Monster Hunter Tri

Edward123454321

New member
Mar 31, 2010
60
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.
Too true, especially the bit at the end, although I think the degradation of melee weapons could work, seeing as Capcom seem so fucking enthusiastic to implement it. I think they probably could of made it so weapons only degrade when your fighting certain, more powerful enemies, and it's not until you improve your weapon that you can take on these enemies. It could work slightly better, because your blade wouldn't pointlessly get fucked up by tiny, low level critters and it could work as an incentive to upgrade weapons to take on the harder enemies. That said, however, is generally quite a shitty idea, because it just wouldn't really work with melee weapons. Fallout did a good job with guns though.
 

Demoliboy2

New member
Dec 21, 2009
52
0
0
10 hors of toturial? Yeah right, at 10 hours of play you are already fighting a giant dragon called rathian.

Tutorial is no more then 1:30 hours, 30 min if you are rushing it.
 

Tarkand

New member
Dec 15, 2009
468
0
0
J03bot said:
Yeah, red dead redemption never actually told me how to use the dead-eye system in game, so after I inadvertently shot a helpless randomer in the face, I looked at the manual{slight dramatisation, I accidentally used it on a bandit, and it helped. I still had no idea what the hell I'd done though
It actually does, when you're on the ranch hunting coyotes.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Quorothorn said:
That sounds like how a playthrough of a Resident Evil game often goes (well, not Resi5 so much due to its Chapter Select feature, but still), only with ammo supplies instead of weapon integrity.

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

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

ETA: Dorkmaster, you magnificent ninja.
Yeah, it is routinely badly implemented. Out of curiosity, can you name an escort mission that didn't suck?
 

Vampire cat

Apocalypse Meow
Apr 21, 2010
1,725
0
0
Aaaaah...

I love when people get pissed when someone doesn't agree with them (aiming at the people whining to Yahtzee about how the game "gets better").
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
Meh. Using the greatswords/hammers/etc. is about timing; it's not that hard to kill even velocidromes/whateverTricallsthem with the bigger weapons once you're used to it.
But if you're really caught between those two options - fast and light versus slow and heavy - a longsword might serve. It's fast-ish, hits as well as the greatsword, and doesn't block anything. You need to be/become good at rolling out of the way to really use a longsword, but it is a good starting weapon.
 

Krimson Kun

New member
May 28, 2010
45
0
0
Edward123454321 said:
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.
Too true, especially the bit at the end, although I think the degradation of melee weapons could work, seeing as Capcom seem so fucking enthusiastic to implement it. I think they probably could of made it so weapons only degrade when your fighting certain, more powerful enemies, and it's not until you improve your weapon that you can take on these enemies. It could work slightly better, because your blade wouldn't pointlessly get fucked up by tiny, low level critters and it could work as an incentive to upgrade weapons to take on the harder enemies. That said, however, is generally quite a shitty idea, because it just wouldn't really work with melee weapons. Fallout did a good job with guns though.
The sharpness system is basically there to make players upgrade their weapon yes, and to make the game less repetitive(believe it or not), and if you're new to the game its nothing more than huge huge annoyance. When you get used to it(or use things to make the sharpness problem go away) it actually makes the game interesting, and helps you know the passage of time too, since doing a single quest can take up to 40 minutes
 

manythings

New member
Nov 7, 2009
3,297
0
0
Dorkmaster Flek said:
Bullshit, this is the same excuse people made about Final Fantasy XIII. "Oh it opens up 20 hours in." Jesus titty-fucking Christ, I do not have the time to play a shitty game for 20 fucking hours before it gets good.
I've heard, from a friend whose opinion I trust, that it apparently gets good to the point of you forgiving those 25 hours. I'm not saying start playing it but it is something to keep in mind.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
The only time you can say "it gets better later" is if it picks up after the first hour or so.

That's not that much game time, and generally accomodates for the tutorial (unless you're GTA IV) and introduces the story-proper.

Anyway, totally agree with the article - although not the parts about the game itself, I haven't played it.

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

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

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

ETA: Dorkmaster, you magnificent ninja.
Yeah, it is routinely badly implemented. Out of curiosity, can you name an escort mission that didn't suck?
Escorting Prophet in Crysis didn't suck - in fact, I quite liked that mission.

Oh, and where the hell has Reliable Source gone?!
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
RJ Dalton said:
Out of curiosity, can you name an escort mission that didn't suck?
"Sucking" is a pretty subjective term. I personally enjoyed Bioshock 2's adam gathering thingy, especially on higher difficulty, because I loved exploring the environment I am in and figuring out ways to turn it into a deathtrap, before putting the Little Sister down and seeing all hell break loose for a very suspenseful, all-in 2 minutes. Then you pick her up and she is no longer dead weight. Out of all the implementations of "escort missions" that I've seen, I believe this was the best.
 

Krimson Kun

New member
May 28, 2010
45
0
0
omicron1 said:
Meh. Using the greatswords/hammers/etc. is about timing; it's not that hard to kill even velocidromes/whateverTricallsthem with the bigger weapons once you're used to it.
But if you're really caught between those two options - fast and light versus slow and heavy - a longsword might serve. It's fast-ish, hits as well as the greatsword, and doesn't block anything. You need to be/become good at rolling out of the way to really use a longsword, but it is a good starting weapon.
Only problem there is buddy, you don't get a longsword until 3 star quests, and Yahtzee stopped at 1
 

Anaklusmos

New member
Jun 1, 2010
283
0
0
I don't understand why people are nit picking what Yahtzee has said. We had 800 replies onto the video, he has made his responce, and thats it. No more Monster Hunter, tomorrow there will be a new game under the microscope, so it's better to forget Monster Hunter now and get on with our lives.

EDIT: On Escorts, I hated BioShock 2's escorts, it was a nice little change from BioShock 1's kill this free ADAM, but, after a while the novelty wore off, and I only did them for the achivement.
 

Edward123454321

New member
Mar 31, 2010
60
0
0
Krimson Kun said:
Edward123454321 said:
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.
Too true, especially the bit at the end, although I think the degradation of melee weapons could work, seeing as Capcom seem so fucking enthusiastic to implement it. I think they probably could of made it so weapons only degrade when your fighting certain, more powerful enemies, and it's not until you improve your weapon that you can take on these enemies. It could work slightly better, because your blade wouldn't pointlessly get fucked up by tiny, low level critters and it could work as an incentive to upgrade weapons to take on the harder enemies. That said, however, is generally quite a shitty idea, because it just wouldn't really work with melee weapons. Fallout did a good job with guns though.
The sharpness system is basically there to make players upgrade their weapon yes, and to make the game less repetitive(believe it or not), and if you're new to the game its nothing more than huge huge annoyance. When you get used to it(or use things to make the sharpness problem go away) it actually makes the game interesting, and helps you know the passage of time too, since doing a single quest can take up to 40 minutes
What do you mean by "helps you know the passage of time" during quests, how does it do that?
 

Jonci

New member
Sep 15, 2009
539
0
0
I know Yahtzee is good at ranting and usually good at reviewing, but I've never considered what his gaming skills were. I get the impression that Monster Hunter Tri may have taxed his usual perceptions of playing a "tough game". Monster Hunter has always required more effort than most games. Gamers would probably piss off a game that requires you to gather items to make your healing potions, when most games just let you buy them in bulk or regens your health by sitting behind a rock. I've tried the Cabala games once or twice and just didn't get into the idea of checking for deer crap to track a buck.

Yes, there's a 1-2 hour tutorial that goes through the basics of survival in the game. It's like going through boot camp before going out onto the real field of combat. We'd get an equally negative review if the game didn't have the tutorial with Yahtzee complaining that he didn't know now to stock up on potions and whetstones.

And stop selling the stuff you find! You don't even need to sell items in the game for money. In fact, there are items with the sole purpose of being sold and the item description will tell you that. Otherwise, the mission rewards more than cover minor expenses and you should rarely worry about how much money you have. Keep everything because you'll more likely need them for supplies or weapon/armor crafting than for scraping together a few more coins.
 

Gildan Bladeborn

New member
Aug 11, 2009
3,044
0
0
I already thought this game sounded like all the pointless grindy bullcrap you'd find in a Korean MMO like Lineage II (which is way the hell worse than the pointless grindy bullcrap all the other MMos have) welded together without even the slightest pretense of a plot beyond "grind!", but paying to start quests?

Egad. I'm honestly surprised Yahtzee didn't mention that during the Zero Punctuation video - it's one thing to be subjected to fetch quests, but paying for the privilege is just a whole new level of insulting.
 

Carnagath

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,814
0
0
manythings said:
Dorkmaster Flek said:
Bullshit, this is the same excuse people made about Final Fantasy XIII. "Oh it opens up 20 hours in." Jesus titty-fucking Christ, I do not have the time to play a shitty game for 20 fucking hours before it gets good.
I've heard, from a friend whose opinion I trust, that it apparently gets good to the point of you forgiving those 25 hours. I'm not saying start playing it but it is something to keep in mind.
No, it really doesn't. FFXIII is a train wreck. At 25 hours in, it gets about 10% as good as FFXII, barely enough to make you pause the game and reminisce on a time when Final Fantasy was still good and you could lose yourself in an open living world. Then it quickly becomes terrible again, kind of mocking you, like, "NAHHHH, we were just kidding, we just sneaked that part in to put some screenshots on the box that would fool people into thinking the game is good. Back to your corridor."
 

ProfessorLayton

Elite Member
Nov 6, 2008
7,452
0
41
"Even if the game is 50 percent poo and 50 percent mind-blowing envelope-pushing extravaganza, that's still mediocre on average."

Trust me, truer words have never been spoken. I mean, BioShock 2 had an incredible ending, probably the best ending I've ever seen. But that didn't matter because the rest of the game was copy/pasted from the first one and while that's not a completely bad thing it made the experience feel stale and repetitive. The ending definitely earned it a lot of points, but not enough to make it as good as the first one.
 

Exterminas

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,130
0
0
Carnagath said:
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!
Actually picking herbs is all you do in wow until you hit the maxlevel and start raiding. Sure some of the herbs aren't herbs but fruits, or chests, of macguffins, or are flags, if you are doing pvp, or are guarded by stronger enemies. If you assume an average new wow-player, he will spend days (<-) doing quests which all consist of gathering "herbs" if you played one hour of wow you have a pretty good idea of what you will be doing until you start raiding.

I think this is kind of Yzs point. Wow turns into a completly different game, once you start raiding, actually getting to the whole multiplayer-part. If that's not the case with Monster Hunter he has every right to stop afer one hour, or how long he played.

As far as I know about monster hunter, there is a multiplayer, and i tend to sympathise with Yathzee regarding that subject: Most stuff gets better if you do it with other people, even more gets better while doing it with friends. This is not a point in a games favor, it is a point in favor of your socializing skills and therefore is irrelevant to a game critic.
 

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
21
A bit better this time around. 10hrs is a bit of an exaggeration, really it depends on how much time you spend running around doing various random shit vs. how long you spend getting through the missions and such. It does take too long to get to the good parts of the game however, that I won't argue (I myself was just getting ready to toss the game out of the console for good when I finally hit the parts that made me decide to keep playing).

One thing to note - the game really expects you to have more than one person fighting the monster at a time, in single player this comes in the form of Cha-Cha who you get not too long after you go after Great Jaggi for the first time. Having other players or Cha-Cha around give you much better opportunity to run off to the side to sharpen or heal, or attack for that matter.

Of course that doesn't change my central problem with the game - often it feels more like your fighting against the limitations that the game saddles you with (sharpness, slow attacks on most of the weapon types, retardedly long downtime when using an item, etc) than the monsters themselves. Its better when you're online and have several others with you giving you plenty of chance to disengage and perform whatever upkeep you need to, but it doesn't stop it from being annoying.

Overall I have fun with the game now however, and so I continue to play it despite its various flaws.