Monster Hunter Tri

[NoblePhilistineFox]

snipped tucked and fabulous this quote is.

Im just gonna pop in here.
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.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

1. They're idiots.

2. SnS is the only thing that can effectively hit Gigginox's chest, and against anything with strong elemental weaknesses, they are by far the best weapons. They're bad for raw damage, though.

3. Paralyze doesn't stun. It paralyzes. I really have no clue how you could think something that stupid. Hitting the enemy with impact damage in the head enough is what stuns.

4. SnS has a lot of damage because it's fast... it hits a lot of small hits that add up, especiallly because of the way the damage formulas work for elemental damage (in short, elemental damage is purely based on the damage stat, not the weapon or the attack, so a 300 element sword hits the same element damage per hit as a 300 element, fully charged, crit drawing greatsword). For raw damage, it's going to deal less, but not much, especially when it's guaranteed to constantly be hitting even against fast opponents.

5. Monsters are big. Are you really so incompetent you can't understand "Hammer guy hits the head, I avoid the hammerer and cut the rest of the monster?

7. I never said you weren't important. It's just that the hammerer is *always* more important than anybody else if he is competent, because A: he deals the most damage and B: he can stun the monster, which is something only hammerers can do.

3.)whats the point of stun? maybe I dont fully understand it or something.
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.

 

[Atomic Skull]

Some people en joy grindey games, Yahtzee does not. Same reason he hates MMORPGs.

 

[milskidasith]

1. They're idiots.

2. SnS is the only thing that can effectively hit Gigginox's chest, and against anything with strong elemental weaknesses, they are by far the best weapons. They're bad for raw damage, though.

3. Paralyze doesn't stun. It paralyzes. I really have no clue how you could think something that stupid. Hitting the enemy with impact damage in the head enough is what stuns.

4. SnS has a lot of damage because it's fast... it hits a lot of small hits that add up, especiallly because of the way the damage formulas work for elemental damage (in short, elemental damage is purely based on the damage stat, not the weapon or the attack, so a 300 element sword hits the same element damage per hit as a 300 element, fully charged, crit drawing greatsword). For raw damage, it's going to deal less, but not much, especially when it's guaranteed to constantly be hitting even against fast opponents.

5. Monsters are big. Are you really so incompetent you can't understand "Hammer guy hits the head, I avoid the hammerer and cut the rest of the monster?

7. I never said you weren't important. It's just that the hammerer is *always* more important than anybody else if he is competent, because A: he deals the most damage and B: he can stun the monster, which is something only hammerers can do.

3.)whats the point of stun? maybe I dont fully understand it or something.
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.

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.

 

[sketchesofpayne]

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!

No offense, but a kleptomaniac is someone with an irresistable urge to steal things... Not to bash, just to inform

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.

 

[Quorothorn]

I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

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.

 

[QUINTIX]

Is it just me or are these MH fans enthralled with size?

Edit: and someone please post an image of one of those stereotypical "monster hunter general threads" from over at 4chan

 

[milskidasith]

I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

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.

It really is basically equivalent to reloading; your weapon doesn't "break" it just gets less sharp, so it bounces off enemies more (still deals full damage, just can't be combo'd) and deals slightly less damage (I believe the difference between one sharpness level and the next ranges from 5 to 20%). When you want to "reload" your weapon, you click a button, wait a few seconds while your character sharpens the weapon, and you're back to normal. It's about as time consuming as attempting to reload, say, an LMG in Call of Duty, by which I mean if you sit in the open doing it, you'll get toasted, but you can easily do it in combat when there's a lull.

 

[SAMAS]

Ten hours, Yahtzee? Really? Maybe you just suck at the game.

No really. If all the people who played it took less than two hours and you take ten, you are Officially Bad at this kind of game. Maybe we should make a plaque for it. Maybe you just have some kind of temporal allergic reaction to level/item grinding that slows down time for you. I'm afraid to ask you to even think about a Nippon Ichi game, it might take you a week to get through the opening.

Also:

My main complaint in the video was item gathering, how foraging for random bits of garbage in the wilderness got in the way of the juicy fighting, and it was virtually impossible to predict what items were only worth flogging at the village store for pennies and which would be worth hanging onto. Someone pointed out that at some point you can employ some of the villagers to grow and gather certain resources on your behalf. But that's even worse! That's entering management simulator territory, the genre one step up from database software. At least gathering the stuff yourself has the exploration element. The threat of curious velociraptors trotting over to inspect my pancreas as I scrape out the contents of a beehive. Maybe next I could pay someone to kill all the monsters for me so I can spend the entire game sitting in my hut kicking the butler.

So making you go through the gathering quests instead of fighting monsters is bad, but not making you do it so you can spend your time fighting monsters is worse?

Speaking of worse... You actually did the first Monster Hunt, the first taste of the meat of the game, and still left it out of the actual review? Bad Form, Peter[/Hook]. I mean, given the fools on this page (you heard me) who actually take your reviews as advice on whether or not to get a game, not actually representing the game as you played and experienced it is just... half-assed.

I mean seriously, Agree with your views or not, it's truly disappointing to see you fail like that.

 

[Mattmayer]

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!

Exactly! If it takes you 10 hours to get through the tutorial... you aren't playing it right. lol

Haha thats what I was thinking!

But seriously this game isn't for everyone, though this is the same for all games on the market.

Pretty funny telling the diehard MH fans 'up yours!'.

 

[Mattmayer]

Is it just me or are these MH fans enthralled with size?

Nah it is just the way of JRPG's in general.

 

[Loonerinoes]

Epic. Ya know, for all the talk about how Jim Sterling manages to rile up his readers, none of it comes close to what you see before thee in this thread.

And woot! Page 20 and post 666 it is!

 

[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...

Comedians usually have truths hidden in their words.
That is why they are effective, like George Carlin for example.

Haha, this british twat is a far fucking cry from being George Carlin, mate.

 

[Quorothorn]

I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

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.

It really is basically equivalent to reloading; your weapon doesn't "break" it just gets less sharp, so it bounces off enemies more (still deals full damage, just can't be combo'd) and deals slightly less damage (I believe the difference between one sharpness level and the next ranges from 5 to 20%). When you want to "reload" your weapon, you click a button, wait a few seconds while your character sharpens the weapon, and you're back to normal. It's about as time consuming as attempting to reload, say, an LMG in Call of Duty, by which I mean if you sit in the open doing it, you'll get toasted, but you can easily do it in combat when there's a lull.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

 

[milskidasith]

I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

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.

It really is basically equivalent to reloading; your weapon doesn't "break" it just gets less sharp, so it bounces off enemies more (still deals full damage, just can't be combo'd) and deals slightly less damage (I believe the difference between one sharpness level and the next ranges from 5 to 20%). When you want to "reload" your weapon, you click a button, wait a few seconds while your character sharpens the weapon, and you're back to normal. It's about as time consuming as attempting to reload, say, an LMG in Call of Duty, by which I mean if you sit in the open doing it, you'll get toasted, but you can easily do it in combat when there's a lull.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

The problem is that even calling it weapon degradation is misleading. It's not that your weapon gets weaker and you have to pay a money sink NPC to keep it in tip top shape. It's that once you get about a hundred hits in on a monster, it goes down a notch and you spend three seconds to get it back to max, at no cost. Is it necessary? Maybe not, but it's to keep you from just hacking away at the monster even when your weapon bounces off, though the monster attacking does a decent job of that.

 

[Quorothorn]

Ten hours, Yahtzee? Really? Maybe you just suck at the game.

No really. If all the people who played it took less than two hours and you take ten, you are Officially Bad at this kind of game. Maybe we should make a plaque for it. Maybe you just have some kind of temporal allergic reaction to level/item grinding that slows down time for you. I'm afraid to ask you to even think about a Nippon Ichi game, it might take you a week to get through the opening.

Also:

My main complaint in the video was item gathering, how foraging for random bits of garbage in the wilderness got in the way of the juicy fighting, and it was virtually impossible to predict what items were only worth flogging at the village store for pennies and which would be worth hanging onto. Someone pointed out that at some point you can employ some of the villagers to grow and gather certain resources on your behalf. But that's even worse! That's entering management simulator territory, the genre one step up from database software. At least gathering the stuff yourself has the exploration element. The threat of curious velociraptors trotting over to inspect my pancreas as I scrape out the contents of a beehive. Maybe next I could pay someone to kill all the monsters for me so I can spend the entire game sitting in my hut kicking the butler.

So making you go through the gathering quests instead of fighting monsters is bad, but not making you do it so you can spend your time fighting monsters is worse?

Speaking of worse... You actually did the first Monster Hunt, the first taste of the meat of the game, and still left it out of the actual review? Bad Form, Peter[/Hook]. I mean, given the fools on this page (you heard me) who actually take your reviews as advice on whether or not to get a game, not actually representing the game as you played and experienced it is just... half-assed.

I mean seriously, Agree with your views or not, it's truly disappointing to see you fail like that.

I like the Hook reference. Fun movie.

But I don't like you saying that using Yahtzee's videos as some manner of guide to getting games is automatically foolish. For me the fact is, although we're not exactly the same in our video game preferences (Resident Evil 5 being the obvious example of our differences) I can usually get a good sense of how I will react to a game by watching Yahztee's reaction to it. That's helped me find some good games (Saint's Row 2 being the obvious example) in the past. He also usually makes at least two-three quite good points per video, sometimes hitting things that most reviewers don't notice or mention. Perhaps you should have said that taking Yahtzee's word as infallible is foolish: that would be more accurate in my opinion. Recklessly insulting a wide swath of people is bad form too, y'know.

 

[golbleen]

The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

Mechanically, they can, in fact, be equivocated. They work the same and 'feel' the game within the flow of combat.

The only thing stopping them is arbitrary hatred due to the 'theme' of the mechanic - rather than running out of bullets to duck under cover and reload, a sword slowly gets duller before it needs to be quickly re-sharpened when the player is in a safe spot. People are, effectively, discounting a game mechanic for the metaphorical color of its skin, which honestly strikes me as immature and shortsighted.

 

[chakra22]

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!

Cnogratulations! How does it feel to have Yahtzee's cock in your mouth? The reporters are just ANXIOUS to know.

All yahtzee did was give up after the first boss, not bothering to play anymore, despite the fact that it gets better after that boss. I bet you haven't even played the game yourself, judging it on what a half-assed "reviewer" says. Kiss up to him some more, moron.

 

[Quorothorn]

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.

Haha, this british twat is a far fucking cry from being George Carlin, mate.

George Carlin can be funny, but frankly I prefer Yahtzee. Or Bill Cosby.

ETA: Or Jon Stewart.

I do love how all the MHT defenders are focusing exclusively on the "tutorial = 10 hours" thing. Because when your argument rests entirely on a literal approach to one particular bit of exaggeration in someone's article, you know you have righteousness on your side, for certain sure.

And I do love how all the Yahtzee fanboys claim that he was "just exaggerating" whenever he posts fallacies. What else do you want us to focus on anyway dude? His complaint that "weapons break"? You really expect people to grace such a petty complaint with a reply? Making weapons break less is part of the character progression in MH3. You don't like it and want to call a game shit because of it? Ok. Whatever. Then Mass Effect is also shit, because you don't have infinite ammo and have to reload your weapons. Everyone knows that reloading is pointless and tedious and, to paraphrase Yahztee's article, if you are fighting an enemy and your clip is empty, you have to choose between running away in order to reload and risk having the enemies ruin your shit, or you can just sit there and stare at them. Except, if you actually claim that Mass Effect is shit because of that, people will call you an idiot and be RIGHT, while with Moster Hunter they are just fanboys.

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.

It really is basically equivalent to reloading; your weapon doesn't "break" it just gets less sharp, so it bounces off enemies more (still deals full damage, just can't be combo'd) and deals slightly less damage (I believe the difference between one sharpness level and the next ranges from 5 to 20%). When you want to "reload" your weapon, you click a button, wait a few seconds while your character sharpens the weapon, and you're back to normal. It's about as time consuming as attempting to reload, say, an LMG in Call of Duty, by which I mean if you sit in the open doing it, you'll get toasted, but you can easily do it in combat when there's a lull.

Hey, if MHT pulled off weapon degradation then more power to it, but again, that gameplay element is just not liked. Pretty much ever. The two cannot be equivocated when historically they have been viewed in such different lights. Reloading is ubiquitous and uncontroversial; weapon degradation is uncommon and, frankly, generally despised.

The problem is that even calling it weapon degradation is misleading. It's not that your weapon gets weaker and you have to pay a money sink NPC to keep it in tip top shape. It's that once you get about a hundred hits in on a monster, it goes down a notch and you spend three seconds to get it back to max, at no cost. Is it necessary? Maybe not, but it's to keep you from just hacking away at the monster even when your weapon bounces off, though the monster attacking does a decent job of that.

So you're saying we need a new name for the mechanic as presented in MHT?

 

[chakra22]

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.

Yes, I suppose. It still means Yahtzee gave up after beating an easy monster.