Diablo® III

Sorry, Brevik, but Marvel Heroes sucks

For haters don't trust review sites that gave diablo 3 favorable reviews. lmao

Oh, and the success of the game is not based on sales.. WTF haha

really diablo 3 console did not sell well? http://www.vgchartz.com/article/251309/weekly-sales-analysis-7-september-total-war-rome-ii-diablo-iii/

it even outsold madden nfl hahaha


You might noticed that it only outsold Madden 25's second week - the first week of that game was more than double Diablo 3's first week..on both consoles. The total for Madden 25 in just two weeks across both consoles was higher than D3's total sales by October 12th, and the Madden 25 total by the same date was double what D3 sold. So in one very specific set of criteria (that one week's sales) they outsold Madden 25. In truth, they didn't even come close. Hell, for all of 2013, individually they aren't even in the top 75 and combined wouldn't break the top 25.

That said we've moved beyond just talking about how much the game sold...well, some of us have at least.

Here's a little something you should try - explain why Diablo 3 is better than Marvel Heroes, or Path of Exile, or Torchlight 2 without referencing Blizzard's past reputation nor the sales figures of Diablo 3. Those are two of the three most cited examples for why Diablo 3 is the "better" game. I'd love to see more debate that centers around the actual difference in mechanics and design, and the problems (perceived or real) with the design of each...

Not hedging my bets that will actually happen, though. If the best you can do is "Blizzard sold more" or "It's better cause it's from Blizzard" then you're better off not posting.

Oh, and the success of the game is not based on sales.. WTF haha


Did you not read this sentence carefully?

That said, sales figures aren't the only thing to consider, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you are using something so binary to judge something that's a bit more complex.


I'm clearly not talking about success - I'm talking about the quality of the product, and whether it is a better product than its competitors based on factors outside of sales figures and the reputation of the company based on previous work - something too many Blizzard die-hards seem incapable of doing.
Reply Quote
No I didn't read the whole wall of texts. just some of em.

If we talk about the game itself: graphics, animation, storyline, artwork, sound, class diversity d3 owns them all.

AH, economy and botters failed d3. Now I have a simple question for you, does MH have better animation, sound and graphics than D3?

10/22/2013 09:50 AMPosted by Berethos
That said, sales figures aren't the only thing to consider, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you are using something so binary to judge something that's a bit more complex.


You are ignoring diablo3's success by saying this. but what kind of explanation is that when you can't even state how you base a game's success? by using binary complex? lmao
Reply Quote
No I didn't read the whole wall of texts. just some of em.

If we talk about the game itself: graphics, animation, storyline, artwork, sound, class diversity d3 owns them all.

AH, economy and botters failed d3. Now I have a simple question for you, does MH have better animation, sound and graphics than D3?

That said, sales figures aren't the only thing to consider, and you're doing yourself a disservice if you are using something so binary to judge something that's a bit more complex.


You are ignoring diablo3's success by saying this. but what kind of explanation is that when you can't even state how you base a game's success? by using binary complex? lmao


If you can't separate the discussion of a game's success (which is not what I'm talking about, and at no point have I said D3 was not successful - except for the relatively poor sales for the console version, it has been incredibly succesful) and a game's quality compared to its competitors - which is a more nuanced discussion than the binary judgement of which sold more - then we really have nothing to say to each other.

And clearly we haven't talked about the graphics, animation, sound, class diversity, artwork, or storyline - you've told me they are better (in your opinion) but have given zero reasoning, and you've also left out one of the most crucial aspects - loot design (in fact, all but one of your points has to do with visual elements, and that's hardly the defining element that makes one game better than another).

Still, you could have talked about how the graphics are made up of decent resolution textures that make Diablo 3 look almost illustrated, and how there is a wide variety of items, creatures, and environments that lends itself well to the darker, fantasy aesthetic. I'd have to concede on the point that there is a greater variety, though I'd probably respond that MH in fact has higher graphic fidelity and more dynamic lighting (all assuming you can run the higher graphic settings, which I can), and that the ability effects in combat are probably about even in terms of being visually exciting.

You could have mentioned how the 5 classes in Diablo 3 can easily shift between different builds that make use of different types of abilities, some of which help that build make the class feel like it's being played differently. You could have also brought up how each of the 5 are very clearly different from each other. I'd likely respond with the point that while many of the MH characters can be categorized under one of a few basic archetypes (brawler, tank, ranged dps, etc), the differences in what different abilities do, their visual appearance, and the overall mix of builds available to each of the 20+ means each hero feels largely like it's own class, and so Diablo 3 feels limited in comparison. I'd then point out that PoE's use of a massive passive tree with freedom to dip into areas normally reserved for other archetypes plus the build changing keystones plus their greater variety of affixes plus their skill gem combination system blows both D3 and MH out of the water when it comes to class variety.

You've done none of that, and instead managed to miss my point at every opportunity. D3 is absolutely the most successful of the ARPGs available right now, but it also the one that has done the worst job of living up to its promise, which is part of my original point - the supposed "genius" at Blizzard that others have argued is behind the long term success of D2 and is supposedly still there arguably is not.
Reply Quote
Lol this guy really wants posting long walls of text lmao

He can't even answer a simple question by a yes or no. I love how you point out that the "crucial aspect" of the game is all about loot design where d3 players need to grind for weeks. Wait if that's the case d3 should've gotten subpar reviews like your beloved MH. So ARPG should be measured by loot design? well I should tell that to all ARPG players ^_^ then you point the games crucial aspect on loot because MH is in favor of casual players that would only take a night to get a cosmic or unique item? lol

10/22/2013 04:15 PMPosted by Berethos
you've told me they are better (in your opinion) but have given zero reasoning,


They are pretty much self explanatory, but I think you need a lot of explanation to accept things you don't want to believe.

There are 3 types of people in MH. 1. MH fanboy (MH perfect game for them) 2. neutral MH player (plays the game but acknowledges it's mistakes) 3. MH hater (blind hater)
Reply Quote
I played D3 a total of about 175 hours, most before paragons. The AH and crappy gear ruined the game for me. D3 has amazing combat but little else. Every day I lose a little more hope that RoS will actually make D3 the kind of game I can really dedicate time to.

Marvel Heroes was definitely not ready for release. But I'll tell you what, unlocking heroes and finding costumes is so much more fun than anything I've ever found in D3.

The alternate advancement systems they have now are actually fun:

1) Leveling alts to 25 and 50 gives buffs to all heroes (Limited to ten heroes total per hero)
2) relics that stack to 1000 to boost a stat and health
3) Odin Marks to unlock other buffs and soon legendaries

They also have INCREDIBLE communication and a rapid development schedule. They are focused on improving the game constantly and publicly admitting their mistakes. Blizzard doesn't give a rats !@# what players think in between box sales. They are making PC players wait up to two years for the itemization and depth players wanted on release. And they are sending out polls to random players to see how much they'd be willing to spend on it. If anything they should mark it down as an apology to the PC players that felt they got a terrible product.

At this point I'm sticking with the two companies that have shown they care about the players: GGG and Gazillion.
Reply Quote
I dislike people like OP. You can't compare 2 games of the same type with such a huge difference in budget.
Edited by BattleToad#1238 on 10/25/2013 6:08 PM PDT
Reply Quote
I played D3 a total of about 175 hours, most before paragons. The AH and crappy gear ruined the game for me. D3 has amazing combat but little else. Every day I lose a little more hope that RoS will actually make D3 the kind of game I can really dedicate time to.

Marvel Heroes was definitely not ready for release. But I'll tell you what, unlocking heroes and finding costumes is so much more fun than anything I've ever found in D3.

The alternate advancement systems they have now are actually fun:

1) Leveling alts to 25 and 50 gives buffs to all heroes (Limited to ten heroes total per hero)
2) relics that stack to 1000 to boost a stat and health
3) Odin Marks to unlock other buffs and soon legendaries

They also have INCREDIBLE communication and a rapid development schedule. They are focused on improving the game constantly and publicly admitting their mistakes. Blizzard doesn't give a rats !@# what players think in between box sales. They are making PC players wait up to two years for the itemization and depth players wanted on release. And they are sending out polls to random players to see how much they'd be willing to spend on it. If anything they should mark it down as an apology to the PC players that felt they got a terrible product.

At this point I'm sticking with the two companies that have shown they care about the players: GGG and Gazillion.


to me marvel heroes, end game content, itemzation, crafting wins over diablo 3..

other than that diablo 3 win hands down.
Reply Quote
80 Human Warrior
3505
Posts: 45
This is hilarious and I don't care how old the thread is, but MountainMan is an idiot. Diablo 3's succes is partially because of the success and old player base of Diablo 2. Ask any real Diablo, Diablo 2, and LoD player and they will tell you that Diablo 3 lost it's flair; it is not fun to play in the same way diablo 2 was. Try as they might, it will just never happen. Blizzard is owned by Activision now and they are all about money. Gds, though.

Edit: and by the way, the name BLIZZARD attached to any game is going to draw a lot more noob, I don't follow developers and theirs games, to it. It has WoW the #1 MMORPG, most played game in the world. Of course people are going to try a dumbed down version, and lets not forget it is also available on console! (Not that original diablo and diablo 2 weren't for PS, but still -- Activision and their money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

Gds
Edited by Squanto#1126 on 4/25/2014 6:19 AM PDT
Reply Quote
50 Orc Warlock
535
Posts: 42
Well, a year later and Marvel Heroes is an incredibly fun game, while D3 is still a steaming pile of wasted money and time. Funny thing is MH sucked when it first came out. Incredibly so. So did D3. However, in the true fashion of persistent multiplayer games, MH evolved, listened to its customer base sensibly rather than pissing all over the game in an attempt to please the masses, and has been reminding me more and more of Diablo 2 as a direct comparison for fun in this genre of game. I JUST found out why :P Thanks, Brevik!

My friends and I felt that MH wasn't worth a damn until I stumbled across the excellent player reviews it's been getting. I'm in emphatic agreement with them since I first started playing. Now, we're all playing it more than any other game :P The mix of humour, of love for the game, and a happy, respectful relationship with their players, who they inundate with well timed and extremely valuable gifts/rewards, makes this game a fantastic hit :3

The story and dialogue are fantastic, which is coming from a life long Marvel fan - playing as Nightcrawler is one of the best gaming experiences I've had in years - and the monsters and elites and bosses keep on being fun to fight.

Diablo 3 chose to make their bosses laughable faux-cinematic wastes of time, a terrible story, no dialogue worth mentioning outside of the admittedly excellent cinematics, and completely forgettable characters. They even went so far as to ignominiously kill of Cain via Slutterfyl -_- and they stripped Tyrael of what made him such an incredible character. Way to cut D3's legs out from under it, Bliz :( And, whoever okay-ed the cartoony atmosphere and sprites over the gloomy gothic atmosphere that defined the series needs to be fired.

"Hmm, how can we make Diablo 3 even better than its' predecessors?"
"I know!"
"Oh, really?"
"Yep! Let's remove everything that made Diablo and D2 great! We'll let our piece of crap stand on its own hobbled foot! The success of the previous games will let us do away with that pesky, tried, tested, and true award winning formula once and for all!"

-_-

I've been pointing out this games failings since its massively disappointing release in the hope that the Blizzard team will learn from their mistakes and start remaking a real successor for D2. They should begin by firing any of the hipster failures responsible for crapping out a waste of eight years and who knows how much money for the latest in one of my favourite, and one of the most lauded, RPG series of all time!

In regards to those necro posters who were pointing out reviews: Marvel Heroes definitely deserved the !@#$ rating it had back then, I'm in full agreement on that. However, the paid critics all said roughly the same things about D3 in their cut and paste 'unbiased' *cough* reviews *horks up a phlegm gem and spits on the unmarked grave destined to embrace this nostalgia souring waste of a decade of fevered nerdgasmic anticipation*.

There's a reason why the paid reviews all gave D3 roughly 8/10 and higher. There's a lot more reasons for why the player reviews have been dumping on D3 since the beginning. The last time I checked metacritic for D3 reviews it was Paid Reviewer: 8 or 9/10 and Player Reviews 2 or 3/10 XD That contrast was evident everywhere Google directed me to. Never trust paid reviewers, they're paid to do a job, not to be impartial reporters. Companies have been paying for their own reviews and good advertising / word of mouth since long before the internet arrived on the scene :P

The paid reviews might as well be all Diablo 3 has to check off in the Pros column, alongside the cinematics. Failing to even embrace the gothic atmosphere that set the Diablo series apart is a sign that the people responsible for okaying this game aren't relevant anymore. This is the kind of flat on your face fall that demands a philosophy redesign on every level. It really shouldn't have been that difficult to take what made Diablo 2 great and to run with it. Path of Exile did a pretty good job and they aren't charging anything to play it. Marvel Heroes also nailed it, even if it took them a year or so to do so.
Reply Quote
07/26/2014 10:54 AMPosted by Nergol
Well, a year later and Marvel Heroes is an incredibly fun game, while D3 is still a steaming pile of wasted money and time. Funny thing is MH sucked when it first came out. Incredibly so. So did D3.


So sad as it sounds, MH sucks as much as D3.

MH is an A-RPG game that better resembles D2, but it's main focus right now is grinding for shards to buy your next random hero, and you can (and are almost forced to) buy everything with real money, which makes it a bit pay 2 win. Just like with D3, Torchlight 2 or Van Helsing, there is one build that makes you godlike (cyclops' basic attack spam, punisher shotgun...) but the same happens in all A-RPG games nowadays.

MH is sadly a game where they try to hook and reel you in, just like hearthstone for example, where you basically grind and grind and grind for no actual benefit aside from a new bunch of cards/character/[insert feature here]. I have played MH for quite a long time and I can honestly tell that the game isn't bad, but it's boring.
Reply Quote
Didn't have time to read through it, but you dope. Marvel Heroes and Marvel Heroes 2015 are different games. Marvel Heroes release in 2013 was a hot mess. It has been pretty much completely reworked since then.

Marvel Heroes 2015 - 80%
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/marvel-heroes-2015

/thread
Edited by RooT#1233 on 7/31/2014 5:34 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Update : Marvel Heroes 2015 is better than Diablo 3 although they are both bad games I lasted 100 hours on Marvel compared to Diablo 3s 40 or so.

Here's what they really should get

Diablo 3 N/A Ignored fans
Marvel Heroes 2015 85%
Reply Quote
MVP - Diablo IncGamers
Posts: 61
View profile
As I was the person who actually did the interview with David Brevik that caused the comment from Jay, the reason I asked him what I did was because the D3 developers were dropping the ball big time prior to and post release which was frustrating to see as a fan of the Diablo franchise. I wanted to see what he thought of the design decisions. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPEKv5-tHdg)

David himself also admits that Marvel Heroes was far from perfect at launch. There was so much missing, just like D3 vanilla.

Gazillon relaunched Marvel Heroes last month as Marvel Heroes 2015 and it vastly improved. See the real metacritic scores...

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/marvel-heroes-2015

Both D3 and MH are not perfect by any means and the reason you see high scores from review sites for the original D3 was because the game reviewer also failed to understand what makes a great Diablo title. Citing Polygon as a source for reviews is a terrible idea anyway.

D3 is WAY better than it was at release but there are irreversible design decisions that will always hamper it. The skills system being one of the main problems. D3 is still a cracking ARPG, maybe not the best but still really good. It still needs work as we all know and that's a very slow process with Blizzard. Diablo 2 took years to patch and improve but fans tend to forget that.
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Hunter
12320
Posts: 10,424
08/03/2014 11:50 AMPosted by Rushster
Gazillon relaunched Marvel Heroes last month as Marvel Heroes 2015 and it vastly improved.


Really? Then I will check it out again--for the third time. The first time was when it launched, the second this past February after its major revamp. I have to admit that for both times I was thoroughly underwhelmed.

Hopefully the third time is the charm.
Reply Quote
First time finding this post, and WAY necro'ing it, but Marvel Heroes just re-branded to Marvel Heroes 2016 and is better than it's ever been, still with regular patches, additional heroes, and content injections at a regular pace.

Haven't felt a need to pick up D3 again in well over a year now. Speaks volumes, at least to me.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]