Rock Band

[[wcip]Angel]

Disclaimer: this was originally a reply to a post in the "playing with my wii"-thread, but it went off-topic fast, so I decided to make a new thread.
[/disclaimer]

I beg to differ on 1 issue, g4m.

For multiplayer where people are actually at your house and they are non-gamers...the wii can't be beat.


I've played Wii sports and loved it to bits and first time I tried it with a friend, we played for 11 hours straight. Haven't played it for about 3-4 months though. I wouldn't say I got tired of it; I just felt I was 'done' with it.

Rock Band

This thing however, I assume, will keep me giggling and rockin' for years to come. Read the previews, watch the awesome video clips and interviews with the guys behind the game. I've been following the development of this game since its inception, and it seems Harmonix are doing everything right. Every article I read, every interview I hear, I get more and more excited about this game.

For the uninitiated, Rock Band is an extension of the Guitar Hero-franchise where players are outfitted with a model guitar which allows them to play 'notes' that appear on stage. (no knowledge of music or notes required though). Rock Band takes it a step further and adds bass, microphone and drum kit (!) allowing four players to get their rock on to all sub-genres of rock and roll music. You can play multiplayer and single player alike. The multiplayer can be played locally or over the Internet. The next generation platforms allow the developer to constantly add new stuff, most importantly new songs that can be downloaded and played, keeping the game fresh. For more information, check wikipedia

screenies

edit: having now read my post, I find it's nothing more than a blatant ad for Rock Band. Sorry about that. It was originally a stab at Wii's dominance as the world's leading multiplayer-friendly console.

Apologies.

[Baylan]

Angel' date='Oct 19 2007, 04:31 PM' post='139092']
Disclaimer: this was originally a reply to a post in the "playing with my wii"-thread, but it went off-topic fast, so I decided to make a new thread.
[/disclaimer]

I beg to differ on 1 issue, g4m.

For multiplayer where people are actually at your house and they are non-gamers...the wii can't be beat.
I've played Wii sports and loved it to bits and first time I tried it with a friend, we played for 11 hours straight. Haven't played it for about 3-4 months though. I wouldn't say I got tired of it; I just felt I was 'done' with it.

Rock Band

This thing however, I assume, will keep me giggling and rockin' for years to come. Read the previews, watch the awesome video clips and interviews with the guys behind the game. I've been following the development of this game since its inception, and it seems Harmonix are doing everything right. Every article I read, every interview I hear, I get more and more excited about this game.

For the uninitiated, Rock Band is an extension of the Guitar Hero-franchise where players are outfitted with a model guitar which allows them to play 'notes' that appear on stage. (no knowledge of music or notes required though). Rock Band takes it a step further and adds bass, microphone and drum kit (!) allowing four players to get their rock on to all sub-genres of rock and roll music. You can play multiplayer and single player alike. The multiplayer can be played locally or over the Internet. The next generation platforms allow the developer to constantly add new stuff, most importantly new songs that can be downloaded and played, keeping the game fresh. For more information, check wikipedia

screenies

edit: having now read my post, I find it's nothing more than a blatant ad for Rock Band. Sorry about that. It was originally a stab at Wii's dominance as the world's leading multiplayer-friendly console.

Apologies.

As much as Rock Band is a great idea, I think it suffers from PS3 syndrome.

Think about it this way: what is the price point? Are there multiple bundles? How many people really want to try and sing? Or play bass?

The end result is that you've got a lot of people that want to do half of the game, and very few that want to do the other half. Add in the fact that at release, they're only selling the $200 bundle, and I think that Rock Band is going to fall flat on its face. The track selection is also (from my understanding) not nearly as large as GH3.

Personally, I'm gonna buy GH3 because it fits in my price range, it is essentially the same thing, and Guitar Hero rules my floor in my dorm :-).

-Baylan

[Mithrandir]

The end result is that you've got a lot of people that want to do half of the game, and very few that want to do the other half. Add in the fact that at release, they're only selling the $200 bundle, and I think that Rock Band is going to fall flat on its face.

When I first heard that Rock Band would only be sold in the $200 bundle at the start I couldn't believe it. That is the most idiotic pricing scheme I have ever heard. I think a lot of people are just going to flip them the bird rather than get gouged for $200 when they won't even use half the peripherals.

Plus, GH3 has wireless guitars and Rock Band does not.

I was way more excited about Rock Band when both games were announced, but now I am glad GH3 is coming out first and may not even buy Rock Band.

[[wcip]Angel]

As much as Rock Band is a great idea, I think it suffers from PS3 syndrome.


Think about it this way: what is the price point? Are there multiple bundles?

The debacle over the bundling of the game is even more impressive than you think, my dear friend.:)Apparently, the $170 (not $200)-package will only include 1 guitar, drum kit, microphone and the actual game. Something missing? No extra guitar for bass (!), which means you'll have to buy 2 complete Rock Band-rigs in order to play kit/vocals/guitar/bass-quartets. This horrendous packaging is compounded moreso by the fact that they're not selling individual instruments at launch. This is so unfathomable, that it *has* to be solved by launch. Obviously, they can't expect people to buy 2 Rock Band packages in order to play the game with 4 players? It's too insane...

Although they've already announced that they won't be selling individual instruments until 2008, I have faith that they'll fix the only bundle they have.

How many people really want to try and sing? Or play bass?

I play in a brass band in my spare time, and as a result I have many friends who are quite musical, both with instruments and their voice. I haven't actually thought about the fact that 'regular' people might not be so inclined to sing infront of their friends while sober...

The track selection is also (from my understanding) not nearly as large as GH3.
-Baylan

The track selection on both games will be fluid, as gamers will be allowed to download complete albums or individual songs from their console's respective online service. Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of the announced songlists for the two games and although GH3's list is almost twice as long as Rock Band's, I sincerely doubt there'll be a shortage of songs on any of the games. Obviously, making four tracks for bass, guitar, vocals and drums is a lot more time consuming than making parts for just two of them. As a result, the final tracklist for Gh3 might be bigger than that of Rock Band, but I don't think either game will have any shortage on rock tunes.

Also, PS3 and PS2-versions of Rock Band have wireless peripherals. It's only the X360-version that has wires.

Being a huge GH-fan, I'm extremely excited about both games. Being a drummer though, I can't wait to get my hands on Rock Band and play with my friends.



edit:

hmmmm...

[Baylan]

Angel' date='Oct 22 2007, 01:36 PM' post='139223']
Obviously, making four tracks for bass, guitar, vocals and drums is a lot more time consuming than making parts for just two of them. As a result, the final tracklist for Gh3 might be bigger than that of Rock Band, but I don't think either game will have any shortage on rock tunes.

And therein lies the PS3 syndrome again. Superfluous parts that few people want, and/or need. I would rather have 80 tracks for guitar than 35 tracks for guitar, drums, bass, and microphone, because I have zero interest in bass and microphone - thus making your total track selection 70 (if you double for drums & guitar).

Like I said earlier, I like Rock Band, I think its a great idea, but it is falling into the same trap that the PS3 did - trying to do too much and shoving it down their customers throats because "I said its better." There is no way that Rock Band will do as well as GH3 will, particularly when you take into account the fact that GH3 is available for Wii, which makes it open to a market of another 12 million consumers.

-Baylan

[Mithrandir]

With a week of GH3 under my belt, I must admit I have warmed a bit to Rock Band. GH3 is really, really fun and I'm eager for more of the same with the few wrinkles Rock Band brings. GH3 is a marked improvement over GH2 and, admittedly, GH2 may have been growing a bit stale for me. Gimme more songs:)

Bull's On Parade, Paint It Black, Even Flow, Cherub Rock, 3's & 7's, One, Sabotage, Reptilia and Black Magic Woman have emerged as my favorite GH3 tracks - and if Rock Band can match the quality of those tracks I would be a happy camper.

[Mithrandir]

So with about a week of Rock Band under my belt (plus many, many, many hours spent playing Guitar Hero 2 & 3), I feel pretty qualified to give my opinion on it... basically, nice try - but go back to the drawing board MTV/Harmonix.

I'll address the obvious changes from the mainstay Guitar Hero franchise first. The drums are the single best addition to the "DDR with an instrument" concept by far. The drums are a lot of fun and fairly easy to pick up (after only 2-3 days playing them on and off I could play low tier songs on hard). The singing is fairly hit-or-miss. For me it is a complete miss - I am horrible at it and no matter how anyone tries to explain the nuances of Rock Band singing I fail song after song after song... but a couple other of my friends enjoy it, so that's fine with me since that just means more time on the guitar/drums for me. Also, on an interesting note, I have found that the enthusiasm and volume that an individual sings at is directly proportional to how much alcohol they have consumed. Hmm.:)

As predicted earlier in the thread, the single largest travesty with Rock Band is the fact that in order to get a full band you have to buy a second Rock Band package in order to get the second guitar so someone can play bass (followed closely to the guitar peripheral, but I'll get to that later). Needless to say, neither I nor any of my friends is willing to shell out the $170 just for another frigging guitar. I understand that they are going to start selling individual instruments in February, but nonetheless it is very frustrating to only be able to play with 3/4ths of a true "Rock Band".

Also, I am really not a fan of the Rock Band presentation. Whenever you activate "Overdrive" (the Rock Band version of "Star Power") there is literally a blinding flash that has caused me to miss notes on occasion. Then there is junk covering up the edges of the scrolling notes (intended to indicate when you have Overdrive active) which makes it difficult to read the notes sometimes IMO. Just in general there is too much crap happening on screen at once and what should be the most important thing on the screen - the notes and the associated hammer-ons and pull-offs - just gets lost in the shuffle. The notes are way too small and it can be way too hard to tell whether a note is a hammer-on/pull-off in the heat of the moment since the only distinguishing factor is that it is slightly smaller than the already small normal notes. Quite frustrating. In another odd decision, the text the decided to use for the game is annoyingly difficult to read on anything but a high end HD TV. 1's, 2's and 3's were especially difficult to tell apart. "Is that a 2 song setlist or a 3 song setlist?" "Who knows? I suppose we have to try it out."

People seem to be going ga-ga over the "World Tour" mode (essentially what would be Guitar Hero's Career Mode 2.0), but I just don't get it. What it boils down to is that you play songs from a set list in different venues. Sounds exactly like GH3 to me... except Rock Band throws in a bunch of text about how you pick up roadies, bodyguards, a jet, etc. while not actually changing anything about the gameplay experience as you acquire things (they literally change nothing) and it is supposed to be somehow fundamentally different? Waaaht? I just don't see it. It's the same exact thing, just dressed up with extra text. Lame. The random setlists can make the game experience a little more fun, but quite often they are just annoying since you are forced to play random songs you don't like in order to gain more stars.

While the microphone and drum peripherals are completely fine, the guitar controller is a complete abomination when compared to the GH3 controller. The neck on the Rock Band guitar controller is way too long (to make room for the superfluous extra buttons at the base of the neck) and the buttons are ridiculously wide in comparison to the GH3 controllers which makes it harder to play for no good reason. In addition, the Rock Band controller buttons take much more effort to press down and tend to stick as well which, when combined with the annoyingly fat buttons, makes for a vastly less comfortable play experience in Rock Band. There is also a switch which changes the effect of the whammy bar that is completely unneeded and just gets in the way. If it was *my* copy of Rock Band and not my roommates I would have ripped or broken it off my now. Also, maybe this is nit-picky, but I really like how the GH2 & 3 strum bars clicked when you strummed them... the Rock Band guitar is 100% silent and it feels heavy and unresponsive, whereas the GH-series controllers had very light strum bars that clicked when you strummed them so that you knew exactly and how far you had to strum to play notes. The Rock Band guitar peripheral just feels heavy and unresponsive in general. I really feel like GH3 got the guitar peripheral "right" and Rock Band just really screwed the pooch on this one.

My final complaint levied against Rock Band would have to be some of the really odd song choices. Rock Band has some real strong songs which GH3 lacks (although the opposite is true as well) - Black Hole Sun, Creep, Maps, Go with the Flow, Orange Crush, Epic, Dani California, (Don't Fear) The Reaper, Suffragette City and Vasoline among them. But any song both in GH3 and Rock Band is almost invariably more fun to play in GH3 (from a guitar-peripheral-player's perspective) than in Rock Band - Sabotage, Reptilia, Cherub Rock, etc. Finally, there are just some plain horrible song choices in Rock Band... Green Grass and High Tides is horrible and I want to kill myself every time it pops up on a random setlist - my friends and I just quit out and take the penalty rather than play that one billion hour abomination. Just in general the songs are much, much longer in Rock Band and drag on and on and on and on whereas GH is more about quick fun rather than seeing who can drum the same cadence a million times the best. I don't know why they decided to include songs by Hole and Garbage, but the only guess I have been able to come up with is that they are trying to corner the market for crappy 90's bands away from Guitar Hero or something.

All that said, Rock Band is still the better party game than GH3 (if for no other reason than it offers more variety in instruments and more people playing simultaneously), but nonetheless is frustrating at how great Rock Band could have been and at how thoroughly it completely whiffed.

[Raelynn]

While the microphone and drum peripherals are completely fine, the guitar controller is a complete abomination when compared to the GH3 controller. The neck on the Rock Band guitar controller is way too long (to make room for the superfluous extra buttons at the base of the neck) and the buttons are ridiculously wide in comparison to the GH3 controllers which makes it harder to play for no good reason. In addition, the Rock Band controller buttons take much more effort to press down and tend to stick as well which, when combined with the annoyingly fat buttons, makes for a vastly less comfortable play experience in Rock Band. There is also a switch which changes the effect of the whammy bar that is completely unneeded and just gets in the way. If it was *my* copy of Rock Band and not my roommates I would have ripped or broken it off my now. Also, maybe this is nit-picky, but I really like how the GH2 & 3 strum bars clicked when you strummed them... the Rock Band guitar is 100% silent and it feels heavy and unresponsive, whereas the GH-series controllers had very light strum bars that clicked when you strummed them so that you knew exactly and how far you had to strum to play notes. The Rock Band guitar peripheral just feels heavy and unresponsive in general. I really feel like GH3 got the guitar peripheral "right" and Rock Band just really screwed the pooch on this one.

To bring a different point of view, I prefer the Rock Band guitar to the GH3 guitar. I have both and have logged many hours on both. The reason that I like it are mainly that it feels a bit more substantial in my hands and (after getting used to it) I like the feel of the strum better. Also, in a group setting, the lack of clicking when you strum can help to keep others from messing up their own beat (which was noticeable to me when I was trying to play bass and my friend was on the GH3 controller playing the guitar). That click just irks me.

As for the bottom frets, I didn't need them until Green Grass and High Tides. Using the second set was the only way I got through it, because it's easier to pick up the fingertap-style sections if you screw up since you don't need to strum again.

[[wcip]Angel]

Off topic, and shameless boasting of self. But I don't care!

Freebird on Expert

My personal best by far.:)