default header

Online

[WII] [3DS] [WIIU] Monster Hunter 3 (Tri)

Moderator: JC Denton

[WII] [3DS] [WIIU] Monster Hunter 3 (Tri)

Unread postby ExiledOne » 14 Mar 2017 14:42

The version I want to play is Monster Hunter 3G HD Ver. (in Japan)/Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (in the West) for the Wii U.

I've been interested in this series for a while now but I've never played any of the games. Picked this one up when I figured out it dropped for the Wii U and it apparently has 4-player co-op online. I figured this would be a good place to start since it's the latest console release (the sequels are all on the 3DS).

Here's a guide for how to get online: http://www.co-optimus.com/article/9945/ ... p-faq.html

I'm guessing 'Moga Village' is the village you start in or close to it. And judging from the guide there, playing online doesn't have any sort of level requirement so I figured it'd be best to just hop online from the very beginning. I'm thinking if we all start at the same time, that should keep our 'Hunter Rank' even. Only issue with that is that if your Hunter Rank isn't high enough you can't do certain quests, so swapping players out might be difficult. I was also thinking it'd be nice if everyone chose different classes, this game is supposed to have a lot of them.

Seems the game is region locked so depending on how big this gets we might need two teams, one for America and another for Europe: https://mynintendonews.com/2013/02/07/m ... -together/

Here's a trailer for the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpuzQKF8Fw
Image
User avatar
ExiledOne
 
Joined: 14 Jun 2008 10:43
Location: Maryland, USA

Unread postby icycalm » 14 Mar 2017 14:59

I fixed your thread title and edited your post accordingly because you don't seem to realize that remakes/updates/enhanced versions don't get their own threads here. If I have made a mistake, because I am not familiar with the series, let me know and I'll fix it since your post is locked now and you can't make changes to it yourself.

I would love to be in on this but I don't have a Wii U right now, and I would need a US console with a US copy of the game. Hope you find at least enough people for one full team.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ExiledOne » 14 Mar 2017 16:04

Nah, I think you're right. That's my bad. Thanks for fixing it.

Yeah, me too. My fingers are crossed.
Image
User avatar
ExiledOne
 
Joined: 14 Jun 2008 10:43
Location: Maryland, USA

Unread postby icycalm » 14 Mar 2017 17:15

It's not so much a matter of luck but of patience. If you are patient enough, you will eventually get to play with a full team. If you are not, you probably won't. I already told you I am interested if I can get enough time to procure a console, and I am sure we can find two others in time. If this doesn't happen right now, there are plenty of other games to play until then.

But I hope you find your team right now. In case you don't, though, I am trying to show you the right mindset for how to find it eventually, and not spoil the game for yourself beforehand through impatience.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby recoil » 27 Mar 2017 04:11

I'm in to play this.
Image
User avatar
recoil
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2010 22:35
Location: California, USA

Unread postby icycalm » 28 Mar 2017 15:21

I think the problem is not many people have the console, and now it's getting quite hard and quite expensive to get one, at least new. That's the only reason I can't play right now: I don't have a console, and won't be able to afford one for at least a couple of months, since I have other console-purchasing priorities higher on my list (a replacement for my PS3 being number one, so I can finally play Demon's Souls). Hopefully two more people will post and you will play with them, but if you don't I'll have a console by the end of the spring, and then we'll just need one more player.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 28 Mar 2017 23:14

If by the time I get the console we still don't have a fourth player, I'll put up a notice on the frontpage and then we'll probably get one.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Hanged Man » 28 Mar 2017 23:52

I just found out that region lock on multiplayer was already lifted so I'm super in. I've played some MH games on handhelds and always wanted to play this on a big screen. I'll look into procuring the game soon.

However, I do not think that a full 4-man team is necessary. Multiplayer mode in these games is separate from the "story" mode, with its own set of missions. While monsters in those missions are significantly tougher (~1.5x more damage and HP, from what I gather), they do not scale up to the amount of players you've got in your party and are "meant" for 2-3 players. More importantly, monsters here can get knocked down, knocked out, exhausted, poisoned, paralyzed, et cetera — so in 4-man team you'll be beating down an immobilized monster for 50% of the time. Also since monsters have to switch aggro all the time, it'll be much easier to escape and heal.

Hopefully I haven't soured anyone on the game lol, but I had to point that stuff out. It'd suck if you guys tried out the game and thought that it was too easy and boring, just stomping through missions, never having to figure out monsters' moves and behaviors (or even how to properly use your weapons). I know that the G-rank and Event missions are supposed to be brutal even for full teams, but those unlock way later.

Basically, I think that Monster Hunter is better played as a "drop-in drop-out" kind of game with whoever's available, but I'll understand if you guys want to create a complete, permanent team.
User avatar
Hanged Man
 
Joined: 29 Aug 2014 04:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Unread postby icycalm » 29 Mar 2017 00:15

For me it's mostly a matter of not being willing to take anyone's word for it. I mean you are saying all these things, but how do I know you are right? And if you are wrong, and I figure it out halfway through the game, I've ruined the game for myself. So why not try out a full team, and if it turns out the things you are saying are correct, we adjust accordingly, by separating into smaller teams? The other way around, of starting out with a smaller team, and adding players later, just doesn't make any sense to me.

quash was trying to convince me of doing something similar to what you are suggesting for some 2D online beat 'em up that allows six or eight players or something, based entirely on hearsay, or "I am not sure"-style comments. But I am not willing to ruin a game for myself based on someone's hunches. And trying with a full team first costs me literally nothing. So that's what I want to do.

I am surprised that so many people have trouble grasping the simple logic of "try with a full team first, and adjust accordingly". The opposite approach just makes no sense to me, and I have not seen anyone even try to defend it. That's how nonsensical it is.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 29 Mar 2017 00:18

And if it turns out you are right, it's still not an "I told you so"-type deal, because there is precisely zero to be gained by NOT starting out with a full team. Even if I was 99% convinced you are right, I would STILL start off with a full team, because why not? No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this question.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands


Return to Online

cron