Quantcast
Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate is a bad, lazy port.

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate is a bad, lazy port.

Tagged games:

Conegamer said:
I get what you're saying, but there's a lot of happy people out there...

I just feel the touchscreen is poorly used more than anything.


How awesome would it be to simply have ten or so slots to fill with your most commonly-used items? Tap once to put away weapon, tap again and use the damn item without having to hunt through all your crap. Sometimes I feel the game should be called Inventory Hunter.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network
Chrizum said:
Zarkho said:
You are totally right. I've played almost every MH since MH Portable for PSP and I think they made a pretty bad job porting this. I feel that everyhting worked better on Tri.

For me, Tri was a huge step forward in terms of monster behavior and combat dynamics, not so much at the graphical level. In Tri Ultimate they have reduced difficulty TOO much, not only reducing monster's life and damage power but also decreasing their speed and removing attacks (what is particulary obvious and dissappointing in the case of Barroth, who reacts far more slowly than in Tri, making it a lot easier to kill). Also, the new monster appearances doasn't fit with the story since it remains the one seen in Tri (WTF is that firs appearance of Duramboros?? Totally out of place). At least in Portable 3rd you had a totally new story and location that gave some sense to the new monsters. Here, they just appear and doasn't matter if they fit or not.

At the graphical level it's not that bad considering it is an HD port, but still could have improved MANY things. For example, try to light the torch into the cave of Area 4 in Moga Woods and prepare your eyes to BLEED. Horrible... Also, despite monster colours and textures have been improved, landscapes still look as washed as they were in Tri, nothing to do with the colorfull locations of Portable 3rd.

You've also mentioned the removal of submissions, and I agree with you. Submissions added new targets and challenges, but also rewards. Removing them has been a big mistake. Same with the removal of Day/night cicle (wich later in the game is reincorporated, but, again, it doasn't make sense).

Overall, I'm finding it good, but not as good as Tri was with its difficult-to-difficult progression inestead of the "extremely easy-to-extremely hard" model of MHFU.

So... People (specially newcomers to the series) can say whatever they want, but this is a cheap port and could have many things improved.

Wow, this post makes me kind of depressed. They REMOVED attacks? Damn... I checked the cave with the torch and you're right, the lighting is ridicilously bad. It looks glitched, even. Even some N64 games had more advanced lighting engines. Thank god I never used torches anyway.

Also, the charm table system has been fucked up. Man, what were Capcom thinking? They completely nerfed the game.

 Yes. Low Rank Barroth in Tri was able to charge at you 3 consecutive times. He's not doing it anymore. It also takes seconds for him to recover from his charge, what was really fast in Tri.



It's a port of a port. There were bound to be some issues.



famousringo said:
I hear you Chrizum, although I don't agree with several of your points (only 1 and 3 are relevant to me). MH3U on Wii U is great in spite of itself. It's a sloppy port, poorly polished when compared to the 3DS version or Tri on Wii.

I'll add that its usage of the touchscreen is terrible. It doesn't even fill the whole screen, the map is hard to read, and it missed the opportunity to improve inventory management, which is a sore point in the Monster Hunter experience.

Agree on the second point. There really seems to be no reason for the touchscreen to be there, aside from a handier method of online typing for those who don't have USB keyboards.

The only change that really bugs me is the 30-character limit for texting online. The removal of subquests is a bonus in my eyes.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

This is a better game than tri. Your problems are not problems to me.



Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
famousringo said:
I hear you Chrizum, although I don't agree with several of your points (only 1 and 3 are relevant to me). MH3U on Wii U is great in spite of itself. It's a sloppy port, poorly polished when compared to the 3DS version or Tri on Wii.

I'll add that its usage of the touchscreen is terrible. It doesn't even fill the whole screen, the map is hard to read, and it missed the opportunity to improve inventory management, which is a sore point in the Monster Hunter experience.

Agree on the second point. There really seems to be no reason for the touchscreen to be there, aside from a handier method of online typing for those who don't have USB keyboards.

The only change that really bugs me is the 30-character limit for texting online. The removal of subquests is a bonus in my eyes.

I miss the subquests. Extra rewards (although MH3U seems to be more generous with rewards in general) and the ability to end a quest early with any items you found.



WHEREISALATREON?!




from the demo i played it looked a little rough



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

The hit zones are majorly improved from Tri.

Also the game is much better balanced than Tri and has way better content.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Credit the quality of the game being ported but you can't say they specifically enhanced the Wii U version aside from some graphics, nor does it come close to showing what the system is capable of.