or maybe the Japan title already existed
-
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.
Capcom files trademark for "Monster Hunter: World" in U.S
- Thread starter Mellahan
- Start date
- Status
Kenzodielocke
Banned
We know it's coming to Xbox One at least.
Lyon N. Laap
Member
So yes, if you reduce the game to its main component part and ignore everything else, you could construe it as a fighting game.
But even though those things you mentioned are the main part of the game, they are by no means the only major part of it. The vast majority of the game, the Hunters Hub, is designed with the expectation that you'll be playing with other Hunters. Marketing almost exclusively depicts the game occurring in conjunction with multiple players, including the highlight intro of each game. I'd say for the most part, it's not really 1vs1 outside of the village quests, which are less numerous and challenging than their counterparts.
There is also the item mechanics, the healing (and subsequent animations), the ammo types, the traps, the paintballs, the poisoned foods, etc. What you bring with you, up until a certain level of skill, can be a major contributing factor to a given victory, and things such as flash bombs or sonic booms can entirely change the terms of engagement and dynamics of a fight. Even when you stop really needing items to play the game, a point most players will never reach, items are still important as force multipliers to end hunts as quickly as possible.
Armor skills, their permutations, their interactions with your weapon types, are also completely different from nearly every fighting game. These directly alter numbers, such as invincibility framed or critical hit chance, and while they are not as important as your personal skill, they still define what strategy of combat you're going to engage in. Take the Lance for example, where what armor set you have determines on whether you're a flurry heavy quick dodger, or a counter focused tough defender.
And skill in the game is not only what you mentioned. Elemental weaknesses of the monster and yourself, status effects such as paralysis or poison, knowing the proper impact zones for maximum damage, knowing when and how to heal/sharpen, what food combinations to choose, are more aspects of skill needed to increase your ability to efficiently engage a monster. They might be lesser contributing factors than your skill, but that by no means they are either unimportant or irrelevant, even at the highest skill tier (the speed runners).
These elements are largely or completely different from any fighting game, and if certainly challenge you for a fighting game that incorporates all these elements. The incorporation of these aspects of the series, the items, the monsters, the weapons, the armor skills, the "open" range, and others all contribute to it being much different than any fighting game, so implying they are similar because of one aspect of the game, even as important as it is, seems silly to me.
Also, you'll have to explain to me your Bayonetta sentence in a simpler manner. Neither Bayonetta nor Monster Hunter gate your progress for not aceing a mission, only for not completing that mission. It's just that in Monster Hunter, completing higher ranked missions is much much easier and faster if you have a measure of skill in general and against that monster specifically, which comes from familiarity.
depths20XX
Member
No, not at all.
Or it could contradict the rumor and not go to Japan at all for some wild reason that would never actually really happen.
Sammy Samusu
Member
I'm gonna scream really hard if it's Frontier or Online.
Well, the game releasing on XB1 means no Sony money and Capcom never wants to risk if it is all up to them
/s :^)
Comandr
Member
That wouldn't make a lot of sense. At least not for Frontier. If the whole idea is to break into the western market, Frontier is not the way to do it. Frontier is known for its crushing difficulty. Paired with hilariously outdated gen 2 mechanics and shit graphics, it would never take off. It would truly be the ultimate "fuck you" from Capcom.
SporeCrawler
Member
well it looks like it will be on XBOX One so a win for MS since they didnt pay a dime but are getting a game still.
/s
well for what its worth there will be a Monster Hunter Frontier 10 Year anniversary reveal on July 5th 2017
FYI Monster Hunter Frontier was on Xbox 360 so the jump to XBOne wouldnt be too surprising.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Matt's comment is very interesting, I guess we could see this game as early as today, running on Scorpio? Provided it doesn't have a marketing deal, that is.
Going multiplatform (sans-Switch, which I doubt they considered anyway given Capcom's meagre support for the format so far compared with other platforms) makes a lot of sense at any rate, and Capcom doesn't seem to play favourites with its exclusives: MS has been getting Dead Rising and Sony has been getting Street Fighter. And I'm sure those two could have been swapped around.
Going multiplatform (sans-Switch, which I doubt they considered anyway given Capcom's meagre support for the format so far compared with other platforms) makes a lot of sense at any rate, and Capcom doesn't seem to play favourites with its exclusives: MS has been getting Dead Rising and Sony has been getting Street Fighter. And I'm sure those two could have been swapped around.
F31 Leopard
Member
It's because Monster Hunter is an arena fighter. Each numbered section on the map locales are arenas. It's streamlined by being "teleported" literally in seconds to the next area so you don't have to trek through pathways (the dotted lines).
See these image examples:
You can see how far apart some areas are. Taking away the teleportation aspect and actually having to traverse the segments that connect areas together would be more time consuming.
SporeCrawler
Member
joke post? XX literally was just announced for Switch.
Sammy Samusu
Member
Why?
I don't see Capcom and Microsoft working together for Monster Hunter.
Sony's press conference would be a lot more fitting.
I think Capcom is thinking Switch as a handheld (3ds successor) rather than a console.
Switch will get whatever 3ds got from Capcom like numbered MH but nothing more than that.
I think it could work if the maps were built for it. There's no reason landmarks would need to be that far away from each other if the game was being designed around a seamless open world. The only real gameplay benefit of having segmented areas is being able to cheese monsters a bit by running away to a different area before healing/sharpening/etc, but even then they could just design it so a monster stops chasing you after a certain distance / various safe areas that monsters can't reach are scattered across the maps.
There is really no reason to exclude the NS, because ultimately they're selling the game all over the world...including Japan and it wouldn't hurt them at all. However, if we believe the rumor about Sony pushing to keep Capcom from releasing on the NS, then it makes sense why it was skipped.
You know, I've been thinking about this a bit more and I wonder if that's why Dragon Quest XI isn't launching on the NS with the other systems.
Or it was always designed with PS4/XI in mind.
It wont. Sony already said they have big Japanese game announcements at e3. Monster hunter would fit the bill
DriftingSpirit
Member
This is the only reason why I think it wouldn't come to Switch.
Jawmuncher
Member
You know what I hated? Being slapped by a monster tail and then sent back through a loading screen. Did they fix that in later games/?
Oh, that's a possibility, too. But I was talking about the rumor and how true it is. So far, seems to line up with what's going on, but I guess we'll see the final results in a couple of days.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Pretty much. Step back and think about it logically for a second, why would Capcom intentionally exclude Switch unless for technological or development reasons?
Nah.
If by high chance you mean 0% chance then yeah, I'd have to agree with you.
Only problem with a dumbed-down/streamlined Monster Hunter is that you'd get little to no crossover between the two from fans.
People who love the streamlined stuff would hate the the original and vice-versa.
But, let's be honest here. Capcom has no idea what they're doing with the Switch.
Pretty much.
I think there's a high chance that they just made DD2 and attached MH name on it at the very last second.
The Last One
Member
You mean, like, a mainline Monster Hunter?
YEAH.
DriftingSpirit
Member
Yep, Switch is selling quite well. It could help move some units in the west as well. I think Switch being unable to handle the game is more likely than that console war bait in the rumor.
I don't think Capcom is targeting traditional fans anyway. They are searching for another audience to go along with the traditional fans.
eighty(one)
Member
Maybe it's a MS VR title?
Father_Brain
Banned
MS already confirmed that Scorpio VR won't be shown at E3, I thought?
DriftingSpirit
Member
Correct.
But what I mean is that you're going to have to merge them or break one off at some point. It's going to make a lot of people very unhappy.
Eolz
Member
I don't see the issue in Capcom not putting it on Switch tbh. Since XX and likely 5 will be there, and aimed at the core fanbase.
MS also announced japanese games for their conference, and it's multiplatform. I just wouldn't be surprised to see it at both conferences, Capcom knows it'll sell more on PS4 by a big margin anyway.
Same thing for other multiplatform games, like DB Fighter Z. Japanese companies get some money from MS to be at their conference, and they know it'll sell more on PS4 in any case.
MS also announced japanese games for their conference, and it's multiplatform. I just wouldn't be surprised to see it at both conferences, Capcom knows it'll sell more on PS4 by a big margin anyway.
Same thing for other multiplatform games, like DB Fighter Z. Japanese companies get some money from MS to be at their conference, and they know it'll sell more on PS4 in any case.
DriftingSpirit
Member
Nah.
I think they are going to at least try to sustain both for the time being. We'll have to wait and see if they will be able to pull it off.
eighty(one)
Member
I don't know.
I just have a hard time gravitating to the new narrative, that Capcom x Nintendo partnership is abated by Switch power. That doesn't sound like Capcom, to me. They are a company that doesn't have power concern, because they can make something from nothing (Resident Evil Revelations on 3DS).
Capcom left the Sony fold with MH, because Sony literally fucked Capcom over - basically sending Capcom to Nintendo, the only other viable option, to grow the series. The series is growing (more and more fans are giving MH attention in the west), because of Nintendo's help. This is multiprong:
Capcom partners w/ Nintendo, abandon Vita = attention toward the series.
Series sells gangbusters in JP = interest in the series.
More series iterations with nice production values commence in JP = those westerners who's attention became interest, now becomes wanting.
Announcement games coming west = curiosity hype x fever pitch.
Games release 3DS = PS2/PSP/3DS owners evangelize the series, more people become interested
Ultimately, it's hard for me to see Capcom who've kept the series a certain way from PS2 -----> 3DS, all of a sudden risking/jeopardizing MH success. Capcom has to know, no serious effort can go to MS, as the XB1 sells abysmally in JP and has sold half of the PS4 in the western world. PS4 is successful in the west, but not selling well in JP, where consoles are on a decline. Graphics aren't worth throwing out the baby with the bath water (Nintendo), in this instance.
The only thing MH World could be, if not a VR/AR game - is a stopgap title for PS4/XB1, until Switch has sold a few million more units. My logic is because the Switch is projected to sell tons in the west and still has storefront lotteries to get one in JP. The Switch might surpass the Wii and Capcom will want a big part of that, where it will likely be the top console this gen, in JP.
Culturally, there are MH cafes for people to gather - Capcom isn't throwing a portable partnership that has cultaural penetration, now with a Nintendo portable/console, away for graphics. Especially since Nintendo gave them their ram request.
The only reason a breakup could happen is if Kimishima doesn't value MH the way Iwata did.
It's because Monster Hunter is an arena fighter. Each numbered section on the map locales are arenas. It's streamlined by being "teleported" literally in seconds to the next area so you don't have to trek through pathways (the dotted lines).
See these image examples:
You can see how far apart some areas are. Taking away the teleportation aspect and actually having to traverse the segments that connect areas together would be more time consuming.
I just don't really get the advantage of it being an arena fighter over say tracking your quarry over a full open map.
I mean the monsters tend to run away into different sections anyway, so whats the difference in following them on a seamless map?
Sammy Samusu
Member
Agreed. UNLESS someone paid for it not to be on Switch. :3
At the end of the day Switch is safe as far as MH games goes. Capcom needs Switch in Japan.
Eolz
Member
The mechanics and systems would change.
You couldn't rest in an area while a monster is in another one, couldn't say to teammates to go to area 6 without some UI changes, hunts would take way longer, it'd be way more complicated to make different ecosystems and to avoid exploits, this kind of thing.
This is purely a design choice, and if World goes for open world, it will obviously have different systems.
They're not going to be able to given their current state of affairs. Monster Hunter is basically their one shining spot and if this doesn't do what they need it to, they're done.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Each area is distinctive and can cover several ecosystems all at once since you are basically teleporting large distances. I for one have no interest in running through cookie cutter "dead space" between the areas of the map that actually matter.
Despite the complexity, Monster Hunter is an arcade game at its heart, built for short but highly replayable sessions. Moving it onto one big map would add a lot of downtime that would kill the pacing for a questionable gain of... immersion, I guess? I don't know, anyone looking for immersion in a series that lets you play as bomb-toting cats may not get the appeal of Monster Hunter.
You'd lose the Chase aspect, as well. But again, I guess we have to see how it's being done. It could just be 'long tunnels to hide load times but IMMERSION' like some old school games did.
Isn't that how Toukiden 2 ultimately handled its open world? I remember seeing a hell of a lot of tunnels in the streams I've seen for it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked