Is Monster Hunter world a good starting point if I haven't played any of the games before?

Is Monster Hunter world a good starting point if I haven't played any of the games before?

Attached: 1567389586913.jpg (1280x720, 115.31K)

Yes, can be a bit handholdy at the start, but still an excellent game (and entry point)

World was deliberately made for non-fans to milk their sweet casual money, so yes.

Yeah

While a good game, it's not a proper presentation of the franchise. If you want actual Monster Hunter go for Rise or emulate one of the older games instead.

Is World obsolete? Should someone just pick up Rise if they're starting now?

If I own World but barely played it at all, but enjoyed it, should I play it more before getting Rise?

The old games are trash no matter what the tendies tell you. Play world and only world.

I would argue Rise is a better starting point as it fits more into the "traditional idea" of monster hunter, at least stylistically. The only thing that gets in the way is that it's very mobility focused due to the wirebug mechanics, which isn't necessarily representative of Monster Hunter.
World has much bigger maps and looks much nicer in general, as well as diverging alot from the traditional monster hunter aesthetic. The mobility is more toned down but it has its fair share of strange gimmicks (launcher and clutch claw) that aren't really a MH mainstay.

Both are pretty decent so whichever intrigues you more, go for it.

No you need to start with the first game on PS2 and play them in release order because that’s what I did and my parents did and everything new sucks and I voted trump

Yeah it's fine
It's barely monster hunter but if you go in with no expectations you'll be fine

>Barely monster hunter
After playing floaty rise, that's good. I'll go back to world after I finish rise.

Going from World to Rise is very jarring as you're moving from these massive, detailed, lovingly rendered maps into these tiny little maps built for function.
It's a bit awkward since World's idea was to have interconnected areas within maps (a first for the series) and so to compensate for that, they make them huge to sell the idea of them being these huge biomes. In old games, loading screens were placed between areas and it created the illusion of a map spanning a vaster area than it physically does. For Rise, they take that old style, then remove the loading screens, and you get these very small-feeling maps.
Ultimately you get used to it, and it does have the benefits of neither being a trek to get where you want ot having to sit through a screen.

At this point World and Rise are mostly different flavours and both can be appreciated indepedently, neither really overshadows the other as they have a different identity and purpose (i,e. they take the initial ambition of Monster Hunter and represent it differently)

>If you want actual Monster Hunter go for Rise
lol

Rise is barely monster hunter either, but rise is a far better action game than world

>Should someone just pick up Rise if they're starting now?
Yes

No.

Nice argument retard

I dabbled very briefly with Monster Hunter back in the PVP days so having small maps won't be terribly jarring but I do think from the sounds of it I'd probably prefer the feel of World. Didn't know that about Rise. I had some idea it was kind of a return or compromise with the older style of the series but didn't know that. Surprising they did that, actually. But it did initially launch on Switch, so it does make sense.

Gotcha

World is fun but I prefer the smaller maps In rise. It was annoying getting lost in the maps and having to chase monsters for what felt like miles. Glad they got rid of that shit.

World is the only good game in the series, and if it had an actual pvp mode, it would be literally the perfect game. Sometimes, I don't want to fight a monster, I want to invade someone else on their hunt and fuck them up good.