Azuren said:
|
1. A minor part of a new release which didn't affect the core gameplay.
2. For a game that depends heavily on resource management and precise timing, yes it is. Regenerating health is a sign of simple combat.
3. It is possible to retain zones without loading screens. The point about zones is to break up the combat into segments which are manageable, and also to keep the action going even when team members die and respawn. They are a part of the combat.
4. Which means it has no future as a monster hunter game. The most successful monster hunter games have always supported local multiplayer. Why? Because Japan is a moving society with limited time.
Here you go again, assuming that none of that is going to be there in spite of evidence to the contrary. The entire video was focused on gathering materials before focusing on combat with a monster. Do you want the video to show the player kill it over and over and over again for material (something an actual MH fan would understand to be a thing anyway), or do you want to see new mechanics? Oh, right, you clearly want the trailer to be focused on the mundane rather than the exciting.
5. I'm judging the game based on what i see and inferring how things will be done from that. I can't imagine how one could farm a monster in an open world game effectively in a multiplayer setting. Most of the time would be spent wandering and looking for the monster, and then tracking it would be tedious and dull if the intention is to farm resources. Open world games lend themselves to single-player exploration, not fast paced co-op fun. Hence the critique of this being a spinoff.
Seriously, I'm beginning to think you just don't want to like the game. You're coming up with excuse after excuse, and now you're resorting to picking at it looking like UE4 action figures? By that, do you mean it doesn't look like a jagged monstrosity straight out of a 240p nightmare? The atmosphere is there, just as it has been in Monster Hunter 1 all the way to Monster Hunter X. The only problem is you don't want to like it, which begs the questin of why you're here complaining about it in the first place. If you want the same old shitty lobby-based multiplayer so you can get $1200 worth of Switches in the same room, then you've still got MHXX.
6. I stand by my statement. The game looks like something a bunch of interns would make with Unreal Engine 4. The shading on the monsters is not natural looking, the animations have not been improved over the PS2/3DS/PSP/Wii titles, which causes a sort of uncanny valley effect, etc. Furthermore, we see nothing of the mainstay Monster Hunter culture and parody.
This is what Monster Hunter aesthetics look like, even in crappy 480p. The music fits the action and world-building well. It makes you want to immerse yourself in a believable world. The trailer of Monster Hunter World has very little of this. It instead screams generic open world action game with casual combat to me.
Yeah, except you didn't argue anything about gameplay. You posted pictures, one of which looks startlingly similar to what Sun/Moon looks like now. In fact, you very specifically only referred to their looks.
7. My argument was precisely that the better looking game had poor gameplay, and wasn't the future of the series. It was implicity in my argument, if you know the gameplay of Colloseum, that even despite the experimentation and better graphics, it was a poor title with respect to main series pokemon games.
If you want the same old shitty lobby-based multiplayer so you can get $1200 worth of Switches in the same room, then you've still got MHXX.
8. False dichotomy. Just because I don't like this generic spin-off doesn't mean I don't want the series to evolve.
