My brother just got me On Tour for my birthday. It's not too bad i guess but it takes some time getting used to the strumming. There is an expert difficulty although I haven't played the harder songs yet so i dont know how hard it can get. If there are any questions I'll try my best to answer them after i get home.
What most of us are interested in is how difficult the Expert mode can get.
Many of us would much like it to be just as difficult as GH3's expert mode, or as close to that difficulty level as possible.
The worst thing that can happen, at this point, is to buy the game and then Five Star every song on expert on the first try. Or second try.
Woo short day at work. Ok well I'm not too far into the expert career (only second tier) but so far everything seems pretty easy. This is coming from someone who can almost 5 star all the songs on Expert on GH3. I've only 5 starred one song so far out of 9 or so. I think the most difficult part is getting the hang of strumming the fast notes. Its also hard for me to keep holding the DS still cause when I press the buttons it shakes the DS a bit.
Also if you have fat fingers it might pose some problems.
I hope those videos were PS2 versions in action, cause that was pretty poor. Watching Joe Perry shred with an unchanging, emotionless face was pretty funny. :P
The big difference between them is that, even if you don't like them, all the songs in 2 are fun to play (barring you know what). Institutionalized is a good example of this. 3 had songs that I did not like, and on top of that were not fun to play. Hell, even some of the good songs aren't fun to play (hurricane).
On the flip side, GH2 had the most atrociously embarrassing covers. I played it again recently and just laughed at how bad many of the great songs on the list were. Nirvana, STP, Rage, Sabbath and many more were too bad to actually listen to, which is what I have the most fun with while playing.
The big difference between them is that, even if you don't like them, all the songs in 2 are fun to play (barring you know what). Institutionalized is a good example of this. 3 had songs that I did not like, and on top of that were not fun to play. Hell, even some of the good songs aren't fun to play (hurricane).
On the flip side, GH2 had the most atrociously embarrassing covers. I played it again recently and just laughed at how bad many of the great songs on the list were. Nirvana, STP, Rage, Sabbath and many more were too bad to actually listen to, which is what I have the most fun with while playing.
Wow,
All I can say is, with the news about GHWT for the Wii, it's enough to convince anyone who's considering RB: Wii to wait until this one comes out to compare if it's going to be that much better.
I'm hoping the full box set will be cheaper for the Wii (haha) since the drums/guitar use the Wiimotes so they will cost less for the electronics, but I think that's unfounded given GH3.
Pride and Joy is one of my favourite songs in GH3, and after a few weeks of on and off practice, I have finally conquered it:
I'm looking forward to the Joe Perry guitar battle because I enjoy playing the boss battle DLC version of Slash Guitar Battle so much, but to be honest it sounds pretty bad compared to the Slash battle.
I don't understand the hatred of Slipknot going on. I'll grant that "Before I Forget" becomes really, really difficult on Expert, but isn't that sort of the point of a 7th tier song on Expert? Besides, I like the song. It's not going to be remembered 20 years from now, granted, but neither will "Raining Blood" and I don't see any hatred of Slayer beyond the fact the song is hard; the band gets away largely unscathed.
Maybe I've been spoiled by it, but I also don't mind the cover to "Holiday in Cambodia". I actually liked it! "Iron Man" from Guitar Hero 2 was an awful cover, because the singer couldn't really manage it. "Holiday in Cambodia" sounded fine, at least to me.
I don't understand the hatred of Slipknot going on. I'll grant that "Before I Forget" becomes really, really difficult on Expert, but isn't that sort of the point of a 7th tier song on Expert? Besides, I like the song. It's not going to be remembered 20 years from now, granted, but neither will "Raining Blood" and I don't see any hatred of Slayer beyond the fact the song is hard; the band gets away largely unscathed.
Maybe I've been spoiled by it, but I also don't mind the cover to "Holiday in Cambodia". I actually liked it! "Iron Man" from Guitar Hero 2 was an awful cover, because the singer couldn't really manage it. "Holiday in Cambodia" sounded fine, at least to me.
It's been over 20 years since Raining Blood was released.
Wow, good job Smug. As good as I think I am on guitar, I dont think I would be able to FC that song. Its full of places that will just break my combo.
Yeah, I've been able to hit every part in the song for a while now, but stringing it together into an FC run took a long time. My heart was beating out of my chest after about the halfway mark of the song, and I'm really surprised I didn't choke on something easy at the end.
I don't understand the hatred of Slipknot going on. I'll grant that "Before I Forget" becomes really, really difficult on Expert, but isn't that sort of the point of a 7th tier song on Expert? Besides, I like the song. It's not going to be remembered 20 years from now, granted, but neither will "Raining Blood" and I don't see any hatred of Slayer beyond the fact the song is hard; the band gets away largely unscathed.
Maybe I've been spoiled by it, but I also don't mind the cover to "Holiday in Cambodia". I actually liked it! "Iron Man" from Guitar Hero 2 was an awful cover, because the singer couldn't really manage it. "Holiday in Cambodia" sounded fine, at least to me.
Before I Forget: There is a huge difference between "hard" and "bullshit hard".
Raining Blood: it HAS been about 20 years since that song was released, and the album it's on is widely considered to be Slayer's best, and Slayer is one of the "Big Four" of thrash, right up there with Metallica.
I don't understand the hatred of Slipknot going on. I'll grant that "Before I Forget" becomes really, really difficult on Expert, but isn't that sort of the point of a 7th tier song on Expert? Besides, I like the song. It's not going to be remembered 20 years from now, granted, but neither will "Raining Blood" and I don't see any hatred of Slayer beyond the fact the song is hard; the band gets away largely unscathed.
Maybe I've been spoiled by it, but I also don't mind the cover to "Holiday in Cambodia". I actually liked it! "Iron Man" from Guitar Hero 2 was an awful cover, because the singer couldn't really manage it. "Holiday in Cambodia" sounded fine, at least to me.
It's been over 20 years since Raining Blood was released.
I don't understand the hatred of Slipknot going on. I'll grant that "Before I Forget" becomes really, really difficult on Expert, but isn't that sort of the point of a 7th tier song on Expert? Besides, I like the song. It's not going to be remembered 20 years from now, granted, but neither will "Raining Blood" and I don't see any hatred of Slayer beyond the fact the song is hard; the band gets away largely unscathed.
Maybe I've been spoiled by it, but I also don't mind the cover to "Holiday in Cambodia". I actually liked it! "Iron Man" from Guitar Hero 2 was an awful cover, because the singer couldn't really manage it. "Holiday in Cambodia" sounded fine, at least to me.
Before I Forget: There is a huge difference between "hard" and "bullshit hard".
Raining Blood: it HAS been about 20 years since that song was released, and the album it's on is widely considered to be Slayer's best, and Slayer is one of the "Big Four" of thrash, right up there with Metallica.
EDIT: Iron Man was in GH1.
Fuck, how doubly embarrassing.
However, even though Before I Forget is insanely hard, why no hate for the same reasons for Raining Blood? It's preposterously hard.
However, even though Before I Forget is insanely hard, why no hate for the same reasons for Raining Blood? It's preposterously hard.
I recall a lot of people being pissed off at the Mosh section of the song, which is more or less its biggest hang-up. Also, its difficulty isn't related to a bunch of bullshit chord changes.
Edit: Also, Raining Blood is fucking thrash metal--it's supposed to be insanely complex. Before I Forget doesn't even compare.
Listen to Raining Blood and listen to Before I Forget. Not in GH, listen to them out of game.
Which one should be insanely hard? Which one should be relatively easy?
Yeah
Raining Blood's chart is actually pretty accurate
Before I Forget? Not so much. I mean... The hard version
is more accurate. It has every note, and they're not all three note chords.
Raining Blood has some less than accurate charting too. The trills in flood are really just whammy bar fuckery.
I'm cool with them charting whammy-ing as trills, because in that case the guitarist is actually doing something. Making it just a held not is less accurate, in my opinion, because you're just sitting there.
glithert on
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
I've literally played 2 On Tour songs, gameplay works, feels just a bit loose, but in time it will get better as you get used to it, wrist pain after playing. Overall it's a fun title, I don't regret spending my money.
One of the most satisfying songs in Guitar Hero 3 is Cult of Personality. Nailing the solos is just so immensely rewarding, it just feels fantastic somehow. The HOPO sections in My Name is Jonas gives a taste of it, but it's like comparing beef jerky to freshly made beef fillet.
8 more songs and I've five starred the entire Hard tier. I'm going to get you Lou. I'm going to get you so bad you'll wish you never pissed off God in the first place.
I've been reading kotaku's preview stuff for GHIV.
They said that GH3's DLC will work in GHIV. Yay!
With no source. Also, how would that work? I'm guessing they didn't include unnecessary drum and vocal tracks in the current files, so would your GH3 DLC be an IOU on re-released DLC?
You're right, they don't say how or where they got this info. If they got it from an activision or neversoft rep, they could and should have said so.
So treat the news with a grain of salt. Kotaku is pretty sloppy as a news source.
Considering that the IGN blowout preview from a few days ago explicitly says the DLC won't work with GH World Tour, I'm inclined to believe, as usual, that Kotaku is full of shit.
Normally I'd say that the over 85 songs (all of which are master tracks and are promised to be a "step above GH3") on the disc for Guitar Hero: World Tour is impressive. Then I'd follow it up by saying I'm bummed that none of the downloadable content from Guitar Hero 3 will work with World Tour, but that the renewed commitment to DLC with an in-game music store (that may arrive shortly after launch), full album downloads and regular releases makes up for it to some extent. While all of that is true, it pales in comparison to the limitless options the music creator offers.
And really, as far as the "renewed commitment to DLC," I'll believe it when I see it. Wii owners should be optimistic about GH World Tour being as fully featured as the other versions, but I wouldn't let DLC dreams get too high. My gut tells me this: Activision is very excited about being able to sell entire expansion discs and sets with brand new instruments every 6-12 months, so why would they give you the option to buy songs as DLC? Why would they go to the trouble of setting up an entire in-game music store with digital downloads when they want you to go into a store and buy expansion discs? And why would they spend all of the time creating an (admittedly full-featured) user-music editor when that will directly complete against for-sale DLC?
I've lost count of the number of times features mentioned in previews get dropped from the final product or promised patches get quietly cancelled, so let's not get too crazy here.
why would they give you the option to buy songs as DLC? Why would they go to the trouble of setting up an entire in-game music store with digital downloads when they want you to go into a store and buy expansion discs? And why would they spend all of the time creating an (admittedly full-featured) user-music editor when that will directly complete against for-sale DLC?
I've lost count of the number of times features mentioned in previews get dropped from the final product or promised patches get quietly cancelled, so let's not get too crazy here.
Let's see, 40 songs at ~$3 each = $120.
A 40 song expansion disc = $30-40? Plus they lose money from shipping, promotion, manufacturing, etc.
Cost of running a store+server, probably less overall. They have every reason to try and make DLC work. They want you to buy songs that are "overpriced" compared to a expansion disc where if they tried to charge $120 for 40 songs no one would buy it. They see that DLC is selling like crazy (at least from what I hear) for RB and they want to get in on that. Plus they can release as few songs at a time as they want. Instead of waiting until they have 40 songs ready.
It's much easier for someone to say, I want that song, I'll pay $3 for it. Than, I want 5 of those songs, but I don't feel like paying $40 for the whole pack.
why would they give you the option to buy songs as DLC? Why would they go to the trouble of setting up an entire in-game music store with digital downloads when they want you to go into a store and buy expansion discs? And why would they spend all of the time creating an (admittedly full-featured) user-music editor when that will directly complete against for-sale DLC?
I've lost count of the number of times features mentioned in previews get dropped from the final product or promised patches get quietly cancelled, so let's not get too crazy here.
Let's see, 40 songs at ~$3 each = $120.
A 40 song expansion disc = $30-40? Plus they lose money from shipping, promotion, manufacturing, etc.
Cost of running a store+server, probably less overall. They have every reason to try and make DLC work. They want you to buy songs that are "overpriced" compared to a expansion disc where if they tried to charge $120 for 40 songs no one would buy it. They see that DLC is selling like crazy (at least from what I hear) for RB and they want to get in on that. Plus they can release as few songs at a time as they want. Instead of waiting until they have 40 songs ready.
It's much easier for someone to say, I want that song, I'll pay $3 for it. Than, I want 5 of those songs, but I don't feel like paying $40 for the whole pack.
It does make some financial sense from the profit perspective, but I think it runs opposite to what I've seen of Activision's business strategies to date—sequelize, reiterate, spin-off and franchise. (And I'd love to see $30-40 expansions, but you know that won't happen!) GH has a really superhuge storefront presence, and I think they (and B&M stores) like that instead of digital distribution.
It also takes up a lot of manpower to continually crank out notecharts and hammer out song negotiations on a weekly basis, as we've seen from Rock Band's on-again-off-again song schedule, and to try and do that, plus establish regular Aerosmith/Metallica-type spinoffs, plus set up handheld versions, plus manage the user-created song selections—it just sounds like a lot to expect from the company.
EDIT: It also doesn't help that GH2 and 3's DLC commitments have each been apparently annulled. There's been more GH3 DLC than I expected, I admit, but it still kind of stutters out in spurts. I know the infamous comments about GH2 having assloads of DLC, though. So far Activision's batting average is pretty low, whereas I've actually been surprised by Rock Band's DLC commitments of at least one song a week extending beyond Christmas—though full albums are still kind of dripping out.
Essentially, Activision is guilty until proven innocent in my books.
I think Activision did what they have been doing because they saw that it was what Harmonix did. You had GH1, then GH2, then GH: 80s. They figured they would roll along with the same thing, since it's what the fan-base wanted. DLC was promised since it was "the new thing" and now they see it's success in RB, and figure, ok, let's do that next.
I think they see that there's another 3+ years in this generation's lifespan left, and with the ability of DLC, there is really no reason to release multiple expansions. They see and hear the desire for simple DLC that expands the value of the single game, and is profitable.
It is a "wait-and-see" thing, I'm not going to go trolling Rock Band forums claiming that GHWT will have more DLC, but given the promises and expectations, it definitely is making them look good for now. Like they know we don't like what has happened so far and they want to fix it.
(Hey! I'm not jailed anymore! WOO!)
ArcSyn on
0
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
I think Activision did what they have been doing because they saw that it was what Harmonix did. You had GH1, then GH2, then GH: 80s. They figured they would roll along with the same thing, since it's what the fan-base wanted. DLC was promised since it was "the new thing" and now they see it's success in RB, and figure, ok, let's do that next.
I think they see that there's another 3+ years in this generation's lifespan left, and with the ability of DLC, there is really no reason to release multiple expansions. They see and hear the desire for simple DLC that expands the value of the single game, and is profitable.
It is a "wait-and-see" thing, I'm not going to go trolling Rock Band forums claiming that GHWT will have more DLC, but given the promises and expectations, it definitely is making them look good for now. Like they know we don't like what has happened so far and they want to fix it.
(Hey! I'm not jailed anymore! WOO!)
Welcome back to the land of the free.
I'm still gunshy but also curious about how GH World Tour is going to turn out ... also because I don't think anyone has said whether or not GH Metallica is going to be a two-guitar "traditional" game or the 4-player "World Tour" game, and since the numbers are being dropped for subtitles, like how Call of Duty and Tony Hawk worked, the skeptical part of me thinks that "World Tour" is going to become its own spinoff series and the more band-focused games are still going to be guitar/bass only.
Neversoft talks a good game, but I have yet to really see solid results. The Wii version from VV sounds great, but let's not forget how hard VV boned the Wii version of GH3.
On a related note, I still think the dueling sets of instruments is dumb and that both MTV/HMX and Activion/Neversoft should agree to let all instruments work in all games, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.
Does anyone forsee a problem for GH:WT upon release in relation to the amount of people who have already bought drums + guitars with RB? I'm either seriously underestimating the size of the market, or the number of people happy to spend and store more instruments, but I just can't see why they'd bring another set of drums that isn't cross compatible at all to the market.
Does anyone forsee a problem for GH:WT upon release in relation to the amount of people who have already bought drums + guitars with RB? I'm either seriously underestimating the size of the market, or the number of people happy to spend and store more instruments, but I just can't see why they'd bring another set of drums that isn't cross compatible at all to the market.
True, but RB hasn't quite hit the widespread consumers as far as GH has. There are bound to be people out there who have not bought RB, but may have bought GH that will see this and buy it.
Plus, depending on how much word they get out, they still have an untapped Wii market. I would go as far to say that anyone who buys RB: Wii and knows about this is either rich and planning to buy both, or stupid. It's worth waiting to compare them, especially considering how gimped RB: Wii turned out to be. Plus all the people who have GH3:Wii guitars can buy a box set and have 4 instruments, since it's compatible. Can't say the same for RB. So that market alone is huge and could make the game profitable. Anything they get from 360/PS3 is just a bonus.
Does anyone forsee a problem for GH:WT upon release in relation to the amount of people who have already bought drums + guitars with RB? I'm either seriously underestimating the size of the market, or the number of people happy to spend and store more instruments, but I just can't see why they'd bring another set of drums that isn't cross compatible at all to the market.
I see it. Everyone I know who has Rock Band has already said they won't buy another set of drums, and most already have 2 or 3 guitars so have no need for another one.
Myself, the features sounds neat, but Activision has been full of shit many times before. And the most important thing to me is whether or not Neversoft has learned to make a note chart worth playing. So I'll probably rent GH:WT, but unless it wows me I won't be buying it (I don't have the room for another drum set anyway).
I'm not too vocal over the quality of the note charts, personally. GH3 is the first one I got, purely because I saw Knights of Cydonia on an in-store demo (I picked up a PS2 pack, 2 wired guitars + game for £55). I enjoyed almost all of the songs on some level, the ones I didn't enjoy were down to my taste in songs.
I got GH2, and didn't really enjoy it at all. The covers were terrible and incredibly distracting (why even bother including Killing in the Name?). It's more about songs for me, so I don't have this low opinion of activisions note charts to help me choose between RB and GH.
I guess my only realistic option is to take the plunge and buy RB, enjoy the songs that I know are available, and pick up GH:WT at the end of the year just for guitar play. I assume that the guitars are at least compatible over both games; I've heard the new features on the GH:WT models are essentially optional, bonus extras (admittedly appealing ones, but not essential).
Left Wing jAy on
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
Does anyone forsee a problem for GH:WT upon release in relation to the amount of people who have already bought drums + guitars with RB? I'm either seriously underestimating the size of the market, or the number of people happy to spend and store more instruments, but I just can't see why they'd bring another set of drums that isn't cross compatible at all to the market.
Possibly. Rock Band is getting a lot of mainstream attention, and while it hasn't sold as well as Guitar Hero, it has sold well and the lower numbers could be attributable to 1) multiple people only needing one Rock Band set, and 2) the price.
Both of which could very well work against GH:WT. But we'll have to see.
Posts
Woo short day at work. Ok well I'm not too far into the expert career (only second tier) but so far everything seems pretty easy. This is coming from someone who can almost 5 star all the songs on Expert on GH3. I've only 5 starred one song so far out of 9 or so. I think the most difficult part is getting the hang of strumming the fast notes. Its also hard for me to keep holding the DS still cause when I press the buttons it shakes the DS a bit.
Also if you have fat fingers it might pose some problems.
On the flip side, GH2 had the most atrociously embarrassing covers. I played it again recently and just laughed at how bad many of the great songs on the list were. Nirvana, STP, Rage, Sabbath and many more were too bad to actually listen to, which is what I have the most fun with while playing.
Yes, but GH3 has the "Holiday in Cambodia" cover.
Almost as bad as the "Killing in the Name" cover.
All I can say is, with the news about GHWT for the Wii, it's enough to convince anyone who's considering RB: Wii to wait until this one comes out to compare if it's going to be that much better.
I'm hoping the full box set will be cheaper for the Wii (haha) since the drums/guitar use the Wiimotes so they will cost less for the electronics, but I think that's unfounded given GH3.
Pride and Joy is one of my favourite songs in GH3, and after a few weeks of on and off practice, I have finally conquered it:
I'm looking forward to the Joe Perry guitar battle because I enjoy playing the boss battle DLC version of Slash Guitar Battle so much, but to be honest it sounds pretty bad compared to the Slash battle.
This. The cover of KITN is so bad there exists no words to describe just how bad it is.
Smug Ducking: Congratulations! And yeah, the Joe Perry battle is pretty bad. There's just no emotion in it.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Maybe I've been spoiled by it, but I also don't mind the cover to "Holiday in Cambodia". I actually liked it! "Iron Man" from Guitar Hero 2 was an awful cover, because the singer couldn't really manage it. "Holiday in Cambodia" sounded fine, at least to me.
It's been over 20 years since Raining Blood was released.
People still remember it.
Yeah, I've been able to hit every part in the song for a while now, but stringing it together into an FC run took a long time. My heart was beating out of my chest after about the halfway mark of the song, and I'm really surprised I didn't choke on something easy at the end.
Before I Forget: There is a huge difference between "hard" and "bullshit hard".
Raining Blood: it HAS been about 20 years since that song was released, and the album it's on is widely considered to be Slayer's best, and Slayer is one of the "Big Four" of thrash, right up there with Metallica.
EDIT: Iron Man was in GH1.
However, even though Before I Forget is insanely hard, why no hate for the same reasons for Raining Blood? It's preposterously hard.
I recall a lot of people being pissed off at the Mosh section of the song, which is more or less its biggest hang-up. Also, its difficulty isn't related to a bunch of bullshit chord changes.
Edit: Also, Raining Blood is fucking thrash metal--it's supposed to be insanely complex. Before I Forget doesn't even compare.
Which one should be insanely hard? Which one should be relatively easy?
Yeah
Raining Blood's chart is actually pretty accurate
Before I Forget? Not so much. I mean...
The hard version
is more accurate. It has every note, and they're not all three note chords.
I'm cool with them charting whammy-ing as trills, because in that case the guitarist is actually doing something. Making it just a held not is less accurate, in my opinion, because you're just sitting there.
It should have been Jessie's Girl.
I'm really pissed that Jessie's Girl isn't on GH3 as DLC.
8 more songs and I've five starred the entire Hard tier. I'm going to get you Lou. I'm going to get you so bad you'll wish you never pissed off God in the first place.
Do... Do you want a hug? You look like you could use a hug.
Considering that the IGN blowout preview from a few days ago explicitly says the DLC won't work with GH World Tour, I'm inclined to believe, as usual, that Kotaku is full of shit.
And really, as far as the "renewed commitment to DLC," I'll believe it when I see it. Wii owners should be optimistic about GH World Tour being as fully featured as the other versions, but I wouldn't let DLC dreams get too high. My gut tells me this: Activision is very excited about being able to sell entire expansion discs and sets with brand new instruments every 6-12 months, so why would they give you the option to buy songs as DLC? Why would they go to the trouble of setting up an entire in-game music store with digital downloads when they want you to go into a store and buy expansion discs? And why would they spend all of the time creating an (admittedly full-featured) user-music editor when that will directly complete against for-sale DLC?
I've lost count of the number of times features mentioned in previews get dropped from the final product or promised patches get quietly cancelled, so let's not get too crazy here.
Let's see, 40 songs at ~$3 each = $120.
A 40 song expansion disc = $30-40? Plus they lose money from shipping, promotion, manufacturing, etc.
Cost of running a store+server, probably less overall. They have every reason to try and make DLC work. They want you to buy songs that are "overpriced" compared to a expansion disc where if they tried to charge $120 for 40 songs no one would buy it. They see that DLC is selling like crazy (at least from what I hear) for RB and they want to get in on that. Plus they can release as few songs at a time as they want. Instead of waiting until they have 40 songs ready.
It's much easier for someone to say, I want that song, I'll pay $3 for it. Than, I want 5 of those songs, but I don't feel like paying $40 for the whole pack.
It does make some financial sense from the profit perspective, but I think it runs opposite to what I've seen of Activision's business strategies to date—sequelize, reiterate, spin-off and franchise. (And I'd love to see $30-40 expansions, but you know that won't happen!) GH has a really superhuge storefront presence, and I think they (and B&M stores) like that instead of digital distribution.
It also takes up a lot of manpower to continually crank out notecharts and hammer out song negotiations on a weekly basis, as we've seen from Rock Band's on-again-off-again song schedule, and to try and do that, plus establish regular Aerosmith/Metallica-type spinoffs, plus set up handheld versions, plus manage the user-created song selections—it just sounds like a lot to expect from the company.
EDIT: It also doesn't help that GH2 and 3's DLC commitments have each been apparently annulled. There's been more GH3 DLC than I expected, I admit, but it still kind of stutters out in spurts. I know the infamous comments about GH2 having assloads of DLC, though. So far Activision's batting average is pretty low, whereas I've actually been surprised by Rock Band's DLC commitments of at least one song a week extending beyond Christmas—though full albums are still kind of dripping out.
Essentially, Activision is guilty until proven innocent in my books.
I think they see that there's another 3+ years in this generation's lifespan left, and with the ability of DLC, there is really no reason to release multiple expansions. They see and hear the desire for simple DLC that expands the value of the single game, and is profitable.
It is a "wait-and-see" thing, I'm not going to go trolling Rock Band forums claiming that GHWT will have more DLC, but given the promises and expectations, it definitely is making them look good for now. Like they know we don't like what has happened so far and they want to fix it.
(Hey! I'm not jailed anymore! WOO!)
Welcome back to the land of the free.
I'm still gunshy but also curious about how GH World Tour is going to turn out ... also because I don't think anyone has said whether or not GH Metallica is going to be a two-guitar "traditional" game or the 4-player "World Tour" game, and since the numbers are being dropped for subtitles, like how Call of Duty and Tony Hawk worked, the skeptical part of me thinks that "World Tour" is going to become its own spinoff series and the more band-focused games are still going to be guitar/bass only.
Neversoft talks a good game, but I have yet to really see solid results. The Wii version from VV sounds great, but let's not forget how hard VV boned the Wii version of GH3.
On a related note, I still think the dueling sets of instruments is dumb and that both MTV/HMX and Activion/Neversoft should agree to let all instruments work in all games, but unfortunately that ship has sailed.
True, but RB hasn't quite hit the widespread consumers as far as GH has. There are bound to be people out there who have not bought RB, but may have bought GH that will see this and buy it.
Plus, depending on how much word they get out, they still have an untapped Wii market. I would go as far to say that anyone who buys RB: Wii and knows about this is either rich and planning to buy both, or stupid. It's worth waiting to compare them, especially considering how gimped RB: Wii turned out to be. Plus all the people who have GH3:Wii guitars can buy a box set and have 4 instruments, since it's compatible. Can't say the same for RB. So that market alone is huge and could make the game profitable. Anything they get from 360/PS3 is just a bonus.
Myself, the features sounds neat, but Activision has been full of shit many times before. And the most important thing to me is whether or not Neversoft has learned to make a note chart worth playing. So I'll probably rent GH:WT, but unless it wows me I won't be buying it (I don't have the room for another drum set anyway).
I got GH2, and didn't really enjoy it at all. The covers were terrible and incredibly distracting (why even bother including Killing in the Name?). It's more about songs for me, so I don't have this low opinion of activisions note charts to help me choose between RB and GH.
I guess my only realistic option is to take the plunge and buy RB, enjoy the songs that I know are available, and pick up GH:WT at the end of the year just for guitar play. I assume that the guitars are at least compatible over both games; I've heard the new features on the GH:WT models are essentially optional, bonus extras (admittedly appealing ones, but not essential).
Possibly. Rock Band is getting a lot of mainstream attention, and while it hasn't sold as well as Guitar Hero, it has sold well and the lower numbers could be attributable to 1) multiple people only needing one Rock Band set, and 2) the price.
Both of which could very well work against GH:WT. But we'll have to see.
I don't know, man, my Junior High play got a 8.5...
Billy Corgan in GT:WT. So that's Travis Barker, Billy Corgan and Ted Nugent so far.
Or possibly it's Freddie Ljungberg.