Monster Hunter Tri

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 24 NEXT
 

Monster Hunter Tri

If a game only gets decent after the tutorial, it's not a good game.

Read Full Article

Ha, knew I was right, well I'm quite happy now, and it was quite a good article, at least some people can stop moaning, or... pick up on something else and whine about that.

EDIT: Also most people said he didn't talk about big monster battles or, multiplayer. Well we already know he hates online/multiplayer and he talked about the monster battles.

A ten hour tutorial?

Really? I mean, I've played long tutorials before, in like Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days and LittleBIGplanet's level Making but whoa... that's mind blowing. I can't do that in one sitting. I'd have to eat a muffin or something in between. Preferably one of those Mega Muffins which I must take a picture of for someone.

Anyway, fair point. A Guitar Hero way of reviewing games does seem efficient. Can't wait until you get an Encore though.

Calumon: I wonder if his beard has grown back yet...

Bullshit, this is the same excuse people made about Final Fantasy XIII. "Oh it opens up 20 hours in." Jesus titty-fucking Christ, I do not have the time to play a shitty game for 20 fucking hours before it gets good.

Aaw, I was hoping for a rant video.

Oh well, I guess the novelty would wear of if he did more than one.

Can't blame him for getting annoyed at a game with an extensively long tutorial phase. Asking to put up with 10 hours of crap is a bit of a tall order (and is what turned many people including me off of similar experiences like with FFXIII.) Hell, in 10 hours you can get through 95% of a God of War game.

Couldn't agree more. "It gets better later" is absolute bullshit. If it isn't good now, why the hell would I wait for it to get better?

A ten hour tutorial can fuck right off too.

Haha I love repeating back what other people are saying in a high pitched whiny voice too.

The degradation system is the very reason I can't stand Monster hunter. I didn't know that swords magically went dull after a couple hits. I tried to enjoy them but it totally ruined it for me.

Ah ha! At last I have something to say that contradicts you!

I actually think a weapons degradation system could work well, depending on the feel of gameplay you're going for and how you implement it. Remember STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl. That game had a weapon degradation system and I actually thought it fit really well with the feel of a world breaking down around you. Of course, the big difference between STALKER and this game is apparently the fact that you could fire more than ten shots of your weapon without it becoming shit. Actually, in STALKER, there was one gun that I picked up early in the game and I kept it pretty much throughout, watching it slowly degrade as the game went on and worrying that it would give out on me at a critical moment. It made me rethink how I used it, because it was such a freaking awesome weapon I didn't want to loose it. So, I'd find ways to avoid having to use it if I could and I'd make sure that every shot with it counted. That was awesome. Of course, by the end of the game, it had become next to useless, because the frame had gotten bent, causing the accuracy to go way down, but by that point, it was almost the end and I was fighting guys who had much better weapons that I had to pick up anyway in order to fight them. I actually thought that worked well.
So, weapon degradation can work if you implement it well.

Really, that's all I can make an argument for, and I'm not really arguing in favor of the game you're reviewing, so maybe that doesn't count.

Blah blah blah, MH3 does not have a 10 hour tutorial. It has a 90 minute tutorial, unless you linger on, doing things that are unnecessary forever. Do them for a bit, explore a bit, then move on. Do you need a manual to play this game, someone to hold your hand? You don't like some elements of it, sure, I accept that, but saying it has a 10 hour tutorial is like reviewing WoW and spending your first 10 hours picking herbs and then saying "In this game you do nothing but pick herbs for the first 10 hours". That's pretty silly.

Also, WELL UP YOURS TOO, PRICK!

"I have a simple rule when playing a game to review. I play until the game is finished, or until I can't stand any more."

Actually, that's a durn good policy for playing games to review. It's efficient for you, and useful for us.

Incidentally, I'm fine with long tutorials to a point (I liked Kingdom Hearts, didn't I?), but the "it gets better later" excuse just doesn't fly. There's a difference between an introduction/tutorial and sheer boring tedium for several hours running.

This game sounds terrible... I mean, I know Yahtzee exaggerates a lot (or really hates games?) but even so, this sounds like a shitty Korean MMORPG without the MMO part.

Glad to see you are able back yourself up when people question your choices; I'd say that places you a bit above the "angry comedian pretending to be a critic" label bestowed upon you.

He goes even more in-depth on the crappy stuff in this article, and I am increasingly convinced that Monster Hunter games have basically remained unchanged. That is to say, horrifyingly tedious bullshit wrapped around frustrating gameplay and combat mechanics.

And what if I forget to switch to an appropriate weapon before I start a quest? You get locked into quests, there's no way to change equipment once you're in it. You either have to try and fight skittish pterodactyls with a warhammer, hoping to God that they'll eventually calmly sit on the ground for the eighteen seconds necessary to swing the bloody thing, or you quit the quest and lose your deposit.

Playing Guild Wars as a newbie had me feeling *this* sooooo damn much. What sort of game requires me to , before any new difficult quest, read the wiki article to see what I'm up against and find what I need to prepare for, and in doing so ruin things like PLOT and UNPREDICTABILITY?

It still drives me mad. Its why I barely play the game any more; hell everytime theres a rebalance or game update I need to play as my Lv20 WIKINERD to know whats happened.

Damn mumorpegguhs.

A 10 hour tutorial? Shit, I could finish plenty of good games in that time frame. Or at least enjoying a long game that is actually good.

RJ Dalton:
Ah ha! At last I have something to say that contradicts you!

I actually think a weapons degradation system could work well, depending on the feel of gameplay your going for and how you implement it. Remember STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl. That game had a weapon degradation system and I actually thought it fit really well with the feel of a world breaking down around you. Of course, the big difference between STALKER and this game is apparently the fact that you could fire more than ten shots of your weapon without it becoming shit. Actually, in STALKER, there was one gun that I picked up early in the game and I kept it pretty much throughout, watching it slowly degrade as the game went on and worrying that it would give out on me at a critical moment. It made me rethink how I used it, because it was such a freaking awesome weapon I didn't want to loose it. So, I'd find ways to avoid having to use it if I could and I'd make sure that every shot with it counted. That was awesome. Of course, by the end of the game, it had become next to useless, because the frame had gotten bent, causing the accuracy to go way down, but by that point, it was almost the end and I was fighting guys who had much better weapons that I had to pick up anyway in order to fight them. I actually thought that worked well.
So, weapon degradation can work if you implement it well.

Really, that's all I can make an argument for, and I'm not really arguing in favor of the game you're reviewing, so maybe that doesn't count.

Actually, what you've just described sounds like your basic limited ammo game design element. Your gun essentially had a limited amount of ammo, and you had to choose how to ration it. That makes a little bit more sense. What Yahtzee is referring to (I think) is more a degradation system for melee weapons like swords and axes and the like. That just sucks ass, because you're expected to keep using the weapon repeatedly, but you have to stop and repair it.

It sucks less if it takes a while to actually degrade, because you can basically use it for the whole mission and then repair it when you get back to town between missions. But it's still retarded, because now it's basically just a little checkbox on your "list of shit to do whenever I'm in town". It doesn't add anything to the gameplay; it's just annoying. Just get rid of it. It's not fun. At all. Yeah, it's less realistic, but you know what? Fuck realism. Reality sucks and we need less of it in video games, especially bloody fantasy ones with giant fucking monsters.

RJ Dalton:
Ah ha! At last I have something to say that contradicts you!

I actually think a weapons degradation system could work well, depending on the feel of gameplay you're going for and how you implement it. Remember STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl. That game had a weapon degradation system and I actually thought it fit really well with the feel of a world breaking down around you. Of course, the big difference between STALKER and this game is apparently the fact that you could fire more than ten shots of your weapon without it becoming shit. Actually, in STALKER, there was one gun that I picked up early in the game and I kept it pretty much throughout, watching it slowly degrade as the game went on and worrying that it would give out on me at a critical moment. It made me rethink how I used it, because it was such a freaking awesome weapon I didn't want to loose it. So, I'd find ways to avoid having to use it if I could and I'd make sure that every shot with it counted. That was awesome. Of course, by the end of the game, it had become next to useless, because the frame had gotten bent, causing the accuracy to go way down, but by that point, it was almost the end and I was fighting guys who had much better weapons that I had to pick up anyway in order to fight them. I actually thought that worked well.
So, weapon degradation can work if you implement it well.

Really, that's all I can make an argument for, and I'm not really arguing in favor of the game you're reviewing, so maybe that doesn't count.

That sounds like how a playthrough of a Resident Evil game often goes (well, not Resi5 so much due to its Chapter Select feature, but still), only with ammo supplies instead of weapon integrity.

Also, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer video game "Chaos Bleeds" (yeah, yeah, I know) actually did weapon degeneration pretty well. Of course, the two swords that you could find in the game were immune to it, so that helped it make sense.

So I agree: weapon degradation can totally work. It just seems to be one of those gameplay elements that are routinely done badly, like escort missions.

ETA: Dorkmaster, you magnificent ninja.

Ten hour tutorial?
I was on the fence as to whether or not to get this, but not it's official. Thanks, Yahtzee.

I got to point where Yahtzee is talking about(fighting the Great Jaggi) in about an hour of gameplay, and it took me about 15 minutes to kill the thing. Since I've played other Monster Hunters, that gives me the advantage of knowing what to do, but still by hour 2~3 I was fighting things that scared the shit out of me even though I've played other MHs.
Well, I've enjoyed this game, and I'm just sorry that Yahtzee felt like the game was kicking him in the nuts over and over and over.

I like MH3 and was looking forward to a good bashing of it.
Instead I got "I couldn't be bothered to play for 2 hours".
I don't believe you played to the boss before the review else you would have added it to the review (and subsequently made it worthwhile). The bosses are the meat and potatoes of the game, not including it made it boring, whiny and disappointing. I wasn't expecting you to like MH3 (I am no where near that thick), I was expecting a fun ripping of the game. Instead we got Yahtzee hates MMOs and Japan (STOP THE PRESSES!).

I think there are some exceptions which Yahtzee thinks "it gets better later", right?

eg. in his Heavy Rain review.

Carnagath:
Blah blah blah, MH3 does not have a 10 hour tutorial. It has a 90 minute tutorial, unless you linger on, doing things that are unnecessary forever. Do them for a bit, explore a bit, then move on. Do you need a manual to play this game, someone to hold your hand? You don't like some elements of it, sure, I accept that, but saying it has a 10 hour tutorial is like reviewing WoW and spending your first 10 hours picking herbs and then saying "In this game you do nothing but pick herbs for the first 10 hours". That's pretty silly.

Also, WELL UP YOURS TOO, PRICK!

Exactly! If it takes you 10 hours to get through the tutorial... you aren't playing it right. lol

Con: Extra Punctuation this week somewhat less informative as usual
Pro: You get to read through all the emotional replies to an official "up yours" from Yahtzee to all the fanboys.

I was disappointed by the bad review (not that he said the game was bad, but that he reviewed it poorly). I have a little more respect that he actually took the time to progress through to the Great Jaggi battle and get more feel for the game. I don't care if someone doesn't like Monster Hunter, as long as it is judged by more than the tutorial.

However, how the hell did you spend 10 hours on the tutorial? It's five quick gathering missions. It should take a new player 2 hours max, as in they took so long to figure out how to even draw their weapon that it would take two hours max. You can't even spend 10 hours doing them without failing due to the 50 minute time limit on missions!

I've had a mongoose up my trouser leg once. Well, actually it was a mink, but it's basically the same type of animal.

Ok, first of all, the tutorial isn't 10 hours long... "fans" knew that ...and non-fans.. don't care..

And second, why didn't he mention the bossfight in his video review?

At least he did clarify how long he played (until the end of the tutorial). That's all i wanted...

BlueP999:
I think there are some exceptions which Yahtzee thinks "it gets better later", right?

eg. in his Heavy Rain review.

True, but even he stated that he wouldn't hold it against you if you couldn't tolerate it until then. Also, there's a difference between waiting around 2 hours versus waiting around 10 hours for a game to get good.

Loonerinoes:
Con: Extra Punctuation this week somewhat less informative as usual
Pro: You get to read through all the emotional replies to an official "up yours" from Yahtzee to all the fanboys.

Noone cares about a videogame enough to be emotional about it, much less about Yahtzee. Just taking the piss, all in good fun!

RJ Dalton:
Ah ha! At last I have something to say that contradicts you!

I actually think a weapons degradation system could work well, depending on the feel of gameplay you're going for and how you implement it. Remember STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl. That game had a weapon degradation system and I actually thought it fit really well with the feel of a world breaking down around you. Of course, the big difference between STALKER and this game is apparently the fact that you could fire more than ten shots of your weapon without it becoming shit. Actually, in STALKER, there was one gun that I picked up early in the game and I kept it pretty much throughout, watching it slowly degrade as the game went on and worrying that it would give out on me at a critical moment. It made me rethink how I used it, because it was such a freaking awesome weapon I didn't want to loose it. So, I'd find ways to avoid having to use it if I could and I'd make sure that every shot with it counted. That was awesome. Of course, by the end of the game, it had become next to useless, because the frame had gotten bent, causing the accuracy to go way down, but by that point, it was almost the end and I was fighting guys who had much better weapons that I had to pick up anyway in order to fight them. I actually thought that worked well.
So, weapon degradation can work if you implement it well.

Really, that's all I can make an argument for, and I'm not really arguing in favor of the game you're reviewing, so maybe that doesn't count.

The weapon degrading system that Yahtzee if referring to is the 'sharpness' system in MH series. Every melee weapon has a status called 'sharpness' and less sharpness means less dmg, and unless you do a certain amount of dmg, your weapon is going to 'bounce' (yes like you're holding a bamboo stick). It is annoying as fuck, and that is why you use skills(its like abilities armor has) to either make you do more damage, or makes you sharpen your weapon, make sharpness drop faster or give you an extra bar of sharpness.

Carnagath:

Loonerinoes:
Con: Extra Punctuation this week somewhat less informative as usual
Pro: You get to read through all the emotional replies to an official "up yours" from Yahtzee to all the fanboys.

Noone cares about a videogame enough to be emotional about it, much less about Yahtzee. Just taking the piss, all in good fun!

We'll see how high the post count gets on this article and then we'll see how much of it is 'all in good fun' heh.

BlueP999:
I think there are some exceptions which Yahtzee thinks "it gets better later", right?

eg. in his Heavy Rain review.

I guess the first two hours of Heavy Rain were tolerable.
OT: One of the best articles up-to-date, I really had fun reading this one.

Brickcups:
Exactly! If it takes you 10 hours to get through the tutorial... you aren't playing it right. lol

Either that or the game gives poor emphasis on what you could be doing, unless you look it up. A popular trend with more WRPGs.

Yahtzee:
...Or you quit the quest and lose your deposit. And that reminds me, why the fuck do I have to pay to start a quest? What the hell kind of nightmarish bureaucracy is running the Adventurer's Guild?

Seems to be taking a page from real life, where you need to buy permits to hunt specific animals on land you do not own.

Carnagath:
Blah blah blah, MH3 does not have a 10 hour tutorial. It has a 90 minute tutorial, unless you linger on, doing things that are unnecessary forever. Do them for a bit, explore a bit, then move on. Do you need a manual to play this game, someone to hold your hand? You don't like some elements of it, sure, I accept that, but saying it has a 10 hour tutorial is like reviewing WoW and spending your first 10 hours picking herbs and then saying "In this game you do nothing but pick herbs for the first 10 hours". That's pretty silly.

Also, WELL UP YOURS TOO, PRICK!

A manual for a game is a good thing - it means that people without a psychic link to the developer's mind can work out the controls without the embarrassing trial and error inherent in accidentally shooting a villager in the face. (Yeah, red dead redemption never actually told me how to use the dead-eye system in game, so after I inadvertently shot a helpless randomer in the face, I looked at the manual{slight dramatisation, I accidentally used it on a bandit, and it helped. I still had no idea what the hell I'd done though}).

Also, I'd allow creative exaggeration when reading anything by Yahtzee. 10 hours basically means 'way too long'. 90 minutes for a tutorial is still a bloody long time.

Sturmdolch:
This game sounds terrible... I mean, I know Yahtzee exaggerates a lot (or really hates games?) but even so, this sounds like a shitty Korean MMORPG without the MMO part.

So an RPG then? That's what it is supposed to be as far as I know.
And what a lovely rant Yahtzee had. Hope he enjoyed it.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 24 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