by chaosjenkins
I enjoy comics. It is why I have and enjoy both the Marvel and DC games.I have played each many times and enjoy their respective strengths as games.
When it comes, however, to successfully incorporating the license in a way that displays understanding the source material, the two went different routes.
DC does a great job with each card being thematically strong with what it references from the source material. However, the game play itself represents no consistent story or narrative, or, at best, one that is hyper abstracted.
Legendary on the other hand — by establishing a Mastermind and a scheme (scenario), and limiting the selection of heroes and villain groups game by game — produces a clearer story. Shield deploys its agents against the rising threat and as the threat escalates, Heroes are recruited to join in the effort to stop the mastermind and thwart the scheme. (The stars represent the recruiting power ... a hard concept to represent with an icon. Presumably the stars represent Shield badges or officers' uniforms).
There is a linear, fairly coherent story there. Nick Fury, Hawkeye, Captain America, Emma Frost and Gambit joined forces to stop Doctor Doom's plot to replace the world's leaders with killbots.
There is a global spatial component there. The locations in the city matter. The Lizard isn't great to fight in the sewers. Whirlwind is in his element on rooftops. Obviously the villains are working to move out of the city to escape.
And I certainly think it matters to rescue bystanders regardless of play style. There are cards powered by the number of bystanders you have rescued, such as Black Widow's.
But you miss the point, those of us enjoying the game primarily as a cooperative experience aren't ignoring the competitive element altogether. We do count points at the end to see who the most legendary hero of all is, we just focus more on teaming up and winning the game, defeating the bad guy — just like we do with Defenders of the Realm or Castle Panic. I will absolutely forgo an "individual win" to assure we do not lose to the mastermind, and enjoy the sacrifice. With that said, we don't intentionally screw the other players, but if I'm playing a Hulk-centric deck that will benefit from wounds in my discard pile, I'm likely to purchase and use the Hulk card that gives everybody a wound (as long as we're not dealing with the Legacy Virus). Hopefully the other players have had a chance to find a Wolverine or something that will KO those wounds or a Cap that will deflect them.
I can see where someone who enjoys playing competitively far more than cooperatively would enjoy using a card like that specifically to hurt the other players, and then also swoop in to buy the Wolverine or Cap cards as part of the strategy to deny those to the enemy — but that's putting the cold, mechanical parts of the game ahead of the narrative, which is fine for Dominion, but why the hell would I do that with a game based on a storytelling art form? I'd just play Dominion or Eminent Domain.
It is odd to me that someone would dismissively refer to Legendary as a modified Ascension or Thunderstone in a thread comparing the game to DC. There is truth to the assertion regarding Marvel, but DC owes perhaps even more of its makeup to those games, particularly Ascension.
Marvel does try to incorporate several riskier design elements, from the co-op aspect, to the scenarios to the spatial components in an effort to be true to the source material, a storytelling art form. The game makes an effort, in something that is damn tricky for a deckbuilder, to build narrative. Compared to something like Sentinels of the Multiverse, it is a pale shadow in this regard, but I feel like it solidly trumps DC in this arena.
It is a respect that someone who only cares about the games as games or competitive exercises, regardless of theme, may care little about. It is something that, as a lover of graphic storytelling, I appreciate Legendary all the more for. And, presumably, the point of such a license is, at least in part, to satisfy this core audience of the IP.
Dozens of plays in with several different players I have yet to encounter someone who doesn't enjoy Legendary played in accordance with this intent — and it actually amplifies my enjoyment of DC when I play it because it allows that game to fill a different niche. DC is fast and punchy with plenty of pvp screwage, it's great for that.
But I don't have an option to play DC cooperatively. I don't have an option to play DC in a way that truly builds any kind of non-abstracted, linear narrative. I do have those options with Legendary.
Your argument doesn't actually seem to be that the flexibility isn't there, but that the efforts to achieve it result in a confused mess. I suspect that could certainly be true for some based on what they bring to a game and what they expect from it. I do not refute the validity of the opinion, and I suppose this is where folks say let's just agree to disagree.
It is not important to me which of these games people like more, but given the title and nature of the thread, I do think it is valuable for anyone considering purchasing one over the other to hear the various points of distinction and arguments for each game.
I'll continue to be happy owning both and enjoying each of them for what they do best.