Squad, but they're going for the Mythos approach instead; open world, but with dungeons that are instanced. Pretty much what every other MMO does these days.

Color me skeptical. (Of the game being the spiritual D3 that never was.  I'm sure the budget, testing and polish is no where near what Blizzard would do.  And no I don't play D3 these days.)

Just noticed two Rygel avatars in the same thread!  Amazing taste fellas.

Originally posted by Asamof

from the fine folks who brought you Hellgate London...

 

a marvel themed online game!

Yep lets completely gloss over that the dude is the creater of the greatest ARPG series ever created...

I think it would fill a bit some of the market. I like to make my own character so it won't be a mmo that would play too intensively. However, given the fight against clones in CoX and CO. I am pretty certain that all those wolverines, hulks and iron men will find this game as an alternative.

Remember, that different people like different things so it is not unreasonable to make a different approach from CO and CoX. About the action I hope the make the powers more actiony than DCUO. One of my gripes with DCUO is that the action part is mainly on the weapon instead of the powers, giving the feeling of playing capcom game instead a superhero game.

I'm excited to see if this guy can walk the walk instead of talking the talk.

Lashing out at D3 dev team kinda requires your next game to be smash hit.

Hellgate london sure wasn't ;>