Zero Punctuation: Monster Hunter Tri

[deckai]

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.

First, I agree, I laughed to at his jokes, but all his jokes are made about the first hour of a game that can entertain for nearly 100 hours (just in single-player)... but this is a thing only people can see who played so far...

and b) no one likes gathering style MMO quests...MH has these, but only to show what you "could" do... after this i never ever had to do these again...

And it's true you hunt Monsters to improve your armor...
but saying MH3 is just a grind fest is wrong, it's the same as saying every ego-shooter is a MMO styled gathering game because you need to pickup ammo/weapons/medikits ...

 

[mike1921]

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

This is either hyperbole or a severe psychological issue, I'm not sure which.

No shit sherlock

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?

Change your desktop resolution to the lowest possible setting. That's pretty much what my TV looks like when my PS3 gets turned down from 1080 p to the lowest setting

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.

Fair enough

 

[Deletemyhappyass]

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.

 

[Beardly]

And it's true you hunt Monsters to improve your armor...
but saying MH3 is just a grind fest is wrong, it's the same as saying every ego-shooter is a MMO styled gathering game because you need to pickup ammo/weapons/medikits ...

Is improving your armor the only reason you have to hunt monsters?

 

[crypt-creature]

So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

The fact that you can use another controller means the game shouldn't be on the wii. The wii's only selling point is motion controls. If a game that doesn't need motion controls is being made I don't think it belongs as a wii-exclusive title. Especially if it'll have load time problems on the wii.

No, the load times wouldn't be reduced. There is a reason for the load times, it has nothing to do with the processor and everything to do with how the game itself functions and works.
And, as I said, the load times aren't a problem (however my original statement on it was worded poorly). The only people complaining are the ones who want instant load times, so to them it seems long (which is why I said they were long in the first place. You've been attacking some other user for no reason).
They are just as 'long' as every other MH game that has been produced.

Motion controls are not the Wii's only selling point, and shouldn't be.
Motion controls are an option for gaming, they always have been and always will be. It seems like some companies (like Capcom) realize this and since MH was originally made for the PS2, removing regular controls would be a huge error. The Wii has the option for both types of controls, they'd be fools not to capitalize on both of those (even if I think the motion controls are horrid).
So tell me, aside from graphics what are the Xbox and PS3's selling points? Graphics? Online play? Stores? Games? Controller use?
All those things the Wii has, but everyone is making a bigger deal out of the motion controls than they should be. It's one unique feature/selling point, that doesn't need to be used in every game (and shouldn't).
Yes, the Wii used motion controls as a selling point. The other systems have selling points too, but not every game produced for them have the selling point.
By the way, there was news/rumor of it possibly being released for the PS3. However, it has been doing splendidly on the Wii and will have less competition. There is nothing wrong with it.
You seem rather biased against the Wii, and for no valid reason.

 

[milskidasith]

And it's true you hunt Monsters to improve your armor...
but saying MH3 is just a grind fest is wrong, it's the same as saying every ego-shooter is a MMO styled gathering game because you need to pickup ammo/weapons/medikits ...

Is improving your armor the only reason you have to hunt monsters?

No, there's a plot, and progressively tougher monsters to hunt. It's not a great plot, but a ton of great games have no real plot besides "excuse plot, go do missions to unlock more missions" (see every Mario game ever).

 

[deckai]

Is improving your armor the only reason you have to hunt monsters?

For the character: Yes, because you need the Armor (since you are a "newbe"-Hunter) to hunt the big evil monster that threatens the Village.

For you as the player: No, you hunt them because it's fun to fight big monsters. Better armor helps to fight them but more important are your skills, since even with the best armor they still can kill you with just a few hits.

 

[mike1921]

So, if the game was on another console or the PC , and it had a faster processor, would the load times be reduced?

The fact that you can use another controller means the game shouldn't be on the wii. The wii's only selling point is motion controls. If a game that doesn't need motion controls is being made I don't think it belongs as a wii-exclusive title. Especially if it'll have load time problems on the wii.

No, the load times wouldn't be reduced. There is a reason for the load times, it has nothing to do with the processor and everything to do with how the game itself functions and works.

Wait...Whatever the load problem you're talking about is (I'm getting confused now. Are the load times short, are they long, are there just tons of loading screens)?

And, as I said, the load times aren't a problem. The only people complaining are the ones who want instant load times, so to them it seems long (which is why I said they were long in the first place. You've been attacking some other user for no reason).
They are just as 'long' as every other MH game that has been produced.

You wouldn't want instant load times? Also, I am pretty sure no one expects instant load times.

Motion controls are not the Wii's only selling point, and shouldn't be.

What's another one?

So tell me, aside from graphics what are the Xbox and PS3's selling points? Graphics? Online play? Stores? Games? Controller use?

Above the wii or above each other?
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

You seem rather biased against the Wii, and for no valid reason.

I don't like low-spec non portable consoles. Especially if the console itself ruins one of the few games on it I am interested in (yet again , no more heroes 2, there's no way to beat that fat lady if you're wrist is too slow to win the sword clashes).

 

[deckai]

I don't like low-spec non portable consoles. Especially if the console itself ruins one of the few games on it I am interested in (yet again , no more heroes 2, there's no way to beat that fat lady if you're wrist is too slow to win the sword clashes).

So you are biased, since you clearly prefer graphic over other things. I guess it's a generation thing, for me (someone who grow up in the 8-bit/16-bit era) graphics are almost irrelevant as long as all "fits" together.

The motion controls are another thing, there are games that work very good with (Metroid Prime for example) and there are ones that doesn't work.

And one thing, do you think games for the old consoles are bad because they are not up to date?

 

[mike1921]

I don't like low-spec non portable consoles. Especially if the console itself ruins one of the few games on it I am interested in (yet again , no more heroes 2, there's no way to beat that fat lady if you're wrist is too slow to win the sword clashes).

So you are biased, since you clearly prefer graphic over other things. I guess it's a generation thing, for me (someone who grow up in the 8-bit/16-bit era) graphics are almost irrelevant as long as all "fits" together.

The motion controls are another thing, there are games that work very good with (Metroid Prime for example) and there are ones that doesn't work.

And one thing, do you think games for the old consoles are bad because they are not up to date?

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.

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.

 

[crypt-creature]

Wait...Whatever the load problem you're talking about is (I'm getting confused now. Are the load times short, are they long, are there just tons of loading screens)?

Sorry, I'll try to explain better.
The load times aren't that long. At all. Like every one else has been stating, seconds.
For people who are used to almost instant load times, it seems long.

You wouldn't want instant load times? Also, I am pretty sure no one expects instant load times.

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.

What's another one?

Backwards compatibility.
As far as I know, online play is still free for a good number of games.
The graphics aren't that bad at all, and I see very little difference between them and my PS3.

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).

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.
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.

What the Wii did was daring, and they took a chance. But it's not a flaw that every game can't make use of motion controls, that's just the nature of video games. You're doing impossible things with standard equipment, and that's what works best. It's no crime to accept that.
People need to accept that as well, as the Wii will always have games that are more than perfect for motion controls. But it's not fit for every game.

I don't like low-spec non portable consoles. Especially if the console itself ruins one of the few games on it I am interested in (yet again , no more heroes 2, there's no way to beat that fat lady if you're wrist is too slow to win the sword clashes).

The Wii isn't 'non-portable'. Monster Hunter is very portable. Okami was a port to the Wii.
The problem is that people think that without motion controls, a Wii game is pointless. It's not, and that kind of thinking puts pressure on the developers and keeps Wii games from being a threat to the PS3 and Xbox.
But more Wii games do need to have options for both motion and regular controllers.
Sure, the system banked on motion controls to be the 'wave of the future', but it's still to complicated and unruly to rely on. It's hurting a good number of titles. They should keep trying with it, but not bank on it so much.

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.

The Monster Hunter graphic style is consistent with the previous versions of the game. It's not that the game is graphically inept, it's just that series style.
It's not supposed to be the most ultra-realistic title to ever hit the Wii, but it is supposed to be an upgrade from the other games. Graphics don't have a huge impact on style.

 

[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.