Monster Hunter Tri

[krgskks]

And now for something completely different.

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

And that reminds me, why the fuck do I have to pay to start a quest? What the hell kind of nightmarish bureaucracy is running the Adventurer's Guild?

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

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

Hahahahahaha! Oh, you're serious...

...in that case let me laugh even harder.

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


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

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

 

[GrimHeaper]

And now for something completely different.

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

And that reminds me, why the fuck do I have to pay to start a quest? What the hell kind of nightmarish bureaucracy is running the Adventurer's Guild?

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

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

Hahahahahaha! Oh, you're serious...

...in that case let me laugh even harder.

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


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

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

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

 

[Mindmaker]

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

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

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

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

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

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

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

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

 

[cynicalsaint1]

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

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

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

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

 

[GrimHeaper]

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

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

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

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

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

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

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

 

[GrimHeaper]

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

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

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

 

[GrimHeaper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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

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

What more do you need?

Is that not enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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.

 

[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...

 

[cptRazz]

maybe red dead today?

 

[GrimHeaper]

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

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

What more do you need?

Is that not enough?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You sir, have never played earthbound have you?

 

[GrimHeaper]

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.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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

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

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

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

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

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

 

[GrimHeaper]

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

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

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

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