Reviews for MH3U

First topic message reminder :

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

All I have to say is I hate the smugness of EGM. The majority of their staff smells their own farts and thinks they smell like roses, kinda like that south park episode.

Looking at the list, I think the game has plenty of good reviews to merit a purchase for anyone considering jumping in for the first time, like me =D

Ultimate Jaggi wrote:

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.

I'm inclined to agree with you here, actually.

My only issue with the score of 88 was that they gave the original Tri 91. So that sort of suggests that the original is somehow better than the massively expanded version. I know why they did it, though, they didn't like the tons of repeated content that the game apparently contains. Although if that is why they did it, one really must wonder about their intellect understanding of the word 'expansion'...

And I'm generally quite negative about things, which was also why I wasn't exactly leaping up in the air, cheering and generally looking delighted about that score.

8.5? I think they gave it a fair review in all honesty.

http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/zm2ilh/monster-hunter-3-ultimate-review