Probably the most enjoyable thing about Monster Hunter is the object of non-linearity, while the object of non-permanence is one of the most debatable. My thought being that 4th Gen Monster Hunter games should be more focused on the life of a hunter than saving a village from a beast who plagues them. Instead the player begins as a member of one of the Hunter's guilds in Loc Lac, Minegarde, or Dondruma. Instead of inhabiting a small village, the player is dispatched.
Another important detail would be to split Blademaster into 2 classes (without getting overly complicated) based on mobility versus armor rating. The classic examples being the Lance and Greatsword, the former being a weapon which is reliant on logistic power to be a "tank weapon", while the other is a weapon of opportunity. Thus, what defines a character should not only include appearance, name and hunter rank, but a class.
- Exclusive Weapons: Lance, Gunlance
- Wears large, heavy armor for superior Armor rating, armors are made of both metals and hides
- Exclusive Weapons:Sword and Shield,Dual Swords
- Wears thick leather and mail for protection without sacrificing mobility, most armors are made of hides and bones
This leads into the next subject... Permanence in characters. In Monster Hunter, to date, the player knows no permanence beyond the character name, appearance and hunter rank. It IS important that there not be a great deal of permanence involved in the game, but solidified class and a character based small skill to help define the character would also be very good for the game.
The last major point I would like to see in future Monster Hunter games is a RGM (Randomly Generated Map) system for hunting dispatches which do not involve specific maps.
Hmmm, im liking this idea very much, only problem is if you want to switch between say a hammer and a lance, you'd need 2 armors, which is hard enough with the bowgun and others, and RGM would rock or even better, a massive connecting world (all areas linked and no loading between areas) good stuff 21:39, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Not quite, the concept is that Greatsword, SwitchAxe, Long Sword, Hammer and Hunting Horn would all be universal betwen the two. The difference would be the how of the attack, as opposed to the what. The reason I had thought of this in the first place was because of how completely different a GreatSword, Switch Axe or Hammer could behave with different movements
Dont know, I quite like the idea of switching between weapons sometimes for variety whereas this method would have me anchored to only a couple of weapons, I'm not a massive lover of class restrictions considering MH is all about the freedom of the player to hunt what he/she wants how he/she wants...
"Another important detail would be to split Blademaster into 2 classes (without getting overly complicated)"
Sooooo...you want two seperate blademester classes you'd have to make seperate armours for as well as a ranged class you have to make armour for...how is this change without complications?
the balance is pretty much alright as it is...why fix what isn't broken?
The areas are supposed to be physically constant due to that region unless the name states otherwise, besides, it begins to feel strangely more like home the more you go there, I'd go more along the lines of seasonal changes where some areas may open at certain times such as a frozen cave thawing out etc.
as well as seasonal monster patterns such as abundances during breeding seasons and hibernation meaning that there wouldn't be many quests to hunt a hibernating monster etc. some credit to Iceus for last point.Rathalos Samurai Zaka 22:47, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
My concept isn't to reinvent the wheel, but to unwind some of the game's complexities, specifically involving Blademaster properties. What this would mean, is that the player wouldn't be able to us SnS/DS, Lances or Bowguns on the same character-type. Meaning that after the character creation process if you want one of the others you need an entirely different hunter. I can't say for sure if it would be the right call to suggest that both blademasters have different armor sets, on one hand it wouldn't matter if the player was locked into a class and there were no form of MH economy. The basis of the concept is to provide more options for the weapon choices shared between the two.
There are some blademaster armors that are designed more around some weapons than others. For example, hermitar armor is a pretty good choice for lancers due to it's good guarding skills. However, it would be useless to a hammer user. On the other hand, lightweight armor with good evasion skills would be great for an ds user, since they have no way to guard. Those armors aren't divided into seperate classes but some of them seem to work best with certain weapons. -UhhJoeyL
These aren't bad; you actually thought them out. I am completely opposed. Let me tell why.
First off, the story mode. If there is one thing every Monster Hunter game lacks, it is a storyline. And for good reason. There is no place for a true story mode in a game like Monster Hunter. The whole point is to let the monsters take center stage, and having the player completely devoid of essence. The hunter is merely the vessel to take you to these beasts. The gameplay itself negates story mode. There are no incremental stages, ending with bosses. MH is grinding game were you must fight one monster over and over to get what you need. Where would that fit in a storyline?
Second, this class system you propose. Fully against the essence of Monster Hunter. As said before, MH is a game of versatility. You should be able to choose what you want to use, when you want to use it. I personally change my weapon type over 20 times a day while hunting. Furthermore, by forcing a player to choose a class, it would be devolving MH into a common RPG, ones with certain classes (healer, attacker, mage, etc.). MH should be free of these limitations.
On the RGM, I'm neutral, though I don't think it has a place in MH. Another great part of this game is the concept of a single environment with definable features and recognizable landmarks. Each has its own special features, resources, and secrets which varies per area. It's this constant and repetitive map cycle that allows players to formulate area specific strategies and become familiar with their hunting environment. Having to learn everything about an area again would be troublesome.
Great points for a counter-argument, though I have one big counterpoint to make. There IS a story to Monster Hunter, but the story uses environment instead of narrative (which is what makes your points very potent as well). I just think that the game should involve less in the way of the hunter being a savior, to strip the character down into a simple mercenary to embody the player.
@Original Poster...So you are effectively punishing people like two of my fellow team-mates for using multiple weapon types for different enemies, again i'm not seeing your logic here, a lot of people use multiple weapon types for different enemies, limiting them via choice at character creation is possibly the worst choice that could possibly made in this game as new players would have no clue whatsoever about how each weapon type plays, then have to make multiple characters till they found one they liked, and other players who have previous experience would find themselves having to make multiple characters to enjoy their favourite weapons instead of having the one save to use them both, meaning going through the game essentially twice at least to keep up with fellow hunting partners...does this sound fair? stop me if i'm wrong but i think freedom of weapon choice is more workable and altogether user friendly, what does everyone else think?Rathalos Samurai Zaka 02:29, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
No, not in the least! D: The object isn't to punish a player for switching weapons often, but to redefine the character behaviors based on weapon choice. By all means, the Striker should be able to switch between SnS, DS, GS, SA, LS, H, and HH as much as they wish, while a HeavyArm can do the same with La,GL, GS, SA, LS, H and HH. The idea of "exclusivity" is something that game during my later thought processes on the subject. The reason to exclude Lances from the lighter option is because Lances tend to rely mainly on logistics over logic, while SnS/DS would benefit more from mobility upgrades than armor.Aside from that, it gives the player reason to have multiple characters and provides different styles for GS, SA, LS, H and HH without having to create new weapons, improving on the How, not the What (which in my opinion is better for game design
So lets *Hypothetically* say that I use lances...but also use sword and shield a ton....I'll need two seperate characters right? that IS what your saying right? and you have just contradicted your original statement....
"By all means, the Striker should be able to switch between SnS, DS, GS, SA, LS, H, and HH as much as they wish, while a HeavyArm can do the same with La,GL, GS, SA, LS, H and HH."
Splitting the blademaster without over complicating it....... Well i'm pretty lost already.
Also I still dont see how having more than one character is a bonus, there is much more reward in staying with a character and watching them grow as you play, I've currently racked up over 650+ Hours on my file, the second slots onwards should be an optional extra, you want to make a new character, great! but just dont make it a necessity to use a different weapon! Rathalos Samurai Zaka 03:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Sheesh, but say that it only effected how weapons/armor behaved and not the weapon choice, what would be wrong with that? The point being that I am suggesting that there be 2 more adept versions of the class, both use close range, but one uses a staggering DEF, while the other uses lighter armor, but trades for better movement. Realistically, heavier armors tend to dominate the BM class (they don't usually outright strictly outclass other armors, however), and for a while Lances did as well.
I like the idea of an RGM and/or an open-world MH game.CrellinEtreyu 04:09, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the RGM part, but an open world, or at least allowing you to traverse the routes between areas, would be nice, as opposed to just getting snapped to the next area when you cross an invisible wall.Cobalt32 00:12, December 17, 2010 (UTC)Cobalt32
actually, i don't think that blademaster class should be split. I mean that i think players know what armor to use for specific type of weapon. why change that, i mean why would a dedicated DS user get an armor that has only guard inc., guard+ skills when it has no guard at all. i don't think any mh player would even think of doing that, except if they want the defence and the elemental resistances the armor gives. yes i would like a new class but not split the current blademaster class. on the otherhand, i do like your idea of RGMs as well as the mission oriented monster hunter game something like "i-accepted-this-request-because-i-need-to-hunt-this-monster-as-well-as-the-rewards" cause it makes me feel like i'm not the only hunter in the world.
do not like this idea,i do not want to be restricted by the weapons,i use EVERY weapon besides HH so gettin several armors or characters would be a major pain-Ifrit22.214.171.124 23:37, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what Ifrit said. The only real reason there are separate armors for Bowguns are for balance purposes; you get to attack from a distance and are capable of more than what a Blademaster weapon can do, but your DEF sucks to compensate for this versatility. Having different Blademaster classes seems fairly arbitrary.Cobalt32 00:23, December 18, 2010 (UTC)Cobalt32
The idea is to provide a more mobile alternatives for many BM weapons. Perhaps a weight system for armor and weapons would be more functional.
@Wynn: That's what different weapon types is all about, and we already have that.Cobalt32 17:50, December 18, 2010 (UTC)Cobalt32