Talk:Monster Hunter (video game)

Offline playability?

It is unclear (to me, at least) how much of the game content is no longer available due to the game's servers being offline. A single sentence by someone in the know would be enough to clarify if all the game's quests are available offline or not (the current article is ambiguous).

Monster Sizes

The picture there is suppose to be the Monster Sizes, but it is clearly wrong because the characters are almost the same size as Lao's head (welll not almost but really close) but it the article it's barely half. And I'm pretty sure Plesioth's fin makes it taller then Gravios.

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)

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, aProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

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)

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)

Yay!

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

This isn't the place to discuss about the game. Go find a forum to discuss it. (Anonymous)

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)

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)

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)

As stated in the article, the game plays like Phantasy Star Online where parties get their own private game to play when they head out for a quest. --192.251.125.85 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

^ Not true, a weapon's potential depends on the user more than anything else. Also, the Red Dragonsword has an attack of 960 :) --192.251.125.85 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There are actually facts to back of the power of certain weapon types. When you stack the best weapons of each type against eachother, the Black Dragon Spear outclasses anything, by far. In fact, it is generally considered a broken weapon because of it's overwhelming power. Hammers are second in the damage tree. Also, although a weapon's output DOES depend on a user's skill, there is a specific pecking order of weapons. The latest list for this is as follows: Lance>Hammer>SNS>Great Sword>Dual swords. ALTHOUGH. This of course, is based on one person using the weapon only. It is possible, for example, for 4 people with Dual Swords to kill a wyvern faster than 4 people with say, SNS, simply because with Dual Swords, it's possible for 4 users to spam a fury attack on the wyvern's weak point without having to move, and without cancelling out the other player's attacks. SoujiroSeta's "Elemental rage" video is a good example of this. ~Minor Vaginor.

Use the Damage Calculator by Lord Grahf, found on GameFAQs. PitchBlack 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're going to post all of Grahf's calculations (which would obviously involve obtaining his personal permission) and duke out every single attack damage blow to each individual wyvern, we're going to go with what the game's numbers say. I know full well that Lances are the most overpowered in terms of multipliers, especially the Black Dragon Spear, but again, it's all just for number's sake. Onslaught Hammer and Breath Core Hammer, with their 1024 attack power, are the most powerful in terms of raw ATTACK (NOT DAMAGE). I'm just going to change it to that. If anyone wants to post some giant flame war discussion about which one does more "damage" in whatever situation against whatever wyvern on whatever part of it's body, feel free to do so, but you'll probably be exorcised by Jimbo Wales. Mister Deranged (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that weapons have been removed from this article entirely, thus refuting any arguments. Please refrain from starting flame wars--do that somewhere else. Mister Deranged (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides, as far as Monster Hunter 1 is concerned, it has been agreed that the Lance is the MVP weapon out there, regardless of other stuff. And this isn't the case in later games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.125.54 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why was it deleted then, and not improved? It could have been fixed of the factual errors. And the original research and hints could have been deleted. Let's not get into a discussion of what is deserving of what. If one game has a page for its monsters, then there's no reason why Monster Hunter shouldn't have its own. Popularity shouldn't affect whether something is deserving of something. PitchBlack 17:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Violating WP:NOT and WP:V aside, it violated WP:N, because the monsters are not all that notable; they have not been featured outside of the Monster Hunter series, been discussed about in other non-trivial media, and really aren't that much different than bosses in other video games made by Capcom. Also, the article would have become a hotspot for vandalism and original research; for example, the Rathalos section would probably look like this after a few edits: "RATHALOS IS A CRAPPY MONSTER WHO CAN BE BEATZ WIF WEAK WEAPS LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!. To defeat the Rathalos, you have to makesure not to be in front of it, use SnS, and hackat it while it's trapped." This may not seem so bad, but after removing this stuff, each monster section will probably end up with only a sentence or two, and thus become a huge messy stub. Lastly, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; just because there's another article about a similar subject, doesn't mean that the subject in question deserves an article. SuperDT 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i think it should have a monster page w pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.200.225 (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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."

Lemme clarify, it's not called Demonization Mode, just rage or stamina mode in the PS2 version. They name it in the PSP version. --192.251.125.85 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I used that name to get you to know what I was talking about and it seems like it workedDark reaper6789 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) oh and let me clarify, what you read was a quote from the actual article and I was comentimng on it because it is retarded.Dark reaper6789 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

The monster list was rather lacking so I added more info and seperated into three groups.
Not sure what to call the weak enemies like prey, decided on Pests for now.
Also thought of beasts, though that sounds a little tough for these guys.
The descriptions are a pretty basic rush job for now, i'll expand and clean them up later, as should others.
Most likely it will just be direct from the MH monster list in-game, since it seems like "guide book" style descriptions are frowned upon. --Dissidia 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, for the following reasons: We have had that list of monsters on here numerous times before, and the monsters even had their own article, but it all got removed/deleted. It violates WP:NOT and WP:OR, specifically Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information, Wikipedia is not a game guide and No original research. To explain, The monster list may seem innocent at first, but eventually people will put strategies on how to defeat them, they get vandalized, the list gets big, and messy, etc. In short, it's more trouble than it's worth. SuperDT 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There had been just a string of monster names which seemed pointless. It's either a proper list with descriptions, or none at all.
A seperate article in the vein of the FF WEAPON list could be worked on in the future.
Regarding the website links, the majority of game wikis include the NA, EU and Jp sites, I don't see why they should be removed. --Dissidia 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted your site edits, and changed presentation.
There is no reason to exclude the Jp site.
Changed site to EU since it is for the EU region with options for English, German and French, not just UK.--Dissidia 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I probably removed these links on accident. And that string of monster names you mentioned... I never saw that. But I'll take your word for it, assume they were there, no harm done, no problem. If you'd like, the articles that really need help are: Monster Hunter Freedom 2, Monster Hunter G, and Monster Hunter Frontier. Just make sure your edits don't violate any guidelines, and I'll look forward to seeing some good edits from you ;)SuperDT 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also a mobile phone version due for release in Jp on the Sharp FOMA SH903i Mobile Phone, although little information is currently known.--Dissidia 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So I've heard, but let's wait until some good sources become available to make the article, so that it won't get deleted. Or, we could just make it into a section in this article (When sources come out, of course)SuperDT 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fatalis is not needed to reach HR 20. Removed & slightly expanded.--Dissidia 05:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

High level of vandalism

I've noticed that this page gets vandalized at least three times a week and is under multiple disputes in terms of content when the added stuff is clearly not needed nor wanted as per Wikipedia's standards. Is it time to admit that we need to have this page semi-protected? LanceHeart 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try, but I doubt it will be fulfilled. Semi-protection shouldn't be used for content disputes with anons or new users, since it becomes biased, and vandalism three times a week is not that bad, compared to other articles (Death Note, for example, was being vandalized 30-40 times a week!) Like I said, you can try if you'd like. SuperDT 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the main page

Now from what I have been reading there coming out with a Monster Hunter 2...

But as it seems this discussion says that the Mh 2 is going to be for Psp but it is said to be put on Ps2 in japan it is called Monster hunter Dos. as it even states that it was made "After" the Expan on the psp, which he proclaims to be MH 2. it is said that it itself connects with the Psp version. And allows you to Upload your old Mh 1 characters, so why is it we have him telling us that Mh 2 is for Psp? the info that I know is that, yes. they are coming out with a 3rd for Ps3 But What I Hear is, it was to make more money, MH2 is for anyone not wanting to buy the ps3 since Ps3 is costly, and... on put it on the Ps3 for graphics and more Dragons, monsters, items, extra money, data, etc. My understanding is that MH 2 might not be coming out to the states or other wise. I have seen the movie trailers for MH2 made by them and even stated by them that it is made for ps2 Thou you guys might have something to comment I don't know if that this Mh2 is just some kinda of fluke that they stopped working on and starting making a number 3 this is just what I know and I am pretty big Fan, oh and also I also hear the ps3 version isn't going to be out for a quite some time so like I commented before. its costly, they might bring it out when they think more people have the console. I don't know.

this has been a quickly written note on Monster Hunter.

P.s most likely going to need editing.

http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/751/751063/imgs_1.html see that website for pictures by the way the beach looks Welcoming :\ aside from the huge angry dragon.

Monster Hunter 2 and Monster Hunter Freedom 2. Do these solve your problem? 71.119.84.124 07:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

combining

just thought i would say but all of the other monster hunter pages (ie: monster hunter 2, monster unter g, and so on) are quite short. on the japanese version all of the monster hunter games are orginized into one big page. just thought why not do it to these. just sayin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.109.11 (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they sizes or times?

When you kill one of the boss monsters there is a number... say 750.4 and i am wondering if that is the time it took to kill it or the size of the monster. Who can tell me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoopy (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

what number? what the fuck are u fuckin taalking about? 63.226.41.224 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the time it took to kill the monster in seconds got it User: Unknown 20:52 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wii exclusive

Monster Hunter 3 is now a Wii exclusive [[1]] JayKeaton 09:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

woot woot 72.208.177.101 22:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Split

This article is a mess. It is about the PlayStation 2 original game, yet it includes information about the franchise. It should be split into two articles, a proper Monster Hunter (series) with the information about the series, and a proper Monster Hunter with information about the first game only. I would do it, but since most is unreferenced, I would just create two stubs which would not be really helpful for anyone. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Article for Monster Hunter deserves more than it's current state. I would suggest the Phantasy Star Online page (being the most similar game) as a good example of how to go about improving.Dissidia (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's way too much information among all the games to be put on one page that would eventually only cause this to become a more confusing and convoluted mess. -- [[Pacific Miles (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)]]

About the Manga version of the game.

I know there's a manga named after Monster Hunter, written by Hiro Mashima. Should a new article be created for the manga version, or should the manga be mentioned in THIS article??AngelicMasterMind (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Development Section

Is the Development Section absolutely necessary? I'm conflicted on it, and wanted to get other peoples' opinion. -Pacific Miles (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanaka Tsuyoshi was the producer of this game and Noritaka Funamizu was the executive producer. Kento Kinoshita was the chief planner for this game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.74.21.148 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monster Hunter (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222135932/http://www.1up.com/reviews/monster-hunter_9 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/monster-hunter_9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Abdalsalamax@gmail.com

Abdalsalamax@gmail.com 102.164.99.118 (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)