Monster Hunter Tri

[Fierce_LiNk]

Yeah, its a fighter but its main selling point was the fact that for the first time you could play online.

 

Fighters are strange ones, because they require split second timing, especially with combos, blocks, and so forth.

Aye, but also you have to take into account the developers in question, the time-frame, and other resources being poured into the game. Didn't the second game in the series also get released on the Wii? If that's right, then there's not really a huge gap between the second and third game, meaning they probably haven't spent a huge amount of time on it.

 

There have been other online Wii games. Mario Strikers, for example, is a pretty decent effort. I've played it a lot of the time hassle-free. More and more games are heading online as well, especially third party efforts, such as Guitar Hero and Fifa (actually, EA did a good job with FIFA, imo).

 

More and more developers are starting to tap into the Wii and what it can do. I'm more than pleased to see a game of this type being tried out on the Wii, and I've got every confidence that its developers will do a good job of it as well.

[Mikey]

Mikey: For me, what struck me about your comment was the way you said it could potentially be a great game on the PS3. Why can't it potentially be a great game on the Wii?

 

We've got potentially great games on the system, and from the likes of Mario Galaxy and Corruption, you can get a lot out of the system if you try, and this is a big franchise...not something the developers are going to take lightly.

 

I never said it couldn't be good on the Wii, but the hardware just has so many limitations, that any game like MH being cancelled on the PS3, to come out on the Wii, just feels like it's going to be downgraded.

[dazzybee]

But HOW will it be downgraded? Have you ever played the monster hunter games? If so, if they worked so well on the PS2 why wont they on the Wii? And how would they be better on the PS3? Thats what I want to know. Bar grpahics of course.

[pedrocasilva]

The hardware just has so many limitations, that any game like MH being cancelled on the PS3, to come out on the Wii, just feels like it's going to be downgraded.

Story of the PS2 versus Xbox and Gamecube... Revisited.

 

Yet, previous Monster Hunters came out on PS2. Also, we don't know and probably will never know how far along the PS3 version was (did it even get past the planning stages?); we know though, that it was their decision to do the game for Wii instead and I suppose they have their reasons; the trailer they've shown is NOT in early stages, not with that class of graphics; which means it was not a decision taken in the previous month or something.

 

The only real limitation I'll agree with (and it isn't if they work it out) for Monster Hunter 3 on the Wii... Is that it is a online-centric game, therefore; we might get strangled in the end with friend codes and such; instead of a PSN and XBL service.

 

This said, EA managed to work it out with Nintendo and since we have deficit of these games, well... they're needed on the Wii.

 

No hardware gets pushed on day one, so for every game that pushes it's hardware (not saying it's the case, although the final result might, who knows) we'd be better off doing the game for superior hardware already on the market; PS3 and X360 are already a generation behind computer GPU's at this point, for example; why should we be investing in pushing them when that boundary is easy to break on a top of the line PC?

 

What would be of PS2's big hitters... if the developers said "well we have way more power elsewhere"; well duh, but stuff more powerful never ceases to come; meaning if you'll push anything, there will be something better on the market already; this is true for all the hardware in the market, including Wii.

 

Not doing a game because the console is not powerful as <insert name> most of the times is just being lazy; if they won't even try to come close to that higher standard they'll never push boundaries.

[DCK]

I never said it couldn't be good on the Wii, but the hardware just has so many limitations, that any game like MH being cancelled on the PS3, to come out on the Wii, just feels like it's going to be downgraded.

I really doubt Monster Hunter is a game that will benefit from HD (well maybe that), or better graphics and physics. The Wii's Wiimote will really fire up the gameplay experience.

 

Also, I doubt the PS3 version ever really existed, because if they had anything substantial they would've made a Monster Hunter side story on Wii (or PS3), and then continue with the material they had.

 

The Wii version just has other appeals. The online mode will probably work fine, too - hopefully Brawl will show how it's supposed to be done.

[DazzeL]

How does the online in Monster Hunter work - whats the point in it? I've not got any experience of the game at all myself.

 

Also the next person I hear say "what possible advantages could a ps3 version have over a Wii one, bar graphics of course" (Sorry Dazzybee :p) needs shooting. Its a rediculous comment and the same as saying the reverse but "bar motion controls of course". The only console I own is a Wii. But to imply graphics are not a legitimate experience enhancement is utter rubbish, they can vastly improve the atmosphere and thus the gameplay too.

[dazzybee]

DazzeL - they can you're right, gears of war os an average game made better because of the atmosphere - but for me, games are about PLAYING, so making the way we play more emmersive is MUCH MUCH better than the visual emmersion (bar a few choice games) - so for me, I would prefer to play most games on the wii than 360/PS3!

 

And the online mode is co-operative, so you join a hunting pack with friends and go around and kill monsters together. SOunds great

 

PS Please don't shoot me

[DazzeL]

I don't want to shoot you! I just think you can't count graphics out of the equation as much as you can't count controls out - peoples preference is, of course, up to them! I'm of a similar view point to you - so long as the graphics aren't awful.

 

Ok that sounds cool but whats the point in that then? Do you get items, experience or something? Progress through a story perhaps? Or is it purely for the fun, which if so will likely get old fast without an incentive to carry on playing.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I don't want to shoot you! I just think you can't count graphics out of the equation as much as you can't count controls out - peoples preference is, of course, up to them! I'm of a similar view point to you - so long as the graphics aren't awful.

 

 

Aye, if it were on the PS3, then the game would no doubt look a lot better.

 

But, there have been previous versions of Monster Hunter on weaker systems. Like Pedro said, they chose to put the game on the PS2 rather than the Xbox or Gamecube. If the game was really intended to be played with superb visuals, they probably would have put it on the stronger console. But, then again, there's the whole argument that the PS2 was the highest selling console in Japan at the time, just like the Wii is now, so every argument has a counter-argument, haha.

[Gizmo]

Aye, if it were on the PS3, then the game would no doubt look a lot better.

 

But, there have been previous versions of Monster Hunter on weaker systems. Like Pedro said, they chose to put the game on the PS2 rather than the Xbox or Gamecube. If the game was really intended to be played with superb visuals, they probably would have put it on the stronger console. But, then again, there's the whole argument that the PS2 was the highest selling console in Japan at the time, just like the Wii is now, so every argument has a counter-argument, haha.

 

The difference between the PS2 and Xbox is a lot less than the difference between the PS3 and Wii. Games were easily made multiplatform between all three last generation, this time Wii games tend to be made completely seperately. Take FIFA for example.

 

At the end of the day, I think it's fairly safe to say the reason for it being on Wii is that it's going to make the developers alot more money than on PS3.

[pedrocasilva]

The difference between the PS2 and Xbox is a lot less than the difference between the PS3 and Wii. Games were easily made multiplatform between all three last generation, this time Wii games tend to be made completely seperately. Take FIFA for example.

Not necessarily; it was mainly easier to do that last gen because most games used PS2 as the starting point; if, you picked Xbox or GC exclusives, like Rogue Squadron 2/3 and Ninja Gaiden... it would be a pain in the ass to downgrade it until it ran on PS2. Because PS2 was so weak; PS2 just didn't had to deal with it often, since from the beginning it was expected to lead, and did.

 

If, PS2 hadn't existed, you can bet the average GC/Xbox game would look better than it does, even the enhanced ones (they usually didn't bump up the polycounts for characters, for example.

 

Of course then we have fundamental architecture diferences this gen, like high definition, shader compliant, and multi-core, and of course Wii is parallel to all that; but it doesn't mean porting a Wii game to them is hard.

[Gizmo]

Not necessarily; it was mainly easier to do that last gen because most games used PS2 as the starting point; if, you picked Xbox or GC exclusives, like Rogue Squadron 2/3 and Ninja Gaiden... it would be a pain in the ass to downgrade it until it ran on PS2. Because PS2 was so weak; PS2 just didn't had to deal with it often, since from the beginning it was expected to lead, and did.

 

If, PS2 hadn't existed, you can bet the average GC/Xbox game would look better than it does, even the enhanced ones (they usually didn't bump up the polycounts for characters, for example.

 

Of course then we have fundamental architecture diferences this gen, like high definition, shader compliant, and multi-core, and of course Wii is parallel to all that; but it doesn't mean porting a Wii game to them is hard.

 

Then why isn't it being done? The multiplatform stuff between PS3 and 360 would undoubtedly find it's way to Wii if it was capable.

[DCK]

@ Pedro

 

I really think that's not true. The PS360 requires a whole difference approach to programming compared to the previous generation. Games and their rescources are designed with multiprocessing, high definition and incredible shading power in mind. Since the Wii is a continuation of GameCube hardware, it doesn't have a multicore CPU or HD, and its shading power, although improved, is closer to last gen than it is to the PS360. Games can be ported, but you're basically removing many foundations the games were originally designed with. Similarily, porting from Wii to the PS360 means redesigning so much, that it's likely more effort than creating a game from scratch.

 

Architecturaly speaking, the differences last gen weren't that big an so ports were easier. Also, in terms of computational abilities, the PS2 <> Xbox gap is smaller than the Wii <> PS3 gap. Like Gizmo says, the fact that it isn't being done (at all), means something.

[pedrocasilva]

@ Pedro

 

I really think that's not true. The PS360 requires a whole difference approach to programming compared to the previous generation. Games and their rescources are designed with multiprocessing, high definition and incredible shading power in mind. Since the Wii is a continuation of GameCube hardware, it doesn't have a multicore CPU or HD, and its shading power, although improved, is closer to last gen than it is to the PS360. Games can be ported, but you're basically removing many foundations the games were originally designed with. Similarily, porting from Wii to the PS360 means redesigning so much, that it's likely more effort than creating a game from scratch.

Well that's right, if you're taking it there, but I didn't say otherwise; I disagree with the "requires" though, you can simply not use it, but then you're not using the hardware to it's fullest (first gen X360 games only used one core, and first gen PS3 hardly used the SPE's); I disagree with the "requires" because it certainly wasn't a point last gen; exclusives used it, and then the rest was PS2 standard perhaps with more bells and whistles.

 

 

My point is there was a clear diference with PS2 and GC/Xbox last gen too, but PS2 was the starting point; this gen could be the same if the circunstances where diferent, but with Wii launching as a underdog and developers having already done the jump... well, it's obvious they won't drop X360/PS3 standard graphics now; but that was also only possible last gen because the Xbox/GC standard was never accomplished, let alone exclusives.

Architecturaly speaking, the differences last gen weren't that big an so ports were easier. Also, in terms of computational abilities, the PS2 <> Xbox gap is smaller than the Wii <> PS3 gap. Like Gizmo says, the fact that it isn't being done (at all), means something.

I partly disagree, last gen had a lot of diferences, for example no console was shader compliant with the other, now... only Wii is not compliant with the other two (PS3 and X360 are shader model compliant), and if one game pushed say... PS2, it would be a nightmare to port.

 

Multicore is a big difference if you're gonna exploit it, bigger than any gap between last gen consoles though, on that I agree.

 

As for MH3 not being done at all for PS3... that team always did exclusive games, sure... PS3+X360 would be easier than it was last gen to port between consoles (specially if it was done from the ground with that in mind) but not for the Wii, and... If we had the PS2 scenario I said (Wii graphics being the standard) a Monster Hunter 3 with Wii graphics on PS3 might have been acceptable, but that is not the case with the current situation we have. (not to mention HD textures and the fact that they'd have to rewrite all the shaders)

Then why isn't it being done? The multiplatform stuff between PS3 and 360 would undoubtedly find it's way to Wii if it was capable.

You're taking my point in a wrong way; what I'm saying is that it was only possible last gen because PS2 was the standard for the other two consoles, even if they were vastly more powerful.

 

If, we were doing things from the ground for GC and Xbox it would also be unlikely that they could be ported later on onto the PS2, or how much they'd have to be downgraded. In all fairness that's Wii's situation, agravated by stuff like multi-core actually being used to it's fullest already.

[Gizmo]

I'd disagree - the games which are exclusive to a certain console (let's say Ratchet and Clank on PS3 and Halo on 360) would still push the consoles properly, and when consumers see these they will question why the other games aren't of that quality power wise.

 

Also, the point about not much being ported to PS2 is irrelevant - off the top of my head I can think of Super Monkey Ball, Viewtiful Joe, and Resi 4 all GC exclusives originally and later ported to PS2.

 

Quite simply, the Wii is a seperate pillar to the other two, and would be no matter how successful it is. Porting games to the Wii downwards from PS3 would be too difficult to be worth it, and porting up from Wii to PS3 would leave such an underwhelming product at the end that PS3 owners would simply not accept it in comparison to the exclusives. Thats like saying Wii owners would accept every game to look like Cruis'n, even after seein Super Mario Galaxy has been released.

[Domo Kun]

You know, he's kinda got a point-

 

The game could achieve more if it was on the PS3 or Xbox360, as motion control don't really add anything to adventure games, and the game could be bigger on the PS3.

 

However, the game could easily achieve the same standard as the PS3 version in every way bar graphically.

 

I want to see every single game released on all consoles. I hate companies and competition. We should have The Peoples' Games Console which would have optional motion sensoring controls.

 

Eugbhsoioidfjfsgzshkdfus

[pedrocasilva]

I'd disagree - the games which are exclusive to a certain console (let's say Ratchet and Clank on PS3 and Halo on 360) would still push the consoles properly, and when consumers see these they will question why the other games aren't of that quality power wise.

Halo 3 isn't a very good example; the game even runs at 640p (not 720p) and is no technical feat, CoD4 who is multiplatform is more impressive, for example.

 

But yes, the hardware are still diferent, but Xbox and GC also were, that's my point, they're still closer in power than PS2 was, and now Wii comparing with X360 and PS3.

Also, the point about not much being ported to PS2 is irrelevant - off the top of my head I can think of Super Monkey Ball, Viewtiful Joe, and Resi 4 all GC exclusives originally and later ported to PS2.

Monkey Ball wasn't a system pusher, it even started development in Dreamcast. We could list how stripped down RE4 was for PS2 (a lot, trust me) and viewtiful joe went from 60 frames to 30 with slowdowns.

Quite simply, the Wii is a seperate pillar to the other two, and would be no matter how successful it is. Porting games to the Wii downwards from PS3 would be too difficult to be worth it, and porting up from Wii to PS3 would leave such an underwhelming product at the end that PS3 owners would simply not accept it in comparison to the exclusives. Thats like saying Wii owners would accept every game to look like Cruis'n, even after seein Super Mario Galaxy has been released.

That's my point though; Wii is only that "secondary pilar" because the standard was already higher when it came out.

 

Hell, do you remember Dreamcast days? Since PSone was leading the system would get PSone ports that didn't really push the system, yet it was the most powerful one, by a long shot. If... Wii was never expected to be the one leading, so developers gave the jump; they aren't backing up now; but if Wii was expected to dominate and get the preferential support from the start... we'd have a different scenario, that's all I'm saying.

[DCK]

The game could achieve more if it was on the PS3 or Xbox360, as motion control don't really add anything to adventure games, and the game could be bigger on the PS3.

Eh? Motion controls didn't add anything to Zelda or Metroid? I think motion controls will make this game pure win. Also, judging the trailer, the graphics are a decent effort on Wii, which makes it good enough for me.

 

@ Pedro:

You can't really compare the Wii <> PS360 or PS2 <> GC gap. PS2 games could be ported with concessions in framerate, polygon count, texture resolutions and the reduction/replacement of the (compared to this gen, relatively few) shader tricks the Xbox/GC were capable of. The difference today is that not only is the Wii even too weak for a reduction in framerate or texture resolution of a PS360 game, your average PS360 title is literally made out of shaders, something the Wii cannot ever hope to reproduce. PS2 games could be made by making Xbox games ugly, but Wii games cannot be made by making 360 games ugly.

 

Also, the PS360 + PC market is way too substantial to allow upgraded Wii ports (they would not be happy with that). Both together still have a larger market share than the Wii, and are more sensitive to hypes.

[Gizmo]

f Wii was expected to dominate and get the preferential support from the start... we'd have a different scenario, that's all I'm saying.

 

No, we wouldn't. The PS3 and 360 exclusives would still push the systems. Yes Halo wasn't a very good example, but it's the system seller, and it looks a lot better than th average Wii game. Bioshock/Mass Effect are gorgeous games. If every 360 game was a port of a Wii-lead game and looked like Red Steel then they simply wouldn't be accepted because people know the 360 can do so much more.

 

Nothing would change, whether the Wii was expected to do well or not. Comparing the Wii to the PS2 is irrelevant.

[Hero-of-Time]

Being a huge MH fan and now having played all of them that have been released in the western world I can honestly say that if they add motion controls to MH3 it could end up being a bad move.

 

Some quests, like Lao, take 35mins to complete and thats pretty much fighting the whole time. It could end up being a pretty tiring game.

 

I trust Capcom to map the controls well on the nunchuck and wiimote though, especially as they did a great job converting the PS2 controls onto the PSP MH games.

[pedrocasilva]

No, we wouldn't. The PS3 and 360 exclusives would still push the systems. Yes Halo wasn't a very good example, but it's the system seller, and it looks a lot better than th average Wii game. Bioshock/Mass Effect are gorgeous games. If every 360 game was a port of a Wii-lead game and looked like Red Steel then they simply wouldn't be accepted because people know the 360 can do so much more.

 

Nothing would change, whether the Wii was expected to do well or not. Comparing the Wii to the PS2 is irrelevant.

Right, their exclusives (just as GC/Xbox), but if Wii was the main platform games that are not exclusives would be planned from the start for it, making the other platforms inherit that. Like I said... look at Dreamcast example, it was not Sonic and Shenmue that were stuck in the Psone era, it was most of the third party games.

 

This won't happen this gen, once that we've already given the jump; but... It could be happening if PS3 was Wii (being that PS3 entered the market in the expectation of winning) and if X360 hadn't be released a year before. It's all about conjuncture. There was consoles whose potential was held back in the past (Dreamcast, GC/XBOX, etc) but although that won't happen this time; but it could, had things be different (mainly where developers put their money from the start).

 

Red Steel is not a good example at all of good Wii graphics too, the middleware engine it uses it optimized like crap, they ended up fighting the engine, not the system.

 

I agree that we disagree though, but I won't change my opinion on this matter.

@ Pedro:

You can't really compare the Wii <> PS360 or PS2 <> GC gap. PS2 games could be ported with concessions in framerate, polygon count, texture resolutions and the reduction/replacement of the (compared to this gen, relatively few) shader tricks the Xbox/GC were capable of. The difference today is that not only is the Wii even too weak for a reduction in framerate or texture resolution of a PS360 game, your average PS360 title is literally made out of shaders, something the Wii cannot ever hope to reproduce. PS2 games could be made by making Xbox games ugly, but Wii games cannot be made by making 360 games ugly.

Most of that is right, but it's also a consequence of those games being done from the ground for PS3/X360, and not the other way arround (for the Wii) and once third party's gave that jump the consumer simply won't settle for a lower technical level of graphics for those systems.

 

I also agree, the gap is bigger, but above all that, it's a gap that's being enforced and taken advantage of, something that didn't really happen last gen, for example; despite a gap also existing. Why wasn't it enforced last gen? because the standard where PS2 graphics, anything better than that was already good enough, and taking the exclusives out, most games lower denominator was the PS2. A Wii port into X360 and PS3 wouldn't be that hard (better than the other way arround), it's just that, with the standard of graphics we have for them (and texture resolution) they would be criticized for that; because in this case... it's the "out of the norm" scenario; a out of the norm that was the norm in other generations.

 

What I see on the Wii is that developers are not even trying to do that (top range graphics for Wii Standards, even), and I sincerely don't know if it's simply not worth it or are they just lazy; because that's the oposite of what happened with PSone and PS2 where they kept trying despite the hardware being quite honestly... subpar.

 

What I'm stating is that the current aproach to things could be different given that stuff happened in a diferent order, but they aren't, and nothing will invert that now.

[LazyBoy]

Being a huge MH fan and now having played all of them that have been released in the western world I can honestly say that if they add motion controls to MH3 it could end up being a bad move.

 

Some quests, like Lao, take 35mins to complete and thats pretty much fighting the whole time. It could end up being a pretty tiring game.

 

I trust Capcom to map the controls well on the nunchuck and wiimote though, especially as they did a great job converting the PS2 controls onto the PSP MH games.

 

Come on, we've had the thing for a year now and it's pretty much confirmed now that unless you're 40 pounds and having to wash yourself with a towel on a stick you don't get tired playing the Wii. Plus it doesn't have to be pointing and clicking.

[Zechs Merquise]

But HOW will it be downgraded? Have you ever played the monster hunter games? If so, if they worked so well on the PS2 why wont they on the Wii? And how would they be better on the PS3? Thats what I want to know. Bar grpahics of course.

 

Exactly, very well said. Plus, what would have happened if Monster Hunter 3 had been released on PS3? Oh yeah, it would have probably sold less copies!

[Hero-of-Time]

Come on, we've had the thing for a year now and it's pretty much confirmed now that unless you're 40 pounds and having to wash yourself with a towel on a stick you don't get tired playing the Wii. Plus it doesn't have to be pointing and clicking.

 

Ever been a Gunner in MH? I can see them using the wiimote as a pointer for targeting when using a gunner weapon or bow which could get tiring. It would be fine for something like the Ballista gun but for hunting weapons it would be a big no no for me. Again though at this point is just speculation on how the controls will work out.

[Gizmo]

I agree that we disagree though, but I won't change my opinion on this matter.

 

That's fine, if you're comfortable being wrong