Monster Hunter Tri

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 24 NEXT
 

Kavachi:

golbleen:

Kavachi:

But because you did that you started to contradict earlier statements you made with your other statements. For example you said how I'm defending Yahtzee's opinion by sharing my own.

Demonstrate where this occurred.

Kavachi:

Also, about what you said in him being inacurate with false facts; you can say all you want, but the things he said are true.

There are two questions that arise from this;

1) Do you have evidence that is not anecdotal, or appeals to Croshaw's authority, that validate his claims?

2) Even if the things he states are true; do they give an accurate representation of the full game experience? You don't give a test an F because someone got the first two questions wrong. To say that the game gave a bad first impression within 30 minutes to two hours of play (a point I won't contest) is no excuse to write the entire game off as horrid. The focus on some of the activities he describes shifts greatly in favor of other activities he never experienced until writing the second page of his article. Other games do this too, but in the opposite direction; remember how Brutal Legend had a great intro before being bogged down by awkward RTS confusion?

Kavachi:

The only thing that he just over-exxagurated way too much is the tutorial time. However a tutorial one hour or even more long (this statement has been taken from earlier posts) is still ridiculous. He was trying to prove a point.When you plead to me to stop using a specific argument using an invalid argument yourself. This is kind of hypocritical to do. Just saying.

First off, exaggerations are dangerous when written as fact. Croshaw's tone of voice can't be objectively 'read' when he writes an Extra Punctuation article, especially when he claims, in his writing, that the MHtri fan community stated this figure and not him. It's in poor form. This is doubly-true given that Extra Punctuation articles tend to be more of a serious, somber retrospect than his usual voice-recorded game rants.

Game pacing varies and there are no 'right' ways to pace games. Some want the instant gratification fast cinema experience, and some want the slow-building novel experience that carries more depth in exchange for time and attention span investment. Games as a medium have the benefit of choosing whichever path they desire for whichever audience they're intended for, and there are pros in additions to cons that can be brought up for the initial slow pacing of some games. Basically, you cannot state that 'one hour' is too long and therefore too long. A more appropriate statement might be that it's outside of one's personal taste, or doesn't satisfy mass appeal - though honestly, is mass appeal necessary for a 'good' game?

I don't know how you get the impression that I am 'pleading' you to stop doing something. I'm merely asserting that logic errors exist in your statements. You also haven't really demonstrated where mine exist with any real coherency? To me, this strikes me largely as an excuse from you for an amusing bout of internet name-calling. Just saying.

I'm going to stop talking to you because you keep putting apart every sentence. That wouldn;'t be so bad if you jsut left half of my post out of consideration. The way you "discuss" things is unfair and immature, and I won't change your mind, you won't change mine so let's just stop it before you take up more of my time.

You don't have to give him your time.So, it is your fault for losing time.

for anyone who "tl;dr" this article it basically says: Don't piss off Yahtzee.

I regreted looking at every comment posted in this thread.

I believe that it is an exaggeration much to the likes of certain games *cough FFXIII whose tutorials continue to go on for more than 10 hours.

Tharticus:
I regreted looking at every comment posted in this thread.

I believe that it is an exaggeration much to the likes of certain games *cough FFXIII whose tutorials continue to go on for more than 10 hours.

Actually that is true small texted tutorials that pop up in the game as you play as you get to certain parts of the game.
It isn't 10 strait hours though or anything more like 4 hours of segments.

GrimHeaper:

Fattimus:

GrimHeaper:

Fattimus:

GrimHeaper:

theophanis:
@GrimHeaper: It's usually hundreds of hits before your weapon loses all of its sharpness. If you're playing poorly by hitting the armoured areas of the monsters, or you have a low-rank weapon known for its small sharpness gauge (such as the Bone Sword - logical sense, right? But its base attack damage is higher than its alternatives at that rank) then it may take 10 hits for the gauge to deplete fully. The trick is that you should upgrade your weapons, which always improves their attack power and lengthens their sharpness gauge.

Not to mention that the sharpness gauge is primarily taken up by colours which IMPROVE your damage output. Like more than half of your sharpness gauge is taken up by colours that say "you're gonna pwn so hard with over 100% damage per hit". It's not all about your weapon being deficient at all.

See no one has said that yet. That makes way more sense.

I did. Pages ago. I likened the Sharpness gauge with a Mana bar, because that's how it functions; you use Whetstones to refill it like a Mana potion. If it's full, you can frontload a tun of damage, but if it's nearly out, you're hitting for pitiful amounts of damage. Plus, it refills when you finish a mission; it's not like you have to take it to the store all the time to get it repaired.

I don't think it was detailed as this one and likening it to a mana bar is confusing as it is a melee weapon.
Why couldn't you just say a bar that decreases when you hit something and that requires sharpening after several 100 blows.

That is what I said. In fact, I was very detailed: I laid down the color coding, the fact that the game gives you copious amounts of "normal" (green) sharpness, bonus damage sharpness on top of that, and the reason why it does this. Frontloading a lot of damage onto a monster allows you to break things like its wings, tail, head horns, or other body parts, which deprives that monster from being able to use special moves like a tail swipe. It's extremely helpful having something like 150% damage on a sword when you're trying to cut off its tail, and then you can go after the soft parts of the body until it requires sharpening again. It fits into the whole "think strategically" aspect of the game.

That must be why I didn't read it then.

So you didn't read it because I was detailed, but you said you didn't read it because it wasn't as detailed? Are you just trolling here?

GrimHeaper:

CD-R:
And now for something completely different.

Ok after reading through all 17 pages of these comments I'm surprised no one brought this up.

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?

That was pretty much the same mechanic in No More heroes. You pay money to fight the ranked assassins. What gives? You seemed to like that game?

The difference being it was weird the whole it did this and you only had to pay ten times and had plenty of money to spare for upgrades you didn't really have to hoard your money.

Hahahahahaha! Oh, you're serious...
image
...in that case let me laugh even harder.

You don't ever have money problems in MH and if you do, then I think you're doing something wrong.

It's amazing how fast this thread turned into stupid trolling. What the fans of the game don't seem to grasp is, that here are only blatant trolls at work. Either they haven't played the game and are making stuff up, they troll just for the fun of it or they fall into the "hurp-a-durp Yahtzee is so SMAT" category.
I especially liked the retard who said he bought a Wii and doesn't like the Wiimote. How stupid can you get? Too much money to waste?

Are you people so dense that you think anybody here will abandon their console because you chant "the Wii sucks, we have no points to back that up, but believe us"? I skimmed through this thread and what I saw was just ridiculous. People defending weapon degradation in Fallout 3 (calling that game realistic... it makes me laugh so hard it isn't even funny) and yet find it disturbing to sharpen your sword. Reloading is accepted in games, although you never see the heroes in movies do that unless they need to spout some nonsensical lines. Rather I think the sharpening introduces some strategy. You know, when to retreat and heal/sharpen/etc and when to attack.
I guess this forum is a prime example of why games like the new Command and Conquer are made. And I hope most of you who cry "FANBOYS" at the top of their lungs aren't serious, because then... well let me laugh even harder.

krgskks:

GrimHeaper:

CD-R:
And now for something completely different.

Ok after reading through all 17 pages of these comments I'm surprised no one brought this up.

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?

That was pretty much the same mechanic in No More heroes. You pay money to fight the ranked assassins. What gives? You seemed to like that game?

The difference being it was weird the whole it did this and you only had to pay ten times and had plenty of money to spare for upgrades you didn't really have to hoard your money.

Hahahahahaha! Oh, you're serious...
image
...in that case let me laugh even harder.

You don't ever have money problems in MH and if you do, then I think you're doing something wrong.

It's amazing how fast this thread turned into stupid trolling. What the fans of the game don't seem to grasp is, that here are only blatant trolls at work. Either they haven't played the game and are making stuff up, they troll just for the fun of it or they fall into the "hurp-a-durp Yahtzee is so SMAT" category.
I especially liked the retard who said he bought a Wii and doesn't like the Wiimote. How stupid can you get? Too much money to waste?

Are you people so dense that you think anybody here will abandon their console because you chant "the Wii sucks, we have no points to back that up, but believe us"? I skimmed through this thread and what I saw was just ridiculous. People defending weapon degradation in Fallout 3 (calling that game realistic... it makes me laugh so hard it isn't even funny) and yet find it disturbing to sharpen your sword. Reloading is accepted in games, although you never see the heroes in movies do that unless they need to spout some nonsensical lines. Rather I think the sharpening introduces some strategy. You know, when to retreat and heal/sharpen/etc and when to attack.
I guess this forum is a prime example of why games like the new Command and Conquer are made. And I hope most of you who cry "FANBOYS" at the top of their lungs aren't serious, because then... well let me laugh even harder.

Why thank you I love pictures of bender.
You should laugh harder at the fact they don't really know what is going on even more than a troll.I don't care about the game.

krgskks:
It's amazing how fast this thread turned into stupid trolling. What the fans of the game don't seem to grasp is, that here are only blatant trolls at work. Either they haven't played the game and are making stuff up, they troll just for the fun of it or they fall into the "hurp-a-durp Yahtzee is so SMAT" category.

I realized it even before posting.
Unlike other people, I have taken the time to actually read through all the posts.

It basically burns down to this for many people (including myself):
image

obex:
...
This is ignoring the elephant in the room that this is game about fighting monsters REALISM HAS NO PLACE HERE. We want fun game play elements not realistic ones or if you want a nice compromise why not make a realistic game play mechanic that doesnt sound like a total pain in the arse? You talk about immersion breaking i can think of nothing that would kill the mood of being a bad ass monster killer than having to trek home so i can change my clothes.

That's the thing, the mood isn't being a bad-ass monster killer, it's being a regular caveman in some godforsaken world full of dinosaurs with flamethrowers in their mouths. You're not doing stuff like flying 360's with a giant sword you see in DBZ and Final Fantasy movies, the thing swings in a way that's believable for a weapon so big your guy can barely use it. You start off sifting through piles of monster crap and carnivore leftovers looking for scales and bits of bone to cobble your first upgrades from starter gear together. Your guy gets hungry and has to hunt animals for meat and then barbecue the stuff (to the catchiest song ever) and have to watch it turn colors to avoid under/over cooking it. You have to deal with hardships like dehydration, hypothermia, weapon blunting, hits that leave you covered in snow or mud or even poo. When you go picking mushrooms or honey or collecting spiderwebs your item bag only fits stacks of 10. When you need to heal, you have to find enough time for your character to grab a thing out of his pocket and stick it in his mouth... and when you want to change your HUGE pieces of visible equipment you go home to get it.

It's not realism exactly, but it makes your character and their struggle against RIDICULOUS NATURE all these crazy monsters somthing you can feel for a bit.

Compare that with Fallout 3 GAME OF THE YEAR... everything in the game is just for show. Radiation, limping, equipment damage, enemies. As long as you religiously hoover up every piece of equipment and every consumable item you come across all you do is hit DERP when something bad happens and immediately fix it. Wandering through hallways and get ambushed at short range while wielding a mini-nuke launcher? OH NOES you have to stop time and regenerate three limbs and put on a new set of clothes and change to a shotgun. Why did the developers bother putting your character in any sort of situation? They could have saved a lot of time by leaving the enemies out of the game entirely and it wouldn't have reduced the complexity of strategy or tactics you need to use one bit. It doesn't matter what you do in the game at all as long as you're rolling a giant invisible katamari of equipment and ammo and edible crap.

Shamanic Rhythm:

cynicalsaint1:
I'd like to take a moment to point out that a lot of us have no problem with negative review, but the rather poor quality of the review in general. Honestly I really wonder why he bothered with this review in the first place, I could have told you well in advance that he was going to end up hating it - if you've listened to any of his other reviews it isn't hard to get a feel for what he likes and doesn't like in games, and MH3 is chock full of things he tends to not like. Really its like asking a dude who's only into action movies to give his opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This, right here, is what's gone wrong with the videogame journalism industry. "If you don't like it, don't review it." Basically the expectation from fans that a review should mirror their own opinion of a game. It's a review, for christ's sake, it's a subjective personal opinion, and an opinion that hates a game because of all the tropes it uses is no less valid than one that just drenches it in a tongue-bath of praise. It takes all kinds to make a world, and it's just as important to tell people why they might not like a game.

I wasn't saying his opinion isn't valid, just that there wasn't any real point to the review because his opinion of the game was never going to be good. This means that there generally isn't going to be much interesting to hear about that opinion, because there's nothing to really learn from it, except for things we already know about Yahtzee's personal tastes. Hence, I didn't find it particularly entertaining.

I have no problem listening to Yahtzee trash a game I like, its just this one in particular seemed to miss the point--as beyond the fact that it starts slow, there's still plenty of flaws to complain about. I saw Monster Hunter Tri was going to be the ZP review for the week and thought "Oh this'll be fun" and ended up disappointed.

Mindmaker:

krgskks:
It's amazing how fast this thread turned into stupid trolling. What the fans of the game don't seem to grasp is, that here are only blatant trolls at work. Either they haven't played the game and are making stuff up, they troll just for the fun of it or they fall into the "hurp-a-durp Yahtzee is so SMAT" category.

I realized it even before posting.
Unlike other people, I have taken the time to actually read through all the posts.

It basically burns down to this for many people (including myself):
image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkCR-w3AYOE&feature=related
HAR HAR HAR.

Scrumpmonkey:
You know those games which are hard but worth it? Something as complex as Sins of a Solar Empire or as refershing and challenging as STALKER; Shadow of Chernobyl? Monster hunter is not one of these games! I think you are mixing up 'Challenge' with 'Masochism induced by bad game'. I get that people might want the equivelant of playing an offline Korean MMO with their feet (fucking D-Pad camera!) but those people should be put in a room with soft walls and 24 hour guarding.

... except you can set up Tri to control the camera with the right analog like every other first/third person game ever in the last decade. Yay for ignorance, right?

NamesAreHardToPick:

Scrumpmonkey:
You know those games which are hard but worth it? Something as complex as Sins of a Solar Empire or as refershing and challenging as STALKER; Shadow of Chernobyl? Monster hunter is not one of these games! I think you are mixing up 'Challenge' with 'Masochism induced by bad game'. I get that people might want the equivelant of playing an offline Korean MMO with their feet (fucking D-Pad camera!) but those people should be put in a room with soft walls and 24 hour guarding.

... except you can set up Tri to control the camera with the right analog like every other first/third person game ever in the last decade. Yay for ignorance, right?

And like every other game for the last decade the camera still fucks you over sometimes.
Whop'de-freaking do.

Shamanic Rhythm:

cynicalsaint1:
I'd like to take a moment to point out that a lot of us have no problem with negative review, but the rather poor quality of the review in general. Honestly I really wonder why he bothered with this review in the first place, I could have told you well in advance that he was going to end up hating it - if you've listened to any of his other reviews it isn't hard to get a feel for what he likes and doesn't like in games, and MH3 is chock full of things he tends to not like. Really its like asking a dude who's only into action movies to give his opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This, right here, is what's gone wrong with the videogame journalism industry. "If you don't like it, don't review it." Basically the expectation from fans that a review should mirror their own opinion of a game. It's a review, for christ's sake, it's a subjective personal opinion, and an opinion that hates a game because of all the tropes it uses is no less valid than one that just drenches it in a tongue-bath of praise. It takes all kinds to make a world, and it's just as important to tell people why they might not like a game.

The problem is more that Monster Hunter is obviously a lot of things Yahtzee hates put together, and that he only spent either: a couple hours in one afternoon playing it (and judged it summarily on it), or spent more time with it and was just really, really bad at it. It wouldn't be the first time he complained about "features" that were actually just him being a terrible gamer.

Most game reviewers tend to give the games they play a fair shake: they play it for a while to get into the meat of the game, and they try their hand at all its features (in this case, a reviewer completely glossing over the multiplayer parts isn't qualified to review the game at all, really).

I'd say he should take a few more moments to take a breath and think rationally about what he's doing when reviewing games, but then he'd be out of a job.

Fattimus:

Shamanic Rhythm:

cynicalsaint1:
I'd like to take a moment to point out that a lot of us have no problem with negative review, but the rather poor quality of the review in general. Honestly I really wonder why he bothered with this review in the first place, I could have told you well in advance that he was going to end up hating it - if you've listened to any of his other reviews it isn't hard to get a feel for what he likes and doesn't like in games, and MH3 is chock full of things he tends to not like. Really its like asking a dude who's only into action movies to give his opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This, right here, is what's gone wrong with the videogame journalism industry. "If you don't like it, don't review it." Basically the expectation from fans that a review should mirror their own opinion of a game. It's a review, for christ's sake, it's a subjective personal opinion, and an opinion that hates a game because of all the tropes it uses is no less valid than one that just drenches it in a tongue-bath of praise. It takes all kinds to make a world, and it's just as important to tell people why they might not like a game.

The problem is more that Monster Hunter is obviously a lot of things Yahtzee hates put together, and that he only spent either: a couple hours in one afternoon playing it (and judged it summarily on it), or spent more time with it and was just really, really bad at it. It wouldn't be the first time he complained about "features" that were actually just him being a terrible gamer.

Most game reviewers tend to give the games they play a fair shake: they play it for a while to get into the meat of the game, and they try their hand at all its features (in this case, a reviewer completely glossing over the multiplayer parts isn't qualified to review the game at all, really).

I'd say he should take a few more moments to take a breath and think rationally about what he's doing when reviewing games, but then he'd be out of a job.

Well you sir do not know what a person actually is then.
Are you good at things you hate with all your heart and soul?
I'm not I don't hate them because I'm not good at it, but because I hate them for certain reasons and those reasons really throw a person off their normal game.
It is like handing someone a shit sandwich and telling them to eat it, but you have the option not to.

A real person would treat the game baisedly like Yahtzee and it is funny for a reviewer to actually speak their real mind on the bad points of a game for laughs for a change.
Like AVGN it is for laughs.

GrimHeaper:

If there is no story I feel like a person killing things for no reason, a murderer if you will. Even if it is pixels it will effect your mind.

Yes but the point is People criticise MHT's storyline (or general lack of one) Village wracked by Earthquakes caused by a big monster, which turns out that it's actually a bigger monster that nobody has seen in a bajillion years.

What more do you need?

Is that not enough?

Try as hard as videogames might they are not going to emulate the profound feelings of hopelessness and insanity that is Catch-22. They aren't going to recreate the intense feelings of cold and merciless bureaucracy and socially produced injustice and civil ostracism found within 'The Trial' by Kafka.

The greatest literary works of Humanity cannot be represented in a videogame. They are anathema to each other, so why bother?

Every attempt thus far has been met with dismal failure ... the fact of the matter is that if the 'meat and potatoes' of a game is the parts where you do stuff in different ways to produce fun. That alone makes it incompatible to tell a profound story.

I would *hate* a Catch-22 game... but I think it is the single greatest book written in the 20th century. Because the message cannot be 'played'. It's motifs cannot be open to a player's whims, it cannot be subject to multiple viewpoints.

I still side with 'games are art' ... because it can be the style of a game that creates it into an artistic force to be measured with. Would you feel the same way when playing Travis Touchdown in NMH? He is literally a sociopathic, mass murdering dick who kills ONLY to have the chance to kill again. That is literally his story. But I dare you not to have fun slicing people to pieces.

Games should not be approached like movies or books ... it's a stupid way to approach game development. It is literally draining to go through the standard FPS caravan-to-location every FPS and their dog seems to want to get their hands on at teh start of every game.

Works great in movies, in games all it does is do exactly what a game SHOULDN'T and that is railroad you (without any choice on your part) to accept hackneyed writing and poor voice acting, from your solitary perspective where you can't move and shoot shit whilst it's happening.

Reason why it works in movies? Because movies arent games. Why does it work so horribly in games? Because games are not movies! I know that's a shitty way of explaining it and I could go through textbooks on the dos and don'ts of character exposition, but the logic cannot be faulted because there has been no good example of it in gaming EVER.

Half Life (plus the expansions) are particular marked for death if only for these fatal mistakes of judgement. If I want to see the gameworld, I want to SEE IT MYSELF. In a movie, I am assured that I am seeing it exactly how the author (director & editor I should say) wants to see it.

In Books, I am happy with the knowledge that it's all I have. In games? I think it's a crappy way to turn an hour-long-game into an hour-and-5-minutes-long-game.

Well that's my rant. I think videogames would be better without stories (particular the way the stories are TOLD in modern videogames).

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.

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.

Point #1: Yahtzee doesn't hate games. I don't understand why people would assume this sometimes (not saying you are specifically, but in general). If he really hated videogames, why would he play them? He would go on to take up a different job, or not be part owner of a Video game themed club. I find he's simply got a critical eye, and sees alot of the things that many people miss. An exageration and emphasis on the critical gets us to really look at the flaws instead of simply writing off the bad in favor of the good.

Those that listen carefully to his critical reviews can usually tell a horrible game from a good game, despite him bashing both. It's the reasons and logic forthe flaws and why a gamer would hate them.

Point #2: Korean MMO? How do you get a "korean" vibe from this game? Sure the graphics are okay by Monstrer Hunter standards, but this your fairly typical Japanese style game... I find it simply over complicated and doesn't draw you in enough. Yahtzee tends to have a problem with the large, brawny, butch, nameless, emotionless, speechless people that simply accept quests from anyone willing to ask for help, and this is your very typical game.

What I find interesting is that anyone actually cares about this guy's opinions. I mean, he's amusing on occasion, but really? This is where people go for guidance? To a comedian? Honestly, that's just messed up...

maybe red dead today?

PaulH:

GrimHeaper:

If there is no story I feel like a person killing things for no reason, a murderer if you will. Even if it is pixels it will effect your mind.

Yes but the point is People criticise MHT's storyline (or general lack of one) Village wracked by Earthquakes caused by a big monster, which turns out that it's actually a bigger monster that nobody has seen in a bajillion years.

What more do you need?

Is that not enough?

Try as hard as videogames might they are not going to emulate the profound feelings of hopelessness and insanity that is Catch-22. They aren't going to recreate the intense feelings of cold and merciless bureaucracy and socially produced injustice and civil ostracism found within 'The Trial' by Kafka.

The greatest literary works of Humanity cannot be represented in a videogame. They are anathema to each other, so why bother?

Every attempt thus far has been met with dismal failure ... the fact of the matter is that if the 'meat and potatoes' of a game is the parts where you do stuff in different ways to produce fun. That alone makes it incompatible to tell a profound story.

I would *hate* a Catch-22 game... but I think it is the single greatest book written in the 20th century. Because the message cannot be 'played'. It's motifs cannot be open to a player's whims, it cannot be subject to multiple viewpoints.

I still side with 'games are art' ... because it can be the style of a game that creates it into an artistic force to be measured with. Would you feel the same way when playing Travis Touchdown in NMH? He is literally a sociopathic, mass murdering dick who kills ONLY to have the chance to kill again. That is literally his story. But I dare you not to have fun slicing people to pieces.

Games should not be approached like movies or books ... it's a stupid way to approach game development. It is literally draining to go through the standard FPS caravan-to-location every FPS and their dog seems to want to get their hands on at teh start of every game.

Works great in movies, in games all it does is do exactly what a game SHOULDN'T and that is railroad you (without any choice on your part) to accept hackneyed writing and poor voice acting, from your solitary perspective where you can't move and shoot shit whilst it's happening.

Reason why it works in movies? Because movies arent games. Why does it work so horribly in games? Because games are not movies! I know that's a shitty way of explaining it and I could go through textbooks on the dos and don'ts of character exposition, but the logic cannot be faulted because there has been no good example of it in gaming EVER.

Half Life (plus the expansions) are particular marked for death if only for these fatal mistakes of judgement. If I want to see the gameworld, I want to SEE IT MYSELF. In a movie, I am assured that I am seeing it exactly how the author wants to see it.

In Books, I am happy with the knowledge that it's all I have. In games? I think it's a crappy way to turn an hour-long-game into an hour-and-5-minutes-long-game.

Well that's my rant. I think videogames would be better without stories (particular the way the stories are TOLD in modern videogames).

You sir, have never played earthbound have you?

MatsVS:
What I find interesting is that anyone actually cares about this guy's opinions. I mean, he's amusing on occasion, but really? This is where people go for guidance? To a comedian? Honestly, that's just messed up...

Comedians usually have truths hidden in their words.
That is why they are effective, like George Carlin for example.

Shamanic Rhythm:

cynicalsaint1:
I'd like to take a moment to point out that a lot of us have no problem with negative review, but the rather poor quality of the review in general. Honestly I really wonder why he bothered with this review in the first place, I could have told you well in advance that he was going to end up hating it - if you've listened to any of his other reviews it isn't hard to get a feel for what he likes and doesn't like in games, and MH3 is chock full of things he tends to not like. Really its like asking a dude who's only into action movies to give his opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This, right here, is what's gone wrong with the videogame journalism industry. "If you don't like it, don't review it." Basically the expectation from fans that a review should mirror their own opinion of a game. It's a review, for christ's sake, it's a subjective personal opinion, and an opinion that hates a game because of all the tropes it uses is no less valid than one that just drenches it in a tongue-bath of praise. It takes all kinds to make a world, and it's just as important to tell people why they might not like a game.

Also, the whole "If you don't like it, don't review it" doesn't work. You yourself say it's a subjective look into a person's idea of videogames, so where do you get the criticism from then? Your entire review would be what made the game great for you, and the things you kinda didn't really mind... You would never get a negative look at game.

Sure it doesn't always need to be to Yahtzee's degree of critism, but a bad look at a game can be refreshing, but you can't simply take the opinion of someone who LIKES the game, and vice versa. Read a high scored review, read a low one. Judge for yourself, but an exclusively positive look on a game is just as bad as an exclusively bad look on a game.

GrimHeaper:

Well you sir do not know what a person actually is then.
Are you good at things you hate with all your heart and soul?
I'm not I don't hate them because I'm not good at it, but because I hate them for certain reasons and those reasons really throw a person off their normal game.
It is like handing someone a shit sandwich and telling them to eat it, but you have the option not to.

A real person would treat the game baisedly like Yahtzee and it is funny for a reviewer to actually speak their real mind on the bad points of a game for laughs for a change.
Like AVGN it is for laughs.

If you're going to call yourself a game reviewer, then you should actually review games, not nerdbash them because you're bad at it. If he hates something, then he should say, "I hate this", not "This is a shitty game for babies that poop hard in their diapers".

I am a huge Monster Hunter fan and I am agreeing with Yahtzee here, the tutorial is way too long! I got bored way too quickly, I have played some of the later bit at my friends house and it was the epic monster slaying experiance that I know and love. But for Gods sake Capcom go back to the days where you gave us an optional tutorial in a Monster Hunter game.

Fattimus:

GrimHeaper:

Well you sir do not know what a person actually is then.
Are you good at things you hate with all your heart and soul?
I'm not I don't hate them because I'm not good at it, but because I hate them for certain reasons and those reasons really throw a person off their normal game.
It is like handing someone a shit sandwich and telling them to eat it, but you have the option not to.

A real person would treat the game baisedly like Yahtzee and it is funny for a reviewer to actually speak their real mind on the bad points of a game for laughs for a change.
Like AVGN it is for laughs.

If you're going to call yourself a game reviewer, then you should actually review games, not nerdbash them because you're bad at it. If he hates something, then he should say, "I hate this", not "This is a shitty game for babies that poop hard in their diapers".

You know that is another way to say I hate this right?
You fail so hard for feeding the troll.

Well I did finish the tutorial in like 3 hours...

This game basically is fun only if you were first addicted to the first game. It's just a very niche game, which is why this is getting quite a bit of hate. Ben also hates dungeon crawlers, which again few people actually appreciate.

I certainly would have liked it better if monster battles would take only 10 minutes or so even if I had OK weapons. Otherwise it just feels like solo'ing a raid in WoW or something. >.>

Ok, as someone who's never played any of the Monster Hunters, I'd like to take a moment to defend their sharpness rule. I know that sounds absurd but if they're trying for realism it makes sense. I fenced for years and weapons break over time. It's a fact of life, depending on how much care you put into the weapon, and depending on the type of steel it could do anything from shatter in your hands to work flawlessly for years. Kitchen knives are also like this, and those of you who cook know that fact well. What is the whetstone bit but a sped up version of this degradation? I actually like the idea and think it's pretty realistic.

On the note of this and other Yahtzee reviews though, if I had a gripe, it's that they're less...entertaining. For whatever the reason they seem almost formulaic, and that applies to more than just this.

Thought I'd just throw my two cents into the treasury's worth of arguing here.

Virgilthepagan:
Ok, as someone who's never played any of the Monster Hunters, I'd like to take a moment to defend their sharpness rule. I know that sounds absurd but if they're trying for realism it makes sense. I fenced for years and weapons break over time. It's a fact of life, depending on how much care you put into the weapon, and depending on the type of steel it could do anything from shatter in your hands to work flawlessly for years. Kitchen knives are also like this, and those of you who cook know that fact well. What is the whetstone bit but a sped up version of this degradation? I actually like the idea and think it's pretty realistic.

On the note of this and other Yahtzee reviews though, if I had a gripe, it's that they're less...entertaining. For whatever the reason they seem almost formulaic, and that applies to more than just this.

Thought I'd just throw my two cents into the treasury's worth of arguing here.

Review a game you don't like
Draw crappy art for it.
?????????
Profit!

Hey guys.

I'm in this topic...

pointing out that Modern Warfare 2 Multiplayer starts slow, but totally gets better once you played enough to get all the weapons and upgrades and shizzle.

Just saying yo!

Well, that's all said right there Yhatzee.
I wasn't sure about getting this game, not even after your video review was I sure, but after knowing more about it I defenitely lie it down and never buy it. Sin & Punishment 2 and Mario Galaxy 2 grasp my attention for Wii games more than Monster Hunter Tri.

jamescorck:
Well, that's all said right there Yhatzee.
I wasn't sure about getting this game, not even after your video review was I sure, but after knowing more about it I defenitely lie it down and never buy it. Sin & Punishment 2 and Mario Galaxy 2 grasp my attention for Wii games more than Monster Hunter Tri.

The fans don't realize they are what really puts people off buying certain games.

GrimHeaper:

jamescorck:
Well, that's all said right there Yhatzee.
I wasn't sure about getting this game, not even after your video review was I sure, but after knowing more about it I defenitely lie it down and never buy it. Sin & Punishment 2 and Mario Galaxy 2 grasp my attention for Wii games more than Monster Hunter Tri.

The fans don't realize they are what really puts people off buying certain games.

And that means...what? I have a friend who's a big fan of Monster Hunter and he almost had my convinced. But after checking reviews I started to realize it wasn't my type of game, and Yhatzee just hammered the rest of the nails on the coffin before throwing it to the hole.

This is the only thing I've ever disagreed with Yahtzee on.

Some of it just doesn't add up. With the 'changing weapons only at home' thing, that's because the game is based around preparation. Changing weapons in the field gets rid of the point of knowing anything about the mission. You're supposed to know what you're going up against, get the right items, and choose the right weapon. That's why.

And at no point does anyone ask you to collect 10 Giant Jaggi claws. Nor is that even a real giant monster. Disappointed, Yahtzee. The only excuse that washed for me was that he doesn't have the time for it, but in that case, he shouldn't even be reviewing games that require a timesink.

jamescorck:

GrimHeaper:

jamescorck:
Well, that's all said right there Yhatzee.
I wasn't sure about getting this game, not even after your video review was I sure, but after knowing more about it I defenitely lie it down and never buy it. Sin & Punishment 2 and Mario Galaxy 2 grasp my attention for Wii games more than Monster Hunter Tri.

The fans don't realize they are what really puts people off buying certain games.

And that means...what? I have a friend who's a big fan of Monster Hunter and he almost had my convinced. But after checking reviews I started to realize it wasn't my type of game, and Yhatzee just hammered the rest of the nails on the coffin before throwing it to the hole.

And that is exactly why.
You knew a friend that wanted you to play it(a fan), but instead of playing it right away you did what most people would do before they waste money on a game,research.
You found out everything that person was saying wasn't really completely true and they left out all of the bad parts.

I agree, mostly. There are some games that you do need to spend a few hours on in order to get to the good parts, but there was to be a limit. For me, that limit is two hours (give or take). If it gets good after that, then it's all good, but if I have to go through 10 or 20 hours to get to the good stuff, then obviously the developer is doing something very, very wrong and needs to correct it or stop doing that crap that makes them do the thing that the're doing wrong.

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