Monster Hunter Tri

[Katana314]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[milskidasith]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^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]

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.

 

[Grandleon]

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.

 

[Lawllerskater]

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!

 

[Grandleon]

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.

Well with that more restricted criteria, you could still use a Hammer or Bowgun (though Bowguns aren't recommended for solo play as they're more of a support weapon). With Hammers you're either using the triple-pound (neutral position A combo) or one of the R(Z) button charge attacks. Long swords you can also get away without using any of the positional moves if you're solo, but you don't get those until more than halfway through the game. Great swords require your being able to use the various positional attacks, but are slow enough that you have plenty of time to shift the Wiimote well in advance.

 

[milskidasith]

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.

Well with that more restricted criteria, you could still use a Hammer or Bowgun (though Bowguns aren't recommended for solo play as they're more of a support weapon). With Hammers you're either using the triple-pound (neutral position A combo) or one of the R(Z) button charge attacks. Long swords you can also get away without using any of the positional moves if you're solo, but you don't get those until more than halfway through the game. Great swords require your being able to use the various positional attacks, but are slow enough that you have plenty of time to shift the Wiimote well in advance.

Wait, what? Great Sword is only draw attack, and charged up draw attack (at least online) so it shouldn't need the Wii Mote waggle at all.

 

[Adzma]

It's so amusing to read all these butthurt fanboy responses to Yahtzee.

He's absolutely right. Fuck playing a game for 10 hours so it gets better. And I don't care how many of you say it only takes 2 hours. Lets take FFXIII for example, it apparantely gets better after 20 hours. Nope. It was good for the first couple of hours I played it, introducing everything and whatnot, then it all goes downhill. After that 20 threshold it still sucks massive monkey wang. That's why it's being called the weakest in the series since X-2.

 

[Snipingkid]

"You have one second to name a game in which weapon degradation was a good idea."
He reminded me of that.

 

[shadowmarth]

It's so amusing to read all these butthurt fanboy responses to Yahtzee.

He's absolutely right. Fuck playing a game for 10 hours so it gets better. And I don't care how many of you say it only takes 2 hours. Lets take FFXIII for example, it apparantely gets better after 20 hours. Nope. It was good for the first couple of hours I played it, introducing everything and whatnot, then it all goes downhill. After that 20 threshold it still sucks massive monkey wang. That's why it's being called the weakest in the series since X-2.

Uh... what. But he's wrong. Without qualification, he is 100% wrong. There is no way you could stretch out the first bit of the game to 10 hours without spending 8 of them in Free Roam, which is both optional, and unending.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

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 Hungry Samurai]

While the initial review did leave me feeling that he didn't give the game a fair shot, and that he focused on things that some people like. (No, really some people like the base simplicity of this game and the big nasties are pretty impressive) This did make much sense. I wasn't one of the complainers about the article but if you give a rats ass I apologize on behalf of them.

I made it through more than he did, and I probably would have actually completed the game if it weren't for the stupid Weapon Degradation system, and the fact that EVERY time you beat one of the games obscenely difficult bosses, it then became one of the regularly random spawned mobs in the game. I loved the game's style but I needed to see a bit more reward for my effort.

Also I thought making the first boss of the game a "BIGGER" version of the most commonly fought creature in the game to that point, a complete idiot move.

 

[Loonerinoes]

"You have one second to name a game in which weapon degradation was a good idea."
He reminded me of that.

While I agree with him on many things, it is on this point that I think he's full of it. System Shock 2 would not have been as scary if you didn't have to worry about weapon degradation as well.