| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (51)

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:34AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Guitar Hero died when Harmonix stopped making it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:36AM TheE3Guy said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Nonsense, GH3 was awesome, GH World Tour looks amazing compared to Rock Band 2. I just hope the series' future doesn't go the way of Tony Hawk...
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If you beleive GHIII was great and that World Tour looks good compared to Rock Band 2 -- well go ahead and buy six guitar hero games next year. I mean, seriously, the track list on World Tour? Total crap.

Neversoft has no idea how to make a good music game, and Activision will undoubtedly milk this into the effing ground. Enjoy!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have too agree with Surly Yerby there. Activision will saturate the market, not allow DLC to be forward compatible, (something that has caused me to not download a single piece of DLC for GHIII short of Death Magnetic), and kill the franchise.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 8:26AM ammar91994 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Why is Surly Yerby getting voted down? GH:WT does look good, and so does RB:2.

Most people who buy these types of games are the people who don't go to these types of sites anyways, and they might prefer getting disc based games rather than DLC.

I dont see how releasing these games is really a bad thing. If you don't want them, don't buy them.

And why can't 2 different series coexist? It's not like you only have 1 FPS or racing game, and with instrument compatibility it doesn't even really matter.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 8:55AM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Guitar Hero hate is so annoying.

At least GH:WT has a fucking release date in the EU, whereas Harmonix has been screwing Europeans since Rock Band and now Rock Band 2 doesn't even have a release date.

Also, the Rock Band guitar is shit. Just throwing it out there. The game is fun but who knows if GH:WT won't pull the same thing off?

The only things I've got against Guitar Hero are the costumer un-friendly practices in comparison with Rock Band (all the DLC crap) and the fact that the track list is supposedly shit (haven't confirmed, but heard from a lot of people). Otherwise I don't see what's wrong with it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 11:37AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Slaziman, the GHWT setlist link is below. There are 14 common songs with RB2 which is just stupid. They need to have weekly DLC and no mandatory packs if they want me to buy it.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:25PM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks, I don't listen much music so I don't know a lot of these songs, but the ones I recognized weren't so bad.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:35AM vegaobscura said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Way too much. What are they trying to do--run this into the ground?

Aren't they satisfied with having done that to the Tony Hawk series?
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:43AM Foetoid said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I don't understand all the Tony Hawk hate. They tried to do something new with Downhill Jam (my most played Wii game, had it since launch, SO UNDERRATED) and they got grilled.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tony Hawk kinda of fell to the "Madden" syndrome of at least one new game every year, and turns out that there just werent enough people interested enough in that to buy it year in year out.

Any new Tony Hawk release now just looks kinda sad after the wake of crappy update after crappy update from the past.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:36AM Beatz said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Yep. You hear that screaming sound? That's the cash cow, whose nipples are about to fall right off.

Activision, you're going to kill the genre. It's called oversaturation.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:37AM MrSpaceCowboy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm sure Guitar Hero's nipples hurt from all that milking.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:36AM jefwif said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
activision is starting to smell a lot like hickory-smoked horse buttholes....in a cup.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:48AM Foetoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I....LOVE MOTHER!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:59AM ZENegade said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Oh shit, it's... Dr. Tran!


And yeah: been saying since GH III that Activision has bastardized the franchise. And by god, they have. I think the multiple games are their answer to Rock Band's phenomenal DLC. You stay classy, Activision.

Oh wait. I friggin' hate you and am boycotting your games. Sorry.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Pfft, they're never going to grind the series into the ground at this rate.

Come on Activision, I demand 25 Guitar Hero games next year!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm surprise that people say EA is milking it's franchises when you see this type of behavior from Activision/Blizzard. How much guitar hero can I play? Not 3 titles a year.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:53AM zuburi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Isn't it possible that both companies are doing it?
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@zuburi, I agree that both may be doing it. The question is doing it worse. I see EA creating new IP and partnering with studios to create a more diverse portfolio. I'm not saying that either is a saint.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:43AM mietha said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does it really matter. 2, 4, 6 shitty games a year? It's all the same. I'll stick with my Rock Band weekly updates and yearly (hopefully) overhauls and am abandoning the GH franchise. I'm not buying another GH game until the stupid fucking battles are removed from career play. GH3 was eh, aerosmith was shit, on tour was basically unplayable and WT looks like complete shit compared to rock band. Sure it has a few good exclusive songs (throwing around huge stacks of cash will get you that), but nothing stands out and 5 songs aren't worth a purchase, not to mention the fucking battles ARE STILL THERE. I'll be buying the not-les paul... to play rock band 2 with.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Who is running Activision now, anyway? Dr. Evil?

ONE MILLLLLLEON SKUS!!!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 9:14AM Lordchimp said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hated those guitar battles as well. I think they were absolutely retarded. Another reason why I will be sticking with RB2.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's right guys... milk it Nintendo style!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
That's right Sesur...milk those Nintendo "jokes" for all they're worth. Meanwhile, Sony just released the eighth Ratchet game since 2002 and Microsoft will release a new Halo or a new Gears of War game every Christmas until forever. The upside? They're all enjoyable games. So, you have a choice. You could figure out that everyone does it and it's not a problem as long as the quality doesn't go down, or you could claim that only Nintendo does it and look like an ignorant moron.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's just that when Nintendo does it, they churn out more crap than quality titles. It's a sad fall from grace, but it's the truth.
Or do you actually enjoy Mario Party XIII?
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 7:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As much as I hate to defend halo, there's only been like 3 games in 7 years and only 2 Gears in about 2 years. Unless you want to count spinoffs for halo, like halo wars, in which case I could bring up like 1000 different Mario spinoffs.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 9:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@WRE

No shit Nintendo isn't the only offender... you assuming I ever said that makes you look like a presumptuous moron.

PS
Big N is doing just fine without you; no need to jump on every comment that passively denigrates them.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:06AM monkeyssuck said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is waaay too much. I'm a Guitar Hero person moreso than Rock Band (I'm more of a classic rock guy), but this will overplay the series. Although, if you think about it, with the new content released by Harmonix, in the time between guitar hero games, it might just add up to be equivalent.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:11AM CubeGuy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'll take my Rock Band Weekly instead, thank you.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
why not leave it at world tour and significantally update it every two years to keep things fresh and competitive? oh wait...it's activision.

r.i.p. tony hawk. we miss you.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 3:23AM Tiptup300 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I don't miss you, he does, I don't.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 1:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's just, well insane. From the looks of it they aren't going to be focused on the DLC side of things as much as Harmonix. I really don't see the point in releasing a band specific game (i.e. Aerosmith or Metallica). I'd rather just download a few of their classic songs than pay $60 for a full game based around them.

Six games in 2010 is ridiculous. That's $240 for Guitar Hero alone. By then Harmonix could have 1500 songs available. I think I'll stick to Rock Band.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:10AM LoneStarDawg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
so basically GH big wigs have realized that their wallets get fatter from full games rather than songs to download...soooo they're going to release full games with new tracks rather than do any new features and sit back and wait for the money to print itself. Ideally good, but unless there are amazing tracks on every game and updated features, its just a money ploy.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:12AM Iceman346 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I don't buy into the Guitar Hero hate going around aplenty (imo GH3 was a good game and had the better track list than Rock Band 1 at release) I just like the Rock Band model a lot more.
If MTV/Harmonix go on providing "song packs" in the form of new games with the ability to carry over your old music then I'm completely sold. Thats the way a music game should work. I just don't want to search through 5 discs to find the song I want to play.

On the other hand, as a european I feel neglected if not ignored by EAs release policy regarding Rock Band. As a 360 owner I had to wait half a year for RB1 and the PS3 version is coming out this or next week. And with the second title it looks like there will be similar gaps.
And thats something that Activision just did better so far, all their games were release at similar times all over the world. So if RB2 takes another half year I will probably buy World Tour, too. If they were close together I would only buy Rock Band 2.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:27AM gotjpeg said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MILK! MILK! MILK! MILK!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 4:15AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What a complete and utter waste... Rock Band has the right idea with regular DLC, everyone knows that, except Activision it seems who are still stuck releasing disc based games.

I'm not saying never do more games, like where Rock Band 2 has just enough to make it a worthwhile purchase, but when you're just churning them out like this it's not going to end in anything worthwhile.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 10:39AM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"like where Rock Band 2 has just enough to make it a worthwhile purchase"

RB2 is basically a $60 update to RB1 that let's you play world tour mode online.

I would have much rather just had a downloadable update to RB1 that did this, and all the music on RB2 just be DLC, especially given Harmonix's "we're making RB1 a platform and we're not just going to churn out sequels" statement a while back.

It amazes me how they get such an enormous pass for RB2 in an era of people getting pissed off when sequels don't evolve enough from one iteration to another.

I guess they've just built up enough good will from their awesome DLC strategy, but it should still be mentioned and noted. I mean, Madden 08 to Madden 09 is a bigger leap than RB1 to RB2 and people whine about the Madden change incessantly.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 11:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vcize, your comments are stupid they don't deserve this response.

You'd rather see the 85 songs on disc and 20 free tracks released as DLC so you can pay $2 each for them? Any fool can see the disc is a bargain, not even adding the improved gameplay and new features.

How is Rock Band not a platform? Does the new DLC not work with RB1?

ya burnt, dumbass!
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 2:25PM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"You'd rather see the 85 songs on disc and 20 free tracks released as DLC so you can pay $2 each for them?"

That would imply that I, or the average user, was interested in buying all 85 tracks. I, and I would imagine the average user, is interested in paying for nowhere near that many of the 85 released tracks. Options, my man, options.

Bottom line is they said they weren't going to start churning out annual sequels, and not only did they do exactly that, but they did it with a sequel that is more similar to its predecessor than any game in history.

But, why am I bothering to respond. Clearly, "I burnt" anyway.

And, I suppose I don't need to point out the irony in your first sentence...
Reply

Posted: Sep 18th 2008 4:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vcize, to reply to your first point, I am going to assume that the code needed to implement the stuff that they have (Online World Tour, changes to the way your characters can play world tour, Drum Trainer) would have been fairly large, too big for a patch. I am sure Microsoft has some limit on patch sizes, and this may have made RB2 updates only suitable for a disc release. I am sure at some point they thought about simply patching the game.

However, the songs are a fantastic deal in that game. Getting them for the price you do is cool, especially when it's a pretty good set list too. I stand by my argument that HMX have done just enough to get a pass on releasing this sequel, especially if you look at the changes present in GH: Aerosmith over GH3.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 5:08AM RangerPrimeX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pass. I will stick with Rock Band.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 6:09AM bmill3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
leave it to activision, flooding the market with crappy music games is just going to kill the genre, guess they want to ride that gravy train into the ground...
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 6:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OMG... theres just so much hate here.... what are you people? The association of people who have too much time so they get angry at everything?

I say, LET them bring out 4 6 guitar heros every year if they want to. you dont wanna play it? then just let it be. And this coming from someone who has both guitar hero and rock band mind u
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 7:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't quite get the Nintendo hate for milking... though the argument certainly exists for Mario Party, it doesn't as much for any other series. The core Mario series has only had 6.5 entries in 23 years (SMB2 was just enhanced from SMB1 counting the .5, and not counting SMB2 USA (just a hack by the American offices), and SMW2 (that introduced Yoshi's own series)). I guess if you consider re-releases, then they have a habit of doing that, but the marketing strategy there is to introduce their older games to new audiences, showing they stand the test of time.

Also, to whoever mentioned Downhill Jam: DJ was the *exception* to the rule, and more particular the DS version was the exception (along with American Sk8land). Proving Ground moved the franchise back into new-game-every-year-every-platform milking.

But it is quite ironic that Activision is becoming the new EA in terms of yearly releases, while EA itself is moving away from that trend.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 8:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How about guitar hero acoustic??? I think that would be a lot of fun. A nice change of pace from the current music games.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 12:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Guitar Hero went downhill after Harmonix sold it. Now it's full of stupid Axe body spray guitars and stages. The new guitar hero will probably just be a gamefly rental for me.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 3:09PM bigjf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As long as they're bands I'm interested in, I'll pick them up eventually, certainly after price drops.
Reply

Posted: Sep 17th 2008 8:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why is everyone always complaining?!
No one if FORCING you to buy the games if you dont want to!
Damn!

Plus, if you already have a Guitar, just buy the damn game.
Its only $50 on the Wii, for all the songs in there its cheap!

Plus pretty much everyone complains about the song list.
Come on! Guitar Hero III has a better song list then Rock Band.
Plus in the end its all a matter of taste!

And...
I dont mind if they release more Guitar Hero games if the gameplay and graphics are as cool as they are now. I want a Metallica Guitar Hero, another one with KISS, and countless others!

Gimme a new game every 3 months and I'll buy them if they are cool!
Now stop complaining and spend time playing and having fun...
Reply
| 1 | 2 |
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW