Yeah I understand that sentiment but we do have to remember that at the end of the day that this is a supernatural verse with plenty of monsters doing stuff that can't really be explained.
Indeed, it is true that Monster Hunter is ultimately supernatural! However, I think it's worth discussing the difference between
realistic and
grounded.
Some supernatural fantasy settings can still be more grounded and believable than others based on the rules and restrictions it chooses. If Monster Hunter decided that humans could use magic to teleport or transform into monsters, then sure, you could defend it by saying that it has always been a supernatural series. But I'd hope that you and I agree the same defense wouldn't hold up because it's against how the setting has normally grounded itself!
To frame the difference, you can see that Nen in Hunter x Hunter follows a strict set of rules and stipulations that bolster the identity of the power system, whereas Gandalf and Tom Bombadil can sort of do whatever they do with magic and it doesn't warrant explanation, because that's a choice that series has made. The choice Monster Hunter made from its very first game is that design evokes behavior and that the beating heart of its supernatural fantasy is real-world ecology and biology.
For example:
- Kaiju-sized monsters move slowly, as one would expect from large animals in our world - Lao-Shan Lung and Zorah don't spring around the place or do gymnastics on the hunter, they lumber along like you'd expect a huge-ass animal to.
- Kushala Daora, an elder dragon and hence an outlier to nature, molts its skin when growing, and it's said that over time its shell will increasingly skeletonize until it expires, analogous to how in our world molting becomes increasingly nutritionally expensive until the animal itself can't continue.
- Anjanath has a pair of sails not simply to look cool, but to intimidate rivals and regulate its internal body temperature, especially given its fire breath and the relatively warm environments in which it roams. The quills on its tail and its nose crest also help with enlarging its silhouette.
Now look at Gore Magala. What about its design tells you that it's born from a Barnos or a Deviljho? A Congalala? A Najarala? Its uniform design speaks nothing of the supposed origin that it has transformed from an entirely different species of creature (to the point where the original creature may not even have
bones in the case of Carapaceans), and there are no species in this world that can biologically transform another animal into one of itself. Sure, parasites like toxoplasma gondii and brain-affecting fungi exist, but those were already paralleled by the Magala's original reproductive lore and the Frenzy Virus.
Like no amount of realism can explain a kaiju sized Snake dropping meteors at people at MFTL+ speeds for example.
I also think it's important to differentiate
gameplay justifications from
ecological lore.
Unrealistic fantasy behaviors shown in gameplay like bringing down meteors or flinging tornadoes from one's mouth can afford to be looser in the lore, as in these cases the stronger driving force behind its design is the need to craft compelling and sometimes spectacular fights. In these cases, it's understandable to sacrifice a bit of their design philosophy to justify gameplay!
In contrast, you have ecological lore; information given that doesn't rely on gameplay and is purely made to flesh out the world. This includes monster reproduction and most things included in these side materials. You don't have the media restriction of a video game to dilute the decision-making process, hence I believe that these lore bits should be held to the series' ecological standards more rigorously. This particular lore bit didn't hinge on anything related to gameplay aside from maybe their attachment to its ??? classification, meaning that it falls in the latter category rather than the former.
To me, this feels a lot like they thought it sounded cool and just didn't think it out. Where's the Fanged Beast Gore Magala? The Bird Wyvern Gore Magala? We've had five games with Gore Magala in it and not once have we ever heard this before. And yet we've been given huge amounts of lore related to every member of the Magala lineage - arguably more so than even the likes of Diablos or the Raths, but this odd statement has so many fundamental implications on the behavior and physiology of the species that it not only dilutes the grounded rules that this series has set for itself but softly contradicts the veracity of what we have always seen the species do.
Overall, I think the abruptness of this revelation - an overturning of knowledge regarding Gore Magala, which was (despite its mysterious pedigree) previously held to be rock-solid, even a pillar of the series' design philosophy - is part of why so many people are talking about it. It's just so strange and offputting given the relatively steady understanding we (in a meta sense and tbh in-world as well) already knew about the species. Coupled with the fact that it's literally just one sentence and is not further elaborated upon, you get all kinds of theorizing and hair-pulling. And memes. The Animorphs one
sends me.
Cases like this are generally in the minority, and one could still argue that it is the Monster Hunter world's supernatural analogy to the ecological strategy of parasitoid egg-laying in our world, which I imagine is what they were going for (even though the previous lore, as DMUA has said, was exactly that). But I believe that this retcon does more bad than good for the series' design philosophy and indicates a turning of design standards away from the roots of the series. I guess that inherently isn't a bad thing - adapt or die and all - but I guess that's where fact becomes opinion, and mine is the way it is.