The ace hunter: Bloodborne vs Monster Hunter 4: Ultimate

As someone who writes about video games for a living and plays them in their spare time, it's fairly important that I keep up with what's new and fresh and exciting in this industry. And in 2015, I've been doing a rubbish job of that. You see, this year something like 90 per cent of my gaming time has been split between only two games: Bloodborne and Monster Hunter 4: Ultimate. And why wouldn't it? They're both Essential titles, after all. They're also quite similar! Both are known for their steep difficulty, bombastic bosses, varied weapons, deep combat, and cooperative multiplayer. And yet, only Bloodborne has seen any kind of notable success in the west while Monster Hunter has famously struggled to replicate its craze from Japan.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dendenmooshi1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

Great written comparison. Although many don't see the similarities, I for one am really drawn to both games in the same way. The article made the differences very clear with articulate strengths and weaknesses.

In the end, MH has a deeper history in gameplay (branching on bosses, weapon types, and farming) that it's built upon while Bloodborne has a very polished run through (with very unique and deep lovecraft atmosphere). Both MH and "Soul" games have been fundamental building blocks in a "boss hunting" genre that we may hopefully see more of.

George Sears1264d ago

More than 500 hours in Ultimate. The game is so amazing I actually took a week off from work when I first bought it.

Haven't played Bloodborne as I'm still invested on Ultimate but I personally find it hard switching to other games with similar gameplay than the Monster Hunter series. A bit naive way of thinking I know, but I guess my love for the series has made me pretty bias towards it.

George Sears1264d ago

A few things about the article, I don't get why they compare the lengths of both games. Bloodborne might take 40 hours but judging the amount of time and what you would consider the ending of Ultimate is debatable. You would say that finishing low rank quests and watching the credits is the end (that would take you 30+ hours) but once the credit rolls, you are given a helluva new high rank quests with there own storyline. This alone can take you some 30 or more hours (especially if you're new to the series).

And once you see the ending credits from High Rank you'll realize that you've only done single player caravan campaign. You haven't even remotely touched anything that the game offered until you reach G rank and this alone can take you some 30+ hours. And I haven't even talked about grinding for decent gear just to get buy.

Article is spot on when it comes to Ultimates weapon class. Nothing is remotely similar to one another, they play totally different and even if you've been hundreds of hours playing, switching from one weapon to a new one is like learning to play the game all over again (albeit with a better understanding from a monsters attack pattern).

Mega241264d ago

I got about 70 hours, not even done with caravan quests (mainly because of gear grinding and doing Guildhall quest.. by my self!). This rumor of MH not being popular here in the west is BS. I've met people by just bringing MH to a conversation that play it.

Tex1171264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

They aren't really all that comparable other than to say that both games respect player intelligence and are more "hardcore" in terms of commitment. There is little handholding by either game.

Im elated that both games are as successful as they have been. It will hopefully show other developers and publishers that when you manage development costs and make a game that is intricate and detailed, you will be rewarded with sales.

Oh, and they are both awesome.

spicelicka1264d ago

Why they don't make this for next-gen consoles I don't understand.

PurpHerbison1264d ago

Monster Hunter? Because they are still using the PS2 engine so they would rather use hardware suited for it. What better place than Nintendo when it comes to low hardware specs?

jholden32491264d ago

MH4U sold over a million copies in the west alone, not even counting the million upon millions it sold in Japan.

Engine has nothing to do with it. There's actually an MMO MH on PS3 and Wii U in Japan, and MH3U was on Wii U and MH3G was on PS3 in Japan.

Nintendo platforms just sell them more copies, point blank.

PurpHerbison1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

Engine has a lot to do with it. It doesn't mean the game is bad, of course it is going to sell. When you cheap out by moving to Nintendo you don't have to create a new engine for the current gen as Nintendo is always graphically behind these days. It literally ended up working perfectly for them as It allows the recycle process to go A LOT smoother. You think they didn't consider that? Of course they did. Current gen would warrant a new engine. They are not going to do that so they stay away all together. Did you mean MHP3rd HD Ver. by the way? The upscaled PSP port for PS3? That doesn't hold much water. And the MMO? MH Frontier? The game that originally released in 2007? Come on now.

Tex1171264d ago

Well, its a much risker proposition to release this on a ps4/Xone/PC than it is on a handheld.

Now that Monster Hunter Sold over a million copies, then Capcom may give a "next gen" release of the next Monster Hunter some thought.

Perjoss1264d ago

As a Monster Hunter fan I noticed quite a few similarities with Bloodborne straight away. Gameplay based around well timed dodges, invulnerability frames, timing your heals is important, big emphasis on boss fights, weapon upgrading. Both games can be very hard too.

Show all comments (15)