Critiquing Monster Hunter’s Campaign: Why Wild Falls Short of World

I’ve always been somewhat of a latecomer to the Monster Hunter series. For years, the games were tethered to handheld consoles that I didn’t find appealing, and frankly, they seemed to perform poorly. It wasn’t until Monster Hunter World came out that I finally gave it a try, and it instantly drew me in. Since then, I’ve been a dedicated fan. As I pen this, I’ve clocked over twenty hours in Monster Hunter Wilds, focusing on the main campaign before dabbling in sidequests. Unfortunately, the experience has been disappointing.

Monster Hunter campaigns aren’t exactly celebrated for their storytelling finesse or intricate plots. They’re more like extended tutorials, designed to familiarize you with the myriad mechanics you’ll be navigating for the hundreds of hours that follow. Essentially, they offer a guided tour of each title’s roster of creatures.

Typically, these campaigns unfold as your crew sets out to track down a mysterious beast whose presence is disrupting the regions you venture into. Along the way, other monsters complicate matters until the real reason behind your target’s behavior is revealed. You eventually face off against the main creature, concluding the campaign before moving on to High Rank, where Monster Hunter truly begins.

In broad strokes, this format applies to both the Wilds and World campaigns. However, it’s in the finer details that one adventure can captivate while the other barely leaves an impression.

What made World’s campaign memorable was its focus on Zorah Magdaros, an enormous new type of monster. Its size was so impressive, it took an entire village working together just to slow it down. The creature was so vast that battles could unfold on its back with room to spare.

This was indeed a bold move by the developers, attempting to introduce an entirely new kind of encounter. Many players were not fans of it, as battling Zorah involved constructing defensive structures and managing resources—a departure from the usual Monster Hunter experience.

Personally, I appreciated these unique segments for breaking the potential monotony of hunting one monster after another. The game used Zorah’s movement across the map to advance the storyline, unlocking new areas and showcasing its impact on the ecosystem. The mystery surrounding Zorah’s migration provided a sense of urgency and intrigue.

Contrastingly, the Wilds campaign lacks a figure like Zorah. Arkveld, the game’s flagship monster, makes sporadic appearances, doing things the game’s characters can’t quite explain, only to disappear for long stretches. Unlike the climactic feel in World, the final boss is an entirely different creature, which you only discover exists shortly before facing it.

There’s no sense of unity or collaboration among different groups rallying against a major threat in Wilds. Some monsters seem shoehorned into missions, appearing without context, forcing encounters that feel disconnected and rushed.

It feels like pieces that could have connected the narrative dots were removed. Certain NPC dialogues and cinematic hints suggest a larger story, but it never materializes onscreen. Even the subplot about an ancient civilization’s downfall due to weather technology feels like scattered lore rather than an integrated part of the narrative.

The campaign of Wilds, in essence, reflects the wider issues with the game. It removes much of the series’s endearing quirks in a bid to be more approachable, yet it feels like the essence was lost in the process. As players dive further into the quirks and highlights of Wilds, the main campaign might soon fade from memory. But I can’t help but wonder what a real follow-up to World’s narrative would have looked like.