|
Matt Drake
United States Arlington Texas
|
Marvel Heroes
» Forums » Reviews
Why Spider-Man is Like Baked Chicken
Some of the greatest advances in culinary genius have come from some really unpredictable sources. For instance, how drunk did that first French guy have to be to see a slug crawling out of a his garden and think, 'man, that would go great with some bread and a nice merlot'? Sometimes adding a completely unexpected ingredient has turned an otherwise mediocre meal into a masterpiece. And then there are those times when you've got all the right ingredients, stuff that should be almost impossible to screw up, and you still have a bland, unremarkable dinner. There's no reason bread crumbs, savory spices, chicken and salt has to make a boring dinner, but to this day, I still won't eat baked chicken. It's not that the dinner is bad; it's just that it's not all that interesting. So before you get the idea that I've decided to turn this into a cooking school (and it's best I don't - I would want to team up with Gordon Ramsay to bludgeon Rachel Ray with a tenderizing mallet), let me tie this in to board games. There are more than a few games out there that seem like they would be impossible to screw up, and yet even when you toss in all the pieces that should make an excellent game, they somehow go together to make a mediocre experience. In Marvel Heroes, you start with what should clearly be the cornerstone of a brilliant game - superheroes. And not just any heroes. We've got Wolverine, Spidey, Cap, Hulk, Thing, Iron Man and lots, lots more. The mainstay heroes of the Marvel Universe come traipsing through Manhattan to do battle with Super Skrull, Doctor Doom, Magneto and more villains than you can shake a pair of metallic tights and a dorky cape at. But you can ask anyone - a theme alone does not make a good game. Well, you can ask me, anyway. Your co-worker who comes in every Monday jabbering about whether his favorite team covered the spread probably couldn't tell you whether you can base a game's worth on its theme alone, but then in all fairness, I still don't understand why a man in motion gets a yellow card during a game of pickle in the end zone. Happily, Marvel Heroes has more than just a great theme, and someone else can figure out why their favorite players are in penalty boxes during corner kicks. For starters, it's got great components. There are 16 superhero figures and four villains, all sculpted by Bob Naismith, one of the finest miniatures sculptors in the field. There are bunches of cards with some of the greatest comic art ever made (including my favorite villianess-turned-quasi-heroine of all time, White Queen, who I mostly think is awesome because I'm male, and she has a totally kickin' booty). There are eight really cool dice with biffs, pows, and exclamation points. There's a great board that looks like Manhattan. The pieces in the box are damned pretty, and totally look like the great pieces that make up a great game. Now how much would you pay? But wait, that's not all! In Marvel Heroes, you've got a really cool asset allocation thing using plot points to activate your heroes. You can send Captain America or Daredevil into the city pretty cheap, but bringing out Hulk or Doctor Strange can be a little more pricey. You can also save a little by sending in heroes to support your main guys, and you can play ally cards to show up for a couple issues. Colossus can show up, take a couple good thumps for you, and then go back to Russia to be a good-natured, one-dimensional stereotype again. Hey, it's comics. If you want character development, play the board game adaptation of East of Eden. That should be awesome, because who can resist a slow-moving, plodding character study? Turns are even pretty cool. Every turn, up to six different incidents all over the city call out for superhero intervention, from attacks in the subway and jewel heists to flying saucers and toxic gas clouds. Some heroes are better suited to particular events - Mister Fantastic is good at dealing with science problems, while Hulk is just really good at smashing stuff. You assign heroes to deal with a threat, and their abilities help determine just how dangerous the problem really is, and then the other players get to spice things up by adding heroes. And this is still comics, so it's really not as big a stretch as it should be for Omega Red to show up with Skrull warriors and Sandman as backup. OK, yes, I read enough comics to know that's unlikely, even in comics, but seriously? Am I the only one who read the Spidey clone saga? That was so silly, it should have been a Laurel and Hardy movie. All these various factors go together to make what seems like it should be brilliant. Choosing heroes, choosing threats, manipulating die rolls, and then using Magneto to rip out Wolverine's metal skeleton (ignoring the fact that adamantium is not ferrous, and should not be subject to a magnetic ability) - these should be the pieces of a really awesome game. Unfortunately, Marvel Heroes is a board game version of baked chicken. You've got great ingredients - superheroes, cool dice, involved turns, lots of decisions to make - and yet somehow, they don't come together to make a game that demands to be played. For one thing, turns seem to take longer than they should. A three-hour game might only get through the third or fourth turn, which means Iron Man might spend a whole afternoon surfing porn on his suit's computer while Hulk and Captain America do all the actual crime-fighting. The ability to play your opponents' archvillains means there's almost always something to do, but it's never that exciting, even when you do get to use Red Skull's dust of death. When it's not your turn, you might be watching two other players do everything interesting while you plan how you're going to do one thing that takes five seconds before the action passes right over you again. That's not to say Marvel Heroes is a bad game, exactly. It does have a great theme, and it executes the theme very well. It has very nice pieces and some excellent strategic depth. It's just not as brilliant as it looks like it should be. All those great parts don't come together to make a great game. In fact, all those great parts might just come together to save what would otherwise be a really boring stinker of a game. But whether there are low points that offset the high points, or great parts that save a game from complete suck, Marvel Heroes ends up being decent, rather than kick-ass or awesome. If you love the theme and have some patience (two things that might be mutually exclusive, or you would be more interested in games about Shakespeare than games about comic books), Marvel Heroes might really appeal to you. I don't hate it, but I probably won't play it again any time soon. Summary Pros: Great components Excellent theme Interesting mechanics Cool superhero fights Cons: Slow - which is not a good feature in a game about comics Some rules impair the theme
|
Rauli Kettunen
Finland Oulu
|
VixenTorGames wrote: For one thing, turns seem to take longer than they should. A three-hour game might only get through the third or fourth turn, which means Iron Man might spend a whole afternoon surfing porn on his suit's computer while Hulk and Captain America do all the actual crime-fighting. The ability to play your opponents' archvillains means there's almost always something to do, but it's never that exciting, even when you do get to use Red Skull's dust of death. When it's not your turn, you might be watching two other players do everything interesting while you plan how you're going to do one thing that takes five seconds before the action passes right over you again.
Cons: Slow - which is not a good feature in a game about comics
Gotta say, maybe that's a problem with your group. Around here (granted we only play 2-player) even a 5-turn game pretty much never lasts more than 1h 30min. Granted, if you're checking up rules for every player's action, then the clock can run, but I don't see how you could spend an average of hour per turn.
|
Marc Mistiaen
Spain Torrelavega Cantabria
|
I like your witty, funny style of writing. I enjoyed the review. However, I don't really agree with your opinion. I've been on the fence with this one since it came out, and while it's been on my wishlist I ended up not buying it because I didn't feel as compelled to do so as I do with many other boardgames. As I have much more games than time to play them, I can afford to miss on one I'm remotely interested in. However, I recently came across a good deal to get Marvel Heroes and seized the opportunity so it was finally mine a month ago. I've only played two games so far, but I'm not the type to play a game to death dozens of time until I know it like the back of my hand like some people. As I said, I have more games than occasions to play them and there are always new games coming out that I want to buy; and as I'm weak and indulge, the result is that there are not many games I have played more than ten times – which I know is a shame. But anyway, enough about me. What I'm trying to say is that the game has been a good surprise: I was concerned it might fall flat due to things I had read here but I enjoyed both games I've played. Moreover, both of my fellow players enjoyed the game too. Actually, it was one of the three propositions to play one of them made last weekend after we had played our first game the week before, which is not that common. You have to consider that there is a lot of competition, due the amount of big games (mainly FFG) I own and that we don't get to play nearly often enough. I don't have many arguments, it just seems it works for me and not for you, which is fine. Perhaps I can just say something about the downtime problem you mention. Indeed, you will often take part in combat when it's not your turn, for one thing, but for the other I'm always excited about what the other players are doing, especially when they fight. It's about watching the story unfold in front of you and is an essential element of games based on theme, as are pretty much all the games I own. Besides, I must say that, if indeed when another player is investigating and you are not involved it will take much longer than your own round when you just, say, move one hero from his sheet to the city, but on a whole turn (of five rounds) this will even out as each player will in turn be the one to play trivial actions and then spend time investigating. Alright, it looks like I've written a lot to say pretty few, but hey it's done now
|
Universal Head
Australia Sydney NSW
|
VixenTorGames wrote: Some of the greatest advances in culinary genius have come from some really unpredictable sources. For instance, how drunk did that first French guy have to be to see a slug crawling out of a his garden and think, 'man, that would go great with some bread and a nice merlot'? Surely you mean a snail - I don't think even the French would be crazy enough to eat slugs!
|
|
|
I agree with Rauli. The game might be slow the first few plays until you get the hang of it (the game is pretty unusual). We've played 4 turn games of 45 minutes (2 players). I'd say it's a pretty fast game for the complexity it has... For us it's a great weeknight game and we still play it pretty often after 2 years.
|
Jeroen van der Valk
Netherlands Gouda Zuid Holland
|
I think the review perfectly summarizes what I think of this game. He's not saying it's a bad game, he's actually saying it's probably a good game, but not as playable and exciting as it should be. Or something like that.
|
|
|
To anyone that thinks the game is slow: How many times have you played?
|
Jeroen van der Valk
Netherlands Gouda Zuid Holland
|
Twice.
|
|
|
jvdv wrote: Twice. That's the reason it's slow for you then
Last edited on 2008-12-18 18:49:45 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Dorian Hawkins
United Kingdom Chesterfield Derbyshire
|
Its a good review. Opinion of this game is heavily divided. Some, like me, think there's enough stuff right about the game to keep playing but there are one or two issues that just plain need fixing. I've spent ages devising new cards, beating the rules in to shape and then playtesting to the point where the game is a challenge, thereby adding in that much needed excitement. My troupe of players are pretty happy with the game now. Other people's mileage may vary
|
Ralph T
United States Long Beach California
|
The reviewer seems to suggest that there can be multiple villains in a single battle. That's not correct, is it? I thought after the lead villain is played, all other villain cards are just backup effects.
|
|
|
Is it because of this part? Quote: And this is still comics, so it's really not as big a stretch as it should be for Omega Red to show up with Skrull warriors and Sandman as backup. If so, Omega Red is the lead villain, the Skrull warriors are a backup card and the Sandman card is used also as backup (for its "Surprise Attack" effect). Anyway, yeah, there can only be one lead villain no matter what
|
Ralph T
United States Long Beach California
|
I think the problem with the game is too much emphasis was placed the rules for determining Trouble and troubleshooting, and not enough on making meaningful combat choices. The game could be streamlined if all the villains were placed on the board initially so players could use strategy as to which hero will go after which villain.
I fault the designer for not making the rock-paper-scissors mechanic based on something that seems more fitting in the Marvel universe: Psychic power beats physical power which beats energy power, etc.
|
|
|
ralpher wrote: I think the problem with the game is too much emphasis was placed the rules for determining Trouble and troubleshooting, and not enough on making meaningful combat choices. The game could be streamlined if all the villains were placed on the board initially so players could use strategy as to which hero will go after which villain. I think while that might have been a valid design choice, the current way is just as valid. To me, the fact that you go to troubleshoot without exactly knowing what you'll find more exciting. Also, the hand managment aspect of knowing when to use which villains is an interesting part of the strategy, and it would be lost if villains were placed beforehand. About the combat, I've said it before, but I'll say it again. This game has one of the best (if not the best) dice based combat system. To me, between the RPS mechanic and the special powers you get enough decisions to make the game very interesting... Quote: I fault the designer for not making the rock-paper-scissors mechanic based on something that seems more fitting in the Marvel universe: Psychic power beats physical power which beats energy power, etc.
But that's not really true in the Marvel universe either. I'm happy with the current system because it tries to reflect how the hero approaches the combat: will he/she try to out think the villain? act defensively or go all out and try to finish the villain before they have a chance to strike back... It fits much better with the comics and gives you a meaningful strategic choice...
|
Chris Schenck
United States Dayton Ohio
|
maka wrote: jvdv wrote: Twice. That's the reason it's slow for you then  If you play a game and it's not fun (for example, because it's too slow), but you give it another shot and play it again and it's still not fun -- how many more shots do you give it? Two is my limit. Yours is obviously higher. I'd rather play a different game and enjoy it than work to squeeze fun out of a game that's proven itself otherwise.
Last edited on 2009-09-15 15:07:18 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Ray
United States Carpentersville Illinois
|
I used to ride a tricycle. I tried to learn how to ride a bicycle but after two tries still couldn't do it. so i went back to riding a tricycle which is much cooler.
|
|
|
wtrollkin2000 wrote: I used to ride a tricycle. I tried to learn how to ride a bicycle but after two tries still couldn't do it. so i went back to riding a tricycle which is much cooler. Thanks! Couldn't have put it better myself  The first time we played this game we were totally confused. Didn't get farther than the first complete turn before we stopped and were like "what should I do now?" the whole time. It took as more than 30m just to get through 1 turn (2 players). But I'm not one to give up and the game did seem interesting enough so we gave it a few more tries. After a few plays (5-6) we were playing quite fast and now that we've played the game a lot, we can usually play a whole 15vp game in about 45 minutes. The game is not slow, but it is pretty different in structure to any other game out there, so before you can enjoy it to its fullness, you've got to get used to how it works.
|
Todd McCorkle
United States Anderson Indiana
|
wtrollkin2000 wrote: I used to ride a tricycle. I tried to learn how to ride a bicycle but after two tries still couldn't do it. so i went back to riding a tricycle which is much cooler. I had to do a double take. I thought I was in a R4tG thread for a moment.
|
Chris Schenck
United States Dayton Ohio
|
wtrollkin2000 wrote: I used to ride a tricycle. I tried to learn how to ride a bicycle but after two tries still couldn't do it. so i went back to riding a tricycle which is much cooler. I understand the analogy. Regarding boardgames though, it could indeed be that many plays allows me to generate an interest in a game. Or maybe the game just sucks. If I had a boatload of free time like I did when I was younger, then I could see dedicating the time to determine the difference. But now that I'm older, I have a lot more money and a lot less free time. For now, I'll choose the low-hanging fruit for my gaming fun.
|
Matt Drake
United States Arlington Texas
|
wtrollkin2000 wrote: I used to ride a tricycle. I tried to learn how to ride a bicycle but after two tries still couldn't do it. so i went back to riding a tricycle which is much cooler. Here's one: I tried riding a bicycle. It was a crappy bicycle and the gears kept locking up. So I switched to another bicycle, a really swanky ten-speed that glides like it had wings, and now I ride that because THE OTHER BICYCLE SUCKED.
|
Was George Orwell an optimist?
United States Corvallis Oregon
|
cbs42 wrote: Regarding boardgames though, it could indeed be that many plays allows me to generate an interest in a game. Or maybe the game just sucks.
If I had a boatload of free time like I did when I was younger, then I could see dedicating the time to determine the difference. But now that I'm older, I have a lot more money and a lot less free time. For now, I'll choose the low-hanging fruit for my gaming fun. I understand that perfectly, but I also know that many of my favorite games took multiple plays to appreciate. Instinct plays into it: many games that I don't get initially still feel promising. Others don't, and I give them the boot, knowing full well that they might grow on me if I gave them enough tries. The most recent of those, for me, was StarCraft. There are players whose opinions I respect that really like it, but I'd spent two sessions, plus a lot of time studying rules, and hadn't caught a glimmer of fun, so off it went in a trade.
Last edited on 2009-09-20 22:50:42 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Ray
United States Carpentersville Illinois
|
perhaps the analogy wasn't understood by everyone. my point is no one rides a bicycle on their first or second try and likewise there are games you will never like in the first or second try. its not the bicycle its the rider. you can keep trying different tricycles and there are some really fun ones, but to take gaming to the next level you will need to work through the not liking phases of games to learn to ride a bike with them for fun.
|
Matt Drake
United States Arlington Texas
|
No. I understood the analogy. It's just that it was crap. Your analogy assumes that games that you can pick up the first time you play are somehow inferior - and that, by inference, those gamers who would rather play games they actually enjoy are somehow inferior to those who are so bored, and have so much free time, that they play the same game over and over even when they're not having fun.
To be accurate, your analogy should have been bicycles versus bicycles. Games are not better just because they're incomprehensible the first time out. I keep hearing this argument that I have to play a game four times before I know if I like it, and that's a load of horse apples. I don't need to take multiple forks to the kidney to know I don't enjoy being stabbed - once is plenty. And there are games I've played where the kidney fork would have been preferable, and playing them multiple times is not going to make me a better person. It's going to make me bored multiple times. But maybe I can console myself by saying that I'm better than other nerds because I can sit through the same boring garbage a bunch of times in a row.
When there are literally hundreds of games on the market, thousands even, why on Earth would I play the same stinker six times, just to see if it grows on me? That's asinine. Play what you like. If you don't like a game, don't play it. These things are supposed to be fun. You don't get a medal for playing boring games, but maybe you can go to a snooty wine-and-cheese party and laugh through your noses at all the poor plebeians who play games they like.
|
|
|
VixenTorGames wrote: No. I understood the analogy. It's just that it was crap. You're basically pointing out a problem from our modern gaming world: instant satisfaction. But you see, games that offer instant satisfaction don't usually last very long, and that leads us to another problem: "cult of the new". Games where you still discover something new after the 10th play are rare and usually require players to put a bit of work towards them, but when you "get" them it's amazing. You can play these games time after time and always have fun, discovering new strategies and possible situations. And usually learning something new each play. Marvel Heroes does offer quite a lot of variety and replayability, but I don't see that it really requires players to put a lot of work towards learning it. It's just that it's quite an unusual game, but after a couple of plays everything should be clear. But well... you can do what you want (of course!) and you're entitled to missing out on many excellent games. it's your loss...
|
Matt Drake
United States Arlington Texas
|
maka wrote: it's your loss...  That's debatable, but I am also just fine with agreeing to disagree.
|
|
|