Monster Hunter Tri

Azagthoth666

New member
Apr 2, 2010
7
0
0
I feel like most of Yahtzee's complaints are just because this game is the polar opposite of his preference. This game works like WoW. You dont truly enjoy it till your a powerful high level character and even then soloing is the least fun part. This game is all about jumping into the multiplayer and hunting down monsters online where each character has a distinct weapon with a distinct purpose. If one weapon was good for everything it would defy the way this game is meant to be played. Because of this i think Yahtzee was just really bad at the game and when you totally suck at a game you dont enjoy it regardless of what game it is.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Mindmaker said:
StriderShinryu said:
Oh, and while Epic Stories and Role Playing don't appeal to the masses, neither does repetitive grinding and looting.
Oh it does. World of Warcraft has been a huge succes, and both endgame paths(PVE&PVP) lead to a neverending grindfest.
True, but WoW does actually have a storyline, an extremely expansive world to explore, millions of other people to interact with, many opportunities for RP, etc. There are likely a ton of people who play it for the grind, but there's probably just as many who play it for the "fluff." Of course, given the juggernaut that it is, there's probably just as many players who who play it just because all of their friends do. Though this is definitely getting off topic. :)
 

Grandleon

New member
Jun 1, 2010
7
0
0
Chrono180 said:
OT: I don't get why so many people are focused on the "10 hours" phrase. Near as I can tell, even if doesn't take 10 hours then there are other problems he mentioned. There's the "Can only change your equipment at home" problem (which is probably a pain in the ass), the "Lock into quests and can't change your weapon" problem (probably also a pain in the ass), the "pay to start quest" problem (which is one of the dumbest gimmicks I have EVER heard of), the "item gathering either takes stupid amounts of time or reduces the game to SimOffice" problem (Which is not what one would probably want from a giant monster hunting game) and the "Item degredation" problem (which sounds like the worst parts of morrowind and fallout 3 combined).

All these are other problems that he mentioned and yet everyone is completely hung up on him just saying "10 hours" when it's probably just exaggeration like he does in almost every review! Maybe those people just didn't read past the third paragraph before jumping to the forums to complain. Now, I haven't played the game, but I highly doubt I would want to play a game that sounds this inconvenient. Besides, I would probably wet my pants at the giant sea monsters.
Being able to switch out equipment mid quest would be game breaking. Being able to switch weapon types mid-fight, especially, would be like changing your class mid-fight in another RPG. Each weapon confers different strengths, and this is intended to be a coop game. The strength of being a gunner is in being able to swap ammo types on the fly.

The only time the lock-in thing ever gets annoying is online if you go and accept a quest, having forgotten to get food buffs and the correct weapon for the job. Though I think they do that so that other people know what you're taking with you so they can adjust if you're missing something in the group.

Item gathering is not terribly important. You'll need to do a bit at the start, but it loses necessity very quickly. Between the farm, fishery, vendors, and NPC traders, you can easily stockpile components for hours of uninterrupted giant wyvern hunting. About the only thing you can't find a shortcut around is mining, but you don't have to craft equipment that requires ore if you don't want to. Most equipment is crafted from monster parts you get from just playing the game. I have hundreds of components for traps, bombs, and other useful tools and I most certainly did not hand-gather the stuff.

Finally, equipment degradation does not exist. Weapons will lose sharpness, but one whetstone later and it's at full sharpness again. There's no permanent loss in equipment what-so-ever. The sharpness system is there for a few reasons. First of all very high end weapons will have blue, white, or even purple sharpness levels. These confer a powerful multiplier to your attack damage, but they usually only last a few hits before the level drops. High sharpness levels also allow your weapon to pass through armored plate without bouncing. Another reason there's a sharpness system is to reward/punish for attacking vulnerable spots versus armored body parts. The more calculated and accurate you are with your attacks, the more damage and better sharpness you'll maintain before having to retreat a bit to repair your weapon.
 

DeathWyrmNexus

New member
Jan 5, 2008
1,143
0
0
Dorkmaster Flek said:
RJ Dalton said:
Ah ha! At last I have something to say that contradicts you!

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

Really, that's all I can make an argument for, and I'm not really arguing in favor of the game you're reviewing, so maybe that doesn't count.
Actually, what you've just described sounds like your basic limited ammo game design element. Your gun essentially had a limited amount of ammo, and you had to choose how to ration it. That makes a little bit more sense. What Yahtzee is referring to (I think) is more a degradation system for melee weapons like swords and axes and the like. That just sucks ass, because you're expected to keep using the weapon repeatedly, but you have to stop and repair it.

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

Azagthoth666

New member
Apr 2, 2010
7
0
0
Following my previous post I think people take Yahtzee too seriously. If you truly based buying a game or not on his reviews you should only ever play Psychonauts and nothing else. His reviews (except for Psychonauts) are always to point out the holes in a game that make up its bad part. In this review, he just didnt have any really true information. I suppose i dont see his point of view having played previous MH titles but to someone who knows the game most of his complaints (presented in a rather bitchy form) are nonexistant.
 

Omikron009

New member
May 22, 2009
3,817
0
0
I thought I (and a few friends) were the only people who knew how much icy hot hurt when applied to....sensitive areas. Wow.
 

shadowmarth

New member
Jun 1, 2010
30
0
0
DeathWyrmNexus said:
Actually, what you've just described sounds like your basic limited ammo game design element. Your gun essentially had a limited amount of ammo, and you had to choose how to ration it. That makes a little bit more sense. What Yahtzee is referring to (I think) is more a degradation system for melee weapons like swords and axes and the like. That just sucks ass, because you're expected to keep using the weapon repeatedly, but you have to stop and repair it.

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

Except that sharpness resets after missions and you never have to "repair" in town. The sharpness system was also originally introduced as a balancing mechanism between the weapons, such that some would require more, others less, and that was just a consideration when you selected your weapon. In most fights you'll maybe need to sharpen twice if you have a weapon with half-decent sharpness. And given that the monsters will change areas every once in a while, you can usually just do it then. It takes 5 seconds, and then you're back to chasing the monster.
 

Quaidis

New member
Jun 1, 2008
1,416
0
0
Dora said:
milskidasith said:
After the 1* quests, 90% of quests are "Go kill this big ass monster" and then "Go kill this bigger ass monster" with the occasional "capture this big ass monster" quest. The other 10% are quests where it says "Go roam around and collect materials if you need them" where you literally have to do nothing to complete the quest.
Eh... maybe I'll have to have a look at some gameplay footage. It still doesn't sound like my cuppa, but I appreciate the old school try. I don't want to receive quests, or talk to NPCs, I just want big battles. I'm extremely simple that way. Closer would basically be, I dunno... Mortal Kombat with behemoths or something, only with a free-roaming arena for me to cower in. Maybe literally an arena. Maybe it could be like Gladiator, but with bigger and meaner monsters someone has collected that you have to fight your way out to win your freedom. And maybe the ultimate boss is Roger Ebert on a dais. Aw, man, now I'm even more disappointed.

The problem is that I know what I wanted the game to be, which was based on me not doing any research whatsoever beyond seeing the occasional commercial spot, and the game itself wasn't that. At least, not really. And that's my fault, not the game's, so it's cool that so many people seem to enjoy it.

On the plus side, the review did make me want to play Harvest Moon again.
In the 'story-mode' single-player, you go on quests to fight the bigger beef. Once you do, they show up near your home out of nowhere ready to rip your face off. That velociraptor on steroids you killed by the skin of your teeth? His relatives took up residence at the nearby creek. That monolithic electrified lizard? He's now near your favorite fishing spot.

There is also an 'arena' mode which sounds exactly like what you want. You are given a small amount of items and allowed to choose a weapon and armor, then are sent straight away at a 'boss' monster like in gladiatorial combat.

Lastly, there is multiplayer, which lets you either pick some friends or throws you with a club of random people and you go out to slaughter something much bigger and uglier than you would see in single player.


And yes, the review also made me want to dig out HarvestMoon. Or, Or! Ruin Factory. Now that was a good game.


Edit - alright, I admit. Story-mode is a poor choice of words as there is not much of a story. But that is generally what single-player is classified as these days. I cannot win them all.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.
 

shadowmarth

New member
Jun 1, 2010
30
0
0
mike1921 said:
Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.
If you have a Wii you should get one anyway. They're quite nice. And I'm fairly certain that the bundle was limited release, and most of those went to pre-orders, so if you really want one, you'll have to look around a bit...
 

Katana314

New member
Oct 4, 2007
2,299
0
0
It Gets Better Later is my big complaint with Bad Company 2's multiplayer (which according to fans is the ONLY part of the game). You start out with no perks, gadgets, or guns whatsoever, meaning all the classes are just one mediocre gun and one pistol. You have to earn every single last thing, usually by killing players with twice the equipment you have. I don't want to have to wait before I start using guns that are fun, dude. At least Modern Warfare 2 gave me some of the straightforward-awesome perks before unlocking me some situational ones. (And the "pro" versions give a side-upgrade, rather than just "The same but BETTER")
 

Grandleon

New member
Jun 1, 2010
7
0
0
mike1921 said:
Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.
It's only the old school MH players who really say the game is unplayable with a Wiimote. While I am getting a Classic Controller Pro in the near future, I've played through the whole offline game and a fair bit into online without one. The only issue is the Wiimote is clunky for certain weapons. Namely I find it unwieldy to use for the switch-axe or lance. Otherwise I have no issues with it (though I highly recommend turning off the waggle draw/attack in options).
 

Dora

New member
Jul 13, 2009
115
0
0
Quaidis said:
There is also an 'arena' mode which sounds exactly like what you want. You are given a small amount of items and allowed to choose a weapon and armor, then are sent straight away at a 'boss' monster like in gladiatorial combat.

Lastly, there is multiplayer, which lets you either pick some friends or throws you with a club of random people and you go out to slaughter something much bigger and uglier than you would see in single player.
Oh, really? Thanks for the clarification! (I realise other people have probably said much the same in this thread, but I did't feel like scrolling through ten pages of complaints to find it.) Arena mode does sound like it might satiate my interest. (As long as it doesn't force me to unlock monsters by playing through the main campaign first.) I'll give 'er a rent sometime. If it holds up, I have some friends who'd be all over this for multiplayer. It wouldn't be the first time I liked a game Yahtzee didn't, but who cares?
 

chakra22

New member
May 26, 2010
8
0
0
Congratulations yahtzee! You have just beaten the easiest boss in the entire game and given up. You are now fully a casual
 

milskidasith

New member
Jul 4, 2008
531
0
0
Azagthoth666 said:
Following my previous post I think people take Yahtzee too seriously. If you truly based buying a game or not on his reviews you should only ever play Psychonauts and nothing else. His reviews (except for Psychonauts) are always to point out the holes in a game that make up its bad part. In this review, he just didnt have any really true information. I suppose i dont see his point of view having played previous MH titles but to someone who knows the game most of his complaints (presented in a rather bitchy form) are nonexistant.
Nobody here is arguing with you. The only problem MH fans had with it, aside from a couple idiots, was the fact he was dishonest about not playing the game all the way through. I've even explicitly stated I'd be fine if Yahtzee had bashed the game and said that he quit because he hated it, but instead he only announced that when he wrote in his column, not in the video.

Dora said:
Quaidis said:
There is also an 'arena' mode which sounds exactly like what you want. You are given a small amount of items and allowed to choose a weapon and armor, then are sent straight away at a 'boss' monster like in gladiatorial combat.

Lastly, there is multiplayer, which lets you either pick some friends or throws you with a club of random people and you go out to slaughter something much bigger and uglier than you would see in single player.
Oh, really? Thanks for the clarification! (I realise other people have probably said much the same in this thread, but I did't feel like scrolling through ten pages of complaints to find it.) Arena mode does sound like it might satiate my interest. (As long as it doesn't force me to unlock monsters by playing through the main campaign first.) I'll give 'er a rent sometime. If it holds up, I have some friends who'd be all over this for multiplayer. It wouldn't be the first time I liked a game Yahtzee didn't, but who cares?
Well, you have to play through the campaign to unlock monsters for the arena, which is stupid, *but*, if you play online, there's no storyline and 90% of the missions are just killing shit.

I would advise you read a guide on how the connection works online, because it's a bit odd, but basically, the guy who sees the main boss first is the "host" and only the players and the main boss are shared; the minion monsters are all client side.
 

Quaidis

New member
Jun 1, 2008
1,416
0
0
Dora said:
Quaidis said:
There is also an 'arena' mode which sounds exactly like what you want. You are given a small amount of items and allowed to choose a weapon and armor, then are sent straight away at a 'boss' monster like in gladiatorial combat.

Lastly, there is multiplayer, which lets you either pick some friends or throws you with a club of random people and you go out to slaughter something much bigger and uglier than you would see in single player.
Oh, really? Thanks for the clarification! (I realise other people have probably said much the same in this thread, but I did't feel like scrolling through ten pages of complaints to find it.) Arena mode does sound like it might satiate my interest. (As long as it doesn't force me to unlock monsters by playing through the main campaign first.) I'll give 'er a rent sometime. If it holds up, I have some friends who'd be all over this for multiplayer. It wouldn't be the first time I liked a game Yahtzee didn't, but who cares?
I don't usually read through all the pages, either. I came across your post as a fluke =D

I know that in the beginning you can only fight the first three big baddies on arena mode. I haven't defeated them yet to know if that, alone, unlocks the others. I keep getting my ass handed to me on arena mode. Hard does not begin to describe it. Multiplayer is something else; it rocks.
 

Smavey

New member
Jun 1, 2010
7
0
0
shadowmarth said:
DeathWyrmNexus said:
Actually, what you've just described sounds like your basic limited ammo game design element. Your gun essentially had a limited amount of ammo, and you had to choose how to ration it. That makes a little bit more sense. What Yahtzee is referring to (I think) is more a degradation system for melee weapons like swords and axes and the like. That just sucks ass, because you're expected to keep using the weapon repeatedly, but you have to stop and repair it.

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

Except that sharpness resets after missions and you never have to "repair" in town. The sharpness system was also originally introduced as a balancing mechanism between the weapons, such that some would require more, others less, and that was just a consideration when you selected your weapon. In most fights you'll maybe need to sharpen twice if you have a weapon with half-decent sharpness. And given that the monsters will change areas every once in a while, you can usually just do it then. It takes 5 seconds, and then you're back to chasing the monster.
I wish people would play the game before commenting lol :) The sharpness factor in this game is not a detriment at all. It's very simple, and not a hassle.

1) You use a weapon, after 10 mins of slashing away it will "degrade" where it is still useful, but can now bounce.
2) You press a button and you use a whetstone. It takes 3 seconds.
3) Slash away for another 10 mins!
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
shadowmarth said:
mike1921 said:
Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.
If you have a Wii you should get one anyway. They're quite nice.
I own a wii but don't use it even semi-often. If I did I'd definitely get that controller.
if you really want one, you'll have to look around a bit...
....yay
 

Smavey

New member
Jun 1, 2010
7
0
0
^^Just wanted to add above. The "game" is online. This is an online game. The online is lag free, and FUN. It's a blast fighting with 4 friends and slaying big beasts.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
Grandleon said:
mike1921 said:
Alright, yahtzee said "you can buy a version of the game with a classic controller" and wikipedia agrees with him. But I can't find that version anywhere and I'm not paying $20 for a controller I'd only use on a rental.
It's only the old school MH players who really say the game is unplayable with a Wiimote. While I am getting a Classic Controller Pro in the near future, I've played through the whole offline game and a fair bit into online without one. The only issue is the Wiimote is clunky for certain weapons. Namely I find it unwieldy to use for the switch-axe or lance. Otherwise I have no issues with it (though I highly recommend turning off the waggle draw/attack in options).
Almost every game is unplayable with a wii mote to me. The only exceptions are No more heroes 1 and super mario galaxy. Unless turning off the waggle draw/attack makes it so I only have to use the buttons , it'll be unplayable to me.