Zero Punctuation: Monster Hunter Tri

[mike1921]

The Wii isn't 'non-portable'. Monster Hunter is very portable. Okami was a port to the Wii.

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

 

[crypt-creature]

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

In that case, I really fail to see why you made such a comment. If anything, it's the most portable console out of the three (motion bar included).

 

[Shjade]

Hm...I can't comment on the accuracy of a ZP comic critique of a game I haven't played. That said, watching gameplay videos of combat, I have to ask the folks who've played the game - particularly those who say they enjoy it - does the combat remind you of Phantasy Star Online? It looks a lot like it in that each weapon type I see characters using only seems to lend itself to one, maybe two short combo strings (two or three slashes at most from the look of it). Obviously the addition of blocking and that roll-dodge make it more flexible and agile than PSO's keep-hacking-until-everything-dies style of swordplay, but the character movements seem very reminiscent of that game's melee combat.

And no, that isn't a good thing - PSO's combat is mindless mashing, particularly with AE weapons (claymores, polearms). Is there more to it that the videos fail to convey, or is the whole game that mind-numbingly simplistic? That'd bother me more than any MMO gathering elements (which I'm okay with sometimes - I did play several MMOs for years, after all - depending on execution). Cool monsters are irrelevant if the means to combat them is a chore.

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

In that case, I really fail to see why you made such a comment. If anything, it's the most portable console out of the three.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately thick or just failing to get his point. The Wii is not a portable console - you can't play it on the bus en route to wherever you're going. Whether it's easier to pack up and move than other consoles is irrelevant to being a portable console in the context that term is normally used.

Portable: DS, Gameboy, PSP
Not portable: Wii, Playstation (any flavor), Xbox (any flavor)

 

[deckai]

I prefer good graphics over bad graphics. I could live without them as long as they don't look like FFVII or something like that (so blocky I can't focus). I don't prefer graphics over gameplay or a story as long as it doesn't look absolutely ridiculous. Monster hunter 3 looks bad, but not bad enough where I couldn't get over it if I thought it would be a fun game.

So do you think every game for the wii had bad graphics?
Because I think you and I have different ideas of bad/good graphics.

I rented metroid, played NMH1, and played a good amount of SMG, 3 games where motion controls were apparently used right, in none of them did I feel the game was improved by the motion controls. In all of them I just felt like I could live with the motion controls without getting pissed off.

No, but if they were to be rereleased on the new consoles at full price ($50 or $60) I would think so.

Here i agree with you in some way, good motion controls dosen't necessary mean they are superior to a classic control scheme, but as long as it works it is a alternativ. And without someone trying it out, how can we improve anything?

That what i mean, graphics are the only part in gaming that gets poorer with time, so why investing so much money in things that decrease at such a fast pace? Nintendo can produce games to much lower costs which results in less risks for the developers.

 

[mike1921]

Honestly? No. I wouldn't want instant load times, as the slight delay can be used to collect ones self.
You... might be surprised at the number of people who do (or load times so minute that they seem near instant). I just wonder if people give any thought as to why the load times are there, that aren't do to processing power.

If it's not because they need to be there, I gotta go find a mod for oblivion that completely removes all load times

Above the wii: Graphics, processing power, a half decent amount of storage, You could actually use a controller for all the games ( I would kill to be able to play no more heroes 2, but with a gamecube controller)
Over each other: Well the PS3 has blu-ray but who cares? Depends on which has more exclusives you're interested. So many of the games are multiplatform anyway and they're both close enough graphically where I can't tell the difference

As I said above, I see very little difference between the Wii and my PS3.
No, my eyes aren't bad.
I don't use HD (because I don't care and it still makes little difference).

....Really?

Graphics and processing power don't make a better game, and they rarely do. If they did, I'd play the PS3 more. As it is... I don't.

They help. The more processing power and the better graphics we get, the better the potential for games gets

Storage has never been a problem for me, on any system.
So, you would like to be able to use a controller... but if you do, then the point of a Wii game is moot? That is slightly hypocritical, and more to the point, why more Wii games need to have options for both motion and regular controls.

Yes. If I'm using a controller, I might as well be playing a PS2 game. And why should we even bother making a new generation of consoles every 5 or 6 years if the next generation is not going to be better than the last.

As for the low-spec remark... I don't see what's so low-spec about it. It's not as powerful, but it's not horribly weak in comparison. The graphics aren't like 8-bit sprites, and are better than the previous generation of systems.
It seems people are spoiled by the 'power' of the other systems, when that makes a very weak argument as to why a console 'sucks'. The systems with the most power, seem to have a higher number of generally craptastic games.

Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

 

[mike1921]

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

In that case, I really fail to see why you made such a comment. If anything, it's the most portable console out of the three (motion bar included).

The only portable consoles are the DS and PSP. Unless you're honestly going to tell me you walk around with your wii, TV, and wii mote.

So do you think every game for the wii had bad graphics?
Because I think you and I have different ideas of bad/good graphics.

Define graphics. When I'm talking about graphics I'm talking about 1080P images and how I can see every bead of sweat on kratos's jawbone. When a game looks good without having that kind of stuff (aka: stylyzed graphics) I just say it looks good. I think there are a few wii games that look good or even great, but I don't think they're graphically spectacular and I don't think monster hunter is one of them

 

[Warachia]

I have decided on an easy way to explain to people who don't know Monster Hunter just how atrocious this "review" is. I'm going to explain other popular games in the same manner.

Halo is a game which takes place entirely within the confines of a small laboratory. You are immobile inside a measuring device and a scientist tells you to look in different directions. I am told there are lots of guns and aliens to fight but clearly that was just bad advertising.

Psychonauts is a game about a boy who was part of a circus and then went to summer camp. There were no interesting levels and I never got to use any sort of psychic powers. There were only three or four characters and none of them were interesting.

The only enemy creature in World of Warcraft is wolves. You do nothing but grind wolves until you get so fed up with it that you stop playing. There is only one faction, the horde is not playable.

It seems you only watched half of the review, which Ironically fits your argument, he explains to great detail what monster hunter is about, going through all of the mechanics for their different flaws telling the majority of his experience, and suggests that if you're going to get the game anyway, get it with a classic controler, because controlling the camera is hard to do otherwise.

Btw: pick your games with more care, he did review psychonauts, and I do like the monster hunter series a lot, and I think it is fair when people say what they don't like about it, other than those who unconditionally attack others.

 

[milskidasith]

I have decided on an easy way to explain to people who don't know Monster Hunter just how atrocious this "review" is. I'm going to explain other popular games in the same manner.

Halo is a game which takes place entirely within the confines of a small laboratory. You are immobile inside a measuring device and a scientist tells you to look in different directions. I am told there are lots of guns and aliens to fight but clearly that was just bad advertising.

Psychonauts is a game about a boy who was part of a circus and then went to summer camp. There were no interesting levels and I never got to use any sort of psychic powers. There were only three or four characters and none of them were interesting.

The only enemy creature in World of Warcraft is wolves. You do nothing but grind wolves until you get so fed up with it that you stop playing. There is only one faction, the horde is not playable.

It seems you only watched half of the review, which Ironically fits your argument, he explains to great detail what monster hunter is about, going through all of the mechanics for their different flaws telling the majority of his experience, and suggests that if you're going to get the game anyway, get it with a classic controler, because controlling the camera is hard to do otherwise.

Btw: pick your games with more care, he did review psychonauts, and I do like the monster hunter series a lot, and I think it is fair when people say what they don't like about it, other than those who unconditionally attack others.

He didn't explain in any detail what monster hunter is about. He never explained anything about, I dunno, hunting monsters. He just explained how to gather stuff and how he thought that he had to sit around waiting to find a big monster.

 

[Warachia]

Wow, 16 pages of complaining that he missed the point and that anyone who takes his word on it is a sheep.

Positive or negative review doesn't enter into it, the game is about Monster Hunting, but at no time does he actually talk about hunting monsters. If he talked about how long it takes to get to your first big monster hunt, then went into about how much he did or didn't like it, there wouldn't have been anything to talk about here. But he doesn't, and as a result we got the most half-assed ZP in recent history.

It's not just about this game. Have you ever watched or read the reactions to movies like The Core or The Day After Tomorrow from people who actually know climatology or geology? Whether the piece was positive or negative, at the very least we expect him to actually do the work if he's gonna make a video about it.

In short: This was a shitty video. It doesn't matter what game it was about. He could've done this about Drake and the 99 Dragons, and if he did as little as he did here it would still be shit. Yahtzee is better than this.

he DID work at it, he told his experience, and what he didn't like, and what he didn't like is that you BARELY HUNT F***ING MONSTERS, unless you count the wildlife as monsters, and he DID go into great detail about the game mechanics, and what the majority of the game is about and explaining how the game works, and tells you if you're going to get it anyway, to play it on a classic controller.

Oh, and before you claim that I hate the franchise, I LIKE monster hunter, but I don't get anal about when someone points out things they don't like about it.

 

[Warachia]

So many people defending lazy reviewing with straw-man accusations and little to no basic sense.

Reminds me of why I usually don't post in places like this. Well, whatever, someone's going to take this as an assurance of their overwhelmingly large e-peen, or flag me for moderation because I didn't give them the time or dignity necessary to bother explaining to them that they have the attention span of a gnat on PCP. The game runs its' ecology on basic, logical standards. That means no magic spells, no whipping a sword the size of a car about like a baton, and it taking more than two minutes to take down anything larger than a bus without enough firepower to level a small mountain.

I've made my account, posted my message, and if someone out there watches the videos and realizes that there's more to games than having abilities and kills handed to you on a silver platter, then I've accomplished what I set out to do. As is, I got quoted by someone whose sole complaint was one of the most common ones I've heard from anyone who finds games the likes of Halo and God of War to be the epitome of gaming: 'Durp hur why I not swing big weapon with one hand like twig?' It's a complaint that ranks right up there with 'Why can't I see the enemy's health' and 'why can't I lock on' in the 'absolutely fucking retarded' pantheon of questions and statements. Y'know, the one that includes 'How I shot web' and 'Well, the barcode isn't scanning, guess it's free'. (And for the record, when you're fighting something the size of a small house, a weapon that you can swing around fast usually isn't a good idea, what with the whole 'not worth shit' kind of way. There is the Sword and Shield class of weapons, which are relatively fast, but I guess if you can't hit more than twelve times in the time it takes to press the button twice, it's clearly not the right weapon for you. Might I suggest a game more your speed, like Sonic the Hedgehog? Press right, occasionally hit A? Oh, that's right, that sucks too, because it's not like the original, unless it is like the original, in which it sucks because it's not different from the original.

Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that Yahtzee reviewed this, a game about people who are almost word for word the 'manly' type of character he posits in the Extra Punctuation that half of you don't bother to read because it's more than ten sentences long.

I weep for the future of games, in between realization that not everyone is absolutely witless.

Whomsoever moderator unlucky to receive the task of reading this post after someone gets severely butthurt over the presumed accusation that they have the intelligence of a ten-year-old wedge of unprocessed cheese, don't bother putting forth the effort of a mere probation of my account. I don't plan on posting again after this, so just suspend the account for both our sakes. I'd rather not get any more stupid on me than absolutely necessary, and I swear I hear my brain cells writing suicide pacts as I type this. If I wanted to argue with someone who has no intention of using basic common sense, I'd either go to 4chan or put a hat on a fence post and start pounding my head on it.

Actually, fuck that, I'm going to just go cancel it if possible. G'night, peeps. I hope that some of you realize how stupid you are to bother trying to argue the point, but hey, this is the internet. Everyone's just gonna tl;dr the post anyway.

tl;dr DICK JOKE.

inb4someone replies to this and honestly believes I give a rat's ass.

in after you stopped giving a rats ass.

I fail to see how the review is lazy, he did not complain about the combat, ecology, or not having any sort of magic. He complained about how the game was structured, how the item collection was annoying, how you had to be careful of how you upgraded (as I personally missed out on the hammer I wanted because I upgraded something else) and if you're going to do a LONG rant on how bored or annoyed you are, and insult the Escapist, please create your own froum/comment box, so that we don't have to put up with it here.

 

[crypt-creature]

If it's not because they need to be there, I gotta go find a mod for oblivion that completely removes all load times

Processing power does not mean that a game is never going to have load times, and every game on the machine that has the best processing power will load instantly.
Load screens are used for other reasons aside from processing power.

....Really?

Yes, really. I've played it, and have not been impressed nor have I cared. It didn't do anything for my gaming experience.

Yes. If I'm using a controller, I might as well be playing a PS2 game. And why should we even bother making a new generation of consoles every 5 or 6 years if the next generation is not going to be better than the last.

Because you go through a few bad apples to get to the good ones, it happens with every business. You try new things, otherwise you get stale.
Even if those thing's don't work perfectly or only work to a certain degree, the ideas can be used to improve the future of gaming.

Again, using a controller is an option. No doubt there are people that enjoy the motion controls, but apparently having something for different tastes is foolish and every console should have one feature that has to be implemented in every game or else it had better go on one of the other consoles (heaven forbid people or a company try to compromise and make more than one audience happy, right?).

Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo2.

I'd say Monster Hunter, to be honest. You're going to base this on personal opinion, and so am I.
Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
Endless Ocean: Blue World

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Wow, what a desperately weak statement.
They're so playable, I don't even want to play my PS3!

 

[Warachia]

I have decided on an easy way to explain to people who don't know Monster Hunter just how atrocious this "review" is. I'm going to explain other popular games in the same manner.

Halo is a game which takes place entirely within the confines of a small laboratory. You are immobile inside a measuring device and a scientist tells you to look in different directions. I am told there are lots of guns and aliens to fight but clearly that was just bad advertising.

Psychonauts is a game about a boy who was part of a circus and then went to summer camp. There were no interesting levels and I never got to use any sort of psychic powers. There were only three or four characters and none of them were interesting.

The only enemy creature in World of Warcraft is wolves. You do nothing but grind wolves until you get so fed up with it that you stop playing. There is only one faction, the horde is not playable.

It seems you only watched half of the review, which Ironically fits your argument, he explains to great detail what monster hunter is about, going through all of the mechanics for their different flaws telling the majority of his experience, and suggests that if you're going to get the game anyway, get it with a classic controler, because controlling the camera is hard to do otherwise.

Btw: pick your games with more care, he did review psychonauts, and I do like the monster hunter series a lot, and I think it is fair when people say what they don't like about it, other than those who unconditionally attack others.

He didn't explain in any detail what monster hunter is about. He never explained anything about, I dunno, hunting monsters. He just explained how to gather stuff and how he thought that he had to sit around waiting to find a big monster.

that IS what monster hunter is about. Play the game if you don't believe me, you run around gathering resources, before taking on a monster that is now magically in the same map you were in last time, but you don't take him on, you run around for 5 minutes like an idiot, before finding them, fighting for 5 minutes, before they run to another location on the map, and you have to find them again, and if your equipement is not up to snuff, you have to gather more resources to improve it, which quickly becomes what they overall game is about.

 

[crypt-creature]

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

Read this. Read it very carefully.

The only portable consoles are the DS and PSP. Unless you're honestly going to tell me you walk around with your wii, TV, and wii mote.

No, but I can very easily hook up my Wii to the TV in our van and play it. Out of the three major consoles, I can do that the easiest with the Wii.
When saying 'portable' you should probably say 'handhelds'.
Consoles are 'portable', when you do it right.

Define graphics. When I'm talking about graphics I'm talking about 1080P images and how I can see every bead of sweat on kratos's jawbone.

Because that happens often outside of cinematics.
Durring normal gameplay, that barely happens. Your definition or graphics makes you seem spoiled.

When a game looks good without having that kind of stuff (aka: stylyzed graphics) I just say it looks good. I think there are a few wii games that look good or even great, but I don't think they're graphically spectacular and I don't think monster hunter is one of them.

This makes you seem even more spoiled.

 

[deckai]

Hm...I can't comment on the accuracy of a ZP comic critique of a game I haven't played. That said, watching gameplay videos of combat, I have to ask the folks who've played the game - particularly those who say they enjoy it - does the combat remind you of Phantasy Star Online?

I would say yes, in a way it remindes me of the phantasy star series but the fighting-mechanics are way better, mindless mashing doesn't work here, timing is essential. I'm rather new to the MH series, so i'm no pro and still get hit by enraged Monsters but I get better with each successfull hunt

Define graphics. When I'm talking about graphics I'm talking about 1080P images and how I can see every bead of sweat on kratos's jawbone. When a game looks good without having that kind of stuff (aka: stylyzed graphics) I just say it looks good. I think there are a few wii games that look good or even great, but I don't think they're graphically spectacular and I don't think monster hunter is one of them

Ok, as I thought, for me it's rather the compositing of different things like the Characters, the background, all the small things that form a whole (for example a full HD Charakter model in a SD environment with med texture res = bad graphics). I guess you are someone that looks at a statue and admires the handicraft, while i rather praise the artistic idea and compilation (although that doesn't mean i don't admire the former...). Based on this, i don't think we could ever agree in this point.

 

[KelsieKatt]

Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

 

[milskidasith]

I have decided on an easy way to explain to people who don't know Monster Hunter just how atrocious this "review" is. I'm going to explain other popular games in the same manner.

Halo is a game which takes place entirely within the confines of a small laboratory. You are immobile inside a measuring device and a scientist tells you to look in different directions. I am told there are lots of guns and aliens to fight but clearly that was just bad advertising.

Psychonauts is a game about a boy who was part of a circus and then went to summer camp. There were no interesting levels and I never got to use any sort of psychic powers. There were only three or four characters and none of them were interesting.

The only enemy creature in World of Warcraft is wolves. You do nothing but grind wolves until you get so fed up with it that you stop playing. There is only one faction, the horde is not playable.

It seems you only watched half of the review, which Ironically fits your argument, he explains to great detail what monster hunter is about, going through all of the mechanics for their different flaws telling the majority of his experience, and suggests that if you're going to get the game anyway, get it with a classic controler, because controlling the camera is hard to do otherwise.

Btw: pick your games with more care, he did review psychonauts, and I do like the monster hunter series a lot, and I think it is fair when people say what they don't like about it, other than those who unconditionally attack others.

He didn't explain in any detail what monster hunter is about. He never explained anything about, I dunno, hunting monsters. He just explained how to gather stuff and how he thought that he had to sit around waiting to find a big monster.

that IS what monster hunter is about. Play the game if you don't believe me, you run around gathering resources, before taking on a monster that is now magically in the same map you were in last time, but you don't take him on, you run around for 5 minutes like an idiot, before finding them, fighting for 5 minutes, before they run to another location on the map, and you have to find them again, and if your equipement is not up to snuff, you have to gather more resources to improve it, which quickly becomes what they overall game is about.

Every word of the posts you have made about Monster Hunter are either blatent lies or proof you haven't played the games. Monsters don't run every five minutes, you don't ever need to run five minutes to find them (newsflash: They move one area away in most cases. That's maybe ten seconds of running!), you don't need to upgrade your equipment often at all, and you never need to grind out resources past the mandatory missions in HR1. The only way you'd need to grind every monster for new gear is if you were A: unable to realize that gear from the monster you just fought is probably bad against the monster you're about to fight (Jaggi armor against the quropecco, for instance, since jaggi armor is weak to fire), and B: you are really bad at the game.

Again, I beat the game with HR2 armor and HR4 weapons all the way through HR6, and never had to grind missions to win, so... yeah, please stop making up BS to slander the game.

 

[mike1921]

If it's not because they need to be there, I gotta go find a mod for oblivion that completely removes all load times

Processing power does not mean that a game is never going to have load times, and every game on the machine that has the best processing power will load instantly.
Load screens are used for other reasons aside from processing power.

Then Explain, if it has nothing to do with processors, why are they there. And if they're only so I could catch my breath then I still need that mod

....Really?

Yes, really. I've played it, and have not been impressed nor have I cared. It didn't do anything for my gaming experience.

[/quote] It's not that it's impressive or important, it's that it's incredibly hard to miss

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Wow, what a desperately weak statement.
They're so playable, I don't even want to play my PS3!

And I'm afraid to play my wii because I know if I will the odds are good I will be forced to use motion controls that suck (A game with bad controls, for me, is unplayable) and throw my wii remote into my TV

 

[KelsieKatt]

Every word of the posts you have made about Monster Hunter are either blatent lies or proof you haven't played the games. Monsters don't run every five minutes, you don't ever need to run five minutes to find them (newsflash: They move one area away in most cases. That's maybe ten seconds of running!), you don't need to upgrade your equipment often at all, and you never need to grind out resources past the mandatory missions in HR1. The only way you'd need to grind every monster for new gear is if you were A: unable to realize that gear from the monster you just fought is probably bad against the monster you're about to fight (Jaggi armor against the quropecco, for instance, since jaggi armor is weak to fire), and B: you are really bad at the game.

Again, I beat the game with HR2 armor and HR4 weapons all the way through HR6, and never had to grind missions to win, so... yeah, please stop making up BS to slander the game.

Another thing worth mentioning is that you don't necessarily even have to replace your armor either, since you can upgrade the defense on your armor set with armor spheres and what not in the 3rd game.

 

[Shjade]

Hm...I can't comment on the accuracy of a ZP comic critique of a game I haven't played. That said, watching gameplay videos of combat, I have to ask the folks who've played the game - particularly those who say they enjoy it - does the combat remind you of Phantasy Star Online?

I would say yes, in a way it remindes me of the phantasy star series but the fighting-mechanics are way better, mindless mashing doesn't work here, timing is essential. I'm rather new to the MH series, so i'm no pro and still get hit by enraged Monsters but I get better with each successfull hunt

Timing is important in PSO as well, but it doesn't make the combat mechanics themselves any less mashy. You can attack quick three times or strong three times or a combination of the two types up to three times, and you'll want to time these swings so as not to get hit in between, but it still boils down to the same three-hit-chain pattern with every weapon. The swings/shots just look different depending on what weapon you use and they cover varying ranges. This is compared to, say, Dynasty Warriors 5 where you have several chain options per character with varying effects - still ultimately ends up being very mashfest given the type of game it is, but the combo mechanics are a big step up from the PSO example.

I'm thinking this would be a rent game to confirm whether the combat will turn me off by being too monotonous to maintain interest. But then, I don't own a Wii (or the other current-gen consoles), so it's a moot point.

 

[mike1921]

Name me a game for the wii that looks better graphically than God of War 2 or Halo2.

The systems with the most power, at least have games that are playable.

Um.. Are you sure you don't mean God of War 3???

You do realize that the PS2 was the worst console available on the market last generation, right? Inferior to both the Gamecube, Xbox, and Wii by a pretty significant margin. (Graphically speaking, that is.)

It's not exactly hard to top God of War 1 or 2 in graphics.

God of War 3 is this gen. It can't be better than all of last generation's consoles for my arguement that without motion controls the wii is pointless to succeed.

Umm....what? By portable I mean you can pick up the console, sit down in your car, and play it. Not being capable of porting games.

Read this. Read it very carefully.

The only portable consoles are the DS and PSP. Unless you're honestly going to tell me you walk around with your wii, TV, and wii mote.

No, but I can very easily hook up my Wii to the TV in our van and play it. Out of the three major consoles, I can do that the easiest with the Wii.
When saying 'portable' you should probably say 'handhelds'.
Consoles are 'portable', when you do it right.

I'm pretty sure swinging around a wii mote in somebody's car will normally result in whoever is driving it stopping to beat you.

Define graphics. When I'm talking about graphics I'm talking about 1080P images and how I can see every bead of sweat on kratos's jawbone.

Because that happens often outside of cinematics.
Durring normal gameplay, that barely happens. Your definition or graphics makes you seem spoiled.

Yes I know, I'm just explaining what I mean by graphics. I know I can't actually see every bead of sweat, but when I'm talking graphics I'm talking realistic or detailed

When a game looks good without having that kind of stuff (aka: stylyzed graphics) I just say it looks good. I think there are a few wii games that look good or even great, but I don't think they're graphically spectacular and I don't think monster hunter is one of them.

This makes you seem even more spoiled.

Because I use different words to describe a game that looks incredibly detailed/realistic and is pretty to one that is just pretty?