Guitar Hero: Beatles

[gpop]

I fear that Activision and Neversoft will ruin the series just like the Tony Hawk series.

I can see them as an expansion for Rock Band, and maybe Guitar Hero, but not as one whole game. This is for both the Beatles and Aerosmith. As much as I love Aerosmith, and my dad loves the Beatles, I wouldn't buy it. Only reason why they sold so many GH3 copies was because it was a multi-platform game and it's popularity was carried from GH2.

This is one of the 3 Guitar Heroes that I won't be looking forward to (other 2 are Aerosmith and On Tour).

[Valex]

Originally Posted by Yip Yip

Yeah? Well, I wanna sing "Walk This Way" by RUN-DMC. Whatcha got to say about that, huh?

Got me there

[The Butthole Surfer]

Originally Posted by gpop

I fear that Activision and Neversoft will ruin the series just like the Tony Hawk series.

Define "ruin." If you mean "Make notecharts that only occasionally make any sense" then you are correct. Other than that (and the songlist), they did make a pretty decent game, or else it wouldn't be selling as amazingly as it is.

[Vagabond King]

Yeah, Neversoft doesn't "ruin" games. They just take a game, and design it to pander to the lowest common denominator. Their sales go through the roof, but there isn't as much sacrifice in quality as you're implying there is.

GHIII was fun. Had a great songlist. I prefer II for serious play, but let's be honest, most of us aren't playing music games based on minor points in technical variance. Those of you who do, more power, but it isn't the way of most people.

[gpop]

Originally Posted by linkismyhero

Define "ruin." If you mean "Make notecharts that only occasionally make any sense" then you are correct. Other than that (and the songlist), they did make a pretty decent game, or else it wouldn't be selling as amazingly as it is.

Those are some of the factors to see it's downfall (look at Dragonforce. The intro isn't even that hard on a real guitar). But they aren't including "new" gameplay features to make it significantly different from others (Harmonix had HOs/POs in GH2, and solo buttons for the solos in RB. Activision and Neversoft only implemented new interface, which isn't important).

The problem with Tony Hawk is that it's the same game as the previous installment, with only a "small" improvement, making it boring. That is the same thing that they are doing with Guitar Hero. Battle mode isn't even needed. It was perfect without it, and is retardedly hard once you're attacked to come back.

Sorry, but I just don't think Guitar Hero will end well. They will make Guitar Hero boring.

EDIT: @dr. AMVs: Only reason why it sold so well was because of the previous two installments that had their popularity carried over to GH3. Everyone expected it to be great, and they like it because it's easier to pull off HOs/POs in hard songcharts because of the really loose timing window. It impresses people who never played GH3, or are not up to their standards.

Activision and Neversoft don't try to ruin the game, but they don't put as much effort as they should to make it completely impressive and different. Let's just say that they're not as creative as they were anymore.

It's not like I hate the series. I just don't like the way it's going now.

[The Butthole Surfer]

Originally Posted by gpop

The problem with Tony Hawk is that it's the same game as the previous installment, with only a "small" improvement, making it boring. That is the same thing that they are doing with Guitar Hero. Battle mode isn't even needed. It was perfect without it, and is retardedly hard once you're attacked to come back.

Battle mode, everyone can do without. But, you kinda contradicted yourself there. You basically said "I want the game to innovate, but I hate the innovation they did." Some people loved it, others hated it.

Sorry, but I just don't think Guitar Hero will end well. They will make Guitar Hero boring.

Again with the change part. A lot of people DON'T want change. Look to a lot of DDR fanboys for that.

They did a great job choosing a songlist that most people would easily recognize, even if some of the charts weren't varied enough. For most people, if they see one of their favorite bands or more in the game, they'll buy it. Slipknot, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Slayer, and Disturbed are all mainstream bands that people at least recognize by name. Then, you bring in the nostalgia factor for the older crowd, like ZZ Top, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones... it appeals to everyone! They're not looking at the technicalities of the game, just for a song that they recognize and want to play.

[gpop]

Originally Posted by linkismyhero

Battle mode, everyone can do without. But, you kinda contradicted yourself there. You basically said "I want the game to innovate, but I hate the innovation they did." Some people loved it, others hated it.

I'm just saying that if they want to innovate, change the gameplay, but not unnecessary improvements like interface and graphics. They need to change what is NEEDED to change to keep the game original from the previous installments. Sure, Battle mode was original (kind of, since many other music games had done this as well, like DDR), but it didn't affect what people really wanted in a game. IMO, it made it worse, especially with it in Career Mode against Lou.

Originally Posted by linkismyhero

They did a great job choosing a songlist that most people would easily recognize, even if some of the charts weren't varied enough. For most people, if they see one of their favorite bands or more in the game, they'll buy it. Slipknot, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Slayer, and Disturbed are all mainstream bands that people at least recognize by name. Then, you bring in the nostalgia factor for the older crowd, like ZZ Top, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones... it appeals to everyone! They're not looking at the technicalities of the game, just for a song that they recognize and want to play.

I don't have a problem with the songlist. It's ok for them to choose songs that appeal to everyone, but you said that they are not looking for technicalities. That's pretty much saying that if the songlist and gameplay is repetitive, it will still be fun because of the song.

You cannot just focus on one part of the game and ignore the other. If you want a good franchise, it needs good improvements that'll change the game itself, while it still appeals to those who hates changes, and still accept the change because it won't affect them too much to hate it. This is the problem with DDR as well. This is why ITG was dominating. ITG had something new in every installment (ITG 1 had mines and hands, ITG 2 had rolls, ITG 3 supposed to have "Lift" arrows). Only new thing DDR introduced was freeze arrows after DDRMAX. Another problem is their stepcharts. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, and that the direction Guitar Hero is going.

I'm not saying that Guitar Hero 4, Aerosmith and the Beatles will be terrible, but if they don't fix their problems and change the gameplay itself, it will go downhill.

I have a lot more to explain, but I'm rather busy right now. I'm not much of a debater, but this is MY OPINION.

[桜の色]

Originally Posted by linkismyhero

Define "ruin." If you mean "Make notecharts that only occasionally make any sense" then you are correct. Other than that (and the songlist), they did make a pretty decent game, or else it wouldn't be selling as amazingly as it is.

Decent doesn't mean excellent or worthy of the ridiculous amount of praise it received.

Harmonix and Red Octane did a much better job with Guitar Hero I and II. Those games were both fantastic. GHIII pales in comparison to both of the two earlier titles and yet people are still jacking off over it saying how awesome it is.

And GH: Beatles Edition wouldn't work out very well. The guitar parts are fun but generally repetitive. The Beatles are much more suited for games like Rock Band or SingStar where people are allowed to sing the songs.

[Valex]

This is why ITG was dominating. ITG had something new in every installment (ITG 1 had mines and hands, ITG 2 had rolls, ITG 3 supposed to have "Lift" arrows). Only new thing DDR introduced was freeze arrows after DDRMAX. Another problem is their stepcharts. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, and that the direction Guitar Hero is going.

You can't compare Guitar Hero to ITG AT ALL because something like a thousand people play ITG while a million people play Guitar Hero. Hell, about ten times more people play Guitar Hero than ITG.

[gpop]

Originally Posted by Valex

You can't compare Guitar Hero to ITG AT ALL because something like a thousand people play ITG while a million people play Guitar Hero. Hell, about ten times more people play Guitar Hero than ITG.

I wasn't comparing ITG and Guitar Hero in terms of which is better. I was comparing ITG and DDR, and why ITG dominated arcades more than DDR. Sure, DDR was more beginner-friendly, but too repetitive. Once you play game, you played them all.

I only used ITG to relate to how Guitar Hero was like them in terms of new ideas in gameplay, but Guitar Hero 3, I fear, is going to be like the DDR series. Repetitive and nonsense charts. But I can't really make that judgement without strong proof until Guitar Hero 4 comes out. I judge it depending on what major changes (if any) they'll make.

[SIX FLAGS ROLLER COASTER]

Here's some alternative explanations to that bullshit you just listed:

Tony Hawk did not change significantly over subsequent releases because until EA released skate., there was no equally-hyped alternative to Tony Hawk. Therefore, if you wanted a good skating game, you were more or less forced to choose Tony Hawk because the only other games were games trying to copy off of THPS or utter shit. With a lack of competition comes repetition. If people are still buying your game, why bother taking the risk of changing gameplay mechanics for the sake of innovation?

Guitar Hero has competition, Rock Band. Despite its pre-existing fan base, if Neversoft released a shitty Guitar Hero game, it would not survive like THPS did.

My suggestion to you would be to stop posting because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

[gpop]

Sorry, but clearly people over here don't understand what I'm trying to get here, but I'm going to stop arguing because this is a thread about the Beatles game, and not about Guitar Hero 3 itself.

I'll just say that I don't think that this will work as a whole new game. The Beatles songs is more vocals, and less guitar. It's a lot better as a Rock Band expansion, but not a whole new game, not even for Rock Band.

I'll just wait and see how this game (if released) will end up to start making CLEAR judgements on it.

Sorry if this made an unnecessary discussion. I didn't intend to create a debate about Guitar Hero itself. I was just stating my opinion, but might've gone too far. If you think this game will be great, that's your opinion as well.

[Vagabond King]

The last thing I want to say on the matter is, when you think about it, we should be cutting Neversoft a little slack. Harmonix has been making music games, innovative music games, and almost nothing but music games for something like ten years. Meanwhile, Activision bought up the Guitar Hero franchise and just kind of dumped it on a trusted developer. This was Neversoft's virgin voyage into the genre, and they were entrusted with a series that people are crazy for. What will determine their worth as producers for the Guitar Hero series will be the new games, when we'll see if they're taken criticism and learned from past mistakes.

however with this whole guitar hero aerosmith thing it really aint looking too great i mean jesus christ

[The Butthole Surfer]

Originally Posted by ColorOfSakura

Decent doesn't mean excellent or worthy of the ridiculous amount of praise it received.

Harmonix and Red Octane did a much better job with Guitar Hero I and II. Those games were both fantastic. GHIII pales in comparison to both of the two earlier titles and yet people are still jacking off over it saying how awesome it is.

I didn't say excellent or worthy of the ridiculous amount of praise, did I? They didn't completely fuck it up, it added online play (there's another goddamn addition right there) which got people playing together online, and I know from selling the game that people were buying copies just so they could compete against their friends. Yeah, Rock Band had online play as well, but price may have been a deciding factor for some people in not getting that one.

Also, a lot of ignorant people didn't know that Harmonix wasn't the developer for it, so they thought it was just more of the same good stuff. in addition, several people who play the game have no musical knowledge whatsoever (progression, chords, etc) so they might not even have been able to TELL that the charts didn't make sense, they were just having fun pressing buttons and saying "ooh, when I hit the button, the music keeps going!"

Mindless, simple fun is what made the game sell. People like us who actually LOOK at this kind of crap know it could be so much more.

(I'm not defending the game itself, I'm just giving a possible explanation for why it sold so well)

[BrutalBrian]

Originally Posted by [!] CAUTION [!]

I agree with this. The Beatles would be more in place for Rock Band. I feel that repetition in a part is more tolerable when the full band is there, but just doing the guitar by yourself would be boring.

Yeah I agree. I think with The Beatles, you need Guitar, Bass, Drums, and Vocals represented so that everyone can play. It would be much more fun than one person playing guitar.

Beatles RB DLC ftw!