Reviews for MH3U

I was thinking that we should have a thread with all the MH3U reviews seeing as we're getting close to the game's release.

I'll update this for the reviews for MH3U. For now, we could speculate them. I'll give a rough average of the score here too.


AVERAGE SCORE SO FAR: 8.2

Offical Nintendo Magazine: 7.9

IGN: 8.8

Nintendo Life: 9.0

Eurogamer Italy: 8.0

Gamesradar: 7.0

Spong: 8.0

Eurogamer: 9.0

Godisageek: 8.0

Gamesvillage: 8.8

Multiplayer.it: 8.8

EGM: 7.5

Digital Spy: 8.0

GamersNet: 9.1

Meristation: 8.0

Yea.. saddly that review is missing a lot. None of the updates for the west, no multiplayer and basically.. I dont think they played passed an hour which really gives them nothing to go off of.

Also, were they playing the 3G version and not the western 3U version? That does make a difference on understanding and a lot of added features.

I hope not all reviews are done so poorly.

I'm not sure what will happen with the reviews, but my pessimistic side is saying that with Gears coming out the same night that it will be priority 2 for most reviewers (outside of nintendo). Depending on how many reviewers they have, they'll have very little time to review it. They'll just see it as a rehashed Tri, and may or may not be aware of or research the added monsters and areas that come later. Monster hunter isn't a blockbuster beatitin8hours game, it takes hours and day and weeks to really get into it. Not ideal for reviews.
I predict lackluster reviews for it from many places, and that does worry me... companies pay attention to those to a degree, but new players may be waiting on them to decide whether to get the game or not. The worse the reviews, the less disks sold, you see where this is going. It'll come down to whether or not the reviewers GET monster hunter or not, and can judge it past the first 10 hours of gameplay that would complete other games, and don't want to complain about the WiiU and wish it were on the other consoles. The demo was a good move even if it was an old japanese one, it lets new players get a taste of the gameplay they'll get if they stick with it through the gathering steps.

All just speculation on my part, but these people do have deadlines for this kind of work. I could go on about it maybe affecting the length of single player experiences in other games, but this isn't the right forum for that.

I don't think there is need for that much pessimism. Somre reviewers may go that far, but no one is calling this MH4. It's MH Tri with many added features. I purchased Tri based on one review from IGN with a score of 8. A pretty good score all things considered. I love what IGN is doing right now in regards to MH3U. It seems there is something about it almost weekly now.

I actually remember a 9.0 review in Nintendo Power was what made me decide to get Tri.

RDC wrote:

I don't think there is need for that much pessimism. Somre reviewers may go that far, but no one is calling this MH4. It's MH Tri with many added features. I purchased Tri based on one review from IGN with a score of 8. A pretty good score all things considered. I love what IGN is doing right now in regards to MH3U. It seems there is something about it almost weekly now.

Official Nintendo Magazine gave it 79%. They gave the original Tri 91%. Basically, they complained about the lack of extra features early on, without fully understanding the fact that it's an expansion, not a new game, and so it does what it says on the tin, really.

They also complained about some dodgy controls, and if they're the same as the classic control systems from MH3, I can see why. Still don't completely agree, though.

And they said that we need it changing a bit to fit in better with western games, and needs to be made easier. I think that's the last thing we need personally. I think that would ruin the series. Where's the fun in making it the same as the games we already have?

I don't know what other reviews are saying about it, but judging from this, it certainly doesn't look good.

Spiritlord wrote:

-snip-

Keep in mind that ONM are twats. I call bs on loads of their reviews.

At least they don't have that big of a following anymore? I don't know if their physical magazine has been discontinued yet (I imagine it has, iirc Future published their magazine), but not many people think "ONM" when they think of Nintendo news. A lot of people will just go to IGN, Kotaku or someone else for daily news.

Yamatsu wrote:

Spiritlord wrote:

-snip-

Keep in mind that ONM are twats. I call bs on loads of their reviews.

Yeah, there recent review of ZombiU sounded like a paid for advertisement for the game.

Also, I managed to find another review in a magazine they have in school. However, I can't remember the name of it. They gave it a 4/5 (8/10) and said it was great unless you already played tri.

IGN are good now? I remember that god awful Tri review from a couple of years ago and still shudder, and guess what I found recently? Them doing the exact same thing; making the exact same basic mistakes when looking at MHU. I don't know whether its just a few members of IGN that are just mentally challenged or whether it was just a first look, 'I-have-NO-idea-wat-I'm-doan' kinda thing but its made me detest IGN even more.

I'm not really worried. If the criticism is that it is like Tri with more stuff, then I'm cool. My only experience was Tri and I love that game.

If the reviewer is concerned that it's too hard, then they clearly never played the original Ghost and Goblins. Frankly, I would like it harder.

Yamatsu wrote:

Spiritlord wrote:

-snip-

Keep in mind that ONM are twats. I call bs on loads of their reviews.

At least they don't have that big of a following anymore? I don't know if their physical magazine has been discontinued yet (I imagine it has, iirc Future published their magazine), but not many people think "ONM" when they think of Nintendo news. A lot of people will just go to IGN, Kotaku or someone else for daily news.

I looked at their MH Tri review... and they compared it as if "Steven Spielberg had designed Pokémon and you'd be in Monster Hunter Tri"

Why they would compare it to a turn-based game like pogeyman, I don't know.

I will not pay attention to reviews because most of them are from idiots who review based off an hour or 10 from playing 3U, or those who think it's a brand new Monster Hunter game. I'd suggest people to be cynical about this.

Haha, people still look at review scores? That's really cute, I remember doing that when I was a kid too!

Spoiler:

lol!

I look at gameplay videos and people's opinion because of that.
I don't trust what reviewers have to say because it's a single opinion.

Sai_ wrote:

lol!

I look at gameplay videos and people's opinion because of that.
I don't trust what reviewers have to say because it's a single opinion.

Honestly i dont even trust peoples opinions because alot of gamers nowadays act like a bunch of sheep. If a game is hated they will jump on the bandwagon and hate it just because others do without even playing the game sometimes.

MH takes awhile to get rolling they will have to play it more than a couple of hours to get to the meat of the game.

Review scores are good, just not ones from IGN/Gamespot/Machinima/ any big business reviewer. Look at someone who does NOT get paid to review. Watch a commentators reviews or find one of the MANY review sites that have volunteer reviewers. Remember guys, game critics exists, also Brad Gallaway already did good reviews of Tri and Freedom Unite so he might be someone to keep an eye on and use his reviews to help people get interested.
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/monster-hunter-freedom-unite-review
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/monster-hunter-tri-review

Turns out ONM have decided to do another review of MH3U, this time of the 3DS version. And they gave this one 88%, which is a bit better I suppose. Still not ideal though.

The review itself said much the same sort of thing, but was a lot less critical for some reason. Maybe it was a different reviewer or something.

I don't generally care about review scores when it comes to buying games, but I know a lot of people do, and it can have a pretty serious effect on how successful a game is. So hopefully we'll start getting better reviews soon.

Incidentally, why has my previous post turned green?

Spiritlord wrote:

Turns out ONM have decided to do another review of MH3U, this time of the 3DS version. And they gave this one 88%, which is a bit better I suppose. Still not ideal though.

The review itself said much the same sort of thing, but was a lot less critical for some reason. Maybe it was a different reviewer or something.

I don't generally care about review scores when it comes to buying games, but I know a lot of people do, and it can have a pretty serious effect on how successful a game is. So hopefully we'll start getting better reviews soon.

Meh, reviewing a monster hunter game without playing it 100% (which would be insane for a reviewer) is pointless.

Why is that? The game is more or less the same after a certain point(after the "tutorials") to the end. Unless the difficulty or amount of grind is going to affect your decision, you dont need to play 100% through, getting to high rank is more or less all you really need to play to "get the full experience". I mean, unless somehow seeing a gold rathian is enough to change your score, in which case allow me to ignore your score entirely.

...also i dont really remember the tri review being that bad, having read it before making my first monster hunter game. Then again that was like 3 years ago.

Spiritlord wrote:

Turns out ONM have decided to do another review of MH3U, this time of the 3DS version. And they gave this one 88%, which is a bit better I suppose. Still not ideal though.

The review itself said much the same sort of thing, but was a lot less critical for some reason. Maybe it was a different reviewer or something.

I don't generally care about review scores when it comes to buying games, but I know a lot of people do, and it can have a pretty serious effect on how successful a game is. So hopefully we'll start getting better reviews soon.

Incidentally, why has my previous post turned green?

How is an 88 not ideal?

Man, these days I feel like any score below a 90 for a good game initiates a shitstorm.

An 88 is great, not exceptional, but still great. And even an 79 is not bad if that's what the wii u version got. General rule for me is that 75 and up is considered good/great. And 90 and up is "must play".

If you expect a 100 (10/10) then you're just setting yourself up to be disappointed.

IGNs review is up

Not a bad review at all. Makes me even more excited for two days hence . . .

Updating first post for new reviews of the game. Everyone seems to be bombarding us with there reviews today!

Also this Nintendo Life review gives the game a 9/10, which is a very good score.

I still don't understand how ONM gave the 3DS version a higher score though. /no/

EDIT: Updated the OP for even more reviews. Eurogamer review secures it for me.

As a series MH is pretty hard to accurately review. Most games giveup most of their gameplay and story elements within the first few hours. MH has so much more depth in that and choice for the player that it needs a lot more attention.
If I recall gamespot gave MHFU a good review, they bothered to play it and explore deeper into the game and account for all the huge levels of content.

LOLOLOLOL

MH3U has been reviewed by insidegamer.nl: http://www.insidegamer.nl/recensies/103740/monster-hunter-3-ultimate-review

8½

+
Verbeterde besturing
GamePad wordt optimaal gebruikt
Stroom aan extra, gratis content in het vooruitzicht
Multiplayer-plezier gegarandeerd
-
Grafisch niet dat wat de Wii U zou moeten bieden
Het begin kent vrij veel triviale opdrachten

Translation:
+
improved controls
optimal gamepad use
lots of free extra content in the near future
multiplayer fun guaranteed
-
Graphically not what the wii u should offer
There are a lot of trivial quests in the beginning