Monster Hunter Tri

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . . . 24 NEXT
 

GrimHeaper:

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.

Ooooh, okay, okay. Now I know what you meant, sorry ^^; English is not my mother language, I am spanish XD sometimes I mix sentences. But I totally agree with you, fans always leave out the bad aspects of things only to drag more people into what they like. But that only happens with real rabbid and unreasonable fans, which are a very loud minority.

My friend wouldn't even play a game for 20 mins because they got bored and so did several others.

My thoughts about Monster Hunter = this article.

Krimson Kun:

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.

This is a fucking terrible system and it will always be a terrible system. Adding another pointless statistic to keep a beady eye on is never a good thing. I remember spending hours toiling over making a single weapon by grabbing arbitrary items the monsters would SOMETIMES give (also, love the fact that you need to exit and re-enter stages to make items respawn, because we all love doing that), and its sharpness was so horrific I never used it, and went back to using a shit but sharp weapon, simply because the better one would bounce off the next obligatory giant boss constantly. Think about it. Now you have to keep an eye on your health bar, your sharpness bar, your stamina bar, whether you're too hot or too cold (pretty much the most annoying aspect of the fucking game) and the status of any NPCs around, not to mention where the monster just leapt to, which is 100% of the time out of view of the horrible camera.
Well, the entire game is a tutorial. If you wonder around looking for the game aspect of the fucking game you'll be decimated by the odd ravenous beasty and be dumped back into the village. Being restricted from that much of the exploration constitues towards it being a tutorial, since the game is holding your hand and dictating what you can and can't do. I asked myself throughout the entire 30 hours I plugged into the fucking game "when am I going to be able to do WHAT I FUCKING WANT?!"

I did a whole lot less sampling of this thread than Yahtzee did of this game, but it seems to be that you fanbois don't realize that "going against monsters larger than I" is still part of what Yahtzee appropriately calls the "tutorial."

Also, having large enemies with large erections for health meters =/= fun gameplay for most people.

PaulH:
Yahtzee = Noob

Seriously it took me 2 hours to get to the great jaggi. I killed it with a greatsword, actually second greatsword in the bone series (Slowest weapon in the game).

If you're *really* that worried about a monster murdering you whilst you're trying to re-sharpen your sword, then you ZONE because that's what they are there for.

It's called 'skill' Yahtzee. Thank fuck you don't go online because you sound like the noob that would not only be the guy that dies three times trying to kill Rathian .... but then scream in our ear over wiispeak complaining about things like 'how it's too tough' ... and 'how hard it is to use the weapons'.

Given you can only have 4 players per room because EU/US servers are free you would have probably been shouted out of most cities after said hunt.

If you're complaining that the game is hard, that it requires good timing to get a hit on the enemy, and that there are loads of them ..... well you're a NOOB.

Would you run Galaga through the mud for the same problems? Monster Hunter Tri = perfection of gameplaying ability through repetition and reinterpretation of challenges. Like how OLD games used to be before it became all about 'the spectacle' as you say in FFXIII.

I don't blame you if you have become like the mountain of pre-pubescent noobs out there that can't remember how good gaming was before shaders and lighting effects were given as much time to perfect as gameplay in a game....

I don't even blame you when you overlook that the things you're discussing lie in the general realm of 'talent'.

I don't even blame you about the fallacious argument that it takes 10 hours to get up to your first big monster.

But when you start criticising the things that made Old games better than the pile of modern detritus to entertain us (you know, things requiring good reflex times, being challenging, and perfection of skill through differing circumstances) then you're just being a NOOB.

Seriously Yahtzee, don't hate on a game because your total gaming skill is tantamount to pushing green, red, blue and yellow buttons when a game tells you to.

Anyone who criticises Yahtzee on this site, even in the slightest, is destined to early death from high BP induced by the spam.

Although, you've probably been here longer than me, judging from the post count, so you already knew that.

OT: I don't like or play MMO's in general and am therefore not going to post my opinion.

Yes, I came down to Pg 16 just to read flames.

Motakikurushi:
This is a fucking terrible system and it will always be a terrible system. Adding another pointless statistic to keep a beady eye on is never a good thing. I remember spending hours toiling over making a single weapon by grabbing arbitrary items the monsters would SOMETIMES give (also, love the fact that you need to exit and re-enter stages to make items respawn, because we all love doing that), and its sharpness was so horrific I never used it, and went back to using a shit but sharp weapon, simply because the better one would bounce off the next obligatory giant boss constantly. Think about it. Now you have to keep an eye on your health bar, your sharpness bar, your stamina bar, whether you're too hot or too cold (pretty much the most annoying aspect of the fucking game) and the status of any NPCs around, not to mention where the monster just leapt to, which is 100% of the time out of view of the horrible camera.
Well, the entire game is a tutorial. If you wonder around looking for the game aspect of the fucking game you'll be decimated by the odd ravenous beasty and be dumped back into the village. Being restricted from that much of the exploration constitues towards it being a tutorial, since the game is holding your hand and dictating what you can and can't do. I asked myself throughout the entire 30 hours I plugged into the fucking game "when am I going to be able to do WHAT I FUCKING WANT?!"

This is a good post. It demonstrates why I think Yahtzee did a pretty shitty job. There is so much you can complain about and it would be funny. All Yahtzee did was blabber about uninteresting and unfunny stuff. If you laughed at his video then you have the IQ of some wet bread. It's amazing how he could miss the camera controls when he complains in almost every video about that.

Apart from that, it sounds like you just sucked at the game. Nothing wrong with that, but being a newcomer to the series I had no problems whatsoever. I guess games got too dumbed down over the years.

In general I can say that if you think MH Tri sucks, fine. I can see that point of view. But if you think Yahtzee did a good job at making a funny video about it or defending himself in this article, then you are a troll, massive fanboy who wants to get it on with him or totally braindead. Maybe all of the above. Just as unfunny as his Dead to Rights Retribution video or AvP.

You know what I found really amusing beyond all the people rushing to defend one side or the other in this thread? How a lot of people who seem to dislike Yahtzee have avatars FROM HIS VIDEOS.

I played Monster Hunter 1 a lot and I suppose I liked it to some degree. But after a while it started to feel really... I think the term I'm looking for is repetitive, or maybe just full of "guide dang it" moments to borrow from TVTropes. My cousin seems to really like the Monster Hunter series and there's nothing wrong with that. I can totally see the appeal, but I can also understand a gaping flaw within the game's presentation.

To whit: This isn't Shadows of the Colossus with Dragons and other people. Sadly, that's what it would SEEM like when you look at some of the gameplay vids or the pics or even the box itself.

From a single player standpoint, it's supposed to be you VS a lot of monsters of various degrees in a large landscape where you can explore and find stuff. That's a very cool concept and one I could get behind no problem. However, that isn't really all there is to it. There's an underlying layer of micromanagement that really isn't necessary. The Weapon Degradation System has potential but fails when you have to stop and resharpen your weapon repeatedly during a fight with a larger monster. Likewise, not being able to bring a couple weapons with you (as opposed to a single weapon) means that you had either better bring the best tool for the job (which means knowing beforehand what you're doing hence the "guide dang it" moments), or you had better be good at running away and finding places to hide during the fights.

Personally, I thought Monster Hunter was a fun game but with a lot of flaws. I totally agree with Yahtzee, but I can understand why people still like the games. It has nothing to do with "sucking" at games, so much as it has to do with the game simply not appealing to you. If after an X amount of time it feels repetitive or you find yourself feeling bored, it's probably not the game for you.

I honestly had hoped when I first played Monster Hunter, that it'd feel more like Shadows of the Colossus. It's a damn shame the guy who made that said he'd never make another one like it, too. Because that's silly.

theophanis:

Yeah, I think a lot of the MH players here are just butthurt at the review and can't agree to disagree with it. Internet is serious business after all, right? :) I'd rather post corrections and answers instead of flaming Yahtzee and others and giving the game's fans a bad name. I still highly recommend renting the game if anything I've said in my posts sounds interesting to you. The fans will be the first to tell you, though, that it's not a game for everyone.

Pretty much that. Monster Hunter is definitely not a game for everyone. I don't say that to sound pretentious (it kicked my ass regularly), but because it's true.

My only gripe with Yahtzee's review is that it will be taken as Word of God by the majority, when his argument is flawed at best.

That's "Disagreeing". By the definition of the word. There's no 'butthurt fanboy rage'.

I agree with some of his major gripes (grind grind grind = bad) but his major complaint about the game taking 10 hours to do the tutorial "good"? He's either basing this "fact" on some idiot who only claimed to have played the game at all or he's flat out lying.

Take what Mr. Croshaw says and criticize it yourselves, as one should do with any critic. In this case, Yahtzee's review is tainted by a high degree of personal bias. I never expected him to like the game at all, but that's no reason to blatantly make shit up and present it as objective evidence.

thegreatsage:

PaulH:
Yahtzee = Noob

Seriously it took me 2 hours to get to the great jaggi. I killed it with a greatsword, actually second greatsword in the bone series (Slowest weapon in the game).

If you're *really* that worried about a monster murdering you whilst you're trying to re-sharpen your sword, then you ZONE because that's what they are there for.

It's called 'skill' Yahtzee. Thank fuck you don't go online because you sound like the noob that would not only be the guy that dies three times trying to kill Rathian .... but then scream in our ear over wiispeak complaining about things like 'how it's too tough' ... and 'how hard it is to use the weapons'.

Given you can only have 4 players per room because EU/US servers are free you would have probably been shouted out of most cities after said hunt.

If you're complaining that the game is hard, that it requires good timing to get a hit on the enemy, and that there are loads of them ..... well you're a NOOB.

Would you run Galaga through the mud for the same problems? Monster Hunter Tri = perfection of gameplaying ability through repetition and reinterpretation of challenges. Like how OLD games used to be before it became all about 'the spectacle' as you say in FFXIII.

I don't blame you if you have become like the mountain of pre-pubescent noobs out there that can't remember how good gaming was before shaders and lighting effects were given as much time to perfect as gameplay in a game....

I don't even blame you when you overlook that the things you're discussing lie in the general realm of 'talent'.

I don't even blame you about the fallacious argument that it takes 10 hours to get up to your first big monster.

But when you start criticising the things that made Old games better than the pile of modern detritus to entertain us (you know, things requiring good reflex times, being challenging, and perfection of skill through differing circumstances) then you're just being a NOOB.

Seriously Yahtzee, don't hate on a game because your total gaming skill is tantamount to pushing green, red, blue and yellow buttons when a game tells you to.

Anyone who criticises Yahtzee on this site, even in the slightest, is destined to early death from high BP induced by the spam.

Although, you've probably been here longer than me, judging from the post count, so you already knew that.

OT: I don't like or play MMO's in general and am therefore not going to post my opinion.

Yes, I came down to Pg 16 just to read flames.

I don't think it's the fact that he's criticizing Yahtzee. I mean... Yahtzee's just a man. He reviews games, big shit. But the fact that he basically called Yahtzee an imbecillic child with the capacity to only play Simon. I think it says more of Paul than it does of Yahtzee.

Okay, not to defend, but to inform: Yahtzee is a game reviewer known for casting a crtical eye on videogames. Yes, he bashes them. I think it's in the batman review that he says "I actually quite liked this game, but I'm not known for telling you what's good abotu a game now am I?" (I might not be 100% acruate, but it's the basic message).

Now obviously people exagerate... Alot. It happens... If I feel it's taking a screen a long time to load (30 seconds is ususally a very long loading screen nowadays), I'll say it took forever to load, not 30 seconds. So yes, he said it takes forever to swing a swrod, but remember what he often says is one of the most practical parts to a game: Balance between difficulty and Enjoyment.

Same thing for Demon's souls: Not a perticularly hard game... First time I played I laughed at yahtzee... and then I died by a fluke hit. And again, and again and fucking on and on and on... A minor miscalculation basically bent you over the knee and rammed a massive dildo up your ass for dirty tricks. I had an enemy fire and arrow THROUGH a wall that killed me (I was around the corner and down the hall. and I only knew the enemy was there because I was running from it to heal.) Next thing I know, and arrow comes out of the wall and the camera focuses on an enemy coming around the bend.

If a game is too difficult: people don't want to play it.
If it's too easy: same thing.
If it's no fun: You guessed it.

Yes, there are people out there who have learnt to time your hits well, but not everyone will have that amount of skill/patience, and there is really no difficulty slider to help with that. The game must be adaptable to the player, not just the player adapting to the game.

cabutler03:
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.

Totally agreed. However, if a reviewer is pulling numbers out of thin air, then obviously the reviewer is doing something very, very wrong and needs to correct it or stop doing that crap that makes them do the thing that they're doing wrong. I have yet to see anyone say that the early quests take 10 hours to complete (apparently someone emailed him with that number? Or maybe he's just exaggerating for so-called comedic effect again? It is a mystery). This game's "tutorial" section (and it's not even a tutorial section as I explained earlier) usually takes an hour - two at most if you take your time. Anyone who took 10 hours is free-roaming or repeating quests far too much for that early stage and is thus doing it wrong. The game even flat-out tells you to do quests to advance. Why does everyone keep returning to that point when it's been answered already, numerous times?

As an aside - there is no overworld. What he was referring to is an optional and free-roaming area which you can enter at any time without restrictions to gather resources and fight monsters. It's only useful as a way to get cash, and as an optional aid to the online mode. It is not how you travel to other towns, where you exchange party members or where you ride Chocobos.

@krgskks: I totally agree. MH3 isn't for everyone and many of the complaints about the game are legitimate. It would have been actually entertaining if the ZP review had some legitimate complaints in it. The "you got served" factor of his Extra Punctuation was minimal too. Where oh where has our favourite game comic's wittiness and astute critical eye gone? Replaced by including more irrelevant asides and juvenile genital jokes to make up for time I see. But really it's no big deal, this was never going to be a game our reviewer-comic liked anyway.

He already said it from the beginning: it's a Wii game! Despicable! It's got laughable box art! Pathetic! The introductory video shall get more review airtime than the combat! Disgusting! Oh, let's talk about Harvest Moon while we're thinking of things to say! Inconceivable! And as various and conflicting ZP supporters have mentioned, no one takes these reviews seriously and no one is dumb enough to make their purchase decisions based upon Yahtzee's opinions, which clearly don't matter if even the ZP fans don't listen to them. These reviews are pure entertainment and have no noteworthy content at all apart from the crude jokes about sex, MMORPGs, casual gamers and Japan which are comedy gold and not getting tired and old at all. /sarcasm

Yeah, that took it a bit far and I really don't care as much as that last paragraph makes out. It's just an abrasive exaggeration of a few of my gripes about the review I watched, just like ZP is an abrasive exaggeration of a few of Yahtzee's gripes about the game he played. I don't really feel that way and I've enjoyed a fair number of his ZP reviews. It's really all love and peace here. I like my games; you like your games; human race continues to function as normal.

(Depends on what you call normal though, don't you think? :) )

Seriously who would defend this game I played it for a while then brought it back to the store and bought something else. The combat is repetative and boring. And the story...........well there is none. I completly agree with this article.

To the accusation of him pulling numbers out of thin air... if I know anything about Yahtzee, I know he probably tried to get the most out of the game by doing as much as he could to become immersed into it.

If that meant doing EVERY THING available during the tutorial than yeah I can see it taking a lot longer than say... people who played every Monster Hunter game just before this one so they'd be used to the controls, fully familiar with the monsters, etc etc... you guys are making the assumption that "it takes 10 hours to get through the tutorial" means it literally. I've played games where the tutorial seems to drag on for hours even when it doesn't. Let's not forget that the Wii is not the most enjoyable platform to be playing it on and that's what he played it on.

I know my cousin jumped right into it and was already fighting large monsters the other day, but even he could see where Yahtzee was coming from. Like the last time I played Pokemon and after 2 days of playing it I still felt like I hadn't gotten to the main part of the game. Of course I go out of my way to catch all the Pokemon I can off the bat so I can register each of them, so who knows how Yahtzee was really playing. I think it's silly how people continue to question him as a gamer. He's beaten games I still haven't, and I've been playing games since I was a kid!

Wow, 640+ comments. Talk about throwing gas on the fire! 0.0

Seriously though, some people have a higher tolerance for non-epic adventuring work. My friend is a gamer kleptomaniac. If you give him a game involving gathering items he'll be on that like a rat on a cheeto!

sketchesofpayne:
Wow, 640+ comments. Talk about throwing gas on the fire! 0.0

Seriously though, some people have a higher tolerance for non-epic adventuring work. My friend is a gamer kleptomaniac. If you give him a game involving gathering items he'll be on that like a rat on a cheeto!

No offense, but a kleptomaniac is someone with an irresistable urge to steal things... Not to bash, just to inform

Hiroshi Mishima:
If that meant doing EVERY THING available during the tutorial than yeah I can see it taking a lot longer than say... people who played every Monster Hunter game just before this one so they'd be used to the controls, fully familiar with the monsters, etc etc...

Well it was my first Monster Hunter game and I got to the Great Jaggi (the first boss) in about 2 hours. I'm a pretty slow gamer myself, I like to linger and examine settings and menus and explore the town and it still didn't seem very long to me.

If it was a figurative 10 hours, then that's indicative of not enjoying the game from the outset. That's okay if you're going to do a biased review. Well I guess ZP is all about biased reviews so I can't really complain about that, can I?

As for doing every possible thing in the first rank, you'd get bored out of your skull. There are only 4 or 5 quests at that rank, all of them aiming to familiarise you with game mechanics. Little to no challenge there. The other option is to go free-roaming but nothing interesting turns up there until you beat a boss. When you blindly ignore the quest offerings and just play in the free-roaming area... If that's how Yahtzee was playing it then I can understand his opinion.

But when the game has already told you to do quests to advance the story and difficulty and you ignore it, are you skipping explanatory text or just being stupid? Maybe he skipped the explanatory text because he thought it wasn't important. Maybe he has an incredibly short attention span and won't pay attention to several lines of text. Maybe he was pressing the A button to get to the meat of the game quickly, explanations be damned. These would also explain the numerous misunderstandings he has about various things in the game.

Ah-ha! So he must have been playing in a limbo of sorts - between quests, not quite at the bulk of the gameplay, aimlessly wandering the free-roaming area for several boring hours before switching off the console and writing his review. Explains why he thought gathering was so central, why the enemies were all small-timers and why he had a terribly negative opinion of the game (amplified by his negative preconceptions of the game). Certainly is a... unique way to play the game. Interesting gameplay flaw he found - easily fixed by reading the tutorial text but what can you do. :)

Guess that's it then.

Motakikurushi:
This is a fucking terrible system and it will always be a terrible system. Adding another pointless statistic to keep a beady eye on is never a good thing.

Sharpness for swords is literally no different from ammunition for guns in any other game (or in Monster Hunter)... you hit something X times and then need to stop hitting things for a while and consume a minor item to "reload".

Q.Q every game ever must suck if that's a bad system.

PaulH:

Liberaliter:

Oh come on! Are you being serious? Why are you taking his review so seriously, it's Yahtzee for christ sake, he is a game critic who craps on games for comedy - it's what he does and what makes him popular. Do you actually care what he thinks of the game, there's no point getting so angry about it is there?

You're right, but I am concerned by the number of people who actually think he's right. I'm sick and tired of people like him who jump onto the bandwagon and berate what is essentially a good game by focusing on things that are ;

A: either nonexistent problems and misconceptions

B: Things that should NEVER be objectives in videogames (i.e a steller storyline ... because it will never be accomplished in this medium)

Is the Monster Hunter series different from everything else on the market? Yes. Is it challenging? Well yes and no, challenging if you're an idiot. Is it challenging compared to the rest of the crap on the market? Yes ...

If people actually tried the game they'd realize that Yahtzee is a complete noob whose points he decries are non-issues for the grand majority of gamers.

Call me prehistoric but I remember when games were fun. And if Yahtzee's ideas of an awesome game are, God help us if it comes to this, actually taken onboard by game developers I will have lost everything I love about video games. We will have a whole video game market that delivers nothing but an hour worth of gameplay that is only fun in comparisoin to sticking needles under our fingernails with no ability to challenge others in that pursuit of being as good at the game as possible.

Am I the only one who fears this?

Call me a defender of multiplayer, FINE, but if being an antisocial casual gamer ever becomes the core demographic of videogame players ... and video game developers start panderingto this audience.... 'I am disapoint' won't cover it.

I'm sorry, but gaming is about testing your skill against both the game and working together/against others in common objective.

Except... some of us like single player and find both a solid single player campaign and a well told story to be selling points. Sorry if you're finding this hard to grasp, but not everyone plays games for the same reasons you do. And if I have to choose, I'd pick solid single player and a story well told over multiplayer any day for one reason; communities dry up. Sooner or later, no matter how good the game is, either the fans, the community, the company, or all three move on. And when that day comes, I'd rather have a good replayable single player experience that's challenging and fun then have a worthless disc I can rest my drinks on.

Quite honestly, I wish the opposite would happen; I wish developers would spend MORE time on the single player campaigns, get better voice actors, hire or train better script writers, and give us a more enjoyable experience. If I wanted to read about someone else being awesome and risking their life in a fantastical setting, I've got a shelf of fantasy novels and movies for that. If I want to be the one to scour the countryside, hunt down evil, and stab it in the face to the cheers and adoration of the multitudes, well, then I grab a video game.

Cripes, if I wanted to 'test my skill against other players', countless games since Pong have offered that. I expect more out of a modern game; depth, character, narrative, a reason to replay something beyond 'Gotta Catch Em All'-style obsession. If none of that matters to you and all you want is to go beat up some pixels with your buddies, fine by me, sounds like you found the perfect game for that. But don't go decrying a hobby that's as much mine as it is yours for trying to evolve and offer more than that.

Random Side Note: If you want a fun if somewhat challenging game, go to Yahtzee's website and download some of the old school point and click adventures he's made. For the low low cost of free, you might find a single player experience that, indeed, harkens back to the 'good old days' where you needed logic and forethought to avoid becoming a pixelated blob of blood.

Celtic_Kerr:

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.

Counterpoint #1: Where in the world did I say he hates games? In the parentheses? Please notice the "or". I said he exaggerates before that. Obviously he doesn't hate games. I'm sorry I didn't add a "=P" or ";)" or even a "lol" after to show you that I'm not being completely serious; I thought it would be pretty much common sense.

And I'm also sad to hear you analyze his "reviews" like a Shakespeare play. They're not reviews. I know it's hard to hear, but you really need to get over it. Yes, he is a critic. He critisizes games. But there's a difference between critisizing a game and giving a full-fledged review.

Counterpoint #2: I get a Korean vibe because from the sounds of it, it's a grindfest with boring-as-hell quests, just like every single Korean MMORPG that I've ever seen. I'm guessing Japanese games are similar then? I'm sorry, but I'm not too experienced in that. I guess I should have just said "asian" games. But then I'd be called a racist, and I'd rather not go through that again.

I swear to God, most of these idiots getting their panties in a bunch about Yahtzee's review didn't even read the f**king column. Okay, the tutorial wasn't 10 hours, fine, whatever, I'll give it to you, well done, you're right. It still comprises about 10% of what he was actually saying. Hell, the central point of the article was that even you got to the giant monster killing, the game was still incredibly tedious and lacking in fun.

And secondly that even if it still managed to magically get spectacularly awesome later on, it wouldn't matter. In good game design, you can't just make a tedious and unfun section to begin the game and expect everyone to stick around. Yeah, sure, a tutorial is necessary, I agree. That doesn't mean it should suck. Look at God of War. The tutorial in God of War has you FIGHTING THE F**KING HYDRA. That's what a tutorial should be, and what Monster Hunter Tri's tutorial, regardless of how long it was, clearly was not.

+1

Firestorm2154:
I swear to God, most of these idiots getting their panties in a bunch about Yahtzee's review didn't even read the f**king column. Okay, the tutorial wasn't 10 hours, fine, whatever, I'll give it to you, well done, you're right. It still comprises about 10% of what he was actually saying. Hell, the central point of the article was that even you got to the giant monster killing, the game was still incredibly tedious and lacking in fun.

And secondly that even if it still managed to magically get spectacularly awesome later on, it wouldn't matter. In good game design, you can't just make a tedious and unfun section to begin the game and expect everyone to stick around. Yeah, sure, a tutorial is necessary, I agree. That doesn't mean it should suck. Look at God of War. The tutorial in God of War has you FIGHTING THE F**KING HYDRA. That's what a tutorial should be, and what Monster Hunter Tri's tutorial, regardless of how long it was, clearly was not.

And you clearly didn't read anything we're saying. We agree with Yahtzee. Long tutorials are bad. Boring monster fights with way too much HP that are tedious are bad. It's just that neither of those occur in Monster Hunter (though the second is an opinion); I can kill the Great Jaggi, with crappy equipment, in five minutes, while it takes Yahtzee 30.

Even further, we weren't arguing that Yahtzee can't have his opinion, just that he's being misleading. He complains about the cost to do quests when it doesn't even exist; I literally never even noticed that the quests had a cost because the game loads you up with about 10 times what you need to do all the quests in the game every mission. He complains about a ten hour tutorial when it's two hours if you do the optional missions, talk to all the NPCs for no reason, and dick around. In the video, he didn't even make it clear he quit the game, and spent more time talking about the box art, intro cutscene, Japan, and the Wii than he actually talked about the game, let alone the combat, which he didn't even mention.

Those are the problems people have brought up. Not that he can't not like it; he can hate it. Not that long tutorials are OK; they aren't. Just that Yahtzee was being disingenuous and misleading, hardly talked about the game itself, and made an overall low quality video with most of the content not focusing on the game.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of being strawmanned by all these one post wonders. Yeah, I like the game. Yeah, I know some people might not. I'd just rather Yahtzee make some criticisms about the game that are actually true, and spend his videos talking about the games, not the Wii or Japan or Harvest Moon or the box art.

This new video was a nice return to form.

milskidasith:

Firestorm2154:
I swear to God, most of these idiots getting their panties in a bunch about Yahtzee's review didn't even read the f**king column. Okay, the tutorial wasn't 10 hours, fine, whatever, I'll give it to you, well done, you're right. It still comprises about 10% of what he was actually saying. Hell, the central point of the article was that even you got to the giant monster killing, the game was still incredibly tedious and lacking in fun.

And secondly that even if it still managed to magically get spectacularly awesome later on, it wouldn't matter. In good game design, you can't just make a tedious and unfun section to begin the game and expect everyone to stick around. Yeah, sure, a tutorial is necessary, I agree. That doesn't mean it should suck. Look at God of War. The tutorial in God of War has you FIGHTING THE F**KING HYDRA. That's what a tutorial should be, and what Monster Hunter Tri's tutorial, regardless of how long it was, clearly was not.

And you clearly didn't read anything we're saying. We agree with Yahtzee. Long tutorials are bad. Boring monster fights with way too much HP that are tedious are bad. It's just that neither of those occur in Monster Hunter (though the second is an opinion); I can kill the Great Jaggi, with crappy equipment, in five minutes, while it takes Yahtzee 30.

Even further, we weren't arguing that Yahtzee can't have his opinion, just that he's being misleading. He complains about the cost to do quests when it doesn't even exist; I literally never even noticed that the quests had a cost because the game loads you up with about 10 times what you need to do all the quests in the game every mission. He complains about a ten hour tutorial when it's two hours if you do the optional missions, talk to all the NPCs for no reason, and dick around. In the video, he didn't even make it clear he quit the game, and spent more time talking about the box art, intro cutscene, Japan, and the Wii than he actually talked about the game, let alone the combat, which he didn't even mention.

Those are the problems people have brought up. Not that he can't not like it; he can hate it. Not that long tutorials are OK; they aren't. Just that Yahtzee was being disingenuous and misleading, hardly talked about the game itself, and made an overall low quality video with most of the content not focusing on the game.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of being strawmanned by all these one post wonders. Yeah, I like the game. Yeah, I know some people might not. I'd just rather Yahtzee make some criticisms about the game that are actually true, and spend his videos talking about the games, not the Wii or Japan or Harvest Moon or the box art.

This new video was a nice return to form.

If whe could only just close this thread after that post...
It pretty well sums up, what we have been trying to communicate the whole time.

Hiroshi Mishima:
You know what I found really amusing beyond all the people rushing to defend one side or the other in this thread? How a lot of people who seem to dislike Yahtzee have avatars FROM HIS VIDEOS.

I played Monster Hunter 1 a lot and I suppose I liked it to some degree. But after a while it started to feel really... I think the term I'm looking for is repetitive, or maybe just full of "guide dang it" moments to borrow from TVTropes. My cousin seems to really like the Monster Hunter series and there's nothing wrong with that. I can totally see the appeal, but I can also understand a gaping flaw within the game's presentation.

To whit: This isn't Shadows of the Colossus with Dragons and other people. Sadly, that's what it would SEEM like when you look at some of the gameplay vids or the pics or even the box itself.

From a single player standpoint, it's supposed to be you VS a lot of monsters of various degrees in a large landscape where you can explore and find stuff. That's a very cool concept and one I could get behind no problem. However, that isn't really all there is to it. There's an underlying layer of micromanagement that really isn't necessary. The Weapon Degradation System has potential but fails when you have to stop and resharpen your weapon repeatedly during a fight with a larger monster. Likewise, not being able to bring a couple weapons with you (as opposed to a single weapon) means that you had either better bring the best tool for the job (which means knowing beforehand what you're doing hence the "guide dang it" moments), or you had better be good at running away and finding places to hide during the fights.

Personally, I thought Monster Hunter was a fun game but with a lot of flaws. I totally agree with Yahtzee, but I can understand why people still like the games. It has nothing to do with "sucking" at games, so much as it has to do with the game simply not appealing to you. If after an X amount of time it feels repetitive or you find yourself feeling bored, it's probably not the game for you.

I honestly had hoped when I first played Monster Hunter, that it'd feel more like Shadows of the Colossus. It's a damn shame the guy who made that said he'd never make another one like it, too. Because that's silly.

The game indeed has flaws but I don't think it's the flaws you're thinking of. Weapon sharpening is nothing more than a minor annoyance. Get good enough weapons and you only really need to sharpen maybe once or twice a fight and there are ample times to do that. And it's already been mentioned that being able to switch weapons mid fight would break the game, especially since there's a whole multiplayer component to think of. Besides, you can beat any monster with any weapon if you're good enough, it's just the sidequests you won't be able to do, and if you want to do them, bring a weapon for the job.

Also milskidasith has summed up the thread nicely. Most of the butthurt isn't from the fact that Yahtzee hated the game, because let's face it he hates most games. It was more from the fact that there was a lot of misinformation in the video. Some of what he said was outright lies and when he couldn't think of anything about the game he made more generic attacks on the Wii, Japan and the such.

Personally I think this topic is nothing more than self important tosh. Critics are not magically elevated to a position when they cannot be criticized.

Anaklusmos:
You seem to have taken everything I have said the wrong way.

For starters, I was saying I was right, because people were raging because Yahtzee had supposedly played for only two hours, while I said that maybe he had played for longer, but didn't want to talk about his other experiences with the game. Right, got that sorted out? Now to talk about the other points in your post where you assume things about me.

I was never hating, I was trying to give reasonable arguments to stop people from typing while going balistic and saying "You've never played more than two hours, your shit at your job, we deserve better", I was trying to make them see another perspective.

I don't have an opinion on this game, so I don't know why you would bring up my opinion, never played this game never will.

sorry, its kinda hard to pick up sarcasm from text...
I thought you were doing the "the reviewer said it sucked, therefore it does" thing that alot of people do.
I apologise for that.
plus, how could I have known youve never played the game?

PaulH:

snipped tucked and fabulous this quote is.

Im just gonna pop in here.
his job description that he openly admitted to is "biased critic".
thats what he does.
and he doesnt compare this game to guitar hero, like, AT ALL!!
he sais the way he reviews games is like the little guitar hero bar thing.

milskidasith:

1. They're idiots.

2. SnS is the only thing that can effectively hit Gigginox's chest, and against anything with strong elemental weaknesses, they are by far the best weapons. They're bad for raw damage, though.

3. Paralyze doesn't stun. It paralyzes. I really have no clue how you could think something that stupid. Hitting the enemy with impact damage in the head enough is what stuns.

4. SnS has a lot of damage because it's fast... it hits a lot of small hits that add up, especiallly because of the way the damage formulas work for elemental damage (in short, elemental damage is purely based on the damage stat, not the weapon or the attack, so a 300 element sword hits the same element damage per hit as a 300 element, fully charged, crit drawing greatsword). For raw damage, it's going to deal less, but not much, especially when it's guaranteed to constantly be hitting even against fast opponents.

5. Monsters are big. Are you really so incompetent you can't understand "Hammer guy hits the head, I avoid the hammerer and cut the rest of the monster?

7. I never said you weren't important. It's just that the hammerer is *always* more important than anybody else if he is competent, because A: he deals the most damage and B: he can stun the monster, which is something only hammerers can do.

3.)whats the point of stun? maybe I dont fully understand it or something.
If its sole purpose is to simply make the enemies flinch for a moment(like making them tople sideways like the Royal does), then wouldnt it be easier to have a gunner with para or sleep or something.
or just use a trap.
and lets just say(for the record) that this has nothing to do with sidequests, fighting only.

1&5.)every hammer ive played with never does anything but screw me(and the other players) up while I(we) was doing exactly what I was supposed to do(go for cutable parts near the tail)
in fact I almost never go near the head because logically speaking, the head is where the teath are...

4.)I think one of us explained it wrong or something, because here is what I am hearing.
my weapon has around 230(I think) fire damage and 490 regular, and you are saying that a SnS with 300 fire damage, and say 230 attack, would do more damage to the same monster.
and the longsword is almost as fast(if not a little faster) while attacking if using spirit attacks so lets take that factor out of the equation.

7.)what about switch axes, they can deal a f**kload.
when used right they have always been the best part of the team im on.
put him and a good support gunner together and youve got an unstopable force.

Some people en joy grindey games, Yahtzee does not. Same reason he hates MMORPGs.

NoblePhilistineFox:

milskidasith:

1. They're idiots.

2. SnS is the only thing that can effectively hit Gigginox's chest, and against anything with strong elemental weaknesses, they are by far the best weapons. They're bad for raw damage, though.

3. Paralyze doesn't stun. It paralyzes. I really have no clue how you could think something that stupid. Hitting the enemy with impact damage in the head enough is what stuns.

4. SnS has a lot of damage because it's fast... it hits a lot of small hits that add up, especiallly because of the way the damage formulas work for elemental damage (in short, elemental damage is purely based on the damage stat, not the weapon or the attack, so a 300 element sword hits the same element damage per hit as a 300 element, fully charged, crit drawing greatsword). For raw damage, it's going to deal less, but not much, especially when it's guaranteed to constantly be hitting even against fast opponents.

5. Monsters are big. Are you really so incompetent you can't understand "Hammer guy hits the head, I avoid the hammerer and cut the rest of the monster?

7. I never said you weren't important. It's just that the hammerer is *always* more important than anybody else if he is competent, because A: he deals the most damage and B: he can stun the monster, which is something only hammerers can do.

3.)whats the point of stun? maybe I dont fully understand it or something.
If its sole purpose is to simply make the enemies flinch for a moment(like making them tople sideways like the Royal does), then wouldnt it be easier to have a gunner with para or sleep or something.
or just use a trap.
and lets just say(for the record) that this has nothing to do with sidequests, fighting only.

1&5.)every hammer ive played with never does anything but screw me(and the other players) up while I(we) was doing exactly what I was supposed to do(go for cutable parts near the tail)
in fact I almost never go near the head because logically speaking, the head is where the teath are...

4.)I think one of us explained it wrong or something, because here is what I am hearing.
my weapon has around 230(I think) fire damage and 490 regular, and you are saying that a SnS with 300 fire damage, and say 230 attack, would do more damage to the same monster.
and the longsword is almost as fast(if not a little faster) while attacking if using spirit attacks so lets take that factor out of the equation.

7.)what about switch axes, they can deal a f**kload.
when used right they have always been the best part of the team im on.
put him and a good support gunner together and youve got an unstopable force.

Stun is when the monster gets the stars floating around his head and sits still for as long as if it was paralyzed. That's what stun is. It's the same thing that happens to you if you get hit repeatedly.

If hammer users are being idiots, that's a problem, but when I go hammering I always hit the head. It's easy enough to superpound after an attack and stay safe.

Yes, the SnS does more elemental damage per attack. It will deal less raw damage (the formula is complicated, but basically, attacks have a certain "percent" of the raw damage stat they deal, which is then divided based on the weapons multiplier [GS and SA's are about 5, so their damage is fifthed after everything is over, SnS is like 1 point something, so it's a little more than half, etc).

For instance, for raw damage, a GS could have, say, 1k damage (way high), hit with a 100% attack (About a second level charge strike), at an area that has 50% defense on the monster and has a 5 times weapon factor (not exact), so it deals (1000*1*.5)/5 damage, or 100 damage.

A Sword and Shield with, say, 300 damage could deal a 10% attack (about normal) to the same area, with a factor of 1.5 for the weapon, meaning it would deal (300*.1*.5)/1.5, or ten damage.

However, elemental damage is much simpler: It's just the elemental damage stat, times the monsters elemental defense for that area and that element, times some factor I can't remember, so yes, a SnS with 300 fire element will deal more elemental damage, per hit, than a longsword with 230 fire damage. Elemental damage is rarely a huge factor except against monsters with a huge weakness to one element, such as Gigginox's to fire.

7: Switch axes still deal less damage, though they are a lot easier to pick up.

Celtic_Kerr:

sketchesofpayne:
Wow, 640+ comments. Talk about throwing gas on the fire! 0.0

Seriously though, some people have a higher tolerance for non-epic adventuring work. My friend is a gamer kleptomaniac. If you give him a game involving gathering items he'll be on that like a rat on a cheeto!

No offense, but a kleptomaniac is someone with an irresistable urge to steal things... Not to bash, just to inform

Yeah, the actual psychological disorder or Kleptomania is the irresistible urge to steal. In gaming parlance it usually just means you pick up everything that isn't nailed down and put it in your inventory.

Carnagath:

Quorothorn:
I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

Considering that near the start of this thread there was a discussion about whether or not weapon degradation has ever worked out decently in a game, I think claiming that it's essentially equivalent to reloading (a nigh-universal gameplay element whenever there are guns, and one which I've never heard complaints about) is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've seen so far here.

Is it just me or are these MH fans enthralled with size?

Edit: and someone please post an image of one of those stereotypical "monster hunter general threads" from over at 4chan

Quorothorn:

Carnagath:

Quorothorn:
I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

Considering that near the start of this thread there was a discussion about whether or not weapon degradation has ever worked out decently in a game, I think claiming that it's essentially equivalent to reloading (a nigh-universal gameplay element whenever there are guns, and one which I've never heard complaints about) is possibly the most ridiculous statement I've seen so far here.

It really is basically equivalent to reloading; your weapon doesn't "break" it just gets less sharp, so it bounces off enemies more (still deals full damage, just can't be combo'd) and deals slightly less damage (I believe the difference between one sharpness level and the next ranges from 5 to 20%). When you want to "reload" your weapon, you click a button, wait a few seconds while your character sharpens the weapon, and you're back to normal. It's about as time consuming as attempting to reload, say, an LMG in Call of Duty, by which I mean if you sit in the open doing it, you'll get toasted, but you can easily do it in combat when there's a lull.

Ten hours, Yahtzee? Really? Maybe you just suck at the game.

No really. If all the people who played it took less than two hours and you take ten, you are Officially Bad at this kind of game. Maybe we should make a plaque for it. Maybe you just have some kind of temporal allergic reaction to level/item grinding that slows down time for you. I'm afraid to ask you to even think about a Nippon Ichi game, it might take you a week to get through the opening.

Also:

My main complaint in the video was item gathering, how foraging for random bits of garbage in the wilderness got in the way of the juicy fighting, and it was virtually impossible to predict what items were only worth flogging at the village store for pennies and which would be worth hanging onto. Someone pointed out that at some point you can employ some of the villagers to grow and gather certain resources on your behalf. But that's even worse! That's entering management simulator territory, the genre one step up from database software. At least gathering the stuff yourself has the exploration element. The threat of curious velociraptors trotting over to inspect my pancreas as I scrape out the contents of a beehive. Maybe next I could pay someone to kill all the monsters for me so I can spend the entire game sitting in my hut kicking the butler.

So making you go through the gathering quests instead of fighting monsters is bad, but not making you do it so you can spend your time fighting monsters is worse?

Speaking of worse... You actually did the first Monster Hunt, the first taste of the meat of the game, and still left it out of the actual review? Bad Form, Peter[/Hook]. I mean, given the fools on this page (you heard me) who actually take your reviews as advice on whether or not to get a game, not actually representing the game as you played and experienced it is just... half-assed.

I mean seriously, Agree with your views or not, it's truly disappointing to see you fail like that.

Brickcups:

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

Haha thats what I was thinking!

But seriously this game isn't for everyone, though this is the same for all games on the market.

Pretty funny telling the diehard MH fans 'up yours!'.

QUINTIX:
Is it just me or are these MH fans enthralled with size?

Nah it is just the way of JRPG's in general.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . . . 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