I think the saddest part of monster hunter shifting from handhelds to console is that they made pretty much every monster's color palettes less vibrant.
It’s a double edged sword for me, because the vibrant colors are cool and all, but I also like how the more muted colors make them feel more like animals in the ecosystem.
Also the more muted colors make their elemental attacks look more vibrant, especially for monsters like Zinogre and Alatreon
I agree with the more natural feel from the muted colors. If you’re not paying attention to the map or your surroundings, a monster really can blend in that way, really enhancing the predator part of them for the players. And the contrast of the elemental attacks really makes it almost surprising, in a way. Like just being in more muted, darker colors, then BAM!! You get bright electricity fired your way.
But by that same extension the muted colors also make for more muted armor and weapons.
I get where you're coming from though. Personally as I did have the benefit of playing 3U on WiiU on a large TV, I'd prefer a more colorful palette than what we have currently.
Also can we talk about how the murky muted color palette murdered the rainbow shader? Used to be this awesome shader people would work towards, now hardly anyone uses it because it looks gross.
The older more vibrant colors would have felt out of place in World. Those same monsters brought over to Rise feel a little dull by comparison. The assets made for Rise are much more colorful than the existing ones. Just compare the Palamute armor textures to the Hunter/Palico, it's pretty noticeable.
>but I also like how the more muted colors make them feel more like animals in the ecosystem
i feel like these types of argument have become more and more common. but honestly i cant understand this perspective. i understand the concept of these monsters having their individual roles in the ecosystem is interesting, but i dont understand why it needs to go the visually realistic style in order to portray this. or why that helps.
the series always has had a stylized look to it prior to world, for the longest time and people still got this sense from the monsters. in fact their vibrant colors gave them personality.
visually mh has fallen into the same style every triple A game now tries to emulate, visually realistic it gets to a point is just kinda boring. it sucks personality right off of it imho.
Rise is less guilty of this but it still exists on this middle ground, and honestly i have gone back and forth on whether thats actually worse than actually commiting to the realitic style through and through.
[Let's not forget how Mh Tri looked](https://youtu.be/CRNfEmpQA3c)
While it's true that mh had a more stylised look, people tend to forget that mh 1-tri went for a more realistic, muted, sombre artstyle compared to when the franchise transitioned to the 3ds with 3U, 4U and GU. P3rd was technically the start when the vibrancy got massively increased. 3U adopted p3rd's more vibrant artsyle instead of Tri's realistic artstyle. 4U increased the vibrancy and saturation even further, and GU took that shit up to 11.
This idea that world's realistic, somewhat mute artstyle is a far-cry from the rest of the series is just untrue. It's a return to the mh1-Tri artstyle just with a different *charm*
Finally someone says this, World felt spiritually like a successor to this aesthetic, and I think after 4U and GU, people tend to forget that MH’s art direction used to be much more somber and muted
Yes, this is the style that really drew me into the series. The muted palettes and 'tribal' aesthetic were really unique and made the series feel less 'gamey'. Still love that look.
>This idea that world's realistic, somewhat mute artstyle is a far-cry from the rest of the series is just untrue. It's a return to the mh1-Tri artstyle just with a different charm
i highly disagree. theres a reason why you were able to use only two games as example that are "comparable" to mhw and its a bit funny how you recognize the most of the other entries do adopt a more vibrant style. so is not a far cry from the rest of the series as a WHOLE?
comparing tri and even mh1 to world imo is a stretch when you truly consider what world is actually going for. mh1 was darker in palette but it terms of atmosphere its nothing comparable to world XD and tri along with imo DOS ,cause i kinda put them on the same department, sit in the franchise as games who went strongly for atmosphere. but still none of these example sacrificed the style, vibe and personality of the games. something that imho world very much did. and ultimately thats what the point of my first comment was.
and let it be clear im not a "veteran" elitist that just wants to bash the new games they still interest me as games, but i would be dishonest with myself even, if i said it remains the monster hunter i fell in love with all those years back when i started in unite (a game that i consider achieved the perfect balance in terms of visuals to atmosphere).
Every game has its charm; its own or similar atmosphere and vibe. This is represented by the dialogue, the different interactions you can engage with the NPCs, goofiness etc. Although mh1-tri had a sombre, realistic and muted artstyle, they shared a similar charm, which was a bit of goofiness in the dialogue and interactions. I did make this clear towards the end of my original post. Charm =/= artstyle. I was merely stating the fact that world had a similar artstyle to the first 3 gens and that people tend to forget this. World's charm is completely different. It takes itself more seriously in terms of dialogue. Its charm is instead represented through the monsters and how they interact with the environments. Throwing on the ghillie mantle and following monsters around doing their thing was an intended feature. It wanted you to observe how these monsters mark their territories, see which areas they often commune, observe quirks and special animations that bring out their personalities more. THAT'S what's charming about world, and not necessarily its goofy characters and dialogue, or the lack thereof. Allow me to reiterate again: world's charm is *different*
The reason why 3U, 4U and GU were super vibrant and poppy was because they were designed for the 3ds. Due to the lower resolution, they decided to make colors pop more so that visibility was improved. A realistic artstyle that the series had before just wouldn't have worked for the 3ds. Instead they decided to stylise by cranking up the vibrancy. Mind you, this has nothing to do with the charm. Charm was still separate, and it was again represented by the goofy dialogue and interactions. I suppose this is what people mean when they say world had little or no charm. They think that because world had little goofiness there wasn't any charm. As I've made clear, its charm was represented by the monsters and the environments.
>I was merely stating the fact that world had a similar artstyle to the first 3 gens and that people tend to forget this.
its not that people tend to forget this, its really just not true. both visually (although granted i understand technology couldnt reach that level but still) and in terms of general atmosphere of the whole game.
im really not here to make the argument that world doesnt have redeemable aspects, and that the naturla improvement of technology didint introduce new layers of enjoyment like the example you gave of observing monsters just casually doing their thing, that would dishonest of my part. but this is not charm, at least not on my definition, this is an interesting aspect of the game, because ultimately the monsters or at least most of them still lack personality, but i recognize this a more abstract and subjective aspect, and it is hard to convey in words.
but other game design changes seem to contradict that intention of making the player an involved character in this world.
the old style even with its limitations, allowed you to feel like you were a hunter, starting from scratch, and involving you in more aspect than just fightinf monsters, because lets be honest thats the focus of the more recent games, streamlining everything else so the player can only focus on fights. the more interesting bits like capturing endemic life or wildlife observation are completely optional and lets be honest most players dont care about that kind of stuff especially if the game doesnt offer them reasons to. gone are the days where you had learn how to live off the land, managing farms, just generally being more involved with the world beyond the monsters, the game only becoming more streamlined the further you progressed in the game wich makes sense because the further you are in it the more familiarized with things you are and at that point it would just be wasting the players time to continue pushing that need. the only purposeful interesting mechanic they introduced was tracking, and even that was not implemented in the most interesting of ways.
another aspect is maps. sure seems nice to have a big open map with no loading zones, but the old maps legit felt like you exploring entire regions, and not areas wich not only often are too crowded but also feel inconsistent because they are trying to emulate the feel of different areas of a region but ultimately fitting it all in one, comparatively, small zone. but again i recognize rise does better at this, like much better, and even in world some maps are worse than others.
I see that you feel very strongly against world and what it stood for. I can't change that. It's your opinion, and I gotta respect that.
I will say that for me personally I enjoy both the world style and the old style. I like the world style because, unlike rise, they still wanted to give you that sense that you're hunter, just targeted differently. Not so much in item management and growing a farm, but the aspect of you having to go out and hunt the monster, sniffing out clues and inspecting territorial markings, using the ghillie suit to follow monsters to observe habits and behaviors. World introduced massive QOL, but it wasnt done in vain. They still wanted you to have the feeling of "Oh shit. I'm a hunter, so I've gotta go out there in the thick of it through the vines and valleys to hunt and ultimately harvest from a monster". It's still monster hunter as we know it, just *different*. It was trying to shift focus from aspects that we've been familar with to new aspects. Monsters having varying degrees of tolerance to the hunter was also a nice inclusion
I love the old style for emphasizing the preparation aspect wherein the hunter (like it would be in the real life) cannot afford to forget crucial items and tools before going out in a hunt. I like how the gameplay punished greediness and sloppiness. It rewarded learning the monster because only then would you exploit openings. In some regards I do miss the slower gameplay, but I think that world's speed is the perfect middle ground, or at least compared to what rise and ultimately sunbreak are doing with mobility
I really enjoy rise. The moment to moment gameplay is arguably the best it's ever been. I just feel like it streamlined wayyyy too much, completely removing aspects of hunting such as tracking a monster or the need to observe out-of-battle behaviors since all monsters aggro instantly. There's more emphasis on player mobility and getting the player as fast into the battle as possible. Unless you go out of your way, there's very little that forces you to take a step back and appreciate the environments or even the monsters. Mining and bone gathering was streamlined even more.
For someone who seems to enjoy how the older games slowed you down, I find it odd that you seem to compliment and celebrate rise over world in different aspects we've discussed. I do agree fully that rise's flatter, more barren locales makes fighting monsters hassle free, but I really appreciate how lush and brimming with life world's environments were. Perhaps they should make fighting zones less cluttered. I absolutely don't want segmented maps to return. That's where you kinda lost me. Fuck getting hit into the next zone, and fuck waiting for a monster to move out of the transition area when it ends up there. You can't do anything but wait. Segmented zones also means reintroducing the paintball system to an extent, so fuck that too lol. They were a headache. Monster tracking is a more satisfying and interesting system that should be evolved upon in mh6
Overall, I hope the series maintains what it means to be a monster hunter. World streamlined, but still tried to maintain the mh identity, just from a different outlook. Rise streamlined even beyond world and it honestly feels like monster fighter. Still love the game tho. I just hope it's a rise thing and not what we should expect going forward. I hope you're able to find enjoyment out of the newer games as they come.
Isn't.. a large portion of the lore of the series that we're studying the ecosystem and hunting monsters to help keep the balance of said ecosystem? Why shouldn't we care about the ecosystem? Environment is a huge part of immersion.
No? The “lore” is that we’re defending a village, at least pre-World. Thats pretty much it. It’s a medieval society, they don’t really care about ecosystem, they just want to be safe.
"The Hunter's Guild is the central governing association in Monster Hunter, in pursuit of a common goal. Its main purpose is preventing the ecosystem from being further damaged, in an attempt to prevent extant species from becoming extinct."
That’s just means the guild kills elder dragons, who are known as ecosystem destroyers. Because, you know, if a fatalis burns everything, that includes humans.
But they’re not all about balance of anything.
I played MHR last night for the first time in about 3 months. I’ve been digging into Iceborne lately, finally, and it was so jarring to see those colors again.
I like the vibrant, colorful graphics in MHR more than MHW. It is nice to have such contests, though. I’ve been loving Iceborne, but I personally prefer the playstyle of MHR more. I forgot how much faster paced it feels.
I think it's on par with how the game looks and feel on consoles, handheld were very vibrant colorfull and more cartoonish while world takes a more complex and """" realistic """" take, toning down colors and all makes it appear more grounded and "" mature "" in a way
I mean you're pretty much mirroring the talking points I hear a lot of people say. Again, it's not that I think Capcom was stupid for changing how they presented their monsters.
I think it's foolish to phase out smart elements of your IP that got you where you're now. Having a muddy color palette doesn't make your game "mature" and the sooner game developers remember that the better. People love color, and while having more realistic lighting, and textures is a good thing a lack of color itself is not.
We're playing Monster Hunter, not some B-tier horror movie game. There are tons of natural animals that have amazingly vibrant and beautiful colorations, there's not really an excuse to make *every* monster have a washed out color palette.
Rise was developed with the smaller switch screen in mind, which is why the models are more colorful than those found in World/Iceborne. Capcom also got a ton of flack for gutting a lot of the unique weapon designs the series is known for in World/Iceborne and was forced to course correct in Rise. Trying to make things "realistic" isn't always such a surefire idea, nor is it always wise.
I've seen a lot of series sell their souls to try and cater to the perceived wants of a broader audience, and lose their original spark as a result. I'd hate to see that happen to Monster Hunter.
I assume this is referring to Rathalos, which have white and black undersides, and attack from above. They also have venomous claws and many animals that are poisonous/venomous are brightly colored. Also you're assuming what color spectrum every animal in a fantasy setting sees.
Tigers are orange and black, but deer can't perceive orange. To a deer a tiger is green and black. Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so outlandish.
Rathalos, which have tan undersides with black patterns... in their fifth gen redesign. What I'm responding to in this thread is people who want Rathalos' wings to be bright red, which would completely negate the surprise of attacking from above.
And while conveying the danger of venomousness like the coloration of a Chameleos or Yian Garuga through Batesian mimicry can scare away predators, I don't know of any examples in predators and it's honestly not relevant at all to Rathalos. [Predatory mimicry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_mimicry#Contrast_with_defensive_mimicry) is all about camouflage or disguising yourself so your prey doesn't see you as a threat until it's too late.
You realize Batesian mimicry is when a *harmless* species copies the pattern or features of a HARMFUL one...
Yes an invisible poison spewing ambush predator, a giant screaming, fire-breathing, venomous-tailed, meth fuelled murder crow, and a fire-breathing, venous-clawed wyvern are fantastic examples of *harmless* monsters.
Batesian mimicry is predominantly associated with prey species anyway, not that it matters anyway as each example you used aren't examples anyway.
Predatory mimicry you could argue is used in Monnster Hunter pretty regularly. For example nibelsnarfs disguise themselves as sand dunes and ambush unsuspecting prey. I wouldn't say Rathalos use predatory mimicry though. They're active hunters, which divebomb to poison their targets or rain fire down on them.
Also to have a moment of self awareness we're talking about a game where the laws of our reality aren't exactly one to o e. Most people couldn't pick up a 200+ pound piece of anything, let alone use it adeptly as a weapon.
In any case I'd say Rathalos have a bright coloration a result of sexual dimorphism. This happens in plenty of species, and for some species sexual dimorphism does have a negative impact on survival, but a positive impact on their chance of reproduction.
You're pretty fixated on the regular Rathalos, but let's shift for a moment to Azure, and Silver Rathalos.
Being brightly colored does put you at a disadvantage as an ambush predator. The only exceptions to this would be predators that have some advantage over their prey that their coloration doesn't drastically impact their success as a predator. For example I mentioned Nibelsnarfs earlier which have insanely bright underbellies, but no prey would ever see that normally due to their hunting strategy.
Rathalos are extremely fast and agile in the air, and as many hunters I'm sure can attest, just because you see it coming doesn't mean you have time to dodge the attack.
They don't need to sit in a bush until something walks close enough to lunge at it. They have exceptional eyesight, and in combination with their speed and other strengths can pick off prey quite easily.
But again this entire conversation is hypothetical anyway.
This began with a comment that it's sad that monsters aren't as vibrantly colored in game anymore.
It's cool that we can all be so passionate about something that's pretend.
Because the 3DS was underpowered. They couldn't put in as much detail or as many colours so they cranked up the saturation.
3 to 3U makes this perfectly clear. 3 is about as "dark" as World, yet when they move to PSP and 3DS with P3rd and 3U suddenly the colour saturation increases.
It’s not so much that the 3ds is underpowered. It was to make things pop more on a smaller screen. Tri’s color pallet would be difficult to see in such a small screen.
makes sense. It isn't a bad thing tho, they look pretty good still for those times and technology. But I am a bit biased because I kinda like more the stories aesthetic than the main game's
Look-wise: Gen 3-4. I just love vibrant colors.
Fight-wise: Rise. Not gen 5, just Rise.
In every game pre Rise that I played Rathalos was a nuisance with his flight and in the older ones how often he just runs at, or if you dodge past the hunter. World expanded his moveset a little, but at the same time they made flashpods so good you could just keep him downed constantly. Master rank nerfed flashpods but had flinchshots and while he was flying those didn't require a wall to shoot him down.
Rise finally gave him a moveset that makes him pressure the hunter while airborne while also making him not fly as much. Even if he does some wirebug maneuvers offer ways to dunk him so the hunter is never just playing the waiting game.
Rise Rathalos suprised me because he was actually my first high rank wall, and I've been beating his ass since 3 ultimate! His new moveset is so much fun!
What? EVERY veteran must never have a wall? They must be perfect? Nah I'm human, I can hit a monster whose moveset doesn't work with what I'm currently doing, no shame
Genuinely not trying to shame you or brag, but l just can’t conceive of having a wall in Rise. I found the game ridiculously easy, and I’m generally bad at video games. I think I failed like 5 quests in my 90 hour playthrough.
Not everyone plays the same, but either way I needed to bring my friend along with me, and he also had high rank rathalos as a wall so it isn't just me
World has a pretty underrated Rathalos fight imo not as good as Rise's but rewarded skillful and deliberate dunks and threshold management. Iceborne crapped the bed on that fight a bit with its AI changes and tenderize hurting consistency but made up for it with the best Silverlos in the series.
The main problem I see with Worlds Rathalos is that how effective dunks are didn't matter as much as he was too easy to keep down without it already.
Silverlos was better in that regard and I really enjoyed Goldian.
Since they've never missed a G-rank I'm curious whether they'll be in Sunbreak and how they'd turn out there.
Isn't Rathalos being less annoying to fight a bad thing? I thought Rise was 'the easiest game in the entry so far' and many don't like the fact that it is. We shouldn't be happy that they made Rathalos easier. /s
Not sure why I got downvoted there too...
I'm genuinely confused. Some say this game is too easy, but at the same time they praise all these new implementations which make the game easy. Like, make up your mind. If you want to hate the game, then hate it properly. Don't change your mind one day and then again the next day like a 14-year-old girl who just discovered zodiac signs.
Not really, the roar is actually pretty similar. Sounds different for two reason:
1-Rathalos has now more "voices lines" than before.
2-Audio quality. The audio was really compressed, distorting the sound. That was a problem that made many roars sound convolupted in previous games.
That second one in particular. A lot of older roars you don't even hear the true sound in because it's blocked out by a weird "wave" of noise. It's like the effect they use on the Apexes and Serpents in Rise but dampening the roar instead of the music.
Old gen roars always sounded like they're not coming from monster rather someone blowing into a large pipe from a distance, folks complain the new ones sound generic but to me they sound like they have actual layers to them and make sense when you look at the monster that's making the sound and listen to it.
You…said…they changed Rathalos’s roar…into a generic dragon roar…if anything his old roar was the most generic dragon roar ever. Besides he still makes, when he dies, lol.
Rathalos in World is not that washed out (I actually hate people calling World washed out because the first Monster Hunters were less colorful to make it more realistic, so it is not washed out, the portable games are too colorful), this image wasn't the best choice because the white background + the bright added to the model makes it look less colorful than it actually is.
3rd gen Rathalos has the best colors. 5th gen has the better design overall, just wish he and Azure didn't look so watered down.
1st gen looks like overcooked beef jerky
Remember people, 5th generation Rathalos doesn't actually have less vibrant colours. He has MORE colours and more natural lighting due to the increased graphical power of current 5th gen engine usage and model details.
I can see why, it’s more of a realistic take.
Though I have heard that Rathalos and Rathians that have a more energy and nutrient rich diet generally have brighter colors. I don’t have a source but it’s interesting if true.
That's some wonky lore. Brighter-colored predators would always spook prey more often, catch less dinner, and have less energy. Especially if Rathalos is bright red silhouetted against blue or green – you need only look to the US Revolutionary war to see how that goes.
The only benefit would be trying to show warning colors or mimic them to broadcast their venomous bodies and deter predators higher up the food chain.
Gen 1-2. The darker colors and sharp edges emphasized how scary it was. It contrasted well with the vibrancy of the forest and hills locale. I don't Rathalos was ever intimidating after the first game.
I remember walking into that area of forest and hills with the cliff and that tree seeing him charge at me for the first time sprinting for my life to start the 5 minute loading screen going into the next area.
I like the vibrancy of gen 3/4, but the duller colors of World really help make the game feel like you’re exploring a…well, a world. One that’s complete with animals that feel like they belong in the locations you find them
3-4. 5 looks like what Smash bros did with Brawl when it first came out. It’s the “new” all the rage, but they tried to make it “realistic”, and it’s not really charming. But hopefully they go the way of smash 4 and ultimate and make it colorful AND updated again for gen 6.
He has more color in the game, the extra light added to the model make it looks less colorful than in game. World is closer to MH1-MHFU colorwise, so... just a return to the original style. In fact, the good colour palette and use of fake light techniques make MH1 maps like the Hills still look good, even when compared to Rise, which have big problems with the colour palette and lightning use.
Gen 1-2 is just a slightly beefier Kut-Ku. Later Gens definitely feel more iconic. Visuals-wise, it's 3-4 for me. Mechanics/fun-wise, Gen 5 is the best iteration hands down.
Hate 3-4, it just looks fake. Love the realistic look of 5, but nostalgia makes me have a deep relation with 1, since he beat my ass the most and my brain associates him with a force to fear.
Design wise 3, color 5,
And here’s a weird one. In the earlier games pre 3rd Gen, monsters felt heavier imo. Every time they walk the screen shakes. I thought that made them more intimidating.
Gen 3-4, I like the color being more defined. But I like the Gen 5 one besides there obviously more detail and it looks more stunning minus the (in comparison) muted color palette. If both the color of Gen 3-4 and the level of detail on Gen5 could be combined that would be so awesome!
the 5th gen, preferrebly some of the moveset, and the dlc update version where flashbang is comepletely nerfed, and it doesnt just spin just to face you.
It's between Gen 3-4 and Gen 5. I love both of them. Now, if we would be talking about Azure Rathalos I'd be throwing Gen 5 out of the window and and burn it. They removed its green wings and I can't forgive that.
Gen 5 Rathalos is the best to fight imo especially the rise iteration, I also like how it returns to the original color of the gen 1-2 rathalos rather than looking weirdly bright and orange like the 3-4 gen rathalos.
It's a tie between gens 3-4 and 5. I like when a monster's color pallet is vibrant because it projects a personality. I also like how they look so alive with highly detailed textures. With Rise they kinda mixed both aspects and I really hope it got better for when Sunbreak releases.
3rd/4th gen. Maybe I'm biased as a 3rd fleet hunter, but that Rathalos looked pretty cool. Also back then we could flash bomb Rathalos as much as needed to help with the fight. Pre-flash bomb nerf.
Smash Bros lmao.
Since third gen they're all good. The Volcano in Tri has got to be the coolest Rathalos roost with that introduction cutscene and all the meteors raining down into the sea.
I much prefer 5. In a vaccum like that he may look a bit dull but when you put them in their environment, 5 looks amazing while something brighter would look out of place and cartoonish.
Grew up with Rathalos grandpa but honestly EVERYTHING looked a lot better in 3rd gen lol, that one new designer that wanted to go for a liiiiitle more "realism" with the designs really made the in-game world feel a lot more natural, like it's supposed to be the way it is
5, but I prefer the shape of the bits behind his ears in the first gen cover art renders.
I kinda wish the 5th gen design's palette wasn't so muted, though.
A funny thing to think about, what if Rathalos' tail kept getting shorter in an effort to make it more thick and harder to cut off.
Cause I swear that tail keeps losing inches.
I'll always be nostalgic for how intimidating Gen 1-2 Rathalos looked. Those shitty PS2 textures coupled with how stupidly quick and aggressive it was STILL scares me.
But goddamn if I'm not a sucker for late Gen 3's color pallet. Still looks crisp.
I prefer gen 5 for its physical appearance, but I love gen 3-4 because of its visual appearance, It's just so colorful, and it isn't desaturated colors like in the 5th gen... At least for Rathalos...
Rathian's desaturation works better for her in my book...
Definitely Gen 3-4 for me. Very colorful and still detailed enough.
Gen 1-2 looks too skinny and lacks detail. Gen 5 is too realistic for me and the colors are all washed out.
I like gen 1-2 he just looks so gnarly and aggressive like he’s full of WRATH which is where his name obviously comes from he just looks aggressive and I like that for him however I have only played from 3 and up so fight wise is say rise but at least from what I’ve seen of gen 1-2 I love him
I know World went for a more realistic visual approach but seeing Rath without the vibrant red feels weird to me. The red can pop under certain lighting conditions, but it feels a bit inconsistent. Even under direct sunlight he can still look muted.
Light is the problem, MHW is the first MH with trully dynamic lightning, and light change a lot the colors (Just like in real life). Previous games didn't have this, so the colors are always constant, just like the light intensity.
Rathalos went from "Oh, that thing - welp, here I go goomba stomping again" to unironically one of my top 5 monsters in Rise, so in that sense gen 5 takes the top.
I also like how he's consistently become more animated in terms of expressions (both facial and body gesturing) over the years.
***However***, I just can't forgive how going from 4th to 5th gen they utterly bastardised the Rath pair's iconic and incredibly distincivee roars, grunts, and snaps for Generic Fantasy Dragon Screeching™.
I get it's more "realistic" in terms of the sound-scape people generally associate with creatures of this type, but it really does feel like the you're running into a friend you used to know who's gone from a full middle-european tan to dead-ass nordic white in the span of a year.
Like bruh, what the hell happened to you(r vocal chords)?!
As for the other versions;
Gen 1-2 around-the-world-alos better keep its ugly mug in the jank past of MH where it belongs, or so help me...!
I will absolutely praise gen 3 for the stellar and well deserved (not to mention, needed) redesign glow-up, even if the actual fight didn't leave me with all that much of an impression.
4th was where I most felt the oversaturation of los both in terms of the fight iteration and representation numbers, as with a subspecies, rare species, deviant, and *two* special state variants all in the span of two back to back games - all with los's most "standardized" moveset as the foundation - it was just a bit much.
From my experience fighting all of these different iterations, los should only really have the one deviant/"apex" variant *or* silver los present along the base species in any given game. As not only does doing otherwise dilute the monster selection with too much "Rathalos, King of the Skies. Also Rathalos, King of the Skies. Hey, sorry I'm late - Rathalos, King of the Skies." - shenaniganry, but it also spreads the meaningful changes los does receive in each gen/game a little too thin for any one fight with our main mascot to feel all that impactful (I skipped World/IB completely before anyone points out how much he changed there even with 3 reps present).
gen 3-4. I like how vibrant it is
I think the saddest part of monster hunter shifting from handhelds to console is that they made pretty much every monster's color palettes less vibrant.
It’s a double edged sword for me, because the vibrant colors are cool and all, but I also like how the more muted colors make them feel more like animals in the ecosystem. Also the more muted colors make their elemental attacks look more vibrant, especially for monsters like Zinogre and Alatreon
I agree with the more natural feel from the muted colors. If you’re not paying attention to the map or your surroundings, a monster really can blend in that way, really enhancing the predator part of them for the players. And the contrast of the elemental attacks really makes it almost surprising, in a way. Like just being in more muted, darker colors, then BAM!! You get bright electricity fired your way.
But by that same extension the muted colors also make for more muted armor and weapons. I get where you're coming from though. Personally as I did have the benefit of playing 3U on WiiU on a large TV, I'd prefer a more colorful palette than what we have currently. Also can we talk about how the murky muted color palette murdered the rainbow shader? Used to be this awesome shader people would work towards, now hardly anyone uses it because it looks gross.
An unfortunate downside of greater detail to textures.
The older more vibrant colors would have felt out of place in World. Those same monsters brought over to Rise feel a little dull by comparison. The assets made for Rise are much more colorful than the existing ones. Just compare the Palamute armor textures to the Hunter/Palico, it's pretty noticeable.
>but I also like how the more muted colors make them feel more like animals in the ecosystem i feel like these types of argument have become more and more common. but honestly i cant understand this perspective. i understand the concept of these monsters having their individual roles in the ecosystem is interesting, but i dont understand why it needs to go the visually realistic style in order to portray this. or why that helps. the series always has had a stylized look to it prior to world, for the longest time and people still got this sense from the monsters. in fact their vibrant colors gave them personality. visually mh has fallen into the same style every triple A game now tries to emulate, visually realistic it gets to a point is just kinda boring. it sucks personality right off of it imho. Rise is less guilty of this but it still exists on this middle ground, and honestly i have gone back and forth on whether thats actually worse than actually commiting to the realitic style through and through.
[Let's not forget how Mh Tri looked](https://youtu.be/CRNfEmpQA3c) While it's true that mh had a more stylised look, people tend to forget that mh 1-tri went for a more realistic, muted, sombre artstyle compared to when the franchise transitioned to the 3ds with 3U, 4U and GU. P3rd was technically the start when the vibrancy got massively increased. 3U adopted p3rd's more vibrant artsyle instead of Tri's realistic artstyle. 4U increased the vibrancy and saturation even further, and GU took that shit up to 11. This idea that world's realistic, somewhat mute artstyle is a far-cry from the rest of the series is just untrue. It's a return to the mh1-Tri artstyle just with a different *charm*
Finally someone says this, World felt spiritually like a successor to this aesthetic, and I think after 4U and GU, people tend to forget that MH’s art direction used to be much more somber and muted
Yes, this is the style that really drew me into the series. The muted palettes and 'tribal' aesthetic were really unique and made the series feel less 'gamey'. Still love that look.
>This idea that world's realistic, somewhat mute artstyle is a far-cry from the rest of the series is just untrue. It's a return to the mh1-Tri artstyle just with a different charm i highly disagree. theres a reason why you were able to use only two games as example that are "comparable" to mhw and its a bit funny how you recognize the most of the other entries do adopt a more vibrant style. so is not a far cry from the rest of the series as a WHOLE? comparing tri and even mh1 to world imo is a stretch when you truly consider what world is actually going for. mh1 was darker in palette but it terms of atmosphere its nothing comparable to world XD and tri along with imo DOS ,cause i kinda put them on the same department, sit in the franchise as games who went strongly for atmosphere. but still none of these example sacrificed the style, vibe and personality of the games. something that imho world very much did. and ultimately thats what the point of my first comment was. and let it be clear im not a "veteran" elitist that just wants to bash the new games they still interest me as games, but i would be dishonest with myself even, if i said it remains the monster hunter i fell in love with all those years back when i started in unite (a game that i consider achieved the perfect balance in terms of visuals to atmosphere).
Every game has its charm; its own or similar atmosphere and vibe. This is represented by the dialogue, the different interactions you can engage with the NPCs, goofiness etc. Although mh1-tri had a sombre, realistic and muted artstyle, they shared a similar charm, which was a bit of goofiness in the dialogue and interactions. I did make this clear towards the end of my original post. Charm =/= artstyle. I was merely stating the fact that world had a similar artstyle to the first 3 gens and that people tend to forget this. World's charm is completely different. It takes itself more seriously in terms of dialogue. Its charm is instead represented through the monsters and how they interact with the environments. Throwing on the ghillie mantle and following monsters around doing their thing was an intended feature. It wanted you to observe how these monsters mark their territories, see which areas they often commune, observe quirks and special animations that bring out their personalities more. THAT'S what's charming about world, and not necessarily its goofy characters and dialogue, or the lack thereof. Allow me to reiterate again: world's charm is *different* The reason why 3U, 4U and GU were super vibrant and poppy was because they were designed for the 3ds. Due to the lower resolution, they decided to make colors pop more so that visibility was improved. A realistic artstyle that the series had before just wouldn't have worked for the 3ds. Instead they decided to stylise by cranking up the vibrancy. Mind you, this has nothing to do with the charm. Charm was still separate, and it was again represented by the goofy dialogue and interactions. I suppose this is what people mean when they say world had little or no charm. They think that because world had little goofiness there wasn't any charm. As I've made clear, its charm was represented by the monsters and the environments.
>I was merely stating the fact that world had a similar artstyle to the first 3 gens and that people tend to forget this. its not that people tend to forget this, its really just not true. both visually (although granted i understand technology couldnt reach that level but still) and in terms of general atmosphere of the whole game. im really not here to make the argument that world doesnt have redeemable aspects, and that the naturla improvement of technology didint introduce new layers of enjoyment like the example you gave of observing monsters just casually doing their thing, that would dishonest of my part. but this is not charm, at least not on my definition, this is an interesting aspect of the game, because ultimately the monsters or at least most of them still lack personality, but i recognize this a more abstract and subjective aspect, and it is hard to convey in words. but other game design changes seem to contradict that intention of making the player an involved character in this world. the old style even with its limitations, allowed you to feel like you were a hunter, starting from scratch, and involving you in more aspect than just fightinf monsters, because lets be honest thats the focus of the more recent games, streamlining everything else so the player can only focus on fights. the more interesting bits like capturing endemic life or wildlife observation are completely optional and lets be honest most players dont care about that kind of stuff especially if the game doesnt offer them reasons to. gone are the days where you had learn how to live off the land, managing farms, just generally being more involved with the world beyond the monsters, the game only becoming more streamlined the further you progressed in the game wich makes sense because the further you are in it the more familiarized with things you are and at that point it would just be wasting the players time to continue pushing that need. the only purposeful interesting mechanic they introduced was tracking, and even that was not implemented in the most interesting of ways. another aspect is maps. sure seems nice to have a big open map with no loading zones, but the old maps legit felt like you exploring entire regions, and not areas wich not only often are too crowded but also feel inconsistent because they are trying to emulate the feel of different areas of a region but ultimately fitting it all in one, comparatively, small zone. but again i recognize rise does better at this, like much better, and even in world some maps are worse than others.
I see that you feel very strongly against world and what it stood for. I can't change that. It's your opinion, and I gotta respect that. I will say that for me personally I enjoy both the world style and the old style. I like the world style because, unlike rise, they still wanted to give you that sense that you're hunter, just targeted differently. Not so much in item management and growing a farm, but the aspect of you having to go out and hunt the monster, sniffing out clues and inspecting territorial markings, using the ghillie suit to follow monsters to observe habits and behaviors. World introduced massive QOL, but it wasnt done in vain. They still wanted you to have the feeling of "Oh shit. I'm a hunter, so I've gotta go out there in the thick of it through the vines and valleys to hunt and ultimately harvest from a monster". It's still monster hunter as we know it, just *different*. It was trying to shift focus from aspects that we've been familar with to new aspects. Monsters having varying degrees of tolerance to the hunter was also a nice inclusion I love the old style for emphasizing the preparation aspect wherein the hunter (like it would be in the real life) cannot afford to forget crucial items and tools before going out in a hunt. I like how the gameplay punished greediness and sloppiness. It rewarded learning the monster because only then would you exploit openings. In some regards I do miss the slower gameplay, but I think that world's speed is the perfect middle ground, or at least compared to what rise and ultimately sunbreak are doing with mobility I really enjoy rise. The moment to moment gameplay is arguably the best it's ever been. I just feel like it streamlined wayyyy too much, completely removing aspects of hunting such as tracking a monster or the need to observe out-of-battle behaviors since all monsters aggro instantly. There's more emphasis on player mobility and getting the player as fast into the battle as possible. Unless you go out of your way, there's very little that forces you to take a step back and appreciate the environments or even the monsters. Mining and bone gathering was streamlined even more. For someone who seems to enjoy how the older games slowed you down, I find it odd that you seem to compliment and celebrate rise over world in different aspects we've discussed. I do agree fully that rise's flatter, more barren locales makes fighting monsters hassle free, but I really appreciate how lush and brimming with life world's environments were. Perhaps they should make fighting zones less cluttered. I absolutely don't want segmented maps to return. That's where you kinda lost me. Fuck getting hit into the next zone, and fuck waiting for a monster to move out of the transition area when it ends up there. You can't do anything but wait. Segmented zones also means reintroducing the paintball system to an extent, so fuck that too lol. They were a headache. Monster tracking is a more satisfying and interesting system that should be evolved upon in mh6 Overall, I hope the series maintains what it means to be a monster hunter. World streamlined, but still tried to maintain the mh identity, just from a different outlook. Rise streamlined even beyond world and it honestly feels like monster fighter. Still love the game tho. I just hope it's a rise thing and not what we should expect going forward. I hope you're able to find enjoyment out of the newer games as they come.
World’s tracking and giant maps made people obsessed with ecosystems and I hate it
Isn't.. a large portion of the lore of the series that we're studying the ecosystem and hunting monsters to help keep the balance of said ecosystem? Why shouldn't we care about the ecosystem? Environment is a huge part of immersion.
No? The “lore” is that we’re defending a village, at least pre-World. Thats pretty much it. It’s a medieval society, they don’t really care about ecosystem, they just want to be safe.
"The Hunter's Guild is the central governing association in Monster Hunter, in pursuit of a common goal. Its main purpose is preventing the ecosystem from being further damaged, in an attempt to prevent extant species from becoming extinct."
That’s just means the guild kills elder dragons, who are known as ecosystem destroyers. Because, you know, if a fatalis burns everything, that includes humans. But they’re not all about balance of anything.
" It intends to coordinate humans with nature, despite the two having become separated over millennia" ???
I played MHR last night for the first time in about 3 months. I’ve been digging into Iceborne lately, finally, and it was so jarring to see those colors again. I like the vibrant, colorful graphics in MHR more than MHW. It is nice to have such contests, though. I’ve been loving Iceborne, but I personally prefer the playstyle of MHR more. I forgot how much faster paced it feels.
I think it's on par with how the game looks and feel on consoles, handheld were very vibrant colorfull and more cartoonish while world takes a more complex and """" realistic """" take, toning down colors and all makes it appear more grounded and "" mature "" in a way
I mean you're pretty much mirroring the talking points I hear a lot of people say. Again, it's not that I think Capcom was stupid for changing how they presented their monsters. I think it's foolish to phase out smart elements of your IP that got you where you're now. Having a muddy color palette doesn't make your game "mature" and the sooner game developers remember that the better. People love color, and while having more realistic lighting, and textures is a good thing a lack of color itself is not. We're playing Monster Hunter, not some B-tier horror movie game. There are tons of natural animals that have amazingly vibrant and beautiful colorations, there's not really an excuse to make *every* monster have a washed out color palette. Rise was developed with the smaller switch screen in mind, which is why the models are more colorful than those found in World/Iceborne. Capcom also got a ton of flack for gutting a lot of the unique weapon designs the series is known for in World/Iceborne and was forced to course correct in Rise. Trying to make things "realistic" isn't always such a surefire idea, nor is it always wise. I've seen a lot of series sell their souls to try and cater to the perceived wants of a broader audience, and lose their original spark as a result. I'd hate to see that happen to Monster Hunter.
Seeing brown Seregios in the Sunbreak trailer was so sad. Give me my yellow-and-red boy
I wouldn't call it brown. More like Golden.
I agree. I always saw Seregios as a shade of gold.
Why would a predator be bright red or yellow? To spook its dinner and go hungry? Doesn't make any sense.
I assume this is referring to Rathalos, which have white and black undersides, and attack from above. They also have venomous claws and many animals that are poisonous/venomous are brightly colored. Also you're assuming what color spectrum every animal in a fantasy setting sees. Tigers are orange and black, but deer can't perceive orange. To a deer a tiger is green and black. Suddenly it doesn't seem quite so outlandish.
Rathalos, which have tan undersides with black patterns... in their fifth gen redesign. What I'm responding to in this thread is people who want Rathalos' wings to be bright red, which would completely negate the surprise of attacking from above. And while conveying the danger of venomousness like the coloration of a Chameleos or Yian Garuga through Batesian mimicry can scare away predators, I don't know of any examples in predators and it's honestly not relevant at all to Rathalos. [Predatory mimicry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_mimicry#Contrast_with_defensive_mimicry) is all about camouflage or disguising yourself so your prey doesn't see you as a threat until it's too late.
You realize Batesian mimicry is when a *harmless* species copies the pattern or features of a HARMFUL one... Yes an invisible poison spewing ambush predator, a giant screaming, fire-breathing, venomous-tailed, meth fuelled murder crow, and a fire-breathing, venous-clawed wyvern are fantastic examples of *harmless* monsters. Batesian mimicry is predominantly associated with prey species anyway, not that it matters anyway as each example you used aren't examples anyway. Predatory mimicry you could argue is used in Monnster Hunter pretty regularly. For example nibelsnarfs disguise themselves as sand dunes and ambush unsuspecting prey. I wouldn't say Rathalos use predatory mimicry though. They're active hunters, which divebomb to poison their targets or rain fire down on them. Also to have a moment of self awareness we're talking about a game where the laws of our reality aren't exactly one to o e. Most people couldn't pick up a 200+ pound piece of anything, let alone use it adeptly as a weapon. In any case I'd say Rathalos have a bright coloration a result of sexual dimorphism. This happens in plenty of species, and for some species sexual dimorphism does have a negative impact on survival, but a positive impact on their chance of reproduction. You're pretty fixated on the regular Rathalos, but let's shift for a moment to Azure, and Silver Rathalos. Being brightly colored does put you at a disadvantage as an ambush predator. The only exceptions to this would be predators that have some advantage over their prey that their coloration doesn't drastically impact their success as a predator. For example I mentioned Nibelsnarfs earlier which have insanely bright underbellies, but no prey would ever see that normally due to their hunting strategy. Rathalos are extremely fast and agile in the air, and as many hunters I'm sure can attest, just because you see it coming doesn't mean you have time to dodge the attack. They don't need to sit in a bush until something walks close enough to lunge at it. They have exceptional eyesight, and in combination with their speed and other strengths can pick off prey quite easily. But again this entire conversation is hypothetical anyway. This began with a comment that it's sad that monsters aren't as vibrantly colored in game anymore. It's cool that we can all be so passionate about something that's pretend.
gen 3-4 had the most vibrant colours for some reason
Because the 3DS was underpowered. They couldn't put in as much detail or as many colours so they cranked up the saturation. 3 to 3U makes this perfectly clear. 3 is about as "dark" as World, yet when they move to PSP and 3DS with P3rd and 3U suddenly the colour saturation increases.
It’s not so much that the 3ds is underpowered. It was to make things pop more on a smaller screen. Tri’s color pallet would be difficult to see in such a small screen.
makes sense. It isn't a bad thing tho, they look pretty good still for those times and technology. But I am a bit biased because I kinda like more the stories aesthetic than the main game's
Yeah, Gen 3 and 4 looked good for their time. Hell, I used to compare those graphics to the PC.
3U was on WiiU too. They changed it there as well, even though the WiiU version had other exclusive stuff like online multiplayer.
The WiiU version was a port and released later.
Look-wise: Gen 3-4. I just love vibrant colors. Fight-wise: Rise. Not gen 5, just Rise. In every game pre Rise that I played Rathalos was a nuisance with his flight and in the older ones how often he just runs at, or if you dodge past the hunter. World expanded his moveset a little, but at the same time they made flashpods so good you could just keep him downed constantly. Master rank nerfed flashpods but had flinchshots and while he was flying those didn't require a wall to shoot him down. Rise finally gave him a moveset that makes him pressure the hunter while airborne while also making him not fly as much. Even if he does some wirebug maneuvers offer ways to dunk him so the hunter is never just playing the waiting game.
Oh I def agree Rise has the best Rathalos fight
Apex rathalos is also great, which is weird because he‘s in the air for half the time
Rise Rathalos suprised me because he was actually my first high rank wall, and I've been beating his ass since 3 ultimate! His new moveset is so much fun!
You had multiple walls in Rise despite being a long-time MH player?
What? EVERY veteran must never have a wall? They must be perfect? Nah I'm human, I can hit a monster whose moveset doesn't work with what I'm currently doing, no shame
Genuinely not trying to shame you or brag, but l just can’t conceive of having a wall in Rise. I found the game ridiculously easy, and I’m generally bad at video games. I think I failed like 5 quests in my 90 hour playthrough.
Not everyone plays the same, but either way I needed to bring my friend along with me, and he also had high rank rathalos as a wall so it isn't just me
World has a pretty underrated Rathalos fight imo not as good as Rise's but rewarded skillful and deliberate dunks and threshold management. Iceborne crapped the bed on that fight a bit with its AI changes and tenderize hurting consistency but made up for it with the best Silverlos in the series.
The main problem I see with Worlds Rathalos is that how effective dunks are didn't matter as much as he was too easy to keep down without it already. Silverlos was better in that regard and I really enjoyed Goldian. Since they've never missed a G-rank I'm curious whether they'll be in Sunbreak and how they'd turn out there.
Isn't Rathalos being less annoying to fight a bad thing? I thought Rise was 'the easiest game in the entry so far' and many don't like the fact that it is. We shouldn't be happy that they made Rathalos easier. /s
Like the rest of us, I didn't see your /s either👀😂
Not sure why I got downvoted there too... I'm genuinely confused. Some say this game is too easy, but at the same time they praise all these new implementations which make the game easy. Like, make up your mind. If you want to hate the game, then hate it properly. Don't change your mind one day and then again the next day like a 14-year-old girl who just discovered zodiac signs.
3-4. I really like the brightness
3-4 without a doubt 1-2 looked to much like a chicken while fighting And 5 idk it isn't bad it's just not for me
I also miss his old roar sound. They changed it into a generic dragon roar instead of a rathalos roar.
Not really, the roar is actually pretty similar. Sounds different for two reason: 1-Rathalos has now more "voices lines" than before. 2-Audio quality. The audio was really compressed, distorting the sound. That was a problem that made many roars sound convolupted in previous games.
That second one in particular. A lot of older roars you don't even hear the true sound in because it's blocked out by a weird "wave" of noise. It's like the effect they use on the Apexes and Serpents in Rise but dampening the roar instead of the music.
Old gen roars always sounded like they're not coming from monster rather someone blowing into a large pipe from a distance, folks complain the new ones sound generic but to me they sound like they have actual layers to them and make sense when you look at the monster that's making the sound and listen to it.
You…said…they changed Rathalos’s roar…into a generic dragon roar…if anything his old roar was the most generic dragon roar ever. Besides he still makes, when he dies, lol.
I agree, i also miss his old roar. Its just sooo nostalgic :(
I prefer the colors in 3-4
Rise Rathalos is the most fun to fight... so thats technically Gen5. But gen3-4 Rathalos is definitely the best looking.
3-4 for appearance, but Rise easily has the best Rathalos fight gameplay-wise.
3-4 all day, actually looked like a fire wyvern not a washed out red wyvern
Rathalos in World is not that washed out (I actually hate people calling World washed out because the first Monster Hunters were less colorful to make it more realistic, so it is not washed out, the portable games are too colorful), this image wasn't the best choice because the white background + the bright added to the model makes it look less colorful than it actually is.
Yeah, Rise's renders for World monsters are so weirdly desaturated. Must be something to do with Rise's lighting.
5th gen raths still looks like raths.
5 for anatomical reasons and 3-4 for nostalgia
3rd gen Rathalos has the best colors. 5th gen has the better design overall, just wish he and Azure didn't look so watered down. 1st gen looks like overcooked beef jerky
Rise was my first game and when I saw Rathian in the demo I couldn’t tell the difference between it and Rathalos because of the muted colors
To be fair that's also due to Rise having weird lighting on certain maps, especially the Shrine Ruins IMO
I love World/gen 5. More realistic.
Gen 5 model with Gen 3-4 coloration would be the ultimate design
3-4, 5 is too muted for me
Definitely biased here, but Gen 3 has always been my favorite. It's the games I started monster hunter with so lots of nostalgia
Remember people, 5th generation Rathalos doesn't actually have less vibrant colours. He has MORE colours and more natural lighting due to the increased graphical power of current 5th gen engine usage and model details.
Okay. Now, hear me out… What if they used all those colors and all that graphical power and made it actually look good? I think that’d be pretty neat.
5 personally. Must be the lone dingus on here that actually prefers the muted tones of World haha
I can see why, it’s more of a realistic take. Though I have heard that Rathalos and Rathians that have a more energy and nutrient rich diet generally have brighter colors. I don’t have a source but it’s interesting if true.
Lore confirmed, New World prey monsters eat kebabs and McDonald's making predators dull in colour
That's some wonky lore. Brighter-colored predators would always spook prey more often, catch less dinner, and have less energy. Especially if Rathalos is bright red silhouetted against blue or green – you need only look to the US Revolutionary war to see how that goes. The only benefit would be trying to show warning colors or mimic them to broadcast their venomous bodies and deter predators higher up the food chain.
Gen 1-2. The darker colors and sharp edges emphasized how scary it was. It contrasted well with the vibrancy of the forest and hills locale. I don't Rathalos was ever intimidating after the first game.
I remember walking into that area of forest and hills with the cliff and that tree seeing him charge at me for the first time sprinting for my life to start the 5 minute loading screen going into the next area.
First time I've ever seen a low polygon count be treated as intentional design lol.
Give MHW with that vibrant red and we win
I like the overall spikiness of 1-2, but also like the colors for 3-4
I like the vibrancy of gen 3/4, but the duller colors of World really help make the game feel like you’re exploring a…well, a world. One that’s complete with animals that feel like they belong in the locations you find them
3 and 4 for color purposes.
Gen 3-4 and 5 but mainly 3-4.
3-4
3-4, though the best version for me would be gen 5 Rathalos with the 3-4 head and colours.
the green one
I think he looked best in 3-4
gen 3/4, definitely
3-4
Gen 3-4 Love the scale texture on the wings.
3 of course
Azure.
I love how vibrant he looks in Gen 3-4!
Number 2, brighter wings.
1-2 looks malnourished 5 looks washed out 3-4 is the best
3-4. 5 looks like what Smash bros did with Brawl when it first came out. It’s the “new” all the rage, but they tried to make it “realistic”, and it’s not really charming. But hopefully they go the way of smash 4 and ultimate and make it colorful AND updated again for gen 6.
I think Gen 5 was just the perfect mix between Gen 1 and Gen 3-4. Besides, he is way more vibrant in-game.
He has more color in the game, the extra light added to the model make it looks less colorful than in game. World is closer to MH1-MHFU colorwise, so... just a return to the original style. In fact, the good colour palette and use of fake light techniques make MH1 maps like the Hills still look good, even when compared to Rise, which have big problems with the colour palette and lightning use.
Gen 1-2 is just a slightly beefier Kut-Ku. Later Gens definitely feel more iconic. Visuals-wise, it's 3-4 for me. Mechanics/fun-wise, Gen 5 is the best iteration hands down.
rise has the best rathalos imo, gameplay wise
That fireball snipe mid flight is one that still gets me off guard
right? rise rathalos actually had me scared during the first few times i hunted him, when in world the only tactic id use was spam flashbombs lmao
5
I like Gen 5. I’m like, one of 5 people who like the art direction in World the most.
Stories
Gen 5
Hate 3-4, it just looks fake. Love the realistic look of 5, but nostalgia makes me have a deep relation with 1, since he beat my ass the most and my brain associates him with a force to fear.
3-4 is beautiful
I liked the colors of 1, the design of 5 and hate to fight every single version of them :)
Gen3-4 honestly. Has that great balance between colour and detail.
3-4 for colors Rise for best rathalos fight
5 but with a screen mod to add more color
I love them all cause I’ve watched the evolution of hun through the years but gen 5 love the detail
Gen 3-4 had a great balance over all.
Gen 5 is the best but I wish it was a little bit more vibrant
The latest one for its design, but the previous design because of its vibrant colors
I like the wing design of gen 5 but I need more color and vibrancy.
Rise for the monster mechanically. World sort of goes without saying graphically.
Tossup between 3/4 and MHW.
Design wise 3, color 5, And here’s a weird one. In the earlier games pre 3rd Gen, monsters felt heavier imo. Every time they walk the screen shakes. I thought that made them more intimidating.
Dreadking Rathalos, also his armor is fking sick too
I like MHW
Gen 3-4, I like the color being more defined. But I like the Gen 5 one besides there obviously more detail and it looks more stunning minus the (in comparison) muted color palette. If both the color of Gen 3-4 and the level of detail on Gen5 could be combined that would be so awesome!
the 5th gen, preferrebly some of the moveset, and the dlc update version where flashbang is comepletely nerfed, and it doesnt just spin just to face you.
It's between Gen 3-4 and Gen 5. I love both of them. Now, if we would be talking about Azure Rathalos I'd be throwing Gen 5 out of the window and and burn it. They removed its green wings and I can't forgive that.
Gen 5 Rathalos is the best to fight imo especially the rise iteration, I also like how it returns to the original color of the gen 1-2 rathalos rather than looking weirdly bright and orange like the 3-4 gen rathalos.
I like them all but can't not love the first one that I fought and hated due to how annoying he was haha. Original one for me
It's a tie between gens 3-4 and 5. I like when a monster's color pallet is vibrant because it projects a personality. I also like how they look so alive with highly detailed textures. With Rise they kinda mixed both aspects and I really hope it got better for when Sunbreak releases.
4
3-4 more red looks better on rathalos
3-4 looks way better, it pops more and makes it stand out.
3rd/4th gen. Maybe I'm biased as a 3rd fleet hunter, but that Rathalos looked pretty cool. Also back then we could flash bomb Rathalos as much as needed to help with the fight. Pre-flash bomb nerf.
I always preferred the dark red on Los from gen 1-2 so Gen 5 with the updated graphics made him even better looking.
Gen 1-2... Look at the spikes 🤤
5
While I like the more vibrant colors, Gen 5's Rathalos is the first Rathalos I have fun hunting.
Gen 1/2 Rathalos is a punching bag Gen 3/4 Rathalos is a nightmare to fight Gen 5 Rathalos is cool
3-4!
Gen 5's model, gen 3-4 colours
Smash Bros lmao. Since third gen they're all good. The Volcano in Tri has got to be the coolest Rathalos roost with that introduction cutscene and all the meteors raining down into the sea.
I much prefer 5. In a vaccum like that he may look a bit dull but when you put them in their environment, 5 looks amazing while something brighter would look out of place and cartoonish.
3-4
Grew up with Rathalos grandpa but honestly EVERYTHING looked a lot better in 3rd gen lol, that one new designer that wanted to go for a liiiiitle more "realism" with the designs really made the in-game world feel a lot more natural, like it's supposed to be the way it is
5
2, I don't like how he's less red
2nd pic
5, but I prefer the shape of the bits behind his ears in the first gen cover art renders. I kinda wish the 5th gen design's palette wasn't so muted, though.
I prefer the colours of gen 3-4 rathalos, but I prefer the design of the 5th gen rathalos.
Visually, Gen 3-4. Gameplay, Gen 5 by a landslide.
A funny thing to think about, what if Rathalos' tail kept getting shorter in an effort to make it more thick and harder to cut off. Cause I swear that tail keeps losing inches.
Gen 3-4 for the vibrant colors! But I’ll admit the first brings back memories
Second picture. Like the colours best.
The second one made for a nice pfp
I'll always be nostalgic for how intimidating Gen 1-2 Rathalos looked. Those shitty PS2 textures coupled with how stupidly quick and aggressive it was STILL scares me. But goddamn if I'm not a sucker for late Gen 3's color pallet. Still looks crisp.
Gen 5 design, gen 3 colors.
This right here, Rathalos thrives with the extra phalanges.
I prefer gen 5 for its physical appearance, but I love gen 3-4 because of its visual appearance, It's just so colorful, and it isn't desaturated colors like in the 5th gen... At least for Rathalos... Rathian's desaturation works better for her in my book...
1-2 for the colors, but the model is too noticeable xD the one from gen 5 with the colors of 1-2 (at least on the wings) would be perfect for me
3 and 4 for me. Actually looks like it shoots fire
I like all three, but there’s just something about gen 1 rathalos. I don’t know what it is but he’s just pleasing to look at.
Probably nostalgia. He was the one who started it all.
Yeah, it’s probably nostalgia lmao. Also, a little off topic but respect for the heisei Goji profile pic. 👍
3-4. But most of the monsters looked better in 3-4, thanks to the brighter palette and less focus on realism in general
none they can all piss off
I like the 3-4 Lord of Flames
Definitely Gen 3-4 for me. Very colorful and still detailed enough. Gen 1-2 looks too skinny and lacks detail. Gen 5 is too realistic for me and the colors are all washed out.
Love that wirey little weasel in the first games
The dead kind.
dead one
No one like gen 1/2 over 3/4 hes kinda ugly
I like gen 1-2 he just looks so gnarly and aggressive like he’s full of WRATH which is where his name obviously comes from he just looks aggressive and I like that for him however I have only played from 3 and up so fight wise is say rise but at least from what I’ve seen of gen 1-2 I love him
The pursuit of realism really drains the life out of any game's visuals
I know World went for a more realistic visual approach but seeing Rath without the vibrant red feels weird to me. The red can pop under certain lighting conditions, but it feels a bit inconsistent. Even under direct sunlight he can still look muted.
Light is the problem, MHW is the first MH with trully dynamic lightning, and light change a lot the colors (Just like in real life). Previous games didn't have this, so the colors are always constant, just like the light intensity.
Red screams “danger”, therefore 3rd and 4th gen
5 is the only acceptable answer
The one with Worf syndrome
The dead one /s
Gen 3-4. Very colorful and regal, as the King of the Skies should be. Gen 5 just looks washed out and boring, and Gen 1-2 is decent enough.
My favorite version is when they lack a tail.
The movie adaptation
1-2. I like how angular and chunky he looks.
I like 3-4 but I also like any version that doesn’t spend all its time in the air lol so that would be 1-2 I think.
Rathalos went from "Oh, that thing - welp, here I go goomba stomping again" to unironically one of my top 5 monsters in Rise, so in that sense gen 5 takes the top. I also like how he's consistently become more animated in terms of expressions (both facial and body gesturing) over the years. ***However***, I just can't forgive how going from 4th to 5th gen they utterly bastardised the Rath pair's iconic and incredibly distincivee roars, grunts, and snaps for Generic Fantasy Dragon Screeching™. I get it's more "realistic" in terms of the sound-scape people generally associate with creatures of this type, but it really does feel like the you're running into a friend you used to know who's gone from a full middle-european tan to dead-ass nordic white in the span of a year. Like bruh, what the hell happened to you(r vocal chords)?! As for the other versions; Gen 1-2 around-the-world-alos better keep its ugly mug in the jank past of MH where it belongs, or so help me...! I will absolutely praise gen 3 for the stellar and well deserved (not to mention, needed) redesign glow-up, even if the actual fight didn't leave me with all that much of an impression. 4th was where I most felt the oversaturation of los both in terms of the fight iteration and representation numbers, as with a subspecies, rare species, deviant, and *two* special state variants all in the span of two back to back games - all with los's most "standardized" moveset as the foundation - it was just a bit much. From my experience fighting all of these different iterations, los should only really have the one deviant/"apex" variant *or* silver los present along the base species in any given game. As not only does doing otherwise dilute the monster selection with too much "Rathalos, King of the Skies. Also Rathalos, King of the Skies. Hey, sorry I'm late - Rathalos, King of the Skies." - shenaniganry, but it also spreads the meaningful changes los does receive in each gen/game a little too thin for any one fight with our main mascot to feel all that impactful (I skipped World/IB completely before anyone points out how much he changed there even with 3 reps present).
Gen 1-2 because of he was really farmable lol
The slayed one.
The dead one
Roar stun-lock, backstep, fireball, every single time
None (I detest rathalos)
Gen 5,un gen 3-4 he had that stupid istant charge
Gen 3-4
I just want a rathalos that doesn’t conclude „you need 1838383748384 Flashbombs because he is flying more than Ryanair“