I have submitted my list!
mZuzek said:
Sign ups are over, though, so I won't be compiling it into this year's results. The threads are still open just to allow some late people to submit their lists (provided they signed up last year) while I finish things up here. I do hope you take part in the next one, though! |
I was a little distracted by election season this year lol. Spent more time on those kinds of websites than this one than usual.
| mZuzek said: I can't say it was too hard given that I haven't compiled it yet! I can't overstate just how late I've been to this, but I'm hard at work to get the results thread out as early as possible. There are lists that've changed less than yours, though. |
I thought you had not started to compile the lists yet and I made more little changes to my list after the change in Okami's position that I commented you about :P But the version of my list that you can see right now in the oficial thread is the final one.
| Hiku said: @Jpcc86
|
I'm still trying to figure out the appeal of Monster Hunter. I probably put somewhere between 25 and 40 hours into that series and to this day I do not see the appeal. Am I missing something? Stiff combat, basically no story, a gameplay loop that entirely consists of 'hunt monsters, get parts, make weapons and armour with those parts to hunt more monsters', and a dozen combat and levelling systems that are ridiculously complicated and hard to learn.
I play and do pretty well at Dark Souls and bloodborne and Sekiro so the more clunky, deliberate controls don't bother me. Neither does the abstract story. but at least in those games there's a goal and an endgame. If Dark Souls/bloodborne was JUST the chalice dungeons, they'd have faded into obscurity ages ago. That's what Monster Hunter has always felt like to me, the procedurally generated chalice dungeons that exist only to perpetuate more chalice dungeons until the end of time. Except without any of the intricate lore or world building or level design.
Or am I completely missing the point, here?
My Console Library:
PS5, Switch, XSX
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
Looking at my ranking is very clear that I've skipped 7th gen almost entirely, make me a bit of sad if you ask. Teenage years is where most people find their favorite games of life, but my memories are mostly from games that I've played before 13 or after 20
| mZuzek said: I'm mostly done compiling the lists for this year, and about to begin making preparations for the results threads (coming up soon!), and... Edit: also, the Official Thread will be locked up in a bit as I'm done compiling and will not receive any further lists from now on. |
I don't think many of us will be coming back to this thread now that the event is over but yeah, I'm always up for something new. If you think it's for the best, I trust your judgement.
| mZuzek said: I'm mostly done compiling the lists for this year, and about to begin making preparations for the results threads (coming up soon!), and... Edit: also, the Official Thread will be locked up in a bit as I'm done compiling and will not receive any further lists from now on. |
I also trust your judgement on this, you are the one doing the heavy lifting so whatever system you think works best and is better for you to handle is great for me.
The current system is very simple and straightforward and I mean that as a virtue, its easy to follow and understand, but you are right, it means most of the time the lists dont move that much.
Maybe a tier system for companies/franchises could be added, I've seen that a lot in other forms of media - sort of like a ranking meme
| mZuzek said: I'm mostly done compiling the lists for this year, and about to begin making preparations for the results threads (coming up soon!), and... Edit: also, the Official Thread will be locked up in a bit as I'm done compiling and will not receive any further lists from now on. |
Be careful in reworkign the scoring, but some change would not be wrong. As I see it, the goal of a scoring system for this should be:
The current system does that kinda already. At least I think it does. The current system is something along the line of 1 point for #100 and 100 points for #1 and adding it all up, right?
Median is very risky. Someone may have an obscure game he likes very much near the top of his list, but nobody else has the game (because nobody else played it). Another game might be well known, well liked and often played by many, so it enters a lot of lists, but not always at the top. The second game has a lower median than the first, and that is something you probably don't want.
I understand that many are frustrated seeing the same games everyone knows and kinda likes at the top, while more obscure games have no chance. But instead of using a median, I would simply give some bonus points for top-placements. Say 1 point extra for TOP 50 games, 2 points for TOP 25, 3 points for TOP 10, 5 points for TOP 5. This would help elevate the games reaching top-placement in some lists rise above often named but lower ranked games. But be careful not to overdo it.
Runa216 said:
I'm still trying to figure out the appeal of Monster Hunter. I probably put somewhere between 25 and 40 hours into that series and to this day I do not see the appeal. Am I missing something? Stiff combat, basically no story, a gameplay loop that entirely consists of 'hunt monsters, get parts, make weapons and armour with those parts to hunt more monsters', and a dozen combat and levelling systems that are ridiculously complicated and hard to learn. I play and do pretty well at Dark Souls and bloodborne and Sekiro so the more clunky, deliberate controls don't bother me. Neither does the abstract story. but at least in those games there's a goal and an endgame. If Dark Souls/bloodborne was JUST the chalice dungeons, they'd have faded into obscurity ages ago. That's what Monster Hunter has always felt like to me, the procedurally generated chalice dungeons that exist only to perpetuate more chalice dungeons until the end of time. Except without any of the intricate lore or world building or level design. Or am I completely missing the point, here? |
Monster Hunter is not for everyone (as pretty much each game). It has a niche appeal. The main appeal is overcoming a big challenge by excellent preparation and knowing the monster you want to hunt. Maybe you go out in the wild on a different hunt, just to collect the stuff you need to brew specialized potions or craft traps you need for your real target. That may a nuisance for many, but others (like me) like this way of preparing for your challenge.
I personally also liked, how the life interacted with each other even without the hunter interfering.
So basically: if you tried MonHun and it wasn't for you, then it isn't for you. Play other games, there are loads of them and not everyone likes them either.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
