• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Phantasy Star Online and Monster Hunter style games Thread: Star Hunter Society

The split market gap for GE2RB is going be interesting, I dont think it will exceed the sales of original.

Your comment made me think about when the original GE2 came out. It was way more recent than I remembered.
As your comment itself, I'm guessing it will sell significantly less than the original, but not Kiwami bad. I think the PS4 edition has potential to sell pretty well but I'm definitely skeptical.

Ok... so is there a game like Monster Hunter (cool enemies, fun combat, etc).

Without as much ridiculous grinding and tedious game mechanics?

I think you'll find grinding is pretty core to the genre, as it gives a means to progression that is somewhat difficult to replace without outcry.
 

Fbh

Member
Soul Sacrifice felt like that to me when I first played it. In the end it still has some repetitive quest where you have to kill the same trash mobs over and over again, but no grinding is required unless you want some really powerful endgame spells.

Yeah, I've heard other people say that.
I'd really like to try it out but I don't have a Vita.


My problem with Monster Hunter isn't really fighting the same monsters over and over again.... it's all the other stuff (tedious crafting system, annoying "resources" system, time wasting mining-bug catching, etc)
 

Takao

Banned
It's still going to remain on the Vita. He wants you to be able to play it while you're away from home and then be able to play it at home on a console. So i'm guessing a PS4/3/Vita release for the next game.
has he heard of this
sKVunP6.jpg


wouldn't have to spend another $40-$60 buying the other version either
 

Parakeetman

No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Ok... so is there a game like Monster Hunter (cool enemies, fun combat, etc).

Without as much ridiculous grinding and tedious game mechanics?

you mean instant gratification? if so no. as all of thr games require time and effort to be put into them to some level. which includes 'grinding'.

there is phantasy star online 2 but that isnt out in the west unfortunately. might give you more feeling of accomplishment with a tangible level advancement system instead of ones own skill level.
 

Parakeetman

No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Soul Sacrifice felt like that to me when I first played it. In the end it still has some repetitive quest where you have to kill the same trash mobs over and over again, but no grinding is required unless you want some really powerful endgame spells.

actually it has grinding just on a different level with how powering up your spells work needing multiple of the same spell to bring it to the next level. then there is the easier to do save or sacrifice mechanic for simple breakdown of atk vs def level for your character.

since if you dont want to have a hard time with the game leveling up the spells most def is necessary.
 

Hasemo

(;・∀・)ハッ?
you mean instant gratification? if so no. as all of thr games require time and effort to be put into them to some level. which includes 'grinding'.
Hating the gathering part of MH is hardly a call for instant gratification. Some (most?) people just want to fight monsters and running around looking for resources with low drop rates can get old fast.
actually it has grinding just on a different level with how powering up your spells work needing multiple of the same spell to bring it to the next level. then there is the easier to do save or sacrifice mechanic for simple breakdown of atk vs def level for your character.

since if you dont want to have a hard time with the game leveling up the spells most def is necessary.
To be honest I cleared everything besides the very last group of quests in the first SS and don't remember grinding a certain type of enemy on purpose even once.
 

Parakeetman

No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Hating the gathering part of MH is hardly a call for instant gratification. Some (most?) people just want to fight monsters and running around looking for resources with low drop rates can get old fast.

To be honest I cleared everything besides the very last group of quests in the first SS and don't remember grinding a certain type of enemy on purpose even once.

millions of others say otherwise ( ´∀`)

its hard to imagine you having proper damage output without having leveled up your spells. even with matching proper elements to enemy type.

which means running quests multiple times since the junk you need comes from the preset quest rewards.
 

Hasemo

(;・∀・)ハッ?
millions of others say otherwise ( ´∀`)

its hard to imagine you having proper damage output without having leveled up your spells. even with matching proper elements to enemy type.
Enjoying a game != enjoying every single aspect of the game.

And of course I upgraded my spells and used proper elements. I just don't recall grinding extra toget the required materials.
 

Parakeetman

No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Enjoying a game != enjoying every single aspect of the game.

And of course I upgraded my spells and used proper elements. I just don't recall grinding extra toget the required materials.

haven played in a long time but what was it 3 of same spell = next level

broken down by how many lv 1 spells you need.
lv 1 = 3
lv 2 = 9
lv 3 = 27

Sounds like Toukiden is for you. Faster game play and faster materials gathering.

toukiden is still pretty much the same thing items required from the map and bosses. some item points you need to use that vision mode.

other parts can only be obtained from breaking certain sections.

-----

if the demo is still up would suggest checking that out regardless, though if you like the game wait for kiwami the expansion version since it will contain 3 new weapon types among other things.

that and a plus about toukiden is the story can be done with ai partners along with other missions. considering id imagine the original community will be pretty dead till kiwami comes out.

god eater is another choice on the psp but once again its collecting parts from bosses and things from the map, but combat can feel faster due to how the characters move. also the use of switching between gun and sword works well. full story and ai partners included.
 

Shengar

Member
Capcom disabled posting photos to Miiverse for MonHun unfortunately.

I can't believe Capcom still doing this shit and hiding behind "Preventing Spoiler" excuse bullshit.
I want to show my trophy damnit!

haven played in a long time but what was it 3 of same spell = next level

broken down by how many lv 1 spells you need.
lv 1 = 3
lv 2 = 9
lv 3 = 27

If you use Archfiend's spell, I gues this is truly applied as in the drop is very random both in level and numbers. But if it just regular spells, most of them are available as quest rewar. So at least it is not grindy as suggested.
 
Hmm, looking to get Freedom Wars sometime soon. Sounds interesting and a friend is getting it too, ought to be fun.

If you like grinding for money/macguffins to buy rare items instead of materials to buy rare items PSO is right up your alley

That's a bit more representative of PSO2's grinding though. I'd like to talk about a few points on PSO1 vs PSO2 grindyness for the sake of providing a little clarity on the two games' grinding side for anyone interested in the games.

PSO1 had a far better drop/loot system than PSO2 has. Drop rates were generally higher and were tied to the enemies by difficulty instead of to enemies by level. Providing a wider range of places to hunt for the drop.

The player economy in PSO1 was all based on trading rare drops between players and basically boiled down to 3 value tiers: Worthless, Worth something, and Priceless. The game is done, all the drops have been tabled, rates calculated/found, and nothing short of server operators creating new quests or adjusting rates will cause the player economy to change all that much.

In PSO2 the economy is based entirely on the ingame currency which has been inflating at an increasingly rapid rate as the years have gone by. The newer something is, the more expensive it is. The moment something becomes obsolete by a new patch, it will rapidly drop in price. And since they add in weapons infrequently, it can take quite a while for prices to change.

In PSO1, all that you had to do as far as gearing went was to go looking for the gear and trade anything you don't need with someone who has what you need.

PSO2 on the other hand requires you at some point to buy something from another player, which can be difficult as a new player since the inflation rate for everything is so high. Gear of rarity over 10stars requires a premium account to purchase. And also upgrading gear requires tons of fodder that can take months to gather. Also it is entirely reliant on the RNG passing numerous %'s and any % that fails to pass will immediately set you back to how you were before you even started working your way up to that failed %.

Ultimately, PSO1 is significantly less grindy than PSO2. They're both pretty darn grindy, but at least PSO1 at no point will set you back because RNG failed you. Also PSO1 has infinitely more varied content and quest structure than PSO2 does. Although PSO2's gameplay/combat engine is arguably better. At their respective worsts; PSO1 isn't as bad as it sounds, PSO2 is as bad as it sounds.

Don't get me wrong, at their peaks the PSO series has been some of the most fun i've had playing video games, there's just a lot of nonsense in the downtime between those moments. And many of these issues are meaningless when you're just starting out but it's good to know what you're getting into and to have an idea of what the grind is like as you get deeper into the game. At least I think so anyways.
 

This reminds me of the Guild Wars economy, which is relatively similar in structure to the PSO series. Rare drops were stupid rare, and the economy functioned on 1) materials and 2) those said rare drops. In fact, over time with the game, people became so focused on finding efficient ways to farm for those rares that a massive speedclear metagame arose as the primary PvE attraction in the game. It's pretty interesting to look at the game's economy and community now that the game is approaching defunct
T^T
.

Was pretty great while it lasted. Servers are still up and anyone who's looking for something structurally similar to PSO (hub/lobby areas with a bunch of players, instanced zones/dungeons/etc. for exploring and killin' baddies) might want to look into it.
 

Malyse

Member
This reminds me of the Guild Wars economy, which is relatively similar in structure to the PSO series. Rare drops were stupid rare, and the economy functioned on 1) materials and 2) those said rare drops. In fact, over time with the game, people became so focused on finding efficient ways to farm for those rares that a massive speedclear metagame arose as the primary PvE attraction in the game. It's pretty interesting to look at the game's economy and community now that the game is approaching defunct
T^T
.

Was pretty great while it lasted. Servers are still up and anyone who's looking for something structurally similar to PSO (hub/lobby areas with a bunch of players, instanced zones/dungeons/etc. for exploring and killin' baddies) might want to look into it.

I found GW kinda insufferable.

Accidentally figured out how to link my PSO2 account to PSO2es. Go me.
 

WarRock

Member
One thing I disliked about PSO2 is how rare weapons started weaker as regular weapons grinded before having risk to downgrade.

You end up spending too much money to make rare weapons worth it. Well, at least that was how it worked when I stopped playing it for schedule reasons.
 
Because I did.

...At risk of going to far on a tangent, if you're going to make a thread for people to discuss a genre, generally you should facilitate discussion instead of shutting people down every time you disagree with them. Usually that works a whole lot better.
 

Malyse

Member
...At risk of going to far on a tangent, if you're going to make a thread for people to discuss a genre, generally you should facilitate discussion instead of shutting people down every time you disagree with them. Usually that works a whole lot better.
I mean, are you arguing for GW to be included? Or are you asking why I did like a game I disliked? If the former, then make your argument, though I say that it's more about Skill progression than the other co-ops on the list. If the latter, I just don't like what I don't like. GW2 was better, but I never got into the rhythm of the game.

I might have to narrow the focus again to include something about not having open worlds as well. That should help the definition as well.
 
I mean, are you arguing for GW to be included? Or are you asking why I did like a game I disliked? If the former, then make your argument, though I say that it's more about Skill progression than the other co-ops on the list. If the latter, I just don't like what I don't like. GW2 was better, but I never got into the rhythm of the game.

I might have to narrow the focus again to include something about not having open worlds as well. That should help the definition as well.
He is saying that you have been extremely "my thread, my rules" throughout this whole endeavour which isn't exactly conducive to open discussion. And you are at best oblivious and at worst hostile to anybody who turns a critical eye towards your little creation.

btw ChickenHunter I agree with what you said and probably should have specified PSO2. I blame the loot metagame squarely on the game becoming F2P. Sucks for people who have less time/money to spend on it than the people at the top.
 
He is saying that you have been extremely "my thread, my rules" throughout this whole endeavour which isn't exactly conducive to open discussion. And you are at best oblivious and at worst hostile to anybody who turns a critical eye towards your little creation.

btw ChickenHunter I agree with what you said and probably should have specified PSO2. I blame the loot metagame squarely on the game becoming F2P. Sucks for people who have less time/money to spend on it than the people at the top.

Glad my point got through, was worried I had stated it poorly.

I think it's interesting the way F2P impacts games like this. Feels like a lot of gamers who aren't big into MMOs or similar genres (such as PSO) don't fully understand the negative aspects of F2P. Unfortunately it's hard to motivate myself to pay 60$ plus a sub for a game anymore, though.
 

Malyse

Member
He is saying that you have been extremely "my thread, my rules" throughout this whole endeavour which isn't exactly conducive to open discussion. And you are at best oblivious and at worst hostile to anybody who turns a critical eye towards your little creation.

Why would I be hostile?

This thread has made it abundantly clear you're not a very good arbiter of what counts as a hunting game or not, so

I mean, it's not like I didn't say right in the OP that I don't want us to fight. It's not like I've refused to add and remove games to the OP. All I said was convince me and I'll change it. But if we have to be anal, I'll note all the changes made thus far:

Added Recent and Upcoming Release sections
Added links to active game OT
Removed Phantasy Star Online Episode III
Removed FFCC My Life as a King
Removed FFCC My life as a Darklord
Removed FFCC The Crystal Bearers
Removed Final Fantasy Type 0
Removed Final Fantasy XIV
Removed Battle of Z
Added Vindictus
Added Destiny
Added Nano Diver
Added Exorsister
Added E.X. Troopers
Added Lost Planet 2
Added Kaiju Busters
Added Toriko
Added Gundam Breaker
Added White Knight Chronicles

No one is obligating you to be here and frankly, I won't miss the thinly veiled snipes. I want to talk about a specific sort of co-op focused game. If you think the list is lacking something, then we can talk about it. If you think something shouldn't be there, then we can talk about it. But if you want to toss passive aggressive insults at me, then kindly leave. Don't fucking need it in this thread.
 
No one is obligating you to be here and frankly, I won't miss the thinly veiled snipes. I want to talk about a specific sort of co-op focused game. If you think the list is lacking something, then we can talk about it. If you think something shouldn't be there, then we can talk about it. But if you want to toss passive aggressive insults at me, then kindly leave. Don't fucking need it in this thread.

but you obviously don't want to talk with people who have different opinions than you, and it turns out people don't tend to agree with you. We're beyond caring which games are in the OP because this thread doesn't get enough new traffic to warrant that much effort. However, people do want to discuss these games and the genre as a whole, which you refuse to do unless people agree with you. You really don't see an issue?
 

baekshi

Banned
but you obviously don't want to talk with people who have different opinions than you, and it turns out people don't tend to agree with you. We're beyond caring which games are in the OP because this thread doesn't get enough new traffic to warrant that much effort. However, people do want to discuss these games and the genre as a whole, which you refuse to do unless people agree with you. You really don't see an issue?

Soul Sacrifice Delta is the best.


Better than anything.
 

Malyse

Member
but you obviously don't want to talk with people who have different opinions than you, and it turns out people don't tend to agree with you. We're beyond caring which games are in the OP because this thread doesn't get enough new traffic to warrant that much effort. However, people do want to discuss these games and the genre as a whole, which you refuse to do unless people agree with you. You really don't see an issue?
That's not at all true. I don't mind people disagreeing at all, but I don't want this to turn into squabbling. And I do think people care about what's in the OP. if no one else, I do. That's why I constantly fuss with it; I want it to be correct after all.
 

Malyse

Member
Clearly anyone can tell that, that's why those 2 games are in the title and its name.
Nope, it's because PSO falls in the scope covered by this thread. Particularly with PSN taking inspiration from MH what with them going from item drops to material drops.
 

redcrayon

Member
Monster Hunter is wildly different from PSO.

MH requires a lot of pain in the ass type stuff, like following the monster around the map. It's about knowing the different monsters.

PSO is my favorite game ever, and I don't really enjoy MH.

Just re-reading the thread, I did find this funny. Yes, in Monster Hunter you do actually have to hunt monsters. :D Tagging them with paintballs just before they flee is one of the things that always made me feel like a true monster hunter!

Personally I like the sense of the monsters existing as part of an ecosystem, and the idea that, if you didn't turn up to have at them, they would just be snoozing away, eating smaller creatures and generally minding their own business. While the team finds the beast, you have the opportunity for a bit of resource gathering, too. It also builds tension as the battle ebbs and flows, with both sides seeking to disengage when they are hurt.

The games that just drop you into an arena with a boss are the ones that I don't enjoy as much, as they just feel forced and hyper-efficient, all attempts at making the quest feel like a hunt abandoned in an effort to give the players maximum action, all the time. The areas just don't feel like they exist as anything other than boss arenas that you teleport into. That's fine if that's what your party wants, but if I wanted to do that, Monster Hunter's own arena quests in multiplayer offers that too.
 
Just re-reading the thread, I did find this funny. Yes, in Monster Hunter you do actually have to hunt monsters. :D Tagging them with paintballs just before they flee is one of the things that always made me feel like a true monster hunter!

Personally I like the sense of the monsters existing as part of an ecosystem, and the idea that, if you didn't turn up to have at them, they would just be snoozing away, eating smaller creatures and generally minding their own business. While the team finds the beast, you have the opportunity for a bit of resource gathering, too. It also builds tension as the battle ebbs and flows, with both sides seeking to disengage when they are hurt.

The games that just drop you into an arena with a boss are the ones that I don't enjoy as much, as they just feel forced and hyper-efficient, all attempts at making the quest feel like a hunt abandoned in an effort to give the players maximum action, all the time. The areas just don't feel like they exist as anything other than boss arenas that you teleport into. That's fine if that's what your party wants, but if I wanted to do that, Monster Hunter's own arena quests in multiplayer offers that too.

I agree with you. I think the hunting aspect itself could really do to be expanded. Adding a variety of traps, snares, tranquilizers, "sneak attacks", blinds, etc. would be pretty interesting. I realize MH has some of these things but they tend to be only used for specific missions or just be add ons for fighting.
 

Shengar

Member
Personally I like the sense of the monsters existing as part of an ecosystem, and the idea that, if you didn't turn up to have at them, they would just be snoozing away, eating smaller creatures and generally minding their own business. While the team finds the beast, you have the opportunity for a bit of resource gathering, too. It also builds tension as the battle ebbs and flows, with both sides seeking to disengage when they are hurt.

While I don't bothered by the escaping/changing area aspect of MH, I find it hard to accept "ecosystem" as a justification when two territorial monsters decided to gang on me instead of fighting between them.
I actually want to see monster on monster action in MH, outside Mark of A Hero quest
 

redcrayon

Member
While I don't bothered by the escaping/changing area aspect of MH, I find it hard to accept "ecosystem" as a justification when two territorial monsters decided to gang on me instead of fighting between them.
I actually want to see monster on monster action in MH, outside Mark of A Hero quest
Yeah, fair enough, I know what you mean. What would be really cool in that instance would be if they focused on each other, but both went into a kind of a frenzy with loads of dirt and dust being kicked up, so that even though both were damaging each other, it became dangerous to get involved.

Personally, especially in single player (where multiple creatures focusing on you is more likely to happen), I absolutely wouldn't feel short-changed on action if I could watch two creatures fight and then pick off the winner, I'd feel even more like a pro hunter. Perhaps a monster that beats and eats another gets massive health and damage bonuses unless you can interrupt it in time? That would be awesome!

Also, perhaps some monsters deliberately avoid other species that massively outrank them, or particularly hate and chase down other species that appear, or are more aggressive/get bonuses in certain environments, such as a Rath in a mountainous area, or a Ludroth on a beach. They could write a whole food chain for it.
 

Malyse

Member
Yeah, fair enough, I know what you mean. What would be really cool in that instance would be if they focused on each other, but both went into a kind of a frenzy with loads of dirt and dust being kicked up, so that even though both were damaging each other, it became dangerous to get involved.

Personally, especially in single player (where multiple creatures focusing on you is more likely to happen), I absolutely wouldn't feel short-changed on action if I could watch two creatures fight and then pick off the winner, I'd feel even more like a pro hunter. Perhaps a monster that beats and eats another gets massive health and damage bonuses unless you can interrupt it in time? That would be awesome!

Also, perhaps some monsters deliberately avoid other species that massively outrank them, or particularly hate and chase down other species that appear, or are more aggressive/get bonuses in certain environments, such as a Rath in a mountainous area, or a Ludroth on a beach. They could write a whole food chain for it.
There was a game like that! I don't think it was a star hunter, but there was a game when you killed mons and absorbed their essence, but if a mon got the essence before you then it transformed and went boss level. I don't think it was Onimusha, but it could be.
 

redcrayon

Member
There was a game like that! I don't think it was a star hunter, but there was a game when you killed mons and absorbed their essence, but if a mon got the essence before you then it transformed and went boss level. I don't think it was Onimusha, but it could be.
That sounds cool :)

I agree with you. I think the hunting aspect itself could really do to be expanded. Adding a variety of traps, snares, tranquilizers, "sneak attacks", blinds, etc. would be pretty interesting. I realize MH has some of these things but they tend to be only used for specific missions or just be add ons for fighting.
Yeah, sounds good.

I just like the whole theme of hunting, and roleplaying as a hunter rather than just controlling a character in combat. I don't think it needs to be all action, all the time. Spending ten minutes on a cliff, sharpening my weapons while keeping a close eye on the two monsters knocking seven bells out of each other, waiting for the right moment to strike, sounds like a great scenario in a monster hunting game. I'd also like even more tactical stuff, like choosing where to pitch camp, or a group of hunters being able to build a larger, more effective trap by sharing resources or cutting trees down before trying to lure a beast into it. Or being able to lure a monster from even multiple areas away by killing the right prey creature in the open and then all of you taking cover, ready to ambush it when it eats. Perhaps a bit more complex than 'everyone run at it and hit it', but wouldn't it be cool to vote on a strategy before a hunt, and the AI then knows what you going to do, changes the victory conditions slightly and reacts to your plan. That would be a fun evolution of the formula for me, differentiating it even more from arena battle games. It could even do both, having hunters select 'classic hunt' or 'choose strategy' from an options list when picking a quest, with some more effective on some beasts than others.

In the same vein of 'livin' the hunter life', I like fishing, and cooking steaks, even though lots of the hunters online just buy that stuff from vendors. It's great that stuff is optional, something for everyone etc. But yeah, I don't expect everyone to agree, but that whole 'hunter life sim' aspect rather than 'immediate multiplayer arena battle' is what really has me pouring tens of hours into it.
 

Malyse

Member
That sounds cool :)

I just like the whole theme of hunting, and roleplaying as a hunter rather than just controlling a character in combat. I don't think it needs to be all action, all the time. Spending ten minutes on a cliff, sharpening my weapons while keeping a close eye on the two monsters knocking seven bells out of each other, waiting for the right moment to strike, sounds like a great scenario in a monster hunting game. I'd also like even more tactical stuff, like choosing where to pitch camp, or a group of hunters being able to build a larger, more effective trap before trying to lure a beast into it. In the same vein of 'livin' the hunter life', I like fishing, and cooking steaks, even though lots of the hunters online just buy that stuff from vendors. It's great that stuff is optional, something for everyone etc. But yeah, I don't expect everyone to agree, but that whole 'hunter life sim' aspect rather than 'immediate multiplayer arena battle' is what really has me pouring tens of hours into it.

Sounds like you role play a bit when you game. I do to, but as a treasure hunting fashionista. I will use a damn weak weapon if it matches my outfit.
 

yeah, excatly. The scenario of "you are a hunter, we're sending you out with the objective of bringing down X beast. We're giving you food for a day, but after that you're on your own. Make sure not to disturb the ecosystem" is way more compelling and interesting than "go find the monster, you have 40 minutes real time." Far more multi-layered and opens up different ways to play. Also would allow for greater difference in play style between weapons.

**
Not gonna lie, I spent at least 30ish hours in MHFU just walking around and gathering stuff without hunting a thing. It's so relaxing.

ditto.
 

WarRock

Member
Not gonna lie, I spent at least 30ish hours in MHFU just walking around and gathering stuff without hunting a thing. It's so relaxing.
 

Malyse

Member
I would love to play MH as a sniper. I gravitate toward healing and ranged classes in star hunters. I guess I would be a glass self healing cannon. Let's talk about that. When you play this style of game, do you go for the same type of role, or do you adjust on a per game basis? I trend to the aforementioned ranged healer, but if it proves too unwieldy, I'll swap out with whatever the fastest class is. For example, I duel wield in Toukiden and MH, I play a Cleric in Ragnarok, and I snipe in Phantasy Star (though the katana has been calling me in PSO2). But I don't stray from one of those three. I suppose it has something to do with the way I look at combat: IMO the best three ways to stay alive is be able to recover any damage taken (healer), take out the opponent before they see you/can reach you (sniper), and be able to hit them more often than they hit you (dual wield/speed focused role).
 
Top Bottom