Zero Punctuation: Monster Hunter Tri

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . . . 26 NEXT
 

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

God of War 3 is this gen. It can't be better than all of last generation's consoles for my arguement that without motion controls the wii is pointless to succeed.

crypt-creature:

mike1921:

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

Read this. Read it very carefully.

mike1921:
The only portable consoles are the DS and PSP. Unless you're honestly going to tell me you walk around with your wii, TV, and wii mote.

No, but I can very easily hook up my Wii to the TV in our van and play it. Out of the three major consoles, I can do that the easiest with the Wii.
When saying 'portable' you should probably say 'handhelds'.
Consoles are 'portable', when you do it right.

I'm pretty sure swinging around a wii mote in somebody's car will normally result in whoever is driving it stopping to beat you.

mike1921:
Define graphics. When I'm talking about graphics I'm talking about 1080P images and how I can see every bead of sweat on kratos's jawbone.

Because that happens often outside of cinematics.
Durring normal gameplay, that barely happens. Your definition or graphics makes you seem spoiled.

Yes I know, I'm just explaining what I mean by graphics. I know I can't actually see every bead of sweat, but when I'm talking graphics I'm talking realistic or detailed

mike1921:
When a game looks good without having that kind of stuff (aka: stylyzed graphics) I just say it looks good. I think there are a few wii games that look good or even great, but I don't think they're graphically spectacular and I don't think monster hunter is one of them.

This makes you seem even more spoiled.

Because I use different words to describe a game that looks incredibly detailed/realistic and is pretty to one that is just pretty?

milskidasith:

Every word of the posts you have made about Monster Hunter are either blatent lies or proof you haven't played the games. Monsters don't run every five minutes, you don't ever need to run five minutes to find them (newsflash: They move one area away in most cases. That's maybe ten seconds of running!), you don't need to upgrade your equipment often at all, and you never need to grind out resources past the mandatory missions in HR1. The only way you'd need to grind every monster for new gear is if you were A: unable to realize that gear from the monster you just fought is probably bad against the monster you're about to fight (Jaggi armor against the quropecco, for instance, since jaggi armor is weak to fire), and B: you are really bad at the game.

Again, I beat the game with HR2 armor and HR4 weapons all the way through HR6, and never had to grind missions to win, so... yeah, please stop making up BS to slander the game.

There was more than one occasion in which I spent 15 minutes trying to track down a flying bat-like creature (that I forget the name of) upon first entering a map, when I finally found him, he stayed in the fight for less than 5 minutes before flying away and refusing to come down, or taking off just before I got to where he was taking more than 5 minutes to find him again even with the help of a paintball due to the fact that you have to climb mountains (as they were the fastest route). If you beat the game with low equipement, good for you, I prefer to kill bosses with my hammer, so I definately don't suck at the game, the fact I got up to HR 4 (at present, beating games takes time) should prove that, and your argument losses credibility when you can't procede to the next missions untill you finish the boring gather quests first.

F*** the piscine liver quest, I hate using bows and bowguns.

I made peace with the knowledge that he would rip this game to shreds.

That doesn't mean I accept his opinion.

Rehashed gripes about Monster Hunter, brought forth from the game reviews of old.

*sigh*

When will Monster Hunter be understood outside of Japan for what it is?

They keep the mechanics because it makes the game what it is.

Yes, their often shite.

But that's what the fans love about the game!

The difficulty will never change. If you were too puss before, your too puss now.

Sorry folks, fanboy's only.

Again.

Monster Hunter is the best game i have ever played.

The review was funny because Yahtzee didn't like the game. He didn't mention ANY of the important features of the, he just insulted what he didn't like; I am curious how much he played, the quest he mentioned (where you get attacked by lagiacrus while finding rocks underwater) was about 15 minutes into the game for me. Moreover he completely left out online, the way monster hunter is meant to be played, and i seriously doubt he looked into it. Given he only had a week to make the review (i'm guessing he spent a lot of the time making those crazy monsters for the video) and it took me a while to form my opinion of the game, but that still doesn't excused the absence of anything good about the game in the review.

As a side note, Monster Hunter Tri has gotten 8-10/10's in nearly all of the reviews i've seen for it.

t_rexaur:
I love how people keep asking "why is this on the Wii" as if somehow Capcom putting the game on the biggest selling console this generation is a monumentally bad idea.

It is considering third party titles get shafted every time on the Wii...=/

It should have at least gone multi-platform...

as for the review...

Is it just me or is Yahtzee reviewing games like these on purpose? Face it a review of RDR or Alan Wake would have never gain this much feedback, oh I'm on to you Ben...lol

Warachia:

milskidasith:

Every word of the posts you have made about Monster Hunter are either blatent lies or proof you haven't played the games. Monsters don't run every five minutes, you don't ever need to run five minutes to find them (newsflash: They move one area away in most cases. That's maybe ten seconds of running!), you don't need to upgrade your equipment often at all, and you never need to grind out resources past the mandatory missions in HR1. The only way you'd need to grind every monster for new gear is if you were A: unable to realize that gear from the monster you just fought is probably bad against the monster you're about to fight (Jaggi armor against the quropecco, for instance, since jaggi armor is weak to fire), and B: you are really bad at the game.

Again, I beat the game with HR2 armor and HR4 weapons all the way through HR6, and never had to grind missions to win, so... yeah, please stop making up BS to slander the game.

There was more than one occasion in which I spent 15 minutes trying to track down a flying bat-like creature (that I forget the name of) upon first entering a map, when I finally found him, he stayed in the fight for less than 5 minutes before flying away and refusing to come down, or taking off just before I got to where he was taking more than 5 minutes to find him again even with the help of a paintball due to the fact that you have to climb mountains (as they were the fastest route). If you beat the game with low equipement, good for you, I prefer to kill bosses with my hammer, so I definately don't suck at the game, the fact I got up to HR 4 (at present, beating games takes time) should prove that, and your argument losses credibility when you can't procede to the next missions untill you finish the boring gather quests first.

F*** the piscine liver quest, I hate using bows and bowguns.

Err... there's no flying bat thing in the game. At all. I really have no clue what you are talking about, unless you're talking about Rathalos, who happens to be a dragon referred to as King of the Skies, who is still incredibly easy to hit with a Switch Axe or longsword...

In short, it seems as if you are just bad at the game, and aren't capable of recognizing the bosses start in the same spot every time. Anyway, if you're going to fight the king of the skies, you should probably be prepared for a monster that flies... I can hit it consistently and never need to chase it for any amount of time. You could run three laps around the map in 15 minutes, so if it took you that long to find the monster, I really pity you, because it must have been hell figuring out how to get back to the base when you needed to turn in items.

mike1921:

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo 2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

God of War 3 is this gen. It can't be better than all of last generation's consoles for my arguement that without motion controls the wii is pointless to succeed.

Like I said. The PS2 is by far the most inferior console of the entire last generation, the Gamecube, Xbox and Wii all outperform it by a very significant extent.

However, like the Wii, it was also the most successful console on the entire market and they're still selling them.

Also, aside from that, Halo 2 was one of the ugliest games on the Xbox. I'm not sure why you would pick that one. The only plus side was the character models.

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say here. I thought your argument was that bad graphics were a failure? I'm confused...

mike1921:

Then Explain, if it has nothing to do with processors, why are they there. And if they're only so I could catch my breath then I still need that mod.

Wow. Way to to twist things around to try and suit your argument, however badly.
This is like debating with a child.
Never said it has absolutely nothing to do with the processor, I'm saying there are other reasons why it is the way it is. Like... Oh, I don't know... it's part of the game design and internal mechanics. If it were to ever be available on the PS3, it'd still act the way it does because that's how the games are. I don't think it's as simple as 'more processing power'. Plus most console games that produce random items to this degree have various load sequences, regardless of processing power.
Kinda like the MegaMan series almost always have a boss intro, Monster Hunter will almost always have its load sequences placed where they are, regardless of processing power.

crypt-creature:

It's not that it's impressive or important, it's that it's incredibly hard to miss.

Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't do anything to enhance gameplay, or do that much to the over-all game.
It's flash that is needless.

crypt-creature:

And I'm afraid to play my wii because I know if I will the odds are good I will be forced to use motion controls that suck (A game with bad controls, for me, is unplayable) and throw my wii remote into my TV

Which is why they made the option for the control. You can have both, and have one that is better (for the person playing) than the other.
Hence, Wii-mote problem solved!

mike1921:
I'm pretty sure swinging around a wii mote in somebody's car will normally result in whoever is driving it stopping to beat you.

Right, because I can't own games that use the controller? No, the Wii doesn't have those or play Gamecube games.

mike1921:
Yes I know, I'm just explaining what I mean by graphics. I know I can't actually see every bead of sweat, but when I'm talking graphics I'm talking realistic or detailed

No, but you make it seem like graphics are the most important thing in a video game. Unless it's the Wii, then it seems to also depend if the motion controls are any good, and baring that, if they aren't and have classic controls as an option, then the game just sucks and shouldn't be on the system anyway.

mike1921:
Because I use different words to describe a game that looks incredibly detailed/realistic and is pretty to one that is just pretty?

No, see the above response.

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo 2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

God of War 3 is this gen. It can't be better than all of last generation's consoles for my arguement that without motion controls the wii is pointless to succeed.

Like I said. The PS2 is by far the most inferior console of the entire last generation, the Gamecube, Xbox and Wii all outperform it by a very significant extent.

However, like the Wii, it was also the most successful console on the entire market and they're still selling them.

Also, aside from that, Halo 2 was one of the ugliest games on the Xbox. I'm not sure why you would pick that one. The only plus side was the character models.

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say here. I thought your argument was that bad graphics were a failure? I'm confused...

I have no clue what you're talking about. Halo2 does not look ugly.

crypt-creature:

mike1921:

Then Explain, if it has nothing to do with processors, why are they there. And if they're only so I could catch my breath then I still need that mod.

Wow. Way to to twist things around to try and suit your argument, however badly.
This is like debating with a child.

I didn't twist anything, you said

Load screens are used for other reasons aside from processing power.

If they're not there because of proccesors, why are they there? Don't bother responding unless your response answers why the fuck they're there. I'm not interested in my questions being avoided

And I'm afraid to play my wii because I know if I will the odds are good I will be forced to use motion controls that suck (A game with bad controls, for me, is unplayable) and throw my wii remote into my TV

Which is why they made the option for the control. You can have both, and have one that is better (for the person playing) than the other.
Hence, Wii-mote problem solved!

As far as I know, no more heroes2 does not have that option. If it does I'd like to know

crypt-creature:

No, but you make it seem like graphics are the most important thing in a video game. Unless it's the Wii, then it seems to also depend if the motion controls are any good, and baring that, if they aren't and have classic controls as an option, then the game just sucks and shouldn't be on the system anyway.
.

That first part is just you making assumptions
Also, no, a game doesn't automatically suck for being on the wii, having bad motion controls, and having classic controls as an option, although it shouldn't be on the system as an exclusive title.

Warachia:

SAMAS:

Shamanic Rhythm:
Wow, 16 pages of complaining that he missed the point and that anyone who takes his word on it is a sheep.

Positive or negative review doesn't enter into it, the game is about Monster Hunting, but at no time does he actually talk about hunting monsters. If he talked about how long it takes to get to your first big monster hunt, then went into about how much he did or didn't like it, there wouldn't have been anything to talk about here. But he doesn't, and as a result we got the most half-assed ZP in recent history.

It's not just about this game. Have you ever watched or read the reactions to movies like The Core or The Day After Tomorrow from people who actually know climatology or geology? Whether the piece was positive or negative, at the very least we expect him to actually do the work if he's gonna make a video about it.

In short: This was a shitty video. It doesn't matter what game it was about. He could've done this about Drake and the 99 Dragons, and if he did as little as he did here it would still be shit. Yahtzee is better than this.

he DID work at it, he told his experience, and what he didn't like, and what he didn't like is that you BARELY HUNT F***ING MONSTERS, unless you count the wildlife as monsters, and he DID go into great detail about the game mechanics, and what the majority of the game is about and explaining how the game works, and tells you if you're going to get it anyway, to play it on a classic controller.

Except he didn't barely fight monsters. He didn't fight any monsters.

So he didn't get to go killing dragons with an Infinity +1 sword from the get-go. Big Surprise there. You fight your first Monster (Great Jaggi) on a Lv. 2 mission. TWO! You get past the starter missions, and you get to fight a forty-foot-long Raptor! I can respect that he and other gamers don't like grinding (I don't like too much of it myself if I'm not having fun doing it), and I didn't expect this game to change his mind about games like this. But trying to review the game without even getting out of the metaphorical kiddie pool is just wrong.

mike1921:

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo 2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

God of War 3 is this gen. It can't be better than all of last generation's consoles for my arguement that without motion controls the wii is pointless to succeed.

Like I said. The PS2 is by far the most inferior console of the entire last generation, the Gamecube, Xbox and Wii all outperform it by a very significant extent.

However, like the Wii, it was also the most successful console on the entire market and they're still selling them.

Also, aside from that, Halo 2 was one of the ugliest games on the Xbox. I'm not sure why you would pick that one. The only plus side was the character models.

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say here. I thought your argument was that bad graphics were a failure? I'm confused...

I have no clue what you're talking about. Halo2 does not look ugly.

I have no idea what you're talking about either. There are much better looking games out there than Halo 2.

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo 2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

God of War 3 is this gen. It can't be better than all of last generation's consoles for my arguement that without motion controls the wii is pointless to succeed.

Like I said. The PS2 is by far the most inferior console of the entire last generation, the Gamecube, Xbox and Wii all outperform it by a very significant extent.

However, like the Wii, it was also the most successful console on the entire market and they're still selling them.

Also, aside from that, Halo 2 was one of the ugliest games on the Xbox. I'm not sure why you would pick that one. The only plus side was the character models.

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say here. I thought your argument was that bad graphics were a failure? I'm confused...

I have no clue what you're talking about. Halo2 does not look ugly.

I have no idea what you're talking about either. There are much better looking games out there than Halo 2.

Better looking? Maybe. But when I'm talking graphics I'm talking about detail or realism (Because I don't like using the same words to describe a game like world of goo looking good, and to describe crysis looking good) . I don't know any original xbox games more detailed looking then that.

This one seemed lacking IMO.

Lone Wolf765:
Monster Hunter is the best game i have ever played.

The review was funny because Yahtzee didn't like the game. He didn't mention ANY of the important features of the, he just insulted what he didn't like; I am curious how much he played, the quest he mentioned (where you get attacked by lagiacrus while finding rocks underwater) was about 15 minutes into the game for me. Moreover he completely left out online, the way monster hunter is meant to be played, and i seriously doubt he looked into it. Given he only had a week to make the review (i'm guessing he spent a lot of the time making those crazy monsters for the video) and it took me a while to form my opinion of the game, but that still doesn't excused the absence of anything good about the game in the review.

As a side note, Monster Hunter Tri has gotten 8-10/10's in nearly all of the reviews i've seen for it.

In his Final Fantasy 13 review he said that games that take 20 hours to get good isn't a reason as to why its a good game.

mike1921:

I didn't twist anything, you said

Load screens are used for other reasons aside from processing power.

If they're not there because of proccesors, why are they there? Don't bother responding unless your response answers why the fuck they're there. I'm not interested in my questions being avoided

I didn't avoid it, it is there. I edited it before you even posted this.
At first I didn't want to answer, because I'm getting rather tired of your attitude. Then I figured you'd throw a small fit.

mike1921:

As far as I know, no more heroes2 does not have that option. If it does I'd like to know

Since my comment was more towards the future of Wii gaming, obviously that doesn't apply.
You weren't very specific about any game in your previous response, nor was I.

mike1921:

That first part is just you making assumptions
Also, no, a game doesn't automatically suck for being on the wii, having bad motion controls, and having classic controls as an option, although it shouldn't be on the system as an exclusive title.

No, that first part is the impression I get of you.
That second part of your response, "Although it shouldn't be on the system as an exclusive title" is what I don't agree with.

Exclusive title thing: The wii happens to have the biggest market in America by a huge margin. Trying to get MH to take root in America is obviously a good idea to put it on the Wii.

There are similar reasons for all other Wii exclusives; PS3 has a terrible market in the US, and the Xbox 360 has a terrible market in Japan, so an attempt to develop an international game for those systems is a risky move, while the Wii is much safer.

mike1921:
Better looking? Maybe. But when I'm talking graphics I'm talking about detail or realism (Because I don't like using the same words to describe a game like world of goo looking good, and to describe crysis looking good) . I don't know any original xbox games more detailed looking then that.

Conker Live & Reloaded

I've even managed to unintentionally trick a large number of friends into believing it was an Xbox 360 game, as it still manages to kick the crap out of quite a few next generation titles out there in terms of both technical and artistic graphics.

It's basically the original Xbox's equivalent of Donkey Kong Country, from a graphical perspective, and was way ahead of the curve in the same respect that DKC was on the SNES.

Yahtzee Croshaw

Interests:
Being a professional troll, setting fire to childrens' dreams and your mum.

crypt-creature:
I didn't twist anything, you said

Load screens are used for other reasons aside from processing power.

If they're not there because of proccesors, why are they there? Don't bother responding unless your response answers why the fuck they're there. I'm not interested in my questions being avoided[/i]
I didn't avoid it, it is there. I edited it before you even posted this.
At first I didn't want to answer, because I'm getting rather tired of your attitude. Then I figured you'd throw a small fit.

Ok, good

. Like... Oh, I don't know... it's part of the game. If it were to ever be available on the PS3, it'd still act the way it does because that's how the games are. It's not just the processing power. Plus most console games that produce random items to this degree have various load sequences, regardless of processing power.

It's part of the game? You mean developers want loading screens to be there? Also, now I know what the problem with monster hunter tri is, too many loading screens, not that they take too long. You're seriously telling me that doesn't break flow?

Since my comment was more towards the future of Wii gaming, obviously that doesn't apply.
You weren't very specific about any game in your previous response, nor was I.

alright fine. Any wii games in the future that work with classic controllers will not be unplayable do to issues with the wii mote.

That second part of your response, "Although it shouldn't be on the system as an exclusive title" is what I don't agree with.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure the wii only sold because of the motion controls, and the whole console is centered around that. It's pretty ridiculous if you regret not buying a console, that was centered entirely around motion controls, because of a game that doesn't even use them well.

milskidasith:
Exclusive title thing: The wii happens to have the biggest market in America by a huge margin. Trying to get MH to take root in America is obviously a good idea to put it on the Wii.

There are similar reasons for all other Wii exclusives; PS3 has a terrible market in the US, and the Xbox 360 has a terrible market in Japan, so an attempt to develop an international game for those systems is a risky move, while the Wii is much safer.

Why can't it be multiplatform?

KelsieKatt:

mike1921:
Better looking? Maybe. But when I'm talking graphics I'm talking about detail or realism (Because I don't like using the same words to describe a game like world of goo looking good, and to describe crysis looking good) . I don't know any original xbox games more detailed looking then that.

Conker Live & Reloaded

I've even managed to unintentionally trick a large number of friends into believing it was an Xbox 360 game, as it still manages to kick the crap out of quite a few next generation titles out there in terms of both technical and artistic graphics.

It's basically the original Xbox's equivalent of Donkey Kong Country, from a graphical perspective, and was way ahead of the curve in the same respect that DKC was on the SNES.

Never played that, but alright

Why it can't be multiplatform: See "The PS3 is a shit market in America and the Xbox is a shit market in Japan so Japanese companies won't make games for it."

I posted it earlier, and it's still the reason; the PS3 has sold comparatively terrible in America, so making Monster Hunter Tri for the PS3 would be a resource drain for a market that's absurdly small, while making it for the Wii makes success much more likely (as evidenced by the fact it's one of the Wii's top sellers and, in fact, a killer app for quite a few fans of the PSP monster hunter games).

The long and short of it is that Japanese companies don't make games for the Xbox, period, and Monster Hunter Tri was intended to be focused a *lot* on launching a new American audience for the game, so they figured that they'd design it for the Wii, which would bring in higher profit margins, and I'm fairly certain that the Wii and PS3 aren't compatible enough that they wouldn't still have to spend significant amounts of money on the PS3 even if they didn't touch up the graphics, so the PS3 was a long shot most likely doomed to putting the company in the red on the series *and* failing to secure a fanbase for Monster Hunter Quad or whatever 4 will be called.

mike1921:

It's part of the game? You mean developers want loading screens to be there? Also, now I know what the problem with monster hunter tri is, too many loading screens, not that they take too long. You're seriously telling me that doesn't break flow?

I've seen it in games where they do want a loading screen, and it doesn't need to be there.
With MH, I wouldn't be surprised if they confirmed such a thing as the above. Though I do think the load sequences are needed for it, I just don't think it's due to processing power alone and more with the general make-up of the game.
With all the random creatures and items that they have spawning in each zone, and in the game over-all, each area would need a load screen of some length. I don't see the game being as diverse if they did it differently.
I don't doubt that the processing power does affect it, I just don't think it's the only (or biggest) force at work.

And nope, it doesn't break flow. Not for this game, as it works. I actually like them.
Having to run for your life when a giant Wyvern sneak attacks you and can make you into a smear with a few attacks... it gets the pulse going a bit. A load screen, even one that wouldn't be needed, is a nice way to calm the nerves.
Even when hunting the beast on purpose, it's a chance to go over attack options and steel yourself.

mike1921:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure the wii only sold because of the motion controls, and the whole console is centered around that. It's pretty ridiculous if you regret not buying a console, that was centered entirely around motion controls, because of a game that doesn't even use them well.

Meh, perhaps I'm one of the odd folk who got it for game-cube compatibility and find that the motion part of the system is a nice bonus. I almost refuse to play an action game that is strictly Wii-mote (why Ghostbusters, why must you do such a thing?). I like having the option for both. If it were just a system that did Wii-mote games... I wouldn't have bought it.
Yeah, the console was originally banking on the motion schtick... but there is just too much that still needs to be worked out with games that aren't on the 'simplistic' side of gaming. I wouldn't fault them for including the controller in more major action titles, as it might make it more likely for games to be shared with other consoles, but also because I like having both options.

EDIT: It also might draw in a bigger crowd.

KelsieKatt:

Waif:
I like to play MMO's, and I don't mind the grinding aspects. Though part of what makes the grinding in MMO's fun are the friends you play with. It benefits them as well as yourself, and the adventure doesn't have to necessarily end. Great video all the same ^~^!

It's not a single player game. Yahztee just refuses to play online games and forgets to mention this fact. The game is primarily designed around 4 player online cooperative boss fight missions against huge dragons and what not.

As for the grinding part. That's not really true either. The vast majority of the game consists of huge boss fights, which can last anywhere from 20-40 minutes to kill. At most, one of the few things which could be considered grinding is you might play the bosses multiple times in order to gain some items to upgrade something, but the bosses are complex and varied enough to prevent it from becoming tedious. (At least in my opinion, I found the bosses to be entertaining enough for that. Although, that may vary from person to person.)

The gathering thing is almost completely irrelevant. The only reason why he was gathering stuff is because he never played past the tutorial. The tutorial introduces you to the most basic mechanics and tries to ease you into them very slowly so you don't get confused, which basically involves them telling you to pick things like mushroom because it wants to demonstrate how you can use these items for combining into things like potions and what not, which is never actually required later on, and is more a means of teaching you survival skills to assist in fighting said gigantic dragons, etc, as you can whip together some sort of item really quickly out of the environment, which might vary from something like a trap, bomb, gun ammution, potions, sharpening stones, etc. That's about it. All the other items you need come primarily from killing the bosses.

Unfortunately nobody would actually realize this from watching Yahtzee's 'review', considering he never mentioned a single word about the boss fights or anything else for that matter, to the point of blatant false advertisement.

Lol, thanks for your input. I do trust Yahtzee's views on games. I normally do not like playing online stuff with other people unless it is intrinsic to it, like with MMO's or certain online FPS games. I wouldn't call it false advertisement, more so because he is reviewing the game based on his own subjective opinion. So it isn't really that he is guaranteeing fact, rather he is informing us of his own experience. Though there will always be users who may not know this, and take his word without the perfunctory grain of salt. I might look into this game a bit more, now that I understand there is a little more background to this game than what is readily known here. Might be one of those games that would make picking up a Wii worth it. I've been mulling over the idea for a little while now, but I've yet to find a game I really want to play on the Wii (it was originally Chocobo's Dungeon. I loved the game on the PSone, but I cannot find it anywhere for the Wii.) Anyway, thank you for the information ^~^!

Alpha1089:

To be fair, it can take three hours if you've never played a Monster Hunter game before. Tri was my first one and you're kind of thrown into the deep end while you work everything out. I'd say about two hours or so to reach Great Jaggi for a total newb with no help from anyone, three hours if they get distracted along the way by killing the little pathetic creatures like I did.

Took me 45 minutes to reach Great Jaggi (Mr. Sparkles and my friend and lovingly refer to him) and this is my first MH game.

Shjade:
Timing is important in PSO as well, but it doesn't make the combat mechanics themselves any less mashy. You can attack quick three times or strong three times or a combination of the two types up to three times, and you'll want to time these swings so as not to get hit in between, but it still boils down to the same three-hit-chain pattern with every weapon. The swings/shots just look different depending on what weapon you use and they cover varying ranges. This is compared to, say, Dynasty Warriors 5 where you have several chain options per character with varying effects - still ultimately ends up being very mashfest given the type of game it is, but the combo mechanics are a big step up from the PSO example.

I'm thinking this would be a rent game to confirm whether the combat will turn me off by being too monotonous to maintain interest. But then, I don't own a Wii (or the other current-gen consoles), so it's a moot point.

There are some combos you will use a lot when using a specific weapon. However, the weapons feel all different and require different tactics. When you use a hammer you don't aim for the tail or legs and when you fight with a lance then you don't run around all the time, because you stay right under the monster. Not to mention that you have bowguns that shoot different ammunition.

Yeah playing a weapon too long can get boring, but then just switch. Also you have to make sure not to hit your teammates, or they will be pissed of.

I've been thinking about these sandbox/RPG style games that aren't seeming to get on well, and how people like Yahtzee would prefer a good plot driven linear game over a D.I.Y sandbox and how there are other people like me who relish the thought of and open-world to run free doing whatever it is allowed in the game (usually scaling buildings and blowing up cars etc.) I thought of an idea that might work out for both sides (You'll have to forgive me if there is already a game out there like this, i'm not a driven expert on this).

What if there was a game, say like an FPS or Action style. And the first half of the game was focused on a main plot driven, storyline interactive linear game. And then at the end when you completed the main 'quest' it unlocked a new area or world space that was all Sandbox, so even if you completed the main story and weren't satisfied you would unlock this new place with tons of more stuff to do. Even if the sandbox area was a bit bad at least you've got two separate games?

The only problem now would be to find a game team who would take up the challenge...

Lone Wolf765:
As a side note, Monster Hunter Tri has gotten 8-10/10's in nearly all of the reviews i've seen for it.

Well then it has to be a great game, right? right? RIGHT? As if Famitsu doesn't instantly give Japanese games a 9+

Limos:

FreaK367:

When it comes to gaming, I think these days, for new games, graphics should complete the package, a game needs to look great, with good textures clean edges, High Definiton.. the Wii fails miserably when it comes to graphics, they put little effort into that aspect of the console due to the unique controllers, whereas the PS3 and the 360 both pimped their consoles for nice high definiton gaming.

Can I mention really quickly that I despise this argument. I cannot tell the difference between High def and normal def. I don't find it to be important in any way to how much I enjoy the game. Most of the time I actually find it detrimental. Crisis, Gears of War, all of those game developers who put graphics before gameplay. I don't find anything about them enjoyable. Developers who think like you do are idiots. They don't care if their game is fun, only that it is pretty.

I dont believe you have played CRYSIS because if you had played CRYSIS then you would know that it is an amazing game, it (CRYSIS) also has amazing graphics which just make it even better.

TLDR: CRYSIS is an amazing game it just also happens to be pretty

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Monster Hunter Tri

This week, Zero Punctuation reviews Monster Hunter Tri.

Be sure to join the Zero Punctuation Facebook Fan Page.

Watch Video

I have been a fan of your reviews since The Darkness first plopped its comic arse on to youtube.

This being said i've learned that you often dwell on the negative sides of a game to make the videos more appealing your fan base yet keeping in mind to point out the integral positive marks every game shares.

It disappoints me to see you of all people falling into the group of critics who have simply bad mouthed Monster Hunter Tri because you were simply too lazy to play a good portion of it. I understand, having played all the Monster Hunter games on Each platform that the grind of equipping yourself to fight the Monsters of the series can be long and tedious.

BUT, when you overcome the somewhat 2 hour "introduction" period of the game you are congratulated with a thrilling, miraculously cinematic experience. You have failed to even give the game a good chance, if you had waited perhaps 2 quests worth of time after encountering the first "Sea Monster" (the Lagiacrus) you would of been on to some serious business and started on the true nature of this wonderful game.

You mentioned that all there was to do was collect miscellaneous bugs and weeds etc. for what seemed like no reason, portraying this game horribly to the new audience that have perhaps only just heard of the series. The Gathering you were doing was in the OPTIONAL part of the gameplay, designed for supplying yourself with specific materials you may have been lacking to fight a monster. Not to mention you never even spoke of an integral part of the game which is the Multiplayer. The majority of the games content is situated on the ONLINE section where you participate in 2 - 4 player Hunting. If you had even Googled Monster Hunter or dropped its name into youtube you would see the true nature of the gameplay and i urge anyone disheartened by this video review to check it out because you will NOT be disappointed.

Perhaps the lengthy introduction to the game got the best of you Yahtzee but i believe it is there to serve newcomers as the game poses an actual challenge that cannot be simply toggled in the Options menu.

milskidasith:

Warachia:

milskidasith:

Every word of the posts you have made about Monster Hunter are either blatent lies or proof you haven't played the games. Monsters don't run every five minutes, you don't ever need to run five minutes to find them (newsflash: They move one area away in most cases. That's maybe ten seconds of running!), you don't need to upgrade your equipment often at all, and you never need to grind out resources past the mandatory missions in HR1. The only way you'd need to grind every monster for new gear is if you were A: unable to realize that gear from the monster you just fought is probably bad against the monster you're about to fight (Jaggi armor against the quropecco, for instance, since jaggi armor is weak to fire), and B: you are really bad at the game.

Again, I beat the game with HR2 armor and HR4 weapons all the way through HR6, and never had to grind missions to win, so... yeah, please stop making up BS to slander the game.

There was more than one occasion in which I spent 15 minutes trying to track down a flying bat-like creature (that I forget the name of) upon first entering a map, when I finally found him, he stayed in the fight for less than 5 minutes before flying away and refusing to come down, or taking off just before I got to where he was taking more than 5 minutes to find him again even with the help of a paintball due to the fact that you have to climb mountains (as they were the fastest route). If you beat the game with low equipement, good for you, I prefer to kill bosses with my hammer, so I definately don't suck at the game, the fact I got up to HR 4 (at present, beating games takes time) should prove that, and your argument losses credibility when you can't procede to the next missions untill you finish the boring gather quests first.

F*** the piscine liver quest, I hate using bows and bowguns.

Err... there's no flying bat thing in the game. At all. I really have no clue what you are talking about, unless you're talking about Rathalos, who happens to be a dragon referred to as King of the Skies, who is still incredibly easy to hit with a Switch Axe or longsword...

In short, it seems as if you are just bad at the game, and aren't capable of recognizing the bosses start in the same spot every time. Anyway, if you're going to fight the king of the skies, you should probably be prepared for a monster that flies... I can hit it consistently and never need to chase it for any amount of time. You could run three laps around the map in 15 minutes, so if it took you that long to find the monster, I really pity you, because it must have been hell figuring out how to get back to the base when you needed to turn in items.

I think hes talking about one of the prequels

Dalton Frantz:
I liked the part when the wii killed itself and the Xbox360 and PS3 give each other a high five, which is good for me because PS3 and Xbox360 are fun, but the effect of the wii can easily be achieved by thrusting the controller when you stab someon in Call of Duty.
It's funny when people say how hardcore monster hunter 3 is. it's just funny. It's like saying that prototype has a deep emotional storyline and isn't supposed to be fun. The wii is a console for little kids, and some people think it's hardcore. It's called the Wii, something you say on a ferris wheel or when you need to use the bathroom, not when you win a barfight or eat cereal made of nails and motor oil.

if you eat cereal made of nails and motor oil you're not manly you're just a dumbshit with serious internal bleeding

milskidasith:
Exclusive title thing: The wii happens to have the biggest market in America by a huge margin. Trying to get MH to take root in America is obviously a good idea to put it on the Wii.

There are similar reasons for all other Wii exclusives; PS3 has a terrible market in the US, and the Xbox 360 has a terrible market in Japan, so an attempt to develop an international game for those systems is a risky move, while the Wii is much safer.

That and the fact Capcom moved development from the PS3 to the Wii due to production costs.

Matt1234567890:

milskidasith:

Warachia:

milskidasith:

Every word of the posts you have made about Monster Hunter are either blatent lies or proof you haven't played the games. Monsters don't run every five minutes, you don't ever need to run five minutes to find them (newsflash: They move one area away in most cases. That's maybe ten seconds of running!), you don't need to upgrade your equipment often at all, and you never need to grind out resources past the mandatory missions in HR1. The only way you'd need to grind every monster for new gear is if you were A: unable to realize that gear from the monster you just fought is probably bad against the monster you're about to fight (Jaggi armor against the quropecco, for instance, since jaggi armor is weak to fire), and B: you are really bad at the game.

Again, I beat the game with HR2 armor and HR4 weapons all the way through HR6, and never had to grind missions to win, so... yeah, please stop making up BS to slander the game.

There was more than one occasion in which I spent 15 minutes trying to track down a flying bat-like creature (that I forget the name of) upon first entering a map, when I finally found him, he stayed in the fight for less than 5 minutes before flying away and refusing to come down, or taking off just before I got to where he was taking more than 5 minutes to find him again even with the help of a paintball due to the fact that you have to climb mountains (as they were the fastest route). If you beat the game with low equipement, good for you, I prefer to kill bosses with my hammer, so I definately don't suck at the game, the fact I got up to HR 4 (at present, beating games takes time) should prove that, and your argument losses credibility when you can't procede to the next missions untill you finish the boring gather quests first.

F*** the piscine liver quest, I hate using bows and bowguns.

Err... there's no flying bat thing in the game. At all. I really have no clue what you are talking about, unless you're talking about Rathalos, who happens to be a dragon referred to as King of the Skies, who is still incredibly easy to hit with a Switch Axe or longsword...

In short, it seems as if you are just bad at the game, and aren't capable of recognizing the bosses start in the same spot every time. Anyway, if you're going to fight the king of the skies, you should probably be prepared for a monster that flies... I can hit it consistently and never need to chase it for any amount of time. You could run three laps around the map in 15 minutes, so if it took you that long to find the monster, I really pity you, because it must have been hell figuring out how to get back to the base when you needed to turn in items.

I think hes talking about one of the prequels

thanks, I was in fact talking about the three previous games (as monster hunter tri is ironically the fourth in the series) where the only difference between them and the new one is a slightly larger emphasis on combat, and the series suffers for it.

SAMAS:

Warachia:

SAMAS:

Shamanic Rhythm:
Wow, 16 pages of complaining that he missed the point and that anyone who takes his word on it is a sheep.

Positive or negative review doesn't enter into it, the game is about Monster Hunting, but at no time does he actually talk about hunting monsters. If he talked about how long it takes to get to your first big monster hunt, then went into about how much he did or didn't like it, there wouldn't have been anything to talk about here. But he doesn't, and as a result we got the most half-assed ZP in recent history.

It's not just about this game. Have you ever watched or read the reactions to movies like The Core or The Day After Tomorrow from people who actually know climatology or geology? Whether the piece was positive or negative, at the very least we expect him to actually do the work if he's gonna make a video about it.

In short: This was a shitty video. It doesn't matter what game it was about. He could've done this about Drake and the 99 Dragons, and if he did as little as he did here it would still be shit. Yahtzee is better than this.

he DID work at it, he told his experience, and what he didn't like, and what he didn't like is that you BARELY HUNT F***ING MONSTERS, unless you count the wildlife as monsters, and he DID go into great detail about the game mechanics, and what the majority of the game is about and explaining how the game works, and tells you if you're going to get it anyway, to play it on a classic controller.

Except he didn't barely fight monsters. He didn't fight any monsters.

So he didn't get to go killing dragons with an Infinity +1 sword from the get-go. Big Surprise there. You fight your first Monster (Great Jaggi) on a Lv. 2 mission. TWO! You get past the starter missions, and you get to fight a forty-foot-long Raptor! I can respect that he and other gamers don't like grinding (I don't like too much of it myself if I'm not having fun doing it), and I didn't expect this game to change his mind about games like this. But trying to review the game without even getting out of the metaphorical kiddie pool is just wrong.

it's a ggod thing he didn't complain about the combat then, but you have to remember, he has less than a week to play, then review his games, which incidently is why his review of demon souls barely covered the game. Usually (according to him) he can beat a game by pulling all nighters, but when a game takes a long time to beat or get anywhere (like monster hunter and most Jrpg's) he can only review what he has finished, unless you want his reviews to be biweekly.

Although I enjoyed the review, I'm starting to think Yahtzee only plays games that suck. I mean come on, who seriously wants to see him praise a game? I for one don't. I like hearing him rip into a game and shred it to its very core.

was anyone else hoping for a red dead redemption review?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . . . 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