There's A Problem With 'Monster Hunter: World' Review Scores, But Fixing It Is Tough

[Kamikaze Revy]

Letting another man decide what you gonna buy for yourself , especially when a lot of reviewers sound like they played 2 hours of a game/got paid to do a review by a game company, and/or describe any game as souls-like ( do people play other action rpgs?).

This is actually something that can be debated too. How long does a person have to play a game to be "qualified" to review it. Also, how much experience does a reviewer have to have with a particular genre to be qualified to review the game?
I think for the most part, I feel like a person should have to beat the main portion/campaign/story of a game to be able to review it, but I can also see that sometimes within X amount of hours it's possible to have a very good idea of the overall quality of a game.
I think reviews have gotten worse over the years though because of the rate we consume content now. Everything is a race to be the first to get a review out for clicks.
It takes how many years to create a game? And people are really assessing years worth of work in a few days, or even hours?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Spoken like a true novice that’s at the beginining of the game....this is so far from the truth at least for the Nintendo exclusive MH...YMMV...well except the platforming (it isn’t a platformer).

If I gotta play a game for 10 hours before it gets "good" then that's bad game design.

 

[100Percent]

What in the blue hell is going on here?
I don't even know where to start unpacking the loads of B.S. in this thread right now.

This is a slippery slope argument. It implies that if a person doesn't like a game, nothing is wrong with the game, the issue is with the person. That just isn't true.


Yes. If a person does not like a particular game it's the game's fault. Who else's fault would it be? Mine? Something has to be wrong with me to not like a game now?

I mean it really has more to do with where you personally think "fault" would lie when we're dealing with personal opinion here.

I don't think @Fatboi1 was saying the player was at fault for not liking the game, just that it's not always the fault of the game if the player doesn't like it.

If I ask someone who doesn't drink alcohol to try a alcoholic drink and they don't like, who's ask fault then?

You could say MH could have done a better job at making itself more accessible to new players but that would be at the ire of its veteran fans. You gotta remember over in the states its niche, in japan this series os HUGELY popular. The game is for people who like monster hunter plain and simple, if you don't like MH you don't like this game. Theres not fault or blame to put on anyone here.

Its like sayin if Im out here just bein myself and some people don't like me, well, that aint my fault. Some folk aren't compatible, and no ones perfect. Ima just do me and they can do them

 

[Grand Conde]

What in the blue hell is going on here?
I don't even know where to start unpacking the loads of B.S. in this thread right now.

This is a slippery slope argument. It implies that if a person doesn't like a game, nothing is wrong with the game, the issue is with the person. That just isn't true.


Yes. If a person does not like a particular game it's the game's fault. Who else's fault would it be? Mine? Something has to be wrong with me to not like a game now?



This is where you have to make up your mind @Fatboi1 (and the rest of the review score whores that only bring them up when it benefits their argument). One day the arcadium is citing review scores let and right like chapter and verse from The Bible, the next they are falling back and downplaying them depending on which side of the argument they want to make. Overall, I feel like there's way too much weight placed on review scores. Group think is a real thing and it definitely applies to gaming opinions.

Have I negged you recently, because it isn't letting me rep you.


All this aside; Monster Hunter definitely isn't for everyone. Sure that's a statement that applies to every game, but MH is in a pretty niche genre with some very passionate fans.
If you don't like it, it doesn't mean you are a casual with a trash taste in video games. Some of you really have this weird superiority complex when it comes to your perceived refined taste in video games.
I personally think the game is alright, but for me, there's entirely too much slow repetition. That's why I've played the previous MH games in small doses.
I don't think the game sucks, I just don't run to it every afternoon after work, because the game play doesn't work for me personally on that level.

Breh I don't feel like repeating myself since you clearly didn't even bother following the conversation on the first page. But (a) you are a casual if you dismiss a game because it doesn't instantly entertain you and (b) no the game is not at fault for someone not liking it for purely subjective reasons.

Notice no one is complaining about the quality of the game but people are saying they got 'had' because they bought the game purely based off the metacritic score without doing any research. Anyone who does this is an idiot and deserves to lose money.

 

[teacher]

If I gotta play a game for 10 hours before it gets "good" then that's bad game design.

I wasn’t commenting on if you like it or not, different stroke for different folks....I can’t stand bethesda games in general...doesn’t mean it’s bad game design, Just means I don’t like those type of games. I was just commenting on the part saying this game takes no strategy....this game at its highest level takes at least as much strategy as the souls game’s if not more (enemies you can’t beat w/o 4 players and overpowered weapons and cheesing), but this was the MH3 and MH4 which were Nintendo exclusives...maybe they dumbed it down I haven’t played this iteration yet.

 

[Grand Conde]

If I gotta play a game for 10 hours before it gets "good" then that's bad game design.

Specify the bad game design breh.

 

[Deltron]

If I gotta play a game for 10 hours before it gets "good" then that's bad game design.

eh I wouldn't necessarily say that's true. some games, especially story driven ones are slower burns.

 

[Grand Conde]

This is a slippery slope argument. It implies that if a person doesn't like a game, nothing is wrong with the game, the issue is with the person. That just isn't true.

Nonsense. Neither the game nor the player have to be at fault. I've played plenty of good games that I didn't personally like, I didn't go around making up rubbish about "bad game design" or saying I got 'had'. I just moved on to the next game.

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

What in the blue hell is going on here?
I don't even know where to start unpacking the loads of B.S. in this thread right now.

This is a slippery slope argument. It implies that if a person doesn't like a game, nothing is wrong with the game, the issue is with the person. That just isn't true.


Yes. If a person does not like a particular game it's the game's fault. Who else's fault would it be? Mine? Something has to be wrong with me to not like a game now?



This is where you have to make up your mind @Fatboi1 (and the rest of the review score whores that only bring them up when it benefits their argument). One day the arcadium is citing review scores let and right like chapter and verse from The Bible, the next they are falling back and downplaying them depending on which side of the argument they want to make. Overall, I feel like there's way too much weight placed on review scores. Group think is a real thing and it definitely applies to gaming opinions.

Have I negged you recently, because it isn't letting me rep you.


All this aside; Monster Hunter definitely isn't for everyone. Sure that's a statement that applies to every game, but MH is in a pretty niche genre with some very passionate fans.
If you don't like it, it doesn't mean you are a casual with a trash taste in video games. Some of you really have this weird superiority complex when it comes to your perceived refined taste in video games.
I personally think the game is alright, but for me, there's entirely too much slow repetition. That's why I've played the previous MH games in small doses.
I don't think the game sucks, I just don't run to it every afternoon after work, because the game play doesn't work for me personally on that level.

This is just downright bizzare thinking.


If a game is great at what it's trying be but I don't like it how is it the games fault that it doesn't align with my taste?

If someone is cooked a perfect steak that any steak lover would love but a vegan eats it and says it sucks,does that mean it's something wrong with the steak even though the vegan ordered it knowing they don't like steak?

Of course not. It's the dumb ass vegans fault. Just like If you play a genre of a game you don't like its not the damn games fault it's yours.

 

[firemanBk]

This is actually something that can be debated too. How long does a person have to play a game to be "qualified" to review it. Also, how much experience does a reviewer have to have with a particular genre to be qualified to review the game?
I think for the most part, I feel like a person should have to beat the main portion/campaign/story of a game to be able to review it, but I can also see that sometimes within X amount of hours it's possible to have a very good idea of the overall quality of a game.
I think reviews have gotten worse over the years though because of the rate we consume content now. Everything is a race to be the first to get a review out for clicks.
It takes how many years to create a game? And people are really assessing years worth of work in a few days, or even hours?

To review, I think you should have to beat a game to completion. Which annoys me with RPG reviews cause I know there's no fukking chance all these reviewers are finishing a 100 hour RPG in a week.
Publishers are a part of it too. These games should be sent a month out from release rather than 5-10 days. Finishing games within a week is not how most people play. Barely anybody has that much time and I think playing so much, so fast skews things.

 

[Thanos]

This is actually something that can be debated too. How long does a person have to play a game to be "qualified" to review it. Also, how much experience does a reviewer have to have with a particular genre to be qualified to review the game?
I think for the most part, I feel like a person should have to beat the main portion/campaign/story of a game to be able to review it, but I can also see that sometimes within X amount of hours it's possible to have a very good idea of the overall quality of a game.
I think reviews have gotten worse over the years though because of the rate we consume content now. Everything is a race to be the first to get a review out for clicks.
It takes how many years to create a game? And people are really assessing years worth of work in a few days, or even hours?

I definitely agree about the quality of the reviews, but i'm firm on playing things to competition unless they are bugged and almost unplayable.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Notice no one is complaining about the quality of the game

Umm, that's exactly what I complained about

 

[Fatboi1]

This is a slippery slope argument. It implies that if a person doesn't like a game, nothing is wrong with the game, the issue is with the person. That just isn't true.

This slippery slope presents another issue: what's "wrong" with a game cannot be an objectionable fact except for discussing things that don't work as intended e.g. something not triggering when X is done.
If a person presents a flaw that bothers him, that flaw doesn't mean it's "wrong". You know this. If this topic was about your favorite game and someone said this thing that to you is the best shyt ever, is boring to them you'd say it's mostly something that doesn't appeal to them. For example, the exploration in Zelda may be boring to me while it's magical to lots of other people. That isn't an objective truth.

Yes. If a person does not like a particular game it's the game's fault. Who else's fault would it be? Mine? Something has to be wrong with me to not like a game now?

You're taking offense to something so simple. in my head, this is crystal clear. If I don't like the taste of olives in a rice and beans dish, that doesn't mean the dish is bad does it? There's nothing "wrong" with you, you just don't like it. You guys seem to take on this "what's wrong with me!?" attitude when you don't like what others do. You don't like it?? Tough luck that's life. that's not saying there's no compelling argument to be made in regards to a specific thing about the game.

This is where you have to make up your mind @Fatboi1 (and the rest of the review score whores that only bring them up when it benefits their argument). One day the arcadium is citing review scores let and right like chapter and verse from The Bible, the next they are falling back and downplaying them depending on which side of the argument they want to make. Overall, I feel like there's way too much weight placed on review scores. Group think is a real thing and it definitely applies to gaming opinions.

There is no mind to be made up. I've made it crystal clear thousands of times that there's no such thing as an "overrated' game because the person who says that, says that out of arrogance. As if to say everyone who did enjoy said title was out of their mind and not in the right state and ONLY the detractors are right. Every highly rated game always had a vocal minority that insisted that the game is a steaming pile of trash or that it's simply not great and should be taken down a peg. "The reviewers were paid!", "They only played 4 hours!", "Fanboy reviewers" and other juvenile conjecture that doesn't really have any leg to stand on. You'll agree that Zelda is "overrated" but that MGSV is a work of art and you'll try to excuse that bias by slightly agreeing with the "Oh yeah I agree there's some issues BUT" line. I see you

I bring up reviews that's high because it's simple: High review scores are mainly brought up in fanboy wars discussions. "Xbox has no good games" or "PS4 only has 2 good games" and boom next thing you know there's a barrage of Metacritic links being posted. It's to highlight that among users and reviewers, the common thought was that ___ is a very good game, excellent if you may. Calling a game with a 90+ trash is just a fart in the wind when there's hundreds/thousands of user reviews that says otherwise but that is quickly defended with the usual "Oh they're just trolls" argument.

TL:DR Nobody wants to come to common ground on the uses of MC. it means different things to everyone. Numbers means different things. I think Puerto Rican Lasagna is a 10/10 to me. Italian Lasagna is a 10/10. Ugh, what doesn this mean? I know people who LOVE Lasagna. I know people who LOVE Plantain. I know people who don't like those two together.


"I don't like Piñón.


"I guess you don't like it, it's a pretty good dish."

"what's wrong with me? You're saying nothing is wrong with this dish? It's too sweet. Why is there raisins in this? !"




This is your logic.


Fred

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

Breh I don't feel like repeating myself since you clearly didn't even bother following the conversation on the first page. But (a) you are a casual if you dismiss a game because it doesn't instantly entertain you and (b) no the game is not at fault for someone not liking it for purely subjective reasons.

Notice no one is complaining about the quality of the game but people are saying they got 'had' because they bought the game purely based off the metacritic score without doing any research. Anyone who does this is an idiot and deserves to lose money.

This is just downright bizzare thinking.


If a game is great at what it's trying be but I don't like it how is it the games fault that it doesn't align with my taste?

If someone is cooked a perfect steak that any steak lover would love but a vegan eats it and says it sucks,does that mean it's something wrong with the steak even though the vegan ordered it knowing they don't like steak?

Of course not. It's the dumb ass vegans fault. Just like If you play a genre of a game you don't like its not the damn games fault it's yours.

Ya'll are shifting away from my point.
I responded to @Grand Conde directly because I've noticed it's very common for him to completely dismiss a person's opinion (by calling them a casual) when it doesn't 100% align with his Sony stannery.
I'm not debating the definition of the word opinion. Not everyone is going to like every game.
"One man's trash is another man's treasure" right?
What I'm commenting on is the idea that if I don't like a game you like, something has to be wrong with me.

Reviews are a joke, and should never be taken as gospel. Me personally, I like to look at reviews to get a general idea of what a game is like, but I don't use them to inform my purchasing decisions. What happens though is that people will use reviews as validation for their own opinions.

If a person bought monster hunter thinking it was going to play like devil may cry, then yes, I'd agree they have to take the L.
This is a game in a long running series and there's plenty of game play videos etc available to keep you from jumping into something you won't like.

I just think the go to argument is to discredit a person instead of sticking to the actual argument and making your point better understood.

 

[Thanos]

If I gotta play a game for 10 hours before it gets "good" then that's bad game design.

I disagree, It just means you weren't willing to play for 10H because it didn't interest you to. Nothing about quality of the design of the game, It was simply not for you.