Zero Punctuation: Monster Hunter Tri
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah the load times aren't really bad at all. Loading levels takes about 10-15 seconds, and loading between zones can, as has already been said, be only 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds.
Also, what's this "only motion control games should be on the Wii" crap? The Wii is a console just like the X-Box and PS3. Not as powerful but it's there, and it can play games, so why shouldn't it? I mean, the X-Box and PS3 are jumping on top of the motion thing as well, hell, I can't take the PS3 seriously anymore after seeing the Play, it's a bloody lollypop! You can't say that's not childish looking.
Also, no one seems to like talking about the point that the Wii is the biggest selling out of the 3 consoles. Capcom clearly wanted to hedge their bets and go with that, because Monster Hunter isn't well known outside of Japan and making a super high definition game that didn't sell well because the console audience didn't take to it would ensure it would never see the light of day outside of Japan again. Although clearly that wouldn't faze a lot of people here.
One last thing. People saying the game looks ugly have clearly been blinded by all that bloom and HD shades. The game's artistic style clearly sets out to do what it intended: give the players environments to fight clearly defined monsters against a panoramic backdrop depending on what area you are in, and despite not being in HD it still looks very nice. Of course, again this won't matter to some people. I mean, I'm sure everyone remembers the X-Box vs PS3 FFXIII arguments. Somehow the PS3 version was the ultimate version because you could see the strands of Lightning's hair slightly clearer on that one.
That argument was hilarious.
Also, what's this "only motion control games should be on the Wii" crap? The Wii is a console just like the X-Box and PS3. Not as powerful but it's there, and it can play games, so why shouldn't it? I mean, the X-Box and PS3 are jumping on top of the motion thing as well, hell, I can't take the PS3 seriously anymore after seeing the Play, it's a bloody lollypop! You can't say that's not childish looking.
Also, no one seems to like talking about the point that the Wii is the biggest selling out of the 3 consoles. Capcom clearly wanted to hedge their bets and go with that, because Monster Hunter isn't well known outside of Japan and making a super high definition game that didn't sell well because the console audience didn't take to it would ensure it would never see the light of day outside of Japan again. Although clearly that wouldn't faze a lot of people here.
One last thing. People saying the game looks ugly have clearly been blinded by all that bloom and HD shades. The game's artistic style clearly sets out to do what it intended: give the players environments to fight clearly defined monsters against a panoramic backdrop depending on what area you are in, and despite not being in HD it still looks very nice. Of course, again this won't matter to some people. I mean, I'm sure everyone remembers the X-Box vs PS3 FFXIII arguments. Somehow the PS3 version was the ultimate version because you could see the strands of Lightning's hair slightly clearer on that one.
That argument was hilarious.
I recall the other flame war that started over that one game... can't recall the name, I'd never heard of it, but it was some kind of mystery game, and people blew up because the full 720p support had things like TV rabbit ears and the roll cages of trucks rendered in standard def, despite the fact the difference wasn't noticeable without magnifying the objects up so much you couldn't recognize what they were supossed to be anymore.t_rexaur said:
That's what I don't get about the HD war. It's unimpressive. It looks slightly better, maybe, but not enough that I can really tell without looking at two screens at once. The extra processing power does have a clear effect on having moving background objects, facial movement, draw distance, and facial shading, but the actual graphics themselves don't look any different to me; a tree is a tree, unless it's a pixellated early last gen/MMO tree.
I didn't say they shouldn't be on the wii, I said they shouldn't be wii exclusives. Also, if the PS4 and the xbox....720? are all about motion control instead of actually trying to have superior hardware I'm not getting them.t_rexaur said:
I don't demand bloom and HD shades. But, if a game doesn't have a stylized look like Okami or No More Heroes or something like that, and the HD shades aren't there, I'd like the game to at least look somewhat acceptable. TO me, this game doesn't look acceptable.
I'm respect your opinion, and I salute either your super eyes, 100+ inch TV, or the magnifying glass you would use to notice the differences in graphics between current gen and future graphics, provided future graphics aren't 3d/touch sensitive/virtual reality; a straight graphical upgrade is *already* almost unnoticeable.mike1921 said:
As for being a wii exclusive: More people play the wii. They had to make the game from the ground up for the next gen consoles. The PS3 is the smallest market in the United States, and the Wii still holds the majority in Japan. Releasing it on the PS3 and Wii puts it to the same risk of being a bomb as releasing it on just the PS3.
In case you haven't notice, Monster Hunter is pretty stylized. Not to the level of those games, but it's still not exactly super realistic. And it still manages to look pretty good, nowhere near as bad as MMOs.
By the way: If you can tell the difference between 360p and 720p, unaided, how can you not tell the difference between MMO level graphics and this?
Really? You can't notice the difference between a Hi Def PS3 game and crysis on max settings? I'd like the next generation of consoles to be somewhere close to, if not above that level.milskidasith said:
I actually think virtual reality (if it wasn't done horribly) would be pretty cool.
Ehh, no way to argue that I think that particular style of graphics looks terrible (The same thing always happens when I try to argue mac books look terrible).
360P and 720P? If it were 720 and 1080 you'd have a point, but I'm pretty sure anyone who can't tell the difference between 360 and 720 needs glasses. Given that I have glasses and don't even need to put them on to see the difference
Sadly even if he made it to rank 3 (which I doubt heavily that he did) online hunting still wouldn't be a selling point to him, as we all know he hates games that rely on online multiplayer, despite that it probably kicks ass.cynicalsaint1 said:
For those who like challenges and multi-part quests and strategic combat... be warned, Yahtzee gobsmacked Demon's Souls too. I was very surprised he didn't remind everyone about that during his anti-japan rant. His play-through on DS was about 4% of the entire game and my guess that this is about the same. Not that I begrudge him his profession, a one week turnaround is pretty brutal. Nonetheless ZP isn't the right venue for these kind of games.
Yeah, and like I said, I fully expected him to not like it either way, but there are plenty of complaints to be made about the game - I mean if you're going to trash the game, at least trash it properly. Or at the very least admit that you couldn't be bothered to play the game for more than an hour.Koganesaga said:
Without a side by side comparison, the only way I can identify running an Xbox game at standard def compared to HD is that the text is blurry in the SD version. It looks... better, yeah, but not enough that I'd say "Oh! I'm playing in SD!" if somebody swapped the cables without me knowing. Crysis on max settings is just more moving objects; the objects themselves aren't noticably better looking, they just have better looking shadows and have more of them; again, it's the "shading, faces, gore, and foreground objects" that seem to improve with better graphics, not the game in general, and certainly not the major game models.mike1921 said:
As for Crysis on max settings: Yeah, that won't happen on next gen consoles, since a computer that can run Crysis on max is *still* at least in the $1500 range, at best.
Just looking at youtube videos, the difference is *very* mild. It's enough I can say the graphics are better, but nowhere near enough that it's a selling point, and 360p certainly doesn't look ugly or like MMO level graphics. Again, it's not that I can't tell the difference side by side, it's just I can't tell the difference if I were to start my console and it was suddenly on SD, besides the blurry text, of course.
Graphics don't matter beyond the point that you can tell what's going on. If I wanted pretty explosions above all else, I'd go rent Transformers 2.
[/quote]milskidasith said:
Every time I have a power out (Or maybe my sister changes the settings to mess with me) my PS3 resets to .....640X400 I think. When this happens, I am afraid that one of pixels is going to eat me
If you build it yourself, no. If you buy from dell or something I believe you.
Actually, that's not entirely true.mike1921 said:
Crysis scales horribly past a certain point once you get into high end territory. Even a lot of higher end computers these days still have difficulty running it maxed out. Which is primarily the developer's fault, rather than the hardware itself. The game scales remarkably well on low-medium end settings, but once you get past the High settings, and start trying to use DX10 Very High, things drop considerably for almost no visual improvement. As a result, many people started modifying the game files in order to force similar looking effects without the pointless performance drain, because the developers didn't code it properly.
Crytek in general has a record of making games run poorly on the higher settings for no logical reason. The original Far Cry suffered the same issues when it was released, and even now, the 32bit version is still somewhat buggy and can potentially lose framerates for no logical reason on high end machines in some cases.
This is either hyperbole or a severe psychological issue, I'm not sure which.mike1921 said:
Yeah, if you buy it store bought, it's more than 1500 to run it on max settings, and even then, mass producing the tech for a console would cost even more than that, so I seriously doubt there's a huge market for the $2500+ to produce, $2000 to buy console (since all consoles but the Wii sell at a loss).
You're entitled to your opinion. However a) I laughed at his jokes and b) I got the gratification that I am not the only one who hates gathering style MMO quests, so I consider it a resounding success.SAMAS said:
Nobody complaining about the video is complaining about the entertainment quality, so much as it is blatently false and misleading.Shamanic Rhythm said:
No shit sherlockmilskidasith said:
The only reason it costs 1500 is because companies that assemble computers without actually making anything have insane profit margins. I highly doubt Sony and Microsoft (I'm assuming they at least assemble their own machines) get their parts, which they get in bulk, for more money than it costs me to buy better parts on newegg.
So what's your point? You can be really hyperbolic about how much graphics matter... which completely obfuscates your position on how much you can notice the graphics?mike1921 said:
Yeah, if you buy it store bought, it's more than 1500 to run it on max settings, and even then, mass producing the tech for a console would cost even more than that, so I seriously doubt there's a huge market for the $2500+ to produce, $2000 to buy console (since all consoles but the Wii sell at a loss).[/quote]
They may get it cheaper, but I highly doubt they're getting parts cheap enough and have labor and research costs low enough to make a Crysis capable systems at a reasonable cost when they are still selling at a loss to date.