-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate Review Thread
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
I've been torn on this game. I killed MHTri, MH#U, and MH4U, but barely touched MHGenerations. I have World and have played maybe 12 hours, but can't seem to get pulled in. I played the demo for this recently, though, and it all felt... familiar. Like coming home. Everything came back to me so naturally. I didn't expect this.
It's probably more due to being compared most recently to MH World. I can't imagine this game being worse than the 3DS version lol
Glad to see good reviews going up, as people have mentioned countless times there was concern that the review would just be a comparison to MHW and not a straight up review.
Just need to figure out if I want insect glavie or sword and board first.
Just need to figure out if I want insect glavie or sword and board first.
Yeah but regular Generations did and had a better score, so I expected more from the Switch version.
OP
OP
I think being a fourth generation game in a post-World world (heh) is hurting it.
If you're unsure, World is an easier game to start with. If you have the correct systems of course, else this new Switch one will be the best of the old school MH games.
Yeah. I'm waiting for a possible new ground up Switch version at some point.
I'd have tried world if I had a ps4
It really depends on the reviewer. Some may have already played the Japanese version last year, so they would k ow how the content pans out.
It does have way more monsters but it's like the best of collection of the previous MH games. X AND XX being the most recent.
OP
OP
It's absolutely not unfair. If a new fan of the series post-World wants more Monster Hunter, or Monster Hunter on Switch, then it is a review's job to tell them that this isn't exactly the same thing. That's not the game's fault, sure, it's Capcom's, but it is what it is.
In the case of Monster Hunter, they generally only play what could be called a prologue.
I doubt majority of them got very far. Trust me, this game is insanely long.
There's a lot of bloat in terms of resource grinding that is really hard to go back to from World.
The score means absolutely nothing though. This is the expanded version of Generations. It's functionally identical but has more content.
It's a little odd because Monster Hunter World wasn't compared to previous Monster Hunter releases when it came to content and post game, in the same way that this title is being compared to World on other aspects.
It also has a lot of more content, portability factor and monster variety
Until we have a 5th gen game on switch with G rank there is a lot of reasons to play GU
Well its not like reviewers are going to get to end game on either game to compare them
It depends. If they start fresh not very far at all. Probably just dabbled in the village quests but I doubt they finished that up.
That's definitely lower than expected.
But I guess it's because we live in a post-MH World world (heh)
Understandable, the QoL improvements on World are fundamental. I tried the demo of this one and I kind of hated it lol
But I guess it's because we live in a post-MH World world (heh)
Understandable, the QoL improvements on World are fundamental. I tried the demo of this one and I kind of hated it lol
RPG Site reviewer, here. Monster Hunter World had no impact on my score. I originally reviewed MHXX last year and we updated that review for MHGU's release.
EDIT: Also, I got to the endgame for my review. Me not liking deviant monsters as an endgame grind is part of what made my score relatively low. I'm a huge MH fan.
EDIT: Also, I got to the endgame for my review. Me not liking deviant monsters as an endgame grind is part of what made my score relatively low. I'm a huge MH fan.
Yeah not every reviewer that gives a lower score is going to refer to world but in the OT someone posted some text from other reviews and they do directly mention World.
It is still a different game/release, so it should still be compared to Generations, especially if it has more content. I don't care about it being compared to MHW because that does not have a Switch release.
Eh, this game sis so much more complex and bigger then world
It says the same thing in the exposition of your review. Without that context the paragraph on upgrading from the 3DS version of XX would definitely feel out of place.
The game is better than Generations, it includes the Generations content and adds a ton to it.
Reviews (especially when limiting them to a number) are not going to reflect that, the two games were reviewed two years apart on different platforms, by different people, with different comparison criteria.
So why does content matters in this case? Does GU have a much longer story?
I do agree that most reviewers would've stopped playing at the credits.
The less shiny of the two will always get put down. Critics aren't much different from how certain World players react to old MH. You can bring up the flaws of World compared to old MH, and you'll get shut down for elitism. Do the opposite, and you'll have a lot of supporters echoing your hatred for old MH. In a way, the reviews of MHGU are an accurate reflection of how the community has turned out in a post-World world. If MHGU had World's graphics, it'll have a lot less complaints. If the console warring and hatred for handhelds weren't there, MH would have been popular in the west long ago. It's unfair, but that's how it is. At the very least, you can take solace in the fact that the MH community has largely remained unchanged in Japan and Asia. People treat old MH and World the same -- unlike the division in the west.
MH is not played for the story. And Gen doesnt even have one, its just a excuse to bring back the villages and stuff, and MH4U had credits for low rank village and high rank village storylines (because of MH4 and MH4G releases I guess).
Edit: I also dont expect reviewers to play the last part of such a long game (like G rank for gen U, which is the main adition of the game, but thats unlocked after low rank and high rank multiplayer questlines). I think reviews are good enough for new players that are interested in jumping in. Heck I myself only got to G2 rank in my first MH a week before MH4U released.
My point is, how could the reviewers know that GU has more content than World? I doubt they'd count the number of monsters they've encountered. It's not like World is lacking in content, it just has less content than GU.
yeah but less accessible and clunkier.
If the localization had launched before MH World, it may have gotten better results.