Talk:Monster Hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monster Hunter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Poogie?

After looking over the whole "Poogie" box at the top, it seems logically that it does relate to Monster Hunter as the small piggish creature in all the Hotel rooms. I don't recall it being named "Poogie", but the description is accurate...permission to merge? Mister Deranged 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Everybody that discussed the merging said it was ok, so I'd go for it. SuperDT 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the merge. Narcisso 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...not to burst your bubble or anything, but Poogies in Monster Hunter just stay in the hotel rooms. They don't fall asleep, and they generally ignore the hunter until you pet it and succeed. When you pet it and time it correctly, the reward items of the next quest you do are increased. Maybe you were referring to MHF or MH2? Mister Deranged 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited a change in the poogie section that was both gramatically poor and contrary to what I've heard and what's been expressed above. If someone can provide proof one way or the other, please edit the poogie section and provide a source for the information. --Animakitty 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting (AKA What the dispute box was referring too)

I have been contacted by an anonymous user who seems to have done a lot from this page User:24.192.118.163 and who made this version of the page. He recently vandalized this page out of frustration, and seemed rather upset do to what transpired, so my question is why did someone revert the changes to begin with? It seems more informative as it is, and the only reason I could think for the reverts is that it reads a little like a game guide. However that could be fixed through edits, not through straight revertation couldn't it? As it is, I have reverted it back to this version. If by common consensus, this is seen as a bad move, I will gladly revert them back to the shorter version. However I myself will have to side with the anonymous user in this one. Please leave any opinions, and I apologize in advance if you find my revert to be counterproductive. Galactor213 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a little irrelevant, but I made a screenname now, so you can now refer to me as Mister Deranged instead of a sequence of numbers. Sorry for the interruption. --Mister Deranged 01:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it, as the current content (ridiculously long paragraphs on weapons) does read like a game guide, and is more suited to gamefaqs. Bits like pellet list are completely ridiculous. I wrote a short description which suits the style of the article better, though this could be expanded into short descriptions of weapons. I don't want this article returning to the way it was. +Fin 09:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and don't keep removing what you wrote on the talk page either, at the moment, you don't seem to put forward any argument for the inclusion of long paragraphs, where as you did a few edits ago. +Fin 09:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
And finally, a revert is not an excuse for vandalism - it would've been better to bring up your disagreement here, or on my talk page. Just a heads up for the future =) +Fin 10:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I suppose it does seem a bit more encyclopedic this way. However I do hope that you take some of Mister Deranged adds, as I don't think all of them were too game guide like. maybe condense them into brief synopses of what they were, as a middle road to this arguement? Because it is true this article needs a bit of cleaning up and adding too, I don't think the disagreement is on that. I think the disagreement is what can and cannot be added in or thrown out. Just my thoughts. Galactor213 15:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
After I posted on certain areas, I noted that what was said was from a long time ago and wasn't pertaining to the subject of my edits. My argument is what Wikipedia clearly states in the box at the top of this page, which says that this is one of many attempts to make detailed, comprehensive guide on Wikipedia. If you look at it, isn't that exactly what it is? I'm not denying that it's completely perfect right now--it's definitely not--but to remove the entire parts I made and replace them with a bland, vague description is plain stupid. If some editing needs to be done, do it! Shorten up some things that appear too long, because what is on the page right now is a huge, raw version. So, alter it, but don't destroy it.--Mister Deranged 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll edit them today, try and reduce them into briefer synopses. And Deranged, from WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not....tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. And from what you said this is one of many attempts to make detailed, comprehensive guide on Wikipedia. Just thought I'd let you know! +Fin 07:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I gave a resonable edit and tidy, think it's fairly ok now. Hope it's acceptable to everyone! =) +Fin 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

The article reads like a review. It uses 'you can do...' , and how underated it is by the press, among other things --ZayZayEM 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree, this certainly reads like a friggin' FAQ. Would it be terrible to chop off the section with all the details on monsters and such? --Vespertilio

I cleaned things up a bit, although I left all the general monster information in. I removed erroneous info, fixed spelling, grammatical, and capitalization errors, and generally made the article easier to read and find information in. --Nekojin

Very nearly started editing it, but I don't want to get roped in and continue doing so for an hour - I think the "potions" section or whatever should be completely removed, perhaps given its own page --Falcon9x5 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO the combinations list is bulky and unnecessary, it belongs in a walkthrough not Wiki. 207.118.191.107 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the weapons area, if I needed to know that this button did this or that I would look at the control section of a FAQ 207.118.191.107 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected a bunch of the "you can"s and also did some stuff with grammar/spelling/vocabulary. Drevius 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added some info on most of the wyverns, and a rather huge amount on the two dragons. --Bip jumper

I edited a small portion at the end of the Hunting Quests segment; the weapon recommendations were opinionated, and in most cases, false. What I removed didn't even apply to Hunting Quests in the first place, so all should be well. Mister Deranged 02:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yay!

Monster hunter for psp is coming to the US on May 23, 2006!!!! It's gonna be awesome

[edit] Monster Hunter Freedom has it's own page now

As such, I will be adding a few references to the newly created page and modify and standardize as much as I can the new page. All info on MHF/MHP will be ported there, though a lot of the clutter from this page won't make it there.

This page should become exclusively the Monster Hunter article, with a new article created to encompass the entire series. If it cannot be done, this page should simply be the Monster Hunter article and the series hub will be the template.LanceHeart 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Huge Clean Up

I removed the vast majority of content for the article. All of it was insignificant and incredibly overdetailed. Smalled, more concise paragraphs could be put back, but nothing like was there before. If you've got a problem with it, discuss it here. +Falcon9x5 08:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online massive Dragon

I know this isn't the place for this but has anyone know any info of a enormous dragon that is able to kill 100s of player at once. this thing is BBBBBBBBIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and only online. i have heard roumours about it and want to know more. look on wiki seem a logical place but it had little info on this bsob

At least you know this isn't the place for this :) 1) Only 4 people can play online at once 2) You're probably referring to Lao Shan Lung or Fatalis... Lao Shan Lung is the biggest dragon in the game, with his head and neck alone almost taking up the whole screen, but really isn't that damaging(unless you get close to his feet). Fatalis isn't quite as big, but basically his attacks are able to kill most players in one- two hits. SuperDT 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Earthias, Thats what someone said. but that maybe what they were talking about. thank you. just posted on another fourm but sorry i thought i might get an reply here quicker. 2)_-_-_---> reply: doesn't the map/quest/hunt you play tell how many people will be playing in the world. like if some group of 4 chose a hunt and another group come right up behind them and chooses the same one both will be in the same map?

Yeah Earthias was made up by the "hardcore" players to get noobs to waste crap loads of time searching for a super huge uberly powerful dragon, only to get Lao Shan Lung.

"doesn't the map/quest/hunt you play tell how many people will be playing in the world. like if some group of 4 chose a hunt and another group come right up behind them and chooses the same one both will be in the same map?" I'm not sure if that's how it works, because I have MHF and that doesn't have an online mode, but I believe it's only 4 at a time on a map, and someone just hosts it; otherwise, you'll have 100's of characters on one map, trying to kill a wyvern, and it will be laggy as heck! SuperDT 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Powerful weapon?

I thought the hammers were the most powerful weapon type, not great swords? SuperDT 03:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...yes, they are, that's what my giant blobby weapon descriptions should say...unless someone changed them. Mister Deranged 20:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah some users keep coming on and changing the Great Sword description to say that they are the most powerful weapon type and deal the mosts damage and stuff... SuperDT 01:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after a little bit of research, I came up with these results: in terms of raw power(not counting elemental attributes), the Great Sword is indeed more powerful than the Hammer; The Demon "something"(I believe it's slasher or slayer) is the most powerful GS at 1200 Attack Points, whereas the Dark Punisher, the strongest Hammer, is 1144(or something like that). However, counting elemental attributes, then the dark Punisher is much more powerful with a 510 Dragon Attribute and no element on the Demon "something."

P.S. I'm not sure if this makes a big difference, but I did this on Monster Hunter Freedom. SuperDT 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely an immense difference, as this is MONSTER HUNTER, NOT MONSTER HUNTER FREEDOM. Make sure you know what you're posting in next time...but anyway. The Breath Core Hammer and the Onslaught Hammer in Monster Hunter are the most powerful weapons in terms of raw attack power, each with 1024. The most powerful Great Sword is the Tormentor, which only has 960. Mister Deranged 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Not to contradict you in any way but the divine slasher also has 960 attack so there are two. 70.190.109.11 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)the great sword just so HAPPENS to be one of the weakest weapons in the game. if you want a cite go to gameFAQS but one of the stronger is the hammer, i forget which is stronger, duel or SnS. the strongest sword is the eternal eradicator or one of those. it is made from fatalis. i am a vetran at MH so i know what im talking about... the reason for this conclusion it there attack speed. hammers are the strongest in terms of single bloows and if you can land there combos can do some serious damage. as for GS they aren't as powerful but just as slow. SnS and duel swords are very fast and land many hits in a short amount of time. Dark reaper6789 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rathalos

Roy (a random person) sucks because he cant kill the strong rathalos. Just joking, about the strong rathalos part. Rathalos is slightly intimidating, but is as easy as P-I-E. Just whack it with a light weapon (duals, sns) or a bowgun. Preferably with a stun attribute, but a raw damage one will do fine. Go to www.reign-of-the-rathalos.com for a pdf file of SnS and Duals weapon trees. seany 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article-wise, difficulty isn't an issue, as some players can easily slay a Rathalos, yet some may not, depending on equipment and skill.

Very true. I struggled for a while with a pretty weak bowgun (I didn't realise how powerful clusters were at this point) but switched to hammers and tore him a new one. Now I know the pattern that he moves in I can easily kill him with even my old bowgun (and a couple of cluster shots maybe). Perhaps it is worth stating in the article that learning the monster's attack patterns and the way they move is key to beating them, in addition to creating powerful equipment and using items. Chiliflamingo 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No it's not worth stating. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, this is a discussion page for the article, not a forum for the article's topic. Please find a forum to post this stuff in. Thank you! SuperDT 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of monster hunter monsters?

What happened to it? It was a great page, and couldve been used to put the monsters from the newer games in too. Resident Evil has a page dedicated to all their monsters (including many other games), so what happened to monster hunters? PitchBlack 17:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I put it up for AfD, and it got deleted. It was not a great page; it was full of factual errors, original research, and hints and tips, the latter two violating Wikipedia guidelines. Also, just because Resident Evil, or any game for that matter, has a page for their enemies, does not mean that Monster Hunter deserves an article for its monsters. SuperDT 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture

why isnt there a picture on the MH page? like how every other page on this site has a picture at the top...just wondering why this doesn't.Dark reaper6789 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, and... Just kidding! :D

Seriously, I haven't the faintest of ideas why the picture got deleted. That's strange... SuperDT 03:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

well dont you think someone should add another picture? it wouild make more sence that way xD just saying. if i knew how to i would have done it myselfDark reaper6789 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

how come noone has put a picture up yet?Dark reaper6789 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dual swords

this is about the duel sword "rage mode" thing...it IS in monster hunter AND MF freedom so i dont know what you guys are talking aboutDark reaper6789 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


"Did these come from the game's manual? Please reply here. -SuperDT Reply: Nope, this info is all made up by a writer. Proof of this is in the fact that Demonizaton mode for duals is NEVER mentioned in Monster Hunter for Ps2, only in Monster Hunter Freedom."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMonster_Hunter_2e8a.html"