Seriously who would defend this game I played it for a while then brought it back to the store and bought something else. The combat is repetative and boring. And the story...........well there is none. I completly agree with this article.
Monster Hunter Tri
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
To the accusation of him pulling numbers out of thin air... if I know anything about Yahtzee, I know he probably tried to get the most out of the game by doing as much as he could to become immersed into it.
If that meant doing EVERY THING available during the tutorial than yeah I can see it taking a lot longer than say... people who played every Monster Hunter game just before this one so they'd be used to the controls, fully familiar with the monsters, etc etc... you guys are making the assumption that "it takes 10 hours to get through the tutorial" means it literally. I've played games where the tutorial seems to drag on for hours even when it doesn't. Let's not forget that the Wii is not the most enjoyable platform to be playing it on and that's what he played it on.
I know my cousin jumped right into it and was already fighting large monsters the other day, but even he could see where Yahtzee was coming from. Like the last time I played Pokemon and after 2 days of playing it I still felt like I hadn't gotten to the main part of the game. Of course I go out of my way to catch all the Pokemon I can off the bat so I can register each of them, so who knows how Yahtzee was really playing. I think it's silly how people continue to question him as a gamer. He's beaten games I still haven't, and I've been playing games since I was a kid!
If that meant doing EVERY THING available during the tutorial than yeah I can see it taking a lot longer than say... people who played every Monster Hunter game just before this one so they'd be used to the controls, fully familiar with the monsters, etc etc... you guys are making the assumption that "it takes 10 hours to get through the tutorial" means it literally. I've played games where the tutorial seems to drag on for hours even when it doesn't. Let's not forget that the Wii is not the most enjoyable platform to be playing it on and that's what he played it on.
I know my cousin jumped right into it and was already fighting large monsters the other day, but even he could see where Yahtzee was coming from. Like the last time I played Pokemon and after 2 days of playing it I still felt like I hadn't gotten to the main part of the game. Of course I go out of my way to catch all the Pokemon I can off the bat so I can register each of them, so who knows how Yahtzee was really playing. I think it's silly how people continue to question him as a gamer. He's beaten games I still haven't, and I've been playing games since I was a kid!
Wow, 640+ comments. Talk about throwing gas on the fire! 0.0
Seriously though, some people have a higher tolerance for non-epic adventuring work. My friend is a gamer kleptomaniac. If you give him a game involving gathering items he'll be on that like a rat on a cheeto!
Seriously though, some people have a higher tolerance for non-epic adventuring work. My friend is a gamer kleptomaniac. If you give him a game involving gathering items he'll be on that like a rat on a cheeto!
No offense, but a kleptomaniac is someone with an irresistable urge to steal things... Not to bash, just to informsketchesofpayne said:
Well it was my first Monster Hunter game and I got to the Great Jaggi (the first boss) in about 2 hours. I'm a pretty slow gamer myself, I like to linger and examine settings and menus and explore the town and it still didn't seem very long to me.Hiroshi Mishima said:
If it was a figurative 10 hours, then that's indicative of not enjoying the game from the outset. That's okay if you're going to do a biased review. Well I guess ZP is all about biased reviews so I can't really complain about that, can I?
As for doing every possible thing in the first rank, you'd get bored out of your skull. There are only 4 or 5 quests at that rank, all of them aiming to familiarise you with game mechanics. Little to no challenge there. The other option is to go free-roaming but nothing interesting turns up there until you beat a boss. When you blindly ignore the quest offerings and just play in the free-roaming area... If that's how Yahtzee was playing it then I can understand his opinion.
But when the game has already told you to do quests to advance the story and difficulty and you ignore it, are you skipping explanatory text or just being stupid? Maybe he skipped the explanatory text because he thought it wasn't important. Maybe he has an incredibly short attention span and won't pay attention to several lines of text. Maybe he was pressing the A button to get to the meat of the game quickly, explanations be damned. These would also explain the numerous misunderstandings he has about various things in the game.
Ah-ha! So he must have been playing in a limbo of sorts - between quests, not quite at the bulk of the gameplay, aimlessly wandering the free-roaming area for several boring hours before switching off the console and writing his review. Explains why he thought gathering was so central, why the enemies were all small-timers and why he had a terribly negative opinion of the game (amplified by his negative preconceptions of the game). Certainly is a... unique way to play the game. Interesting gameplay flaw he found - easily fixed by reading the tutorial text but what can you do.
Guess that's it then.
Sharpness for swords is literally no different from ammunition for guns in any other game (or in Monster Hunter)... you hit something X times and then need to stop hitting things for a while and consume a minor item to "reload".Motakikurushi said:
Q.Q every game ever must suck if that's a bad system.
Except... some of us like single player and find both a solid single player campaign and a well told story to be selling points. Sorry if you're finding this hard to grasp, but not everyone plays games for the same reasons you do. And if I have to choose, I'd pick solid single player and a story well told over multiplayer any day for one reason; communities dry up. Sooner or later, no matter how good the game is, either the fans, the community, the company, or all three move on. And when that day comes, I'd rather have a good replayable single player experience that's challenging and fun then have a worthless disc I can rest my drinks on.PaulH said:
Quite honestly, I wish the opposite would happen; I wish developers would spend MORE time on the single player campaigns, get better voice actors, hire or train better script writers, and give us a more enjoyable experience. If I wanted to read about someone else being awesome and risking their life in a fantastical setting, I've got a shelf of fantasy novels and movies for that. If I want to be the one to scour the countryside, hunt down evil, and stab it in the face to the cheers and adoration of the multitudes, well, then I grab a video game.
Cripes, if I wanted to 'test my skill against other players', countless games since Pong have offered that. I expect more out of a modern game; depth, character, narrative, a reason to replay something beyond 'Gotta Catch Em All'-style obsession. If none of that matters to you and all you want is to go beat up some pixels with your buddies, fine by me, sounds like you found the perfect game for that. But don't go decrying a hobby that's as much mine as it is yours for trying to evolve and offer more than that.
Random Side Note: If you want a fun if somewhat challenging game, go to Yahtzee's website and download some of the old school point and click adventures he's made. For the low low cost of free, you might find a single player experience that, indeed, harkens back to the 'good old days' where you needed logic and forethought to avoid becoming a pixelated blob of blood.
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 "Celtic_Kerr said:
" or even a "lol" after to show you that I'm not being completely serious; I thought it would be pretty much common sense.And I'm also sad to hear you analyze his "reviews" like a Shakespeare play. They're not reviews. I know it's hard to hear, but you really need to get over it. Yes, he is a critic. He critisizes games. But there's a difference between critisizing a game and giving a full-fledged review.
Counterpoint #2: I get a Korean vibe because from the sounds of it, it's a grindfest with boring-as-hell quests, just like every single Korean MMORPG that I've ever seen. I'm guessing Japanese games are similar then? I'm sorry, but I'm not too experienced in that. I guess I should have just said "asian" games. But then I'd be called a racist, and I'd rather not go through that again.
I swear to God, most of these idiots getting their panties in a bunch about Yahtzee's review didn't even read the f**king column. Okay, the tutorial wasn't 10 hours, fine, whatever, I'll give it to you, well done, you're right. It still comprises about 10% of what he was actually saying. Hell, the central point of the article was that even you got to the giant monster killing, the game was still incredibly tedious and lacking in fun.
And secondly that even if it still managed to magically get spectacularly awesome later on, it wouldn't matter. In good game design, you can't just make a tedious and unfun section to begin the game and expect everyone to stick around. Yeah, sure, a tutorial is necessary, I agree. That doesn't mean it should suck. Look at God of War. The tutorial in God of War has you FIGHTING THE F**KING HYDRA. That's what a tutorial should be, and what Monster Hunter Tri's tutorial, regardless of how long it was, clearly was not.
And secondly that even if it still managed to magically get spectacularly awesome later on, it wouldn't matter. In good game design, you can't just make a tedious and unfun section to begin the game and expect everyone to stick around. Yeah, sure, a tutorial is necessary, I agree. That doesn't mean it should suck. Look at God of War. The tutorial in God of War has you FIGHTING THE F**KING HYDRA. That's what a tutorial should be, and what Monster Hunter Tri's tutorial, regardless of how long it was, clearly was not.
And you clearly didn't read anything we're saying. We agree with Yahtzee. Long tutorials are bad. Boring monster fights with way too much HP that are tedious are bad. It's just that neither of those occur in Monster Hunter (though the second is an opinion); I can kill the Great Jaggi, with crappy equipment, in five minutes, while it takes Yahtzee 30.Firestorm2154 said:
Even further, we weren't arguing that Yahtzee can't have his opinion, just that he's being misleading. He complains about the cost to do quests when it doesn't even exist; I literally never even noticed that the quests had a cost because the game loads you up with about 10 times what you need to do all the quests in the game every mission. He complains about a ten hour tutorial when it's two hours if you do the optional missions, talk to all the NPCs for no reason, and dick around. In the video, he didn't even make it clear he quit the game, and spent more time talking about the box art, intro cutscene, Japan, and the Wii than he actually talked about the game, let alone the combat, which he didn't even mention.
Those are the problems people have brought up. Not that he can't not like it; he can hate it. Not that long tutorials are OK; they aren't. Just that Yahtzee was being disingenuous and misleading, hardly talked about the game itself, and made an overall low quality video with most of the content not focusing on the game.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of being strawmanned by all these one post wonders. Yeah, I like the game. Yeah, I know some people might not. I'd just rather Yahtzee make some criticisms about the game that are actually true, and spend his videos talking about the games, not the Wii or Japan or Harvest Moon or the box art.
This new video was a nice return to form.
The game indeed has flaws but I don't think it's the flaws you're thinking of. Weapon sharpening is nothing more than a minor annoyance. Get good enough weapons and you only really need to sharpen maybe once or twice a fight and there are ample times to do that. And it's already been mentioned that being able to switch weapons mid fight would break the game, especially since there's a whole multiplayer component to think of. Besides, you can beat any monster with any weapon if you're good enough, it's just the sidequests you won't be able to do, and if you want to do them, bring a weapon for the job.Hiroshi Mishima said:
Also milskidasith has summed up the thread nicely. Most of the butthurt isn't from the fact that Yahtzee hated the game, because let's face it he hates most games. It was more from the fact that there was a lot of misinformation in the video. Some of what he said was outright lies and when he couldn't think of anything about the game he made more generic attacks on the Wii, Japan and the such.
Personally I think this topic is nothing more than self important tosh. Critics are not magically elevated to a position when they cannot be criticized.
sorry, its kinda hard to pick up sarcasm from text...Anaklusmos said:
I thought you were doing the "the reviewer said it sucked, therefore it does" thing that alot of people do.
I apologise for that.
plus, how could I have known youve never played the game?
Im just gonna pop in here.PaulH said:
his job description that he openly admitted to is "biased critic".
thats what he does.
and he doesnt compare this game to guitar hero, like, AT ALL!!
he sais the way he reviews games is like the little guitar hero bar thing.
3.)whats the point of stun? maybe I dont fully understand it or something.milskidasith said:
If its sole purpose is to simply make the enemies flinch for a moment(like making them tople sideways like the Royal does), then wouldnt it be easier to have a gunner with para or sleep or something.
or just use a trap.
and lets just say(for the record) that this has nothing to do with sidequests, fighting only.
1&5.)every hammer ive played with never does anything but screw me(and the other players) up while I(we) was doing exactly what I was supposed to do(go for cutable parts near the tail)
in fact I almost never go near the head because logically speaking, the head is where the teath are...
4.)I think one of us explained it wrong or something, because here is what I am hearing.
my weapon has around 230(I think) fire damage and 490 regular, and you are saying that a SnS with 300 fire damage, and say 230 attack, would do more damage to the same monster.
and the longsword is almost as fast(if not a little faster) while attacking if using spirit attacks so lets take that factor out of the equation.
7.)what about switch axes, they can deal a f**kload.
when used right they have always been the best part of the team im on.
put him and a good support gunner together and youve got an unstopable force.
Stun is when the monster gets the stars floating around his head and sits still for as long as if it was paralyzed. That's what stun is. It's the same thing that happens to you if you get hit repeatedly.NoblePhilistineFox said:
If hammer users are being idiots, that's a problem, but when I go hammering I always hit the head. It's easy enough to superpound after an attack and stay safe.
Yes, the SnS does more elemental damage per attack. It will deal less raw damage (the formula is complicated, but basically, attacks have a certain "percent" of the raw damage stat they deal, which is then divided based on the weapons multiplier [GS and SA's are about 5, so their damage is fifthed after everything is over, SnS is like 1 point something, so it's a little more than half, etc).
For instance, for raw damage, a GS could have, say, 1k damage (way high), hit with a 100% attack (About a second level charge strike), at an area that has 50% defense on the monster and has a 5 times weapon factor (not exact), so it deals (1000*1*.5)/5 damage, or 100 damage.
A Sword and Shield with, say, 300 damage could deal a 10% attack (about normal) to the same area, with a factor of 1.5 for the weapon, meaning it would deal (300*.1*.5)/1.5, or ten damage.
However, elemental damage is much simpler: It's just the elemental damage stat, times the monsters elemental defense for that area and that element, times some factor I can't remember, so yes, a SnS with 300 fire element will deal more elemental damage, per hit, than a longsword with 230 fire damage. Elemental damage is rarely a huge factor except against monsters with a huge weakness to one element, such as Gigginox's to fire.
7: Switch axes still deal less damage, though they are a lot easier to pick up.
Yeah, the actual psychological disorder or Kleptomania is the irresistible urge to steal. In gaming parlance it usually just means you pick up everything that isn't nailed down and put it in your inventory.Celtic_Kerr said:
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.Carnagath said: