Monster Hunter Tri

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NEXT
 

Epic. Ya know, for all the talk about how Jim Sterling manages to rile up his readers, none of it comes close to what you see before thee in this thread.

And woot! Page 20 and post 666 it is!

GrimHeaper:

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.

Haha, this british twat is a far fucking cry from being George Carlin, mate. :P

milskidasith:

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.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

Quorothorn:

milskidasith:

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.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

The problem is that even calling it weapon degradation is misleading. It's not that your weapon gets weaker and you have to pay a money sink NPC to keep it in tip top shape. It's that once you get about a hundred hits in on a monster, it goes down a notch and you spend three seconds to get it back to max, at no cost. Is it necessary? Maybe not, but it's to keep you from just hacking away at the monster even when your weapon bounces off, though the monster attacking does a decent job of that.

SAMAS:
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.

I like the Hook reference. Fun movie.

But I don't like you saying that using Yahtzee's videos as some manner of guide to getting games is automatically foolish. For me the fact is, although we're not exactly the same in our video game preferences (Resident Evil 5 being the obvious example of our differences) I can usually get a good sense of how I will react to a game by watching Yahztee's reaction to it. That's helped me find some good games (Saint's Row 2 being the obvious example) in the past. He also usually makes at least two-three quite good points per video, sometimes hitting things that most reviewers don't notice or mention. Perhaps you should have said that taking Yahtzee's word as infallible is foolish: that would be more accurate in my opinion. Recklessly insulting a wide swath of people is bad form too, y'know.

Quorothorn:

The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

Mechanically, they can, in fact, be equivocated. They work the same and 'feel' the game within the flow of combat.

The only thing stopping them is arbitrary hatred due to the 'theme' of the mechanic - rather than running out of bullets to duck under cover and reload, a sword slowly gets duller before it needs to be quickly re-sharpened when the player is in a safe spot. People are, effectively, discounting a game mechanic for the metaphorical color of its skin, which honestly strikes me as immature and shortsighted.

Lawllerskater:

chakra22:
Congratulations yahtzee! You have just beaten the easiest boss in the entire game and given up. You are now fully a casual

Congratulations retarded ape! You've swung and missed the entire synopsis of why he did so! You are now fully an ass-hat!

Cnogratulations! How does it feel to have Yahtzee's cock in your mouth? The reporters are just ANXIOUS to know.

All yahtzee did was give up after the first boss, not bothering to play anymore, despite the fact that it gets better after that boss. I bet you haven't even played the game yourself, judging it on what a half-assed "reviewer" says. Kiss up to him some more, moron.

MatsVS:

GrimHeaper:

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.

Haha, this british twat is a far fucking cry from being George Carlin, mate. :P

George Carlin can be funny, but frankly I prefer Yahtzee. Or Bill Cosby.

ETA: Or Jon Stewart.

milskidasith:

Quorothorn:

milskidasith:

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.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

The problem is that even calling it weapon degradation is misleading. It's not that your weapon gets weaker and you have to pay a money sink NPC to keep it in tip top shape. It's that once you get about a hundred hits in on a monster, it goes down a notch and you spend three seconds to get it back to max, at no cost. Is it necessary? Maybe not, but it's to keep you from just hacking away at the monster even when your weapon bounces off, though the monster attacking does a decent job of that.

So you're saying we need a new name for the mechanic as presented in MHT?

Grandleon:

chakra22:
Congratulations yahtzee! You have just beaten the easiest boss in the entire game and given up. You are now fully a casual

Don't lie to him. Great Jaggi is an oversized minion, not a boss. They fall over in less than 2 minutes as long as you aren't trying to attack them with a steak knife.

Yes, I suppose. It still means Yahtzee gave up after beating an easy monster.

Quorothorn:

MatsVS:

GrimHeaper:

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.

Haha, this british twat is a far fucking cry from being George Carlin, mate. :P

George Carlin can be funny, but frankly I prefer Yahtzee. Or Bill Cosby.

ETA: Or Jon Stewart.

milskidasith:

Quorothorn:

milskidasith:

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.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

The problem is that even calling it weapon degradation is misleading. It's not that your weapon gets weaker and you have to pay a money sink NPC to keep it in tip top shape. It's that once you get about a hundred hits in on a monster, it goes down a notch and you spend three seconds to get it back to max, at no cost. Is it necessary? Maybe not, but it's to keep you from just hacking away at the monster even when your weapon bounces off, though the monster attacking does a decent job of that.

So you're saying we need a new name for the mechanic as presented in MHT?

I guess you could call it weapon reloading, or just use what it calls it, the sharpness system. It's a far cry from what weapon degradation brings to mind, where the weapon loses effectiveness slowly, can't be repaired during missions, and acts only as a money sink.

I guess you could call it weapon reloading, or just use what it calls it, the sharpness system. It's a far cry from what weapon degradation brings to mind, where the weapon loses effectiveness slowly, can't be repaired during missions, and acts only as a money sink.

It's hardly a "money sink" though. All you have to do is buy 99 whetsones from the market every, say... actually I haven't done it twice yet. It hardly costs much anyway.

At this point, the sheer number of comments says that you're not going to read this anyway, but I still have to say that I prefer it when your Extra Punctuation goes to a game concept like stealth or names, rather than a continuation of a game.

This is an exaggeration on an exaggeration.. I had a nerd fit before, but this.. this makes me want to give up on Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation entirely. It's just a gross misrepresentation all around and it's like I don't even know what game he's talking about. I'd say something about journalistic integrity, but I'm not sure if he's going for some sort of "I'm not actually a journalist!" type thing and he's actually a satirist or a comedian.

It was a bit to gloss over the game and boil it down to about 2 minutes of actual video review, but to outright say that the game has a 10 hour tutorial is bullshit. It's a lie and nothing else. 10 hours will take you half-way into the solo missions and into fighting some of the bigger monsters, the different locales, and even a new weapon type. Oh, and it unlocks plenty of new things for you to do, like the fishing fleet, the trading ship, and the ever-expanding farm which will do your gather for you. Yeah, you complained about wasting all your time gathering items and the game can do it for you while you are off doing more important things.

But worse still.. The legion of idiots who eat this shit up. "10 hour tutorial? Duck this game that I've never played and have no perspective on!" That bothers me most of all.

ChrowX:
This is an exaggeration on an exaggeration.. I had a nerd fit before, but this.. this makes me want to give up on Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation entirely. It's just a gross misrepresentation all around and it's like I don't even know what game he's talking about. I'd say something about journalistic integrity, but I'm not sure if he's going for some sort of "I'm not actually a journalist!" type thing and he's actually a satirist or a comedian.

It was a bit to gloss over the game and boil it down to about 2 minutes of actual video review, but to outright say that the game has a 10 hour tutorial is bullshit. It's a lie and nothing else. 10 hours will take you half-way into the solo missions and into fighting some of the bigger monsters, the different locales, and even a new weapon type. Oh, and it unlocks plenty of new things for you to do, like the fishing fleet, the trading ship, and the ever-expanding farm which will do your gather for you. Yeah, you complained about wasting all your time gathering items and the game can do it for you while you are off doing more important things.

But worse still.. The legion of idiots who eat this shit up. "10 hour tutorial? Duck this game that I've never played and have no perspective on!" That bothers me most of all.

Agreed. I could care less if Yahtzee himself hates the game, it's the idiotic fans of his who believe every word he says, as if he were ACTUALLY REVIEWING the game.

chakra22:

ChrowX:
This is an exaggeration on an exaggeration.. I had a nerd fit before, but this.. this makes me want to give up on Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation entirely. It's just a gross misrepresentation all around and it's like I don't even know what game he's talking about. I'd say something about journalistic integrity, but I'm not sure if he's going for some sort of "I'm not actually a journalist!" type thing and he's actually a satirist or a comedian.

It was a bit to gloss over the game and boil it down to about 2 minutes of actual video review, but to outright say that the game has a 10 hour tutorial is bullshit. It's a lie and nothing else. 10 hours will take you half-way into the solo missions and into fighting some of the bigger monsters, the different locales, and even a new weapon type. Oh, and it unlocks plenty of new things for you to do, like the fishing fleet, the trading ship, and the ever-expanding farm which will do your gather for you. Yeah, you complained about wasting all your time gathering items and the game can do it for you while you are off doing more important things.

But worse still.. The legion of idiots who eat this shit up. "10 hour tutorial? Duck this game that I've never played and have no perspective on!" That bothers me most of all.

Agreed. I could care less if Yahtzee himself hates the game, it's the idiotic fans of his who believe every word he says, as if he were ACTUALLY REVIEWING the game.

Erm, he kind of IS reviewing the game, though. Even if his method of review in this case is wrongheaded, incomplete, flawed, misrepresentative, absurd, whatever term you wish to use, he is still reviewing the game.

I do agree on the problem of taking everything he says as gospel truth, natch. That's a mistake no matter who we're talking about. Though I should remind you, if it matters, that Yahtzee himself does not actually like those people.

I lol'd hard @ the 10 hours. I used to think that Yahtzee blew at video games but this sealed it. Taking ten hours on a hour long 'tutorial' is astronomically fail. Just another article of Yahtzee being butt-hurt over being called out on how badly informed his reviews are.

Good laugh, would read again.

Quorothorn:

Erm, he kind of IS reviewing the game, though. Even if his method of review in this case is wrongheaded, incomplete, flawed, misrepresentative, absurd, whatever term you wish to use, he is still reviewing the game.

I do agree on the problem of taking everything he says as gospel truth, natch. That's a mistake no matter who we're talking about. Though I should remind you, if it matters, that Yahtzee himself does not actually like those people.

There's a big difference between "reviewing" and "critiquing". What Yahtzee does in most of his videos is critique and nitpick, barely mentioning the good parts of a game.

However,I'm not one of those idiots who boycotts Yahtzee's videos just because he hated on one of their favorite games. I still think he's a good entertainer, just not a good reviewer.

Wow, ten hours of a tutorial? You suck THAT bad that it takes you 10 hours to get into the game?!
Weapon choosing, of coarse you pick the right one to use on a quest. Maybe learn to predict and play a game before trashing it. Weapon degradation, did you not look a the weapons stats before using it? those sharpness bars aren't there to look pretty ya know, learn to know which weapon to use in battle

I noticed a trend with gamers like you, you only like the fast paced "Get in there, blow it up, and get out in twenty seconds" kinda games. Sure they are amusing, don;t get me wrong, I have had my fair share of them, but the dumb asses that bash this game have obviously never had to use their brain for more then an hour to figure shit out.

TO each their own, but no wonder why the Japanese are outsmarting all of you, everything they do uses their brain. To boot, their games are more intellectually stimulating.

chakra22:
There's a big difference between "reviewing" and "critiquing". What Yahtzee does in most of his videos is critique and nitpick, barely mentioning the good parts of a game.

Actually "critique" is basically the same as "review": that is, to make an informed and analytical evaluation. The word you were looking for is "criticise" ("criticize" for you Americans), which means to find fault with and point out the perceived flaws of something.

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.

Actually its not that hard.
When you see a nice piece of equipment from the smith, you can pull the different ingredients using the wii mote onto your memo pad.

This way you can keep track of ressources, without having to go back to the smith and you get a signal should you pick one of those items up.

Also, should you pick up an unknown item just go to the smith.
Whenever you pick up the first part of a new weapon/armor/decoration, it will show up at the smiths menue with a flashing "new"-sign next to it.

For everything else than a monster part or an ore, you can just select "combine" and look if any of the other items you have gets highlightened, which would mean that it is a part of a recipe.

You don't need to sell any of this stuff anyway, as missions give you enough money anyway.
Only expception is when you're trying to build everything (weapons for me), then you can run into some minor problems.
Should an item be unuseable for any of the beforementioned, then the item description tells you to "sell it for pocket change" anyway.

PaulH:

Manji187:
The game's a total grindfest...and that's one of the reasons fans love it.
The game's controls and camera take some getting used to (in comparison to other contemporary games)...and the fans call it challenging and love the game for it.
The game has the flimsiest story ever...and the fans say it's not about the story.

I'm seeing a pattern...fans will be fans.

In the end it comes down to: the game's for you or it's not...like with any game really.

And you (and other idiots) are the reasons why modern games suck.

Why the fuck do we need a 'story' in a game? Seriously. Most game voice actors sound as appealing as a circular saw on sheet metal. Most 'writers' in games feel like the idiot students that flunked literature in a BA at University.

Seriously, video games would be doing themselves a big plus if they just threw out story, because no gamer plays a game for the story.

If you do you're an idiot who should use the 60 dollars that would go to buy a game, and invest it into 4-5 DVDs.

Anybody who thinks a videogame is going to qualify as a movie and story masterpiece on the level of Kubrick, Hitchcock, and (ANYTHING FROM) Wes Anderson is a tard.

Does 'Chess' have a story? Backgammon? Does a game of tennis have a story beyond two guys playing for whatever reason (pride, money, or a pile of Tim Tams)? Does that mean Chess, Backgammon and Tennis suck balls? Fuck no ... it's better they don't have stories...

Gameplay and style = the game.

No More Heroes is freaking awesome because it fluants story and delivers pure style. The story is purposefully, and unabashedly, inane, lacklustre and downright stupid.

Just like CoD 4 is awesome solely cos of it's multiplayer, and anybody who really gave a flying fuck about the main characters is the sole reason why (instead of creating new IP and gameplay styles) we will have sequel after sequel of shitastic games that never needed to be made.

If everybody had half a brain and said 'We don't give a shit about Soap and Price' IW wouldn't have made MW2... rather contemplating on how to improve everything about CoD4 and deliver it in a new style with improved gameplay.

Videogames trying to emphasise storyline is like a paraplegic trying to get into the NBA. Sure it's cute the first time he challenges his standing fellow 6'8'' pro- basketball apsirants ... but if he does it again expecting to be taken seriously, you start contemplating whether or not he's missing a few screws upstairs.

Gee..mister smarty pants I don't even know where to begin.

Why games need story? Perhaps games are trying to be more than just digital forms of chess, backgammon and tennis. No story = no immersion, no emotional depth. IMHO, all that remains then is a skill-based mechanical experience. Like sex without love...it can be fun, sure, but it's superficial.

Dude, you sure are a master at presenting your opinions as fact.

Seriously, video games would be doing themselves a big plus if they just threw out story, because no gamer plays a game for the story.

Really? No gamer plays a game for the story? Yow, all those Zelda, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Mass Effect, BioShock (and other) fans must be misguided fools then ey? Did you actually think about it or just blurted it out?

Ow wait....damn it...I fell for it. Should've listened to them moderators...don't feed the troll...report him.

Go Yahtzee, so freakin' awesome, even if I don't always agree with you .... well I'm sure there's SOMEthing you didn't like that I do ... maybe ...

Edit: I agree with above's post. It all depends on what you're going for, some games don't need story, but that's not to say that it's better off not being ther ...

I played ArmA2 for hours and hours (still do) and haven't touhed the campaign, only played MP and [mostly - 99% of my time) just messing around in the editor, and it was the most immersive experience ever, HOWEVER, like I said ... I agree with above :)

Anyone here played Driver 4? That had THE best [my favourite] story ever :)

Ever considered thinking about the audience you're writing the reviews for, rather than for yourself, Yahtzee?

We are talking about gamers here. We are talking about people who do tend to have much greater disposable income and therefore time at their hands than the average person. If you're more average and mainstream than a hardcore gamer, you need to change your review style to fit. Your audience is made up entirely of hardcore gamers.

Of course, that's just the pretence. Deep down, I'd guess that you have carefully considered your audience just so that you can play the controversy of pretending that a game that gets good after 10-20 hours of gameplay, and stays that way for 60+, isn't overall good, trolling the gaming populace into talking about your creatively spun nonsense even more. Through word of mouth and anger, you spread and people see you and your advertisers more. I've seen it before. We have a suitably ugly name for that in the rest of the journalistic industry - tabloid journalism.

I'm not particularly interested in Monster Hunter, but there's a bigger issue involved here. I saw Final Fantasy XIII get bad reviews for "not being open enough" or "being too linear" until 20 hours in. I played the first four hours of that today, and I have to say I don't regret purchasing despite all the reviews warning me not to. Why? Because your notions of fun in tutorials and character development seem to differ from mine.

It would be the same with the people who want to play the first 10 hours of the game you're talking about here. Those who like a tutorial that drip feeds you new information as you need it, instead of forcing it into your brain in ten minutes. Those that find the slower approach more convenient and less over the top. You know, the people with generally sensible views. Remember them?

Sturmdolch:

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.

Oh, my first point wasn't a stab at you, just a point in general (Please notice my parenthases where I specify I'm not talking about you, but general public). I just find there are alot of people out there that say Yahtzee MUST hate video games because he gave a game a bad review. He gives ALL games bad reviews, so I don't see why they take it so personally. Even his reasons are exagerated, and it's quite entertaining to see people whine over it.

And I wasn't aware of any Korean MMOs, unless simply not aware that they were created in Korea.

I don't really analyze his reviews like shakespeare (you can take that to mean that I don't show interest in analyzing shakespeare :P) but I find that if you simply listen, he slanders games, but once you've listened to many of his reviews, you can just tell what points he's exagerating. I find this is something that just happens to me. I find it interesting actually.

ChrowX:
This is an exaggeration on an exaggeration.. I had a nerd fit before, but this.. this makes me want to give up on Yahtzee and Zero Punctuation entirely. It's just a gross misrepresentation all around and it's like I don't even know what game he's talking about. I'd say something about journalistic integrity, but I'm not sure if he's going for some sort of "I'm not actually a journalist!" type thing and he's actually a satirist or a comedian.

It was a bit to gloss over the game and boil it down to about 2 minutes of actual video review, but to outright say that the game has a 10 hour tutorial is bullshit. It's a lie and nothing else. 10 hours will take you half-way into the solo missions and into fighting some of the bigger monsters, the different locales, and even a new weapon type. Oh, and it unlocks plenty of new things for you to do, like the fishing fleet, the trading ship, and the ever-expanding farm which will do your gather for you. Yeah, you complained about wasting all your time gathering items and the game can do it for you while you are off doing more important things.

But worse still.. The legion of idiots who eat this shit up. "10 hour tutorial? Duck this game that I've never played and have no perspective on!" That bothers me most of all.

Yes, the game can gather for you, but doesn't he say in either Zero Punctuation or Extra Punctuation that once you start getting the farm and villagers to gether for you, it becomes a management simulation, and still takes from the monster hunting.

Can we clarify this ONE LAST TIME? YES! He exagerated the ten hours! Yahtzee does that! Read tha posts and the discussions that people have had based on previously discussed points. At most people have said it's taken them 2 hours to get to the first major boss. THis case was settle and you're beating a dead horse in the vain attempt to make glue to hold your argument together.

@Awesome_Hazard: The fact that Yahtzee is a BIG TIME fan of stealth games such as thief would show that he doens't JUST want to get in and blow stuff up. And he tends to hate the splinter Cell series for their poor, fast paced stealth where you can run through killing people easily from the shadows. Don't diss people out before knowing facts.

I love how every damn whine and complaint were either:
Meaningless (Boohoo, I never saw monsters fight, even though I should ahve the sense to know that's not the game)
Of a lack of hard work ethic.
For the latter, I, as a vet, will breakdown Monster Hunter, and adress the pitiful arguements I did bother glancing.
Monster Hunter: Is a different type of game. It is technically an RPG, in which you, the new village hunter. In Tri, MH developed a broader story than it previously had, as now the whole village is in on your exploits. You grab a weapon from your item box and if you are new, buy a set of armor with the money chief always gives you. In the beginning, it took me maybe 35 minutes to go through the whole tutorial. Its not a damn 10 hour tutorial, stupid fucks. If it takes you 10 hours to deliver 2 pieces of Iron Ore, found obviously in the cave, all over the place, you should seriously stop playing games. Once out of the tutorial (by the way, my friend who is a critic of this game got through the tutorial in little over an hour) you learn that the Guild will now allow you to use their resources and go out on Quests. You pay a CONTRACT FEE (like a down payment?) so that if you fail, the guild still earns some money. If you are compitent enough to finish the quest, they DOUBLE the FEE in your reward, anyway!
Stop bitching because you have to work in order to take on more high paying quests. And no, you can't change your equipment mid-quest. How is that fair? If my sword doesnt' work, let me go grab and hammer, while the monster has the same health? I think not. You can always abandon a quest, from any point, and change weapon and return. When you abandon, you return to pre-quest status, so nothing is lost, nothing is gained. Monster Hunter has based many aspects on reality. As with the weapon degradation. As you use a weapon, it loses sharpness. That's what the sharpness bar tells you. Now, take mind that you are hacking away at an enemy with skin hard enough to make strong armor. You weapon won't last long IRL. So when the sharpness goes down to a point where you start to bounce, you run far away and use a whetstone. Just like real life would have.
This game does in fact "get better later on" in laymans terms. If you can tolerate not having your hand held and working for fucks sake, you become attached to your character. You start to form a liking to certain monsters, a hatred to others. The way you feel when you find you can finally made that last piece of armor, amazing (the first few times, for after that, it becomes routine). When you shut the fuck up and play the game through, you will love it. This game is more addicting than crack. Try it for a while and let me know how it goes.

You know, I was set to buy this before, but after reading Yahtzee's comments and all the comments in this thread, well, it actually has put doubts in my head. So I'll just rent it first.

That's probably the sensible thing to do.

How are critique and review the same?
Critique- To criticize for positive or negative, usually negative. Points out flaws, or things that the critique just didn't quite agree.
Ex. This shit.
Review- To review is to experience something and explain what you got out of it.
Ex.:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/108/1083123p1.html

Oh, and most of us aren't butthurt over his review. I laughed, because he did point out some things that have angered me for years. I dislike that most of you kids are trashing this game without ever giving it a try. I guarantee you, if you put real time in this game, it will break your other addictions. This game ruins lives. But in a good way.

Only the "fanboys" have reliable sources for arguement here. Everyone else (right?) is getting their info from a mis-informed critic. So that one guy who stabbed at Awesome_Hazard, don't you dare throw the "you are mis-informed" ... thing around at us.

Well after all this I kinda feld the need to give my opinion... (Not that it will really change anyones view on the matter)

Ok first off all towards you people... You should never take Yahtzee's reviews too serious. Take it with a huge spoon of sald. Even good games he reviews in a negative way. Because he is a critic. So all you people who instantly say they won't buy a game now because yahtzee didn't like the game or said he didn't are idiots. You should read between the lines instead of just accepting every word as the whole truth with no other side.

But back to monster hunter tri. NO! The toturial is not 10 hours. It are just starter quests with a bit of explenation before them to help you understand the game so you won't need a manual. It takes two hours max for people who know the game, and a bit longer for new players. Not because it's hard or hard to getting used to. But because you'll tend to iddle around more to explore the world possibilities and items that you can find all over the map.

Now it is indeed a bad part that you have to pay for the quests later on. But you get that money back at the end of the quest and with the prize money you'll have more then enough money to pay for the quests. And especially in the beginning of the game it's close to impossible to fail your mission, so you'll have enough money to get around especially then.

Now I'm not a real monster hunter fan but I do feel the urge to try and make clear what DOES make this game good in it's own way. (though it really depends on the person playing it)
And well, like a thousand people before me said: It's the big dragons and boss fights. About two to three hours into the game if you don't fiddle around too much you'll start to fight your first dragons. And these are hardass creatures that are hard to defeat. You'll find yourself running around slashing into them for up to 40 minutes. Then finally when you are close to defeat, with your potions running dry you see the huge dragon starting to panic and limb away from you in fear, running off to rest. You run after it with your last energy and make an end to the fight. Which by all means gives you a very fullfilling epic feeling. This is the great part about monster hunter it's HARD. When you defeat a dragon it truly feels like you've defeated a dragon. Though it's hard to warm up to the game in the end that only makes victory more sweet. Not because you'll try to make excuses to yourself that your time was worth it. But because you feel like you really have succeeded to something. Like you've finished off a dragon with the little power a human being has.

So yeah in the beginning monster hunter does suck quite a bit but by the time you reach the boss fights it will really have been worth your while... And again I'm not a huge monster hunter fan.. I just tried to make clear what the people who like the game like so much about it. It takes patience and frustration.. but then it's worth it. And the people who are bad mouthing the game just on what yahtzee said are idiots. I always see that type of game nerd the worst of it's kind. The kind that bitches on a game they never played and know nothing about. Or because yahtzee said bad things about it. Which is actually quite hilerious because like he made clear in the past, even if he likes a game he'll be negative about it. And still he played the games so he has all rights to bitch about whatever he didn't like about them. It's his job and he knows what he's talking about.
Though this time he really did disapointed me for stopping before even reaching a boss fight. That alpha male thing was hardly a real chalange. And I think it's too bad he hasn't even played into the game any further then the tutorial. Maybe he should have just named this 'the review of the intro of monster hunter'. This hardly summed up anything about the game itself. Not that I expacted he'd ever like this game I at least hoped he would have played more then he did and maybe bitch a bit about Ratian or some other actual dragon and their fights. Not the basic baby quests in the beginning.

Hm, personally, I think Monster Hunter is the kind of game Yahtzee would enjoy, given the chance.

Given his reaction to the Lagiacrus suddenly appearing in his mission, I imagine he'd enjoy suddenly finding the Qurupeco summoning a Rathian, or the Deviljiho making it's obligatory horribly timed appearance in the later game.

His complaints are that "Gathering gets in the way of fighting".

Well, the good news is, if you do the quests, you don't actually have to gather much.

I mean, sure, there's a few armours in which you need to gather or mine, but, it's not as much as being made out. And, even then, it's some nice downtime after fighting a Barroth or two.

I suppose, we'll have to hope that, he continues to play the game, finds that it wasn't as bad as he first thought and maybe changes his mind.

He won't post that he has or give any sense that he has, as he has too much pride for that, but, give it time.

The online makes this game for me. Sure, the Single Player is fun, but, it's nothing compared to the online in my opinion. Monsters are harder, reliance on team members makes it all the more interesting. The key thing in Monster Hunter is that even with the best gear, a crap team can get killed by a Rathian, this doesn't work the other way around, but, it's nice that knowing what you're doing makes all the difference.

Edward123454321:
Can someone who's actually played this game for more than ten hours, tell me if the tutorial is that long?

I've seen about 4 posts here saying "Bah! Ten hours for the tutorial, I'm not getting this game anymore, thanks Yahtzee!" and another 4 saying "The tutorial's about an hour long..."

It's reasons like this I don't trust him nearly as much as a critic as I do a comedian.

It really depends. For me it did technically take "10 hours" to go through it, only because the first 9 or so hours I spent online with friends. When I actually started the tutorial, I shot right through it and hit the 3star quests in less than a few hours.

My little sister though, who has never touched the games before, and was using sword and shield, only took about 1.5hrs at best, but only because running into the Lagiacrus near the end of it made her almost have a heart attack.

And, if she can beat the Great JAggi in 15 minutes with the same basic sword and shield Yahtzee had, and only took me 5-10 with it, I have to wonder how it took him the better part of half an hour to kill the thing besides the obvious reason of "My little sister is better than him, despite the fact she loved and played only barbie (or mary-kate and ashley) games growing up".

though... she did play the occasional Sailor Moon game as well, so maybe that explains it...

cursedseishi:

Edward123454321:
Can someone who's actually played this game for more than ten hours, tell me if the tutorial is that long?

I've seen about 4 posts here saying "Bah! Ten hours for the tutorial, I'm not getting this game anymore, thanks Yahtzee!" and another 4 saying "The tutorial's about an hour long..."

It's reasons like this I don't trust him nearly as much as a critic as I do a comedian.

It really depends. For me it did technically take "10 hours" to go through it, only because the first 9 or so hours I spent online with friends. When I actually started the tutorial, I shot right through it and hit the 3star quests in less than a few hours.

My little sister though, who has never touched the games before, and was using sword and shield, only took about 1.5hrs at best, but only because running into the Lagiacrus near the end of it made her almost have a heart attack.

And, if she can beat the Great JAggi in 15 minutes with the same basic sword and shield Yahtzee had, and only took me 5-10 with it, I have to wonder how it took him the better part of half an hour to kill the thing besides the obvious reason of "My little sister is better than him, despite the fact she loved and played only barbie (or mary-kate and ashley) games growing up".

I went straight from 10 minutes in Single Player to Multiplayer, which, was a rather painful experience, admittedly, having a Royal Ludroth pop up during a quest when you've not even seen a Great Jaggi yet isn't the greatest experience.

I only played Single Player between Online Sessions, so, probably no more than 3-4 hours. I'm on 4 star quests, however, most of my progress was made online, so, I had Lagiacrus gear while I was killing the Barroth.

Now, I'm on High rank quests, and can't really be bothered progressing much on Single Player, having high rank weapons and armours rather makes the game a bit too easy on the single player. Unless I fancy kicking the Great Jaggi to death, there's not much fun to be found after you've got the gear from SP.

Holy shiiit people care way too much! I'm amazed at the amount of discussion that's gone into this, makes me glad I don't have a wii and didn't have to think about this...

SemajChaos:
How are critique and review the same?
Critique- To criticize for positive or negative, usually negative. Points out flaws, or things that the critique just didn't quite agree.
Ex. This shit.
Review- To review is to experience something and explain what you got out of it.
Ex.:
http://wii.ign.com/articles/108/1083123p1.html

Oh, and most of us aren't butthurt over his review. I laughed, because he did point out some things that have angered me for years. I dislike that most of you kids are trashing this game without ever giving it a try. I guarantee you, if you put real time in this game, it will break your other addictions. This game ruins lives. But in a good way.

Only the "fanboys" have reliable sources for arguement here. Everyone else (right?) is getting their info from a mis-informed critic. So that one guy who stabbed at Awesome_Hazard, don't you dare throw the "you are mis-informed" ... thing around at us.

Not that the Oxford English Dictionary is always right, but if we're talking about what is and is not a review/critique, I thought I should provide the OED definitions of those words.

The relevant definitions of review are variously "The action or an act of looking over or inspecting", "The action of looking (again) over something, as a book, text, etc., with a view to its correction or improvement; revision; an instance of this", "A general survey or reconsideration of some subject or thing; (now esp.) a report on, or summary and evaluation of, events or developments over a given period, or in a specific field", "An account or critical appraisal of a book or (now also) a play, film, concert, etc" and "A critical appraisal of a product, service, etc., intended for the guidance of consumers."

Zero Punctuation seems to fit all those definitions.

As for critique, the OED definitions are "An essay or article in criticism of a literary (or more rarely, an artistic) work; a review" and "The action or art of criticizing; criticism." Again, Zero Punctuation appears to fit.

This thread is hilarious. If Yahtzee didn't like it he didn't like it; The review was funny regardless. Good show.

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