• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

New Capcom USA Community Rep: Monster Hunter news "veeeeery soon"

Tenbatsu

Member
May 9, 2007
8,211
0
0
Singapore
Does anyone know if the major online monsters in Tri G are soloable with the Shakalaka crew?
Yes, you are able to solo the whole game with them. Frankly speaking, the difficulty of TriG is lower than Tri's online except for the downloadable Event quests which are on par or harder than Tri. But overall the game is still way harder than MHP3rd.

Yep, but some quests are hard to solo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXw6WhHGOdQ
This is last week JoJo hammer 'Mood Swing Bracchidios' event quest, its really hard. My mixed armor of 600+, one hit KO @_@
 

Tenbatsu

Member
May 9, 2007
8,211
0
0
Singapore
Seriously? Even G-rank?
That's pretty fucking disappointing.
I am judging based on the difficulty of the entire game (downloadable/arena quest included). You have some easy G quest like those in MHP3rd where you fight 4-5 low health monsters, and you have some difficult downloadable G quest where one hit is enough to KO you like the recent Bracchidios quest.

Guess it's due to the fact that it is a portable title hence the mixed difficulty.
 

Shin Kojima

Banned
Jun 21, 2009
3,300
0
0
I am judging based on the difficulty of the entire game (downloadable/arena quest included). You have some easy G quest like those in MHP3rd where you fight 4-5 low health monsters, and you have some difficult downloadable G quest where one hit is enough to KO you like the recent Bracchidios quest.

Guess it's due to the fact that it is a portable title hence the mixed difficulty.
Hm. I already felt the monsters in Tri were getting a bit too soft. But at least it's better than P3rd, that was just horrible.
 

Mupod

Member
Jun 12, 2011
16,403
3
530
Toronto
Tri difficulty was indeed lowered but it was more balance and fair.

Yep. I'm absolutely not gonna complain about fixed hitboxes even if it made the game easier. There are several monsters in MHFU that I outright refuse to melee, but nothing like that in Tri.

Also, it seems easy to those of us used to soloing g-rank in MHFU because Tri had NO g-rank. Another reason I want Tri G.
 

Shin Kojima

Banned
Jun 21, 2009
3,300
0
0
Tri difficulty was indeed lowered but it was more balance and fair.

For me the best thing for Tri G would have been same difficulty as Tri for High Rank and increase it from there for G rank, with Portable 3rd's hitboxes.
Well, and to be able to replace the fucking Shakalakas with Felynes.
Srsly fuck those guys.
 

Mondriaan

Member
Jan 28, 2012
2,651
0
0
I imagine that going to the wii U probably means that MH4 won't need online since MH4U HD could have online. And they could charge the Japanese a subscription fee for online on 3G U HD and 4U HD as well.
 

Oichi

I'm like a Hadouken, down-right Fierce!
Jun 6, 2004
3,399
0
0
40
 

Jawmuncher

Member
Sep 2, 2010
61,693
16
790
Isla Nublar
So was there any reason Capcom jumped ship to nintendo when it comes to MH.

Much like RE's move to Gamecune.
MH move to Wii/3DS/Possibly Wii U just seems like it came out of nowhere.
All i'm assuming is nintendo payed them off?
 

Hellraider

Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,612
1
780
So was there any reason Capcom jumped ship to nintendo when it comes to MH.

Much like RE's move to Gamecune.
MH move to Wii/3DS/Possibly Wii U just seems like it came out of nowhere.
All i'm assuming is nintendo payed them off?

No.It's pretty simple when you think about it now that it's already on the 3DS.I honestly am annoyed for not being able to guess the 3DS before 3G was announced.It all comes down to these two:

1: Userbase.If DS could run a competent MonHun game it would already be there.Not to mention how Capcom was I think the only publisher who didn't jump on the DS bandwagon and didn't make the money others did.The don't want to repeat that (that's why the ridiculously good 3DS support).3DS will have the bigger fanbase over Vita and Capcom knows it.

2.Asset reusing.PS2->PSP->Wii->3DS.See the pattern?Vita would be a pretty decent graphical wise jump for the series.There is no reason for that.Those are ,to capcom, extra costs.

And that's it.I believe there were no moneyhats but only Nintendo and Capcom know the truth.
 

nikatapi

Member
Jun 5, 2011
968
0
0
So was there any reason Capcom jumped ship to nintendo when it comes to MH.

Much like RE's move to Gamecune.
MH move to Wii/3DS/Possibly Wii U just seems like it came out of nowhere.
All i'm assuming is nintendo payed them off?

The move to 3DS makes sense, it is cheaper to develop for it than the Vita, and it has larger installed base at the moment.

It probably has to do with development costs for the Wii as well, because developing for an HD console would be much more expensive.
 

Zornica

Banned
Mar 20, 2011
3,006
0
0
2.Asset reusing.PS2->PSP->Wii->3DS.See the pattern?Vita would be a pretty decent graphical wise jump for the series.There is no reason for that.Those are ,to capcom, extra costs.

I haven't seen anything on the vita to date that would support such a claim. look at the mgs "hd" edition (and all the other games for that matter), which runs in 480p, thats ps2 level performance. Granted, it got advenced shading capabilities, but thats nothing a 3ds couldn't replicate. I got the feeling that those two handhelds are much closer in terms of performance than most people want to admit.
 
Nov 8, 2010
10,115
1
0
I haven't seen anything on the vita to date that would support such a claim. look at the mgs "hd" edition (and all the other games for that matter), which runs in 480p, thats ps2 level performance. Granted, it got advenced shading capabilities, but thats nothing a 3ds couldn't replicate. I got the feeling that those two handhelds are much closer in terms of performance than most people want to admit.

Not in raw computing and advanced animation and texture detail no, the Vita is miles ahead, but 3DS games can come pretty close with the use of modern shaders and a smaller screen size. Just the RAM advantage alone allows for completely different approaches to game layouts.

The MGS HD Vita port isn't indicative of what's possible on the Vita, but rather how little Konami cares about the port.
 

Hellraider

Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,612
1
780
I haven't seen anything on the vita to date that would support such a claim. look at the mgs "hd" edition (and all the other games for that matter), which runs in 480p, thats ps2 level performance. Granted, it got advenced shading capabilities, but thats nothing a 3ds couldn't replicate. I got the feeling that those two handhelds are much closer in terms of performance than most people want to admit.

Maybe you are right, maybe not.I am honestly not the best person to talk about graphical capabilities.The truth though is that, with no arguements, 3DS is the one closer to the other consoles MonHun has been.There is no reason to choose Vita over 3DS, when it comes to the way capcom thinks and acts.

Also both, which I believe you might suggest, is not an option.Local Co-op heavy games like monhun have to attach themselves to the portable platform they are.Last gen it was the PSP.Now it's the 3DS.Monster Hunter being portable exclusive is much more important than what fanbase Vita has or will get.
 

Mondriaan

Member
Jan 28, 2012
2,651
0
0
The move to 3DS makes sense, it is cheaper to develop for it than the Vita, and it has larger installed base at the moment.
Do you have links that support this claim about 3DS development costs?

The figures I had seen for 3DS game dev costs were all over the map, and "cheaper" did not look like the general case.
 

Forever

Banned
Jul 7, 2010
6,717
0
0
Do you have links that support this claim about 3DS development costs?

The figures I had seen for 3DS game dev costs were all over the map, and "cheaper" did not look like the general case.

Where did you get those figures? I'm genuinely interested in seeing a comparison if such a thing is publicly available.
 

Mondriaan

Member
Jan 28, 2012
2,651
0
0
Where did you get those figures? I'm genuinely interested in seeing a comparison if such a thing is publicly available.
I looked for such figures a while back, and googling now, there are figures released by Japanese companies.

Here's one such google result:
Japan-based media company Marvelous Entertainment revealed its projected costs for developing 3DS games in a financial Q&A session last week.

In the transcription by the gaming site Hachimaki, translated by 1UP, the site compares the projected costs of ¥50 million ($600,000) to ¥150 million ($1.8 million), to production costs of games in 2009. Citing findings by organisers of the Tokyo Game Show for that year, Hachimaki says production costs of Nintendo DS games ranged from ¥4.4 million ($53,000) to ¥43.9 million ($527,000).

Marvelous’ projections place 3DS development costs in line with budgets for home console titles in 2009, where Wii games cost up to ¥116 million ($1.4 million) and 360/PS3 games cost up to ¥250 million ($3 million).
 

Forever

Banned
Jul 7, 2010
6,717
0
0
I looked for such figures a while back, and googling now, there are figures released by Japanese companies.

Here's one such google result:

So at the most expensive end of the spectrum it's comparable to the cost of Wii games in 2009, which seems about right given the power of the system. Do we have any numbers for Vita?
 

Mondriaan

Member
Jan 28, 2012
2,651
0
0
So at the most expensive end of the spectrum it's comparable to the cost of Wii games in 2009, which seems about right given the power of the system. Do we have any numbers for Vita?
In all likelihood we will have to wait a while for a company to publish their financials before we have that data. All we have right now is someone from Sony saying that costs should be similar to development costs for the PSP (which are comparable to dev costs for the DS).
 

Arla

Member
May 22, 2012
758
1
0
People do realize that the only reason Monster Hunter was on the PSP is because it was the only portable that could run the game right? If the DS was strong enough you can bet your ass it would have been on the DS.

The 3DS is powerful enough to run Monster Hunter. Aside from a Sony fanbase that likes the series and refuses to buy a 3DS, I don't see why Capcom should be rushing out to put a Monster Hunter on Vita.

End of the year can't come soon enough.
 

Hiltz

Member
Dec 8, 2007
9,049
0
0
U.S.A.
Capcom put MH Tri on Wii for three reasons: cheaper development costs, Wii controller options for accessibility, and reaching a broader audience.

The game was originally announced for PS3 in May 2006, but by October 2007, Capcom announced it had switched the game over to Wii.

"Due to high development cost of titles for PS3, we have decided to switch the platform to which we release our Monster Hunster 3 title." - Capcom managing corporate officer Katsuhiko Ichii

"We thought about how to include the casual gamers on Wii as well. As a result, we gave players the choice of a few different control options. If you've been playing Monster Hunter on PSP and you're using the classic controller, you'll be using pretty much the same control system; we've also got the Wii remote and nunchuck. It will be more intuitive and probably easier for the people who've never played a Monster Hunter game before to get into the world with Tri." - Producer Ryozo Tsujimoto


"Monster Hunter 3 originally started out as a PS3 game, but we switched to Wii because of the unique control system. We wanted to make something intuitive, so that if you hadn't played the PSP version or were a more casual gamer, you can still can get into it. So we created this particular game on Wii." - Producer Ryozo Tsujimoto

"With the Classic Controller, you have to sit in a very set position. But with the Wii-mote, you can do whatever you want. You can lounge, or you can even scratch your head - it's just play as you wish." - Producer Ryozo Tsujimoto
 

Mzo

Member
Aug 4, 2004
5,345
0
0
40
Chicago
I always assumed the control scheme talk was just PR BS, does any developer actually like making weird Wii control options for their games?
 

Proven

Member
Jan 19, 2007
7,241
0
0
I always assumed the control scheme talk was just PR BS, does any developer actually like making weird Wii control options for their games?

Usually, no, but by the end of development I remember some video interviews talking about how they made a "breakthrough" when it came to Wii+Nunchuck play.

And personally, I can only play Wii+Nunchuck at this point. I'll only bother with buttons for Monster Hunter if a version after Tri comes out on a NA localized system.

Honestly, it's also why I'm hoping the upcoming Nintendo Direct or whatever has a Monster Hunter for Wii U reveal.