Zero Punctuation: Monster Hunter Tri

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 26 NEXT
 

Sketches:
That does make sense. But alot of people would wait there for a while, and play the game wondering what the hell happened to continuiety now-a-days :P

Yeah, it's a bit confusing at first, as the initial map that you load up and do quests on stays fairly similar (aside from a few changing monsters, which someone probably wouldn't even notice) for the first few hours before you open up alternate levels. So, it's not surprisingly that people might assume it to be identical every single time or label it as some kind of open world. However, that's not the case at all since the monsters within a level change drastically depending on the mission, and there are several different types of levels as well. Like snow, volcano, swamp, desert, etc.

KelsieKatt:

Sketches:
That does make sense. But alot of people would wait there for a while, and play the game wondering what the hell happened to continuiety now-a-days :P

Yeah, it's a bit confusing at first, as the initial map that you load up and do quests on stays fairly similar (aside from a few changing monsters, which someone probably wouldn't even notice) for the first few hours before you open up alternate levels. So, it's not surprisingly that people might assume it to be identical every single time or label it as some kind of open world. However, that's not the case at all since the monsters within a level change drastically depending on the mission, and there are several different types of levels as well. Like snow, volcano, swamp, desert, etc.

To be honest, I'm on the fence about getting it.

I'm taking it you like it?

This really has to be his most half-assed review ever. Now I'm not mad that he trashed the game, I saw that coming a mile away, this sort of game is totally not the kind of thing that he's going to like. I'll give him that the game starts out slow as hell, and I almost gave up on it myself - but I stuck it out till I hit the 3* quests then things started really picking up, and then I tried some online hunting and had a load of fun.

While overall I enjoy the game, and hunting big-ass monsters with my friends online is fun enough that I'm willing to forgive many of the negatives, there are a ton of things that he could have picked on, but the only thing he really touched on was the fact that the game starts out really !@#$ing slow (which I'll give him, I really was on the brink of giving it up before I started finally getting into it). So instead of an amusing examination of all the problems the game has, it just seems lazy and half-assed to me, and a perfect example of why I don't really take him all that seriously as a game critic. And I was really looking forward to this one too.

Too bad. Hopefully next week's will be better.

Mythbhavd:

Daystar Clarion:
Wow, Yahtzee completely missed the point of the game. Me thinks he didn't play long enough to fight some of the bigger monsters.

People always say things like this, but the problem is that if it isn't good enough to keep you interested in the game, then it isn't a well developed game. It's much like Stephen King's "IT." If you're willing to read the first five hundred pages, then you might actually get to the part that most people consider good. The problem is keeping the reader engaged for the first five hundred pages of a thousand page book. In that aspect, King failed. To me, just as that book was a failure, so is any game that you put some serious play time into, but it's just after you finally give up out of sheer boredom that it's supposed to be good.

Exactly. I tried reading IT, but I couldn't get past page 50 before being bored to death. Games like this and prototype where you start of with weak weapons and it gets more fun the further in you get can't compare to games like Alan Wake and Doom where it starts off fun and gets better. Don't get me wrong, prototype is really fun once you get something besides the claws power. However, that's about 5 minutes, whereas Monster Hunter Tri, as I've heard, takes about an hour and a half of gameplay before that happens.

Sketches:
To be honest, I'm on the fence about getting it.

I'm taking it you like it?

Personally, I like it a lot. Although, I realize that it's the kind of game that may very well not appeal to a lot of people. As it's essentially a one trick pony that focuses entirely around boss fights, boss fights, and more boss fights. And personally, I love boss fights, a lot. So, that works great for me, especially considering that it's one of the few games I can play in 4 player coop as well (said coop also have significantly more content than the single player campaign, which isn't even available offline), so for me, all around I enjoy most of it a lot. Other than that, I also like the tactical nature of the combat system as it's not simply a game where you can just charge in and wail on stuff, as that sort of strategy is likely to get you killed in a span of seconds. Attacks take a fairly realistic amount of time per swing and you need to plan before doing so, otherwise you could leave yourself vulnerable, and of course there's the whole recognizing different tactics that the bosses employ and using them to your advantage.

In that particular respect, namely the tactical nature of the combat, it reminds me a lot of Demon's Souls, which is another game I got a lot of enjoyment out of. However, once again, I can see why many people might hate it.

Although, if boss fights, coop, tactics, etc... aren't someone's thing, chances are they won't enjoy it even remotely. So, it's not the kind of game I would recommend to just anyone.

Dalton Frantz:

Exactly. I tried reading IT, but I couldn't get past page 50 before being bored to death. Games like this and prototype where you start of with weak weapons and it gets more fun the further in you get can't compare to games like Alan Wake and Doom where it starts off fun and gets better. Don't get me wrong, prototype is really fun once you get something besides the claws power. However, that's about 5 minutes, whereas Monster Hunter Tri, as I've heard, takes about an hour and a half of gameplay before that happens.

I get this, I really do - but when your entire review is basically "The game started off too slow for me to get into, and I gave up before things started getting good" what's the point of even making an entire review in the first place?

Yes, I think the game taking too long to get into the real meat of the game is a very valid complaint. But an entire review where this is really the only point made is just lazy.

KelsieKatt:

Sketches:
To be honest, I'm on the fence about getting it.

I'm taking it you like it?

Personally, I like it a lot. Although, I realize that it's the kind of game that may very well not appeal to a lot of people. As it's essentially a one trick pony that focuses entirely around boss fights, boss fights, and more boss fights. And personally, I love boss fights, a lot. So, that works great for me, especially considering that it's one of the few games I can play in 4 player coop as well (said coop also have significantly more content than the single player campaign, which isn't even available offline), so for me, all around I enjoy most of it a lot. Other than that, I also like the tactical nature of the combat system as it's not simply a game where you can just charge in and wail on stuff, as that sort of strategy is likely to get you killed in a span of seconds. Attacks take a fairly realistic amount of time per swing and you need to plan before doing so, otherwise you could leave yourself vulnerable, and of course there's the whole recognizing different tactics that the bosses employ and using them to your advantage.

In that particular respect, namely the tactical nature of the combat, it reminds me a lot of Demon's Souls, which is another game I got a lot of enjoyment out of. However, once again, I can see why many people might hate it.

Although, if boss fights, coop, tactics, etc... aren't someone's thing, chances are they won't enjoy it even remotely. So, it's not the kind of game I would recommend to just anyone.

Sounds like it'd be one of my top games if I got it.
I dooo lurv to strategise.

Well, I'm off to buy it... at some point in the future. Thanks :P

Kage Me:
"Hey, Yahtzee's reviewing Monster Hunter Tri. I wonder if he'll complain about the Wii. Again."

(...)

"Well, what do you know. He almost made it all the way through."

Why shouldn't he complain about the wii? Due to the nature of the console it is extremely relevant to any game that is on it.

mike1921:
Why shouldn't he complain about the wii? Due to the nature of the console it is extremely relevant to any game that is on it.

In this case, the fact the game is on the Wii isn't really that big of a deal. At all.
What he complains about are minute things, the load times are long in every version of MH that has ever been produced (people saying it doesn't have a good enough processor for this type of game don't know what they're talking about).
The fact that you can use a 'classic' controller, and that you can get the game with one (which is different, it has 'handles' like a PS2 controller) makes it easier for normal, casual, or 'hardcore' gamer to use.

The console itself doesn't exactly hinder the game or experience, and affects very little.

If the tutorial lasts significantly longer than oblivion's, and I can't skip it, and the tutorial itself isn't fun, for me that's enough of a reason not to even consider renting a game.

It's 15 minutes of stuff that's boring, and 45 minutes of doing missions that involve fighting minion monsters that attack you, before you get to the actual bosses.

Judging by yahtzee's opinion of the game (or you say the tutorial), it was a bad idea whether you know what you're doing or not.

Yahtzees opinion is based on not reading what the game says (it says "OH NO THIS IS THE GIANT END BOSS FLEE", not "Oh look, a big monster. Maybe another will show up if you wait in rank one missions instead of actually playing the game."), and playing... well, it doesn't even seem as if he got to the mission to hunt Jaggis, which is 15 minutes into the game, and he certainly didn't reach the first boss. I consider it more likely it's due to laziness than the fact he really couldn't be assed to play 15 minutes.

crypt-creature:

mike1921:
Why shouldn't he complain about the wii? Due to the nature of the console it is extremely relevant to any game that is on it.

In this case, the fact the game is on the Wii isn't really that big of a deal. At all.
What he complains about are minute things, the load times are long in every version of MH that has ever been produced (people saying it doesn't have a good enough processor for this type of game don't know what they're talking about).
The fact that you can use a 'classic' controller, and that you can get the game with one (which is different, it has 'handles' like a PS2 controller) makes it easier for normal, casual, or 'hardcore' gamer to use.

The console itself doesn't exactly hinder the game or experience, and affects very little.

So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

The fact that you can use another controller means the game shouldn't be on the wii. The wii's only selling point is motion controls. If a game that doesn't need motion controls is being made I don't think it belongs as a wii-exclusive title. Especially if it'll have load time problems on the wii.

mike1921:

crypt-creature:

mike1921:
Why shouldn't he complain about the wii? Due to the nature of the console it is extremely relevant to any game that is on it.

In this case, the fact the game is on the Wii isn't really that big of a deal. At all.
What he complains about are minute things, the load times are long in every version of MH that has ever been produced (people saying it doesn't have a good enough processor for this type of game don't know what they're talking about).
The fact that you can use a 'classic' controller, and that you can get the game with one (which is different, it has 'handles' like a PS2 controller) makes it easier for normal, casual, or 'hardcore' gamer to use.

The console itself doesn't exactly hinder the game or experience, and affects very little.

If the game isn't
So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

The fact that you can use another controller means the game shouldn't be on the wii. The wii's only selling point is motion controls. If a game that doesn't need motion controls is being made I don't think it belongs as a wii-exclusive title. Especially if it'll have load time problems on the wii.

It doesn't have load time problems. The load times have been identical for all the games. The game runs just as well on the Wii as it did on the other systems. The wii has sold more than twice as well as the other systems. Putting it on the Wii is the smart business choice.

Please, don't make comments like "It shouldn't be on the Wii because of X issues" when A: you don't know about the issues (or, in your case, are just making them up as you go along) and B: you don't understand that more game sales = more money, so the Wii is the platform of choice when the game works equally well on all consoles, or at least a completely fair choice.

mike1921:
So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

Probably not. They're already only like half a second long at best.

The main purpose of the loading screens is to seperate different areas within levels, to make it easier to track a boss while fighting it. So, no matter the system, it would still be there.

milskidasith:

mike1921:

crypt-creature:

mike1921:
Why shouldn't he complain about the wii? Due to the nature of the console it is extremely relevant to any game that is on it.

In this case, the fact the game is on the Wii isn't really that big of a deal. At all.
What he complains about are minute things, the load times are long in every version of MH that has ever been produced (people saying it doesn't have a good enough processor for this type of game don't know what they're talking about).
The fact that you can use a 'classic' controller, and that you can get the game with one (which is different, it has 'handles' like a PS2 controller) makes it easier for normal, casual, or 'hardcore' gamer to use.

The console itself doesn't exactly hinder the game or experience, and affects very little.

If the game isn't
So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

The fact that you can use another controller means the game shouldn't be on the wii. The wii's only selling point is motion controls. If a game that doesn't need motion controls is being made I don't think it belongs as a wii-exclusive title. Especially if it'll have load time problems on the wii.

It doesn't have load time problems. The load times have been identical for all the games. The game runs just as well on the Wii as it did on the other systems. The wii has sold more than twice as well as the other systems. Putting it on the Wii is the smart business choice.

You said

the load times are long in ever version of MH

If that's not a load time problem I don't know what is. Maybe load times being too short?

Please, don't make comments like "It shouldn't be on the Wii because of X issues" when A: you don't know about the issues (or, in your case, are just making them up as you go along) and B: you don't understand that more game sales = more money, so the Wii is the platform of choice when the game works equally well on all consoles, or at least a completely fair choice.

You admitted the load times are long, that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

Probably not. They're already only like half a second long at best.

The main purpose of the loading screens is to seperate different areas within levels, to make it easier to track a boss while fighting it. So, no matter the system, it would still be there.

...........I'm getting the impression you and milsk are talking about two completely seperate games.

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

Probably not. They're already only like half a second long at best.

The main purpose of the loading screens is to seperate different areas within levels, to make it easier to track a boss while fighting it. So, no matter the system, it would still be there.

Admittedly, if it was on the PS3, it might have high definition wavey grass in the foreground. Seirously, that's the only major difference I can notice between good looking Wii games and HD games on other consoles. Well, that, and that HD games also do a lot more close ups on characters faces so we can see the HD shading, but besides those two things... I really don't see the whole "srs business" about HD. It's not like SD games look like old compressed video files or crappy cell phone videos uploaded to youtube, after all. Then again, I play Dwarf Fortress, so maybe I'm just used to amazing games coming without graphics.

You said

the load times are long in ever version of MH

What the hell are you talking about? That wasn't me who posted that. Seriously, you're complaining about the load times in a game you haven't played, then outright lying about what I've said. Are you *trying* to make yourself sound bad?

If that's not a load time problem I don't know what is. Maybe load times being too short?

Load times aren't long, at all. .5 to 2 seconds, at best, except when you first encounter a boss, the load times stretch from 1 to 3 seconds to load the intro video.

Please, don't make comments like "It shouldn't be on the Wii because of X issues" when A: you don't know about the issues (or, in your case, are just making them up as you go along) and B: you don't understand that more game sales = more money, so the Wii is the platform of choice when the game works equally well on all consoles, or at least a completely fair choice.

You admitted the load times are long,

No. I. ****ing. Did. Not. Please, stop the bullshit here. Honestly, I could put up with dozens of people making up issues out of thin air (as you've done) and arguing about issues they've heard of incorrectly but haven't played (as you've done) but seriously, do NOT make up shit I haven't said and try to strawman me.

that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

Doesn't load slowly, doesn't look ugly.

.I'm getting the impression you and milsk are talking about two completely seperate games.

I'm getting the feeling you're trolling.

milskidasith:

You said

the load times are long in ever version of MH

[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you talking about? That wasn't me who posted that. Seriously, you're complaining about the load times in a game you haven't played, then outright lying about what I've said. Are you *trying* to make yourself sound bad?

No, I didn't realize you and crypt-creature are two seperate people.

[QUOTE]If that's not a load time problem I don't know what is. Maybe load times being too short?

Load times aren't long, at all. .5 to 2 seconds, at best, except when you first encounter a boss, the load times stretch from 1 to 3 seconds to load the intro video.

Please, don't make comments like "It shouldn't be on the Wii because of X issues" when A: you don't know about the issues (or, in your case, are just making them up as you go along) and B: you don't understand that more game sales = more money, so the Wii is the platform of choice when the game works equally well on all consoles, or at least a completely fair choice.

You admitted the load times are long,

No. I. ****ing. Did. Not. Please, stop the bullshit here. Honestly, I could put up with dozens of people making up issues out of thin air (as you've done) and arguing about issues they've heard of incorrectly but haven't played (as you've done) but seriously, do NOT make up shit I haven't said and try to strawman me.

that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

Doesn't load slowly, doesn't look ugly.

.I'm getting the impression you and milsk are talking about two completely seperate games.

I'm getting the feeling you're trolling.

Dude, read the fucking post I was responding to before you started responding to me, I confused you with that guy. I wasn't trying to strawman you. I thought you actually said that.

Although I will never let go of: It looks ugly. Ugly enough where the only thing that could justify it on a non-portable console is it being a MMORPG

No, I didn't realize you and crypt-creature are two seperate people.

Yes, I totally believe that you could consider somebody with a completely different avatar, avatar size, title, posting style, and name the same person even when you actually had to go up and quote the other persons post.

Do you think I'm really that stupid?

that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

Doesn't load slowly, doesn't look ugly.

Dude, read the fucking post I was responding to before you started responding to me, I confused you with that guy. I wasn't trying to strawman you. I thought you actually said that.

I read it. His avatar is completely different than mine, so you either have a .0001 second attention span between seeing his post and scrolling down to see mine, or you're bullshitting. Since you seem fairly intelligent and have enough attention span to continue the argument, I'm calling bullshit.

Bullshit.

As for looking as ugly as an MMO: It looks far better than WoW; I don't even know how you can say that with a straight face. Furthermore... it is an MMO. Haven't you gotten that yet? It's all about playing with three other players online, and it manages to have better netcode than most Xbox, PS3, or PC games.

milskidasith:

No, I didn't realize you and crypt-creature are two seperate people.

Yes, I totally believe that you could consider somebody with a completely different avatar, avatar size, title, posting style, and name the same person even when you actually had to go up and quote the other persons post.

Do you think I'm really that stupid?

that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

Doesn't load slowly, doesn't look ugly.

[QUOTE]Dude, read the fucking post I was responding to before you started responding to me, I confused you with that guy. I wasn't trying to strawman you. I thought you actually said that.

I read it. His avatar is completely different than mine, so you either have a .0001 second attention span between seeing his post and scrolling down to see mine, or you're bullshitting. Since you seem fairly intelligent, I'm calling bullshit.

Bullshit.

I don't remember people's avatars unless you're one of like...5 people on this board. I wouldn't notice if you changed your avatar to a picture of a dog in the middle of this conversation if you didn't draw my attention to it.

As for looking as ugly as an MMO: It looks far better than WoW; I don't even know how you can say that with a straight face. Furthermore... it is an MMO. Haven't you gotten that yet? It's all about playing with three other players online, and it manages to have better netcode than most Xbox, PS3, or PC games.

It looks the same to me. that's just multiplayer and online, not massively multiplayer. 4 player co-op does not make a game an MMO. Even if it's central to the game. Leftt4Dead2 is all 4 player co-op and it's not an MMO.

mike1921:

milskidasith:

No, I didn't realize you and crypt-creature are two seperate people.

Yes, I totally believe that you could consider somebody with a completely different avatar, avatar size, title, posting style, and name the same person even when you actually had to go up and quote the other persons post.

Do you think I'm really that stupid?

that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

Doesn't load slowly, doesn't look ugly.

[QUOTE]Dude, read the fucking post I was responding to before you started responding to me, I confused you with that guy. I wasn't trying to strawman you. I thought you actually said that.

I read it. His avatar is completely different than mine, so you either have a .0001 second attention span between seeing his post and scrolling down to see mine, or you're bullshitting. Since you seem fairly intelligent, I'm calling bullshit.

Bullshit.

I don't remember people's avatars unless you're one of like...5 people on this board. I wouldn't notice if you changed your avatar to a picture of a dog in the middle of this conversation if you didn't draw my attention to it.

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat this: Bullshit. Even if you aren't paying attention to them, a mostly black avatar and a mostly white avatar are different enough you would even notice with your peripheral vision.

EDIT: As for looking like an MMO... I have the opposite vision of you, apparently. MMOs look like pixellated, badly compressed crap (in most occurances), while the difference between Wii games and Xbox/PS3 games hardly look different except for the fact Xbox/PS3 games have wavey grass in the background, or spilling guts, or close ups of faces with a ton of detail on the shading. Even then, I care more about the game than the graphics, if that's your only complaint. Again, I'm possibly crazy, since I play Dwarf Fortress and rogulikes.

milskidasith:

mike1921:

milskidasith:

No, I didn't realize you and crypt-creature are two seperate people.

Yes, I totally believe that you could consider somebody with a completely different avatar, avatar size, title, posting style, and name the same person even when you actually had to go up and quote the other persons post.

Do you think I'm really that stupid?

that's an issue. I looked at the game, it looks as ugly as WoW, that's also an issue. Are you telling me capcom are so incompetent where no matter where they put this game it'll look ugly and load slowly?

Doesn't load slowly, doesn't look ugly.

[QUOTE]Dude, read the fucking post I was responding to before you started responding to me, I confused you with that guy. I wasn't trying to strawman you. I thought you actually said that.

I read it. His avatar is completely different than mine, so you either have a .0001 second attention span between seeing his post and scrolling down to see mine, or you're bullshitting. Since you seem fairly intelligent, I'm calling bullshit.

Bullshit.

I don't remember people's avatars unless you're one of like...5 people on this board. I wouldn't notice if you changed your avatar to a picture of a dog in the middle of this conversation if you didn't draw my attention to it.

I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat this: Bullshit. Even if you aren't paying attention to them, a mostly black avatar and a mostly white avatar are different enough you would even notice with your peripheral vision.

You can't just accept that I made a mistake and leave it at that?

Sigh... Yay flame wars...... :\

Yeah the load times aren't really bad at all. Loading levels takes about 10-15 seconds, and loading between zones can, as has already been said, be only 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds.

Also, what's this "only motion control games should be on the Wii" crap? The Wii is a console just like the X-Box and PS3. Not as powerful but it's there, and it can play games, so why shouldn't it? I mean, the X-Box and PS3 are jumping on top of the motion thing as well, hell, I can't take the PS3 seriously anymore after seeing the Play, it's a bloody lollypop! You can't say that's not childish looking.

Also, no one seems to like talking about the point that the Wii is the biggest selling out of the 3 consoles. Capcom clearly wanted to hedge their bets and go with that, because Monster Hunter isn't well known outside of Japan and making a super high definition game that didn't sell well because the console audience didn't take to it would ensure it would never see the light of day outside of Japan again. Although clearly that wouldn't faze a lot of people here.

One last thing. People saying the game looks ugly have clearly been blinded by all that bloom and HD shades. The game's artistic style clearly sets out to do what it intended: give the players environments to fight clearly defined monsters against a panoramic backdrop depending on what area you are in, and despite not being in HD it still looks very nice. Of course, again this won't matter to some people. I mean, I'm sure everyone remembers the X-Box vs PS3 FFXIII arguments. Somehow the PS3 version was the ultimate version because you could see the strands of Lightning's hair slightly clearer on that one.

That argument was hilarious.

t_rexaur:
Yeah the load times aren't really bad at all. Loading levels takes about 10-15 seconds, and loading between zones can, as has already been said, be only 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds.

Also, what's this "only motion control games should be on the Wii" crap? The Wii is a console just like the X-Box and PS3. Not as powerful but it's there, and it can play games, so why shouldn't it? I mean, the X-Box and PS3 are jumping on top of the motion thing as well, hell, I can't take the PS3 seriously anymore after seeing the Play, it's a bloody lollypop! You can't say that's not childish looking.

Also, no one seems to like talking about the point that the Wii is the biggest selling out of the 3 consoles. Capcom clearly wanted to hedge their bets and go with that, because Monster Hunter isn't well known outside of Japan and making a super high definition game that didn't sell well because the console audience didn't take to it would ensure it would never see the light of day outside of Japan again. Although clearly that wouldn't faze a lot of people here.

One last thing. People saying the game looks ugly have clearly been blinded by all that bloom and HD shades. The game's artistic style clearly sets out to do what it intended: give the players environments to fight clearly defined monsters against a panoramic backdrop depending on what area you are in, and despite not being in HD it still looks very nice. Of course, again this won't matter to some people. I mean, I'm sure everyone remembers the X-Box vs PS3 FFXIII arguments. Somehow the PS3 version was the ultimate version because you could see the strands of Lightning's hair slightly clearer on that one.

That argument was hilarious.

I recall the other flame war that started over that one game... can't recall the name, I'd never heard of it, but it was some kind of mystery game, and people blew up because the full 720p support had things like TV rabbit ears and the roll cages of trucks rendered in standard def, despite the fact the difference wasn't noticeable without magnifying the objects up so much you couldn't recognize what they were supossed to be anymore.

That's what I don't get about the HD war. It's unimpressive. It looks slightly better, maybe, but not enough that I can really tell without looking at two screens at once. The extra processing power does have a clear effect on having moving background objects, facial movement, draw distance, and facial shading, but the actual graphics themselves don't look any different to me; a tree is a tree, unless it's a pixellated early last gen/MMO tree.

t_rexaur:
Yeah the load times aren't really bad at all. Loading levels takes about 10-15 seconds, and loading between zones can, as has already been said, be only 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds.

Also, what's this "only motion control games should be on the Wii" crap? The Wii is a console just like the X-Box and PS3. Not as powerful but it's there, and it can play games, so why shouldn't it? I mean, the X-Box and PS3 are jumping on top of the motion thing as well, hell, I can't take the PS3 seriously anymore after seeing the Play, it's a bloody lollypop! You can't say that's not childish looking.

I didn't say they shouldn't be on the wii, I said they shouldn't be wii exclusives. Also, if the PS4 and the xbox....720? are all about motion control instead of actually trying to have superior hardware I'm not getting them.

One last thing. People saying the game looks ugly have clearly been blinded by all that bloom and HD shades. The game's artistic style clearly sets out to do what it intended: give the players environments to fight clearly defined monsters against a panoramic backdrop depending on what area you are in, and despite not being in HD it still looks very nice. Of course, again this won't matter to some people. I mean, I'm sure everyone remembers the X-Box vs PS3 FFXIII arguments. Somehow the PS3 version was the ultimate version because you could see the strands of Lightning's hair slightly clearer on that one.

I don't demand bloom and HD shades. But, if a game doesn't have a stylized look like Okami or No More Heroes or something like that, and the HD shades aren't there, I'd like the game to at least look somewhat acceptable. TO me, this game doesn't look acceptable.

mike1921:
I didn't say they shouldn't be on the wii, I said they shouldn't be wii exclusives. Also, if the PS4 and the xbox....720? are all about motion control instead of actually trying to have superior hardware I'm not getting them.

I'm respect your opinion, and I salute either your super eyes, 100+ inch TV, or the magnifying glass you would use to notice the differences in graphics between current gen and future graphics, provided future graphics aren't 3d/touch sensitive/virtual reality; a straight graphical upgrade is *already* almost unnoticeable.

As for being a wii exclusive: More people play the wii. They had to make the game from the ground up for the next gen consoles. The PS3 is the smallest market in the United States, and the Wii still holds the majority in Japan. Releasing it on the PS3 and Wii puts it to the same risk of being a bomb as releasing it on just the PS3.

I don't demand bloom and HD shades. But, if a game doesn't have a stylized look like Okami or No More Heroes or something like that, I'd rather them be there.

In case you haven't notice, Monster Hunter is pretty stylized. Not to the level of those games, but it's still not exactly super realistic. And it still manages to look pretty good, nowhere near as bad as MMOs.

By the way: If you can tell the difference between 360p and 720p, unaided, how can you not tell the difference between MMO level graphics and this?

milskidasith:

mike1921:
I didn't say they shouldn't be on the wii, I said they shouldn't be wii exclusives. Also, if the PS4 and the xbox....720? are all about motion control instead of actually trying to have superior hardware I'm not getting them.

I'm respect your opinion, and I salute either your super eyes, 100+ inch TV, or the magnifying glass you would use to notice the differences in graphics between current gen and future graphics, provided future graphics aren't 3d/touch sensitive/virtual reality; a straight graphical upgrade is *already* almost unnoticeable.

Really? You can't notice the difference between a Hi Def PS3 game and crysis on max settings? I'd like the next generation of consoles to be somewhere close to, if not above that level.
I actually think virtual reality (if it wasn't done horribly) would be pretty cool.

I don't demand bloom and HD shades. But, if a game doesn't have a stylized look like Okami or No More Heroes or something like that, I'd rather them be there.

In case you haven't notice, Monster Hunter is pretty stylized. Not to the level of those games, but it's still not exactly super realistic. And it still manages to look pretty good, nowhere near as bad as MMOs.

By the way: If you can tell the difference between 360p and 720p, unaided, how can you not tell the difference between MMO level graphics and this?

Ehh, no way to argue that I think that particular style of graphics looks terrible (The same thing always happens when I try to argue mac books look terrible).

360P and 720P? If it were 720 and 1080 you'd have a point, but I'm pretty sure anyone who can't tell the difference between 360 and 720 needs glasses. Given that I have glasses and don't even need to put them on to see the difference

cynicalsaint1:
This really has to be his most half-assed review ever. Now I'm not mad that he trashed the game, I saw that coming a mile away, this sort of game is totally not the kind of thing that he's going to like. I'll give him that the game starts out slow as hell, and I almost gave up on it myself - but I stuck it out till I hit the 3* quests then things started really picking up, and then I tried some online hunting and had a load of fun.

Sadly even if he made it to rank 3 (which I doubt heavily that he did) online hunting still wouldn't be a selling point to him, as we all know he hates games that rely on online multiplayer, despite that it probably kicks ass.

For those who like challenges and multi-part quests and strategic combat... be warned, Yahtzee gobsmacked Demon's Souls too. I was very surprised he didn't remind everyone about that during his anti-japan rant. His play-through on DS was about 4% of the entire game and my guess that this is about the same. Not that I begrudge him his profession, a one week turnaround is pretty brutal. Nonetheless ZP isn't the right venue for these kind of games.

Koganesaga:

cynicalsaint1:
This really has to be his most half-assed review ever. Now I'm not mad that he trashed the game, I saw that coming a mile away, this sort of game is totally not the kind of thing that he's going to like. I'll give him that the game starts out slow as hell, and I almost gave up on it myself - but I stuck it out till I hit the 3* quests then things started really picking up, and then I tried some online hunting and had a load of fun.

Sadly even if he made it to rank 3 (which I doubt heavily that he did) online hunting still wouldn't be a sealing point to him, as we all know he hates games that rely on online multiplayer, despite that it probably kicks ass.

Yeah, and like I said, I fully expected him to not like it either way, but there are plenty of complaints to be made about the game - I mean if you're going to trash the game, at least trash it properly. Or at the very least admit that you couldn't be bothered to play the game for more than an hour.

mike1921:

Really? You can't notice the difference between a Hi Def PS3 game and crysis on max settings? I'd like the next generation of consoles to be somewhere close to, if not above that level.
I actually think virtual reality (if it wasn't done horribly) would be pretty cool.

Without a side by side comparison, the only way I can identify running an Xbox game at standard def compared to HD is that the text is blurry in the SD version. It looks... better, yeah, but not enough that I'd say "Oh! I'm playing in SD!" if somebody swapped the cables without me knowing. Crysis on max settings is just more moving objects; the objects themselves aren't noticably better looking, they just have better looking shadows and have more of them; again, it's the "shading, faces, gore, and foreground objects" that seem to improve with better graphics, not the game in general, and certainly not the major game models.

As for Crysis on max settings: Yeah, that won't happen on next gen consoles, since a computer that can run Crysis on max is *still* at least in the $1500 range, at best.

360P and 720P? If it were 720 and 1080 you'd have a point, but I'm pretty sure anyone who can't tell the difference between 360 and 720 needs glasses. Given that I have glasses and don't even need to put them on to see the difference

Just looking at youtube videos, the difference is *very* mild. It's enough I can say the graphics are better, but nowhere near enough that it's a selling point, and 360p certainly doesn't look ugly or like MMO level graphics. Again, it's not that I can't tell the difference side by side, it's just I can't tell the difference if I were to start my console and it was suddenly on SD, besides the blurry text, of course.

Graphics don't matter beyond the point that you can tell what's going on. If I wanted pretty explosions above all else, I'd go rent Transformers 2.

milskidasith:

mike1921:

Really? You can't notice the difference between a Hi Def PS3 game and crysis on max settings? I'd like the next generation of consoles to be somewhere close to, if not above that level.
I actually think virtual reality (if it wasn't done horribly) would be pretty cool.[/QUOTE]

Without a side by side comparison, the only way I can identify running an Xbox game at standard def compared to HD is that the text is blurry in the SD version. It looks... better, yeah, but not enough that I'd say "Oh! I'm playing in SD!" if somebody swapped the cables without me knowing. Crysis on max settings is just more moving objects; the objects themselves aren't noticably better looking, they just have better looking shadows and have more of them; again, it's the "shading, faces, gore, and foreground objects" that seem to improve with better graphics, not the game in general, and certainly not the major game models.

As for Crysis on max settings: Yeah, that won't happen on next gen consoles, since a computer that can run Crysis on max is *still* at least in the $1500 range, at best.

360P and 720P? If it were 720 and 1080 you'd have a point, but I'm pretty sure anyone who can't tell the difference between 360 and 720 needs glasses. Given that I have glasses and don't even need to put them on to see the difference

Just looking at youtube videos, the difference is *very* mild. It's enough I can say the graphics are better, but nowhere near enough that it's a selling point, and 360p certainly doesn't look ugly or like MMO level graphics. Again, it's not that I can't tell the difference side by side, it's just I can't tell the difference if I were to start my console and it was suddenly on SD, besides the blurry text, of course.

Graphics don't matter beyond the point that you can tell what's going on. If I wanted pretty explosions above all else, I'd go rent Transformers 2.

Every time I have a power out (Or maybe my sister changes the settings to mess with me) my PS3 resets to .....640X400 I think. When this happens, I am afraid that one of pixels is going to eat me

As for Crysis on max settings: Yeah, that won't happen on next gen consoles, since a computer that can run Crysis on max is *still* at least in the $1500 range, at best.

If you build it yourself, no. If you buy from dell or something I believe you.

This thread gives me a headache.

But I was entertained by the video and thats the main thing.

mike1921:

milskidasith:
As for Crysis on max settings: Yeah, that won't happen on next gen consoles, since a computer that can run Crysis on max is *still* at least in the $1500 range, at best.

If you build it yourself, no. If you buy from dell or something I believe you.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

Crysis scales horribly past a certain point once you get into high end territory. Even a lot of higher end computers these days still have difficulty running it maxed out. Which is primarily the developer's fault, rather than the hardware itself. The game scales remarkably well on low-medium end settings, but once you get past the High settings, and start trying to use DX10 Very High, things drop considerably for almost no visual improvement. As a result, many people started modifying the game files in order to force similar looking effects without the pointless performance drain, because the developers didn't code it properly.

Crytek in general has a record of making games run poorly on the higher settings for no logical reason. The original Far Cry suffered the same issues when it was released, and even now, the 32bit version is still somewhat buggy and can potentially lose framerates for no logical reason on high end machines in some cases.

mike1921:

Every time I have a power out (Or maybe my sister changes the settings to mess with me) my PS3 resets to .....640X400 I think. When this happens, I am afraid that one of pixels is going to eat me

This is either hyperbole or a severe psychological issue, I'm not sure which.

If you build it yourself, no. If you buy from dell or something I believe you.

Yeah, if you buy it store bought, it's more than 1500 to run it on max settings, and even then, mass producing the tech for a console would cost even more than that, so I seriously doubt there's a huge market for the $2500+ to produce, $2000 to buy console (since all consoles but the Wii sell at a loss).

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 26 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here