I Understand It’s Silly to Criticize the Campaign in Monster Hunter, But Wild’s Feels Like a Major Step Down from World’s

Let me dive right in and say that I came to the Monster Hunter series a bit late in the game. I avoided it for years because the titles were on handheld systems I wasn’t into, and to be honest, I thought they didn’t look great performance-wise.

Monster Hunter World was my gateway, and it turned me into a dedicated fan. Now, with more than twenty hours clocked on Monster Hunter Wilds, I decided to tackle the main campaign first before getting lost in side quests. Unfortunately, that choice didn’t pay off.

Keep in mind, Monster Hunter campaigns aren’t celebrated for their storytelling genius or intricate plots. They’re more like extended tutorials, introducing you to the plethora of systems you’ll need to master over the next hundred hours or more. Essentially, each campaign acts as a guided tour of the game’s creature collection.

Typically, the narrative is straightforward: you’re on the trail of a mysterious monster wreaking havoc in various regions. Along the way, you’re sidetracked by other beasts until finally discovering what’s behind your original target’s mysterious disturbances. You face off against it, wrap up the main campaign, and then the real challenge begins with High Rank quests.

This formula fits Wilds’ campaign just as snugly as it did World’s. Yet, the devil is in the details, and it’s these specifics that can elevate one campaign into an unforgettable journey while leaving another lackluster.

What made World’s campaign stand out was its central conflict. Introducing Zorah Magdaros, a colossal beast demanding an entire village to slow it down, was ambitious. Its sheer scale allowed battles on its back while still accommodating more encounters.

This approach was a bold attempt to breathe new life into the series. While not everyone appreciated the shift away from traditional hunts to more strategic encounters—like setting up defenses and loading cannons—it added variety and depth. For me, those distinct gameplay moments were precisely why I enjoyed them.

Zorah’s journey was the narrative driver, unlocking new areas to explore and revealing its ecological impact. While the game kept the details of Zorah’s migration secret until the end, the unfolding mystery injected urgency and intrigue into the story.

Contrast that with Wilds’ campaign, where there’s no equivalent to Zorah, no looming threat. The flagship monster, Arkveld, pops up here and there, does something inexplicable, and disappears for a significant chunk of the game. It’s not even the final antagonist; that spot is reserved for a sleeping giant you only hear about just before facing it.

The campaign lacks the sense of communities uniting against a shared threat. Some monster introductions feel more like last-minute additions, forcing you into battles that seem shoehorned into missions.

At times, it feels like there was once a storyline connecting various character factions, only for it to be discarded. Hints occasionally surface during NPC conversations or through cinematic dialogue, suggesting a deeper story that never materializes.

Even the tale of an ancient civilization undone by their weather-controlling technology falls flat, feeling more like scattered lore snippets rather than a cohesive narrative.

Wilds’ campaign reflects several core issues of the game itself. By ironing out the quirks and rough edges in pursuit of accessibility, it loses much of its inherent charm. I’m not convinced these were the aspects that needed smoothing over.

As the focus shifts to other successes and blunders of the game, Wilds’ main campaign will likely be forgotten. Yet, I can’t shake the curiosity about how a true successor to World’s campaign might have played out.