How Long and how Much Content?

[PFC Demigo [29th ID]]

Compare to Monster Hunter World?

[MrH]

https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=83169

[Rhyagelle]

About the same.

I know someone who has 1k hours in Rise already so....

[Illumina]

More monsters than base World, but no Tempered monsters.
There are Apex monsters but only a few and they don't have special loot so you only fight them for bragging rights.

[Popcorn]

Originally posted by Illumina:

More monsters than base World, but no Tempered monsters.
There are Apex monsters but only a few and they don't have special loot so you only fight them for bragging rights.

Well, they do, but its those "get it done and over with" type of monsters.
BTW, Apex Rathalos part needed for crit boost iirc

[Popcorn]

Originally posted by MrH:

https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=83169

And if you just like to hunt like me: 400+hours
Or, like some hardcores out there, 1k...
Jfc peeps

[Demonsamura]

I have 43.22 hours on the switch across 3 characters and I only got to high rank 5. kinda silly some people are complaining about lack of content in rise when it's a 100+ hour game.

[Seamus]

Originally posted by Demonsamura:

I have 43.22 hours on the switch across 3 characters and I only got to high rank 5. kinda silly some people are complaining about lack of content in rise when it's a 100+ hour game.

People like that are the reason the Dying Light 2 devs were trying to hype up "500 hours of content!" the other day. Then had to backwalk it when people called them on it.

[awanderingswordsman]

Less than base world by a small amount. Base world also barely had any quests but it's idea was that you would use investigations. In this one there just aren't many quests. Dual monster quests also became basically pointless because monsters put each other into mount state when they find each other and then one runs off so there is almost no time ever where you actually fight two monsters at once outside the arena.

[Seamus]

Originally posted by awanderingswordsman:

Less than base world by a small amount. Base world also barely had any quests but it's idea was that you would use investigations. In this one there just aren't many quests. Dual monster quests also became basically pointless because monsters put each other into mount state when they find each other and then one runs off so there is almost no time ever where you actually fight two monsters at once outside the arena.

Okay, but, rise also has a higher monster count. Even if you don't count the apexes as separate monsters(Which you should as they have unique attacks).

Say what you will about the endgame issues in rise, but, saying it has less content is just a lie.

[awanderingswordsman]

Monster count isn't the only thing to content or the games would be 10 hours long. You will do more quests and spend more time in world to beat everything. Rise is more condensed. On release people were clearing the game in less than 50 hours. Now we have 3.1 content so it's significantly better but then we'd have to include world's event quests which also tack on more time. Rise is the better game IMO, but it is slightly shorter because theres almost no repetition and no difficulty that will wall you (world also didn't have difficulty that would wall you). Both are probably the shortest games since tri.

[Draconic Creature]

Originally posted by awanderingswordsman:

Monster count isn't the only thing to content or the games would be 10 hours long. You will do more quests and spend more time in world to beat everything. Rise is more condensed. On release people were clearing the game in less than 50 hours. Now we have 3.1 content so it's significantly better but then we'd have to include world's event quests which also tack on more time. Rise is the better game IMO, but it is slightly shorter because theres almost no repetition and no difficulty that will wall you (world also didn't have difficulty that would wall you). Both are probably the shortest games since tri.

One also has to consider this, about the difference in time it takes to beat the two in their current states: Sure, one might take longer than the other, but is that time going to be enjoyable? A higher playtime to complete something doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Heck, usually it means there's padding in place to artificially extend playtime for a variety of reasons.

[awanderingswordsman]

Which is why I said rise was the better game. It's disappointingly short for a MH game, but so was world and both still offer 100+ hours of fun.

[Draconic Creature]

Originally posted by awanderingswordsman:

Which is why I said rise was the better game. It's disappointingly short for a MH game, but so was world and both still offer 100+ hours of fun.

I'm sure that, with the release of Sunbreak this summer, that length is going to be expanded quite significantly in Rise's case, fortunately.

[Creampie Senpai]

About the same time my ass. World is Average Time 47H 28M, Main Game+DLC Average 115H 33M, Completionists Average 434H 15M, whereas Rise is Average Time 20H 37M(less than half), Main Game+DLC Average 69H 10M(almost half), Completionists Average 147H 32M(not even 1/3rd the time!)

Its a Switch game and it shows. Wait for a deep sale.

[MisRekening]

Originally posted by Creampie Senpai:

About the same time my ass. World is Average Time 47H 28M, Main Game+DLC Average 115H 33M, Completionists Average 434H 15M, whereas Rise is Average Time 20H 37M(less than half), Main Game+DLC Average 69H 10M(almost half), Completionists Average 147H 32M(not even 1/3rd the time!)

Its a Switch game and it shows. Wait for a deep sale.

I mean, considering it's a Monster Hunter game I don't think you'd have to worry about how long it takes to beat. I have 175 hours on Rise and I only stopped because the PC version was announced. I didn't even "beat" the game yet. Replayability will always be the selling point of MH.