| curl-6 said: Not seeing it because it isn't there. And come on, we've gone this far in a civil manner, let's keep it that way, shall we? Decent production values do not preclude interesting monsters and mechanics. You can have both, and Monster Hunter should have both. Instead it is being held back by its poor presentation. Switch can provide a MH game that has all the advantages of the series, plus looks gorgeous. Instead we're being sold a sub-par product because Capcom are lazy. As a gamer, don't you want a better game? |
You're not seeing it because you don't want to maybe for the sake of your argument who knows much like when you claimed it doesn't cast light onto the player which was also untrue.
Believe me things are civil I'm just relaying an observation, for one MHXX is not subpar in fact it has really good production value to the point that the best attempt you could find to try and back your notion was the top DC game which even then still doesn't match everything that MH does not to mention the is no chance in hell of this notion trying to compare any game that is similar to MH's approach as they don't even come close to MH in any department with games like PSO being miles below what the former does. Now you're going on about the Switch version of MHXX which if you want to go down that path I'll highlight the flaws there as well as earlier you backed away from discussing the Switch version.
A better game doesn't mean flash graphical approach not all games aim for that and ironically the people who often go on about this with MH often turn out to be the players who don't follow the series that much, MH rather than going for that instead looks to add online play, cross platform play, lan like features etc... Most MH players talk about having a game with all the hunting terrains in one game (under water, climbing etc...) and new type of hunting terrains, weapon types rather than huge graphical presentation and even then the presentation in MHXX Switch is fine.
