Rock Band. More Awesome.

[fireking550]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It's a rights issue no doubt.

But isn't the music being locked to the disc better than the songs not being available at all? Haters would disagree, but I say music of different types being made available is a good thing, even if its in an exclusive format.

Anyway, isn't ACDC already like this? Is it any surprise The Beatles music would be exclusive?

lmao "make no sense"

Yeah, the Beatles songs that make no sense are supposed to make no sense. The other ones make perfect sense. For example, "Help!", makes sense just fine. On the other hand, "We All Live in a Yellow Submarine" does not make obvious sense. To be mad about this is to miss the point completely.

ps tokzic i am still pissed off that you said "The Beatles are bad because their music does not require a high level of technical skill". You might not have as much fun playing a song by them in a game like this, but that doesn't give you any right to make a statement that implies objectivity and universal understanding when you really just mean to say that what you are saying applies subjectively only to yourself. And seriously, **** playing games like this to be challenged. I want to have fun, I don't want to work my ass off just to finish the song. You want to be challenged? Go out and do something actually physically or mentally taxing. This is a god damned video game.

With how badly your defending them you are coming out to be the bigger moron here xD. Oh yea and just because something is suppost to not make sense, doesn't mean that it can be justified by that, it still doesn't make sense. And honestly, they do suck at what they do, i started learning guitar about 2 months ago and i can play just about any of their songs, some skill besides strumming is usually needed to be *good* at what you are doing. Honestly they suffer from what i like to call *Boston Sydrome* named after the band Boston, throughout all three of Bostons albums the lyrics were all that really changed, very minor instrumental changes were made and at some points sounded like the same exact thing and from what i can tell the Beatles suffer from the same thing.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

Why wouldn't you want to be challenged in a game like this?

Challenge is one thing, but to get my ass destroyed is not fun, nor is something which is a challenge necessarily any fun. Just being difficult to produce doesn't make a good piece of art. A song being hard to play doesn't make it a good song, a complicated drawing doesn't make it a good drawing.

And why should video games be an exception to enjoying challenge? You get more satisfaction out of doing something you struggled with than something you just bulldoze through. Of course this should apply to video games and not just "the real world". That's why harder difficulties exist - it increases the satisfaction of completing it. It makes it feel like an achievement.

And there will be different difficulty levels here.

You're just mad that the songs aren't super complicated, but that's not the point of the songs. This isn't death metal here, it's supposed to be fun, not crazy.

And you want a challenge? How about the challenge of harmonizing vocals while playing the instrument. That'd be a nice challenge I think.

also, play everlong on expert drums and tell me this game is not physically taxing

Drums is something else completely. I've said all along that playing drums in this game should be basically the same as the real thing. But that doesn't mean that a song has to have 16th double kick and wacky triplet rolls and all kinds of **** just to make it a "challenge". Things can be fun without making you go all out, and heck, things can be challenging without pushing you to your limits.

Originally Posted by Cyanite

or better yet, Blinded by Fear. though everlong hurts like **** too

And to be honest I don't know why afrobean is complaining about you stating a personal subjective preference as a universal fact if he's going to simultaneously say that video games are meant to be fun, and a game being challenging plays no part in that. That doesn't make any sense. If you're actually good at the game, then pushing your limits is probably the single most satisfying way to play the game.

I never said that a challenge cannot be fun, all I've said is that something doesn't need to be challenging to be fun.

You ever play Katamari? Tons of fun, but it's not at all difficult. And would it be more fun if it was a challenge? No, it would just be annoying... "oops u didnt get your ball big enough lol u gotta try again now"

Basically what I'm saying is that the game should be played to have fun, not to be challenged. If you have fun being challenged, that's one thing, but if you just want a challenge without regards to fun to be had, there are far more better skills to develop that are actually useful in life. To dismiss the entire game here just because it looks like it won't be extra difficult seems to miss the entire point of the game: to have fun. Or do you think a game based around Slayer would be more fun? More challenging, likely, but more fun? How about a game that doesn't even use real music, but just has intensely difficult charts designed that go to nothing. It'd be way more difficult, but would it be fun?

Originally Posted by fireking550

With how badly your defending them you are coming out to be the bigger moron here xD.

Was I defending them in that post? No, I was just expressing annoyance at the fact that Tokzic was making a broad statement implying fact when he was really just relaying an [unpopular] opinion (that he attempted to masquerade as fact).

And before anyone says anything about me also masking an opinion as fact, all I've said is that their music is popular, has sold a lot of records, is still culturally significant, and that they've enjoyed excellent critical success. These are facts.

Oh yea and just because something is suppost to not make sense, doesn't mean that it can be justified by that, it still doesn't make sense.

If you were critiquing Spongebob Squarepants, you think it would be appropriate to say "this show makes no sense", or would you just take as a given based on the very concept of the show. No, it's not a "justification", but to fault a work of art because of an intended feature of it is a little ridiculous. It's art, if you don't like something about that was intentionally built it, that's up to you, but that doesn't make the art bad.

And honestly, they do suck at what they do, i started learning guitar about 2 months ago and i can play just about any of their songs, some skill besides strumming is usually needed to be *good* at what you are doing. Honestly they suffer from what i like to call *Boston Sydrome* named after the band Boston, throughout all three of Bostons albums the lyrics were all that really changed, very minor instrumental changes were made and at some points sounded like the same exact thing and from what i can tell the Beatles suffer from the same thing.

#1: Not being technically proficient doesn't mean that the music they made is objectively bad. That's all I've said. Music can be considered good (as their music is widely regarded) despite being relatively simple in its construction and design.
#2: The instrumentation varies a lot from one of their works to the other, but not being intimately familiar with melodic construction, I can't speak as to how varied their methods of song design were.

Man, I need to quit coming on forums while I'm bored at work. I always make posts like this.

[B0NK]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Things can be fun without making you go all out, and heck, things can be challenging without pushing you to your limits.

see; the cars album

[fireking550]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

#1: Not being technically proficient doesn't mean that the music they made is objectively bad. That's all I've said. Music can be considered good (as their music is widely regarded) despite being relatively simple in its construction and design.
#2: The instrumentation varies a lot from one of their works to the other, but not being intimately familiar with melodic construction, I can't speak as to how varied their methods of song design were.

maybe true, being average at it doesn't mean that the music they make is "bad" but i would have liked to have seen some instrumental development throughout their time together, the point of doing something is to do it well and as i stated before they never really made advancements now don't jump on my for what i am about to say but one of MY favorite bands iron maiden, each album has the basic melody but than changes key pieces, i can only find two albums of their (seventh son of the seventh son and brave new world) that sound even slightly related. Its not that doing the same thing over and over is bad but a little variety is all i am saying. Simple music isn't bad if its a single piece or even a whole album, i believe it starts to become bad when you build your whole career on this simple music, because the fact that you want to keep it simple means you are going to hit this skill wall. I am not sure if i am speaking of the Beetles or just simple music in general now xD

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by fireking550

maybe true, being average at it doesn't mean that the music they make is "bad" but i would have liked to have seen some instrumental development throughout their time together, the point of doing something is to do it well and as i stated before they never really made advancements now don't jump on my for what i am about to say but one of MY favorite bands iron maiden, each album has the basic melody but than changes key pieces, i can only find two albums of their (seventh son of the seventh son and brave new world) that sound even slightly related. Its not that doing the same thing over and over is bad but a little variety is all i am saying. Simple music isn't bad if its a single piece or even a whole album, i believe it starts to become bad when you build your whole career on this simple music, because the fact that you want to keep it simple means you are going to hit this skill wall. I am not sure if i am speaking of the Beetles or just simple music in general now xD

I don't think you know much of the Beatles' music. Look at Help!, then look at Eleanor Rigby, then look at Helter Skelter, then look at Hey Jude. Their music might not be technically complicated, but the style moves all over the board. Some of it fits together in the way you describe, but over their entire works they slide into different styles.

[Cyanite]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

You ever play Katamari? Tons of fun, but it's not at all difficult. And would it be more fun if it was a challenge? No, it would just be annoying... "oops u didnt get your ball big enough lol u gotta try again now"

Katamari is more of a casual game than Rock Band is. Granted Rock Band has a definite "casual" side to it, but the mere fact that it's a rhythm game gives it a whole other side of fun to it, which comes from accomplishing and breaking personal records, or even worldwide records if you're good enough.

Basically what I'm saying is that the game should be played to have fun, not to be challenged.

The problem with this statement lies in the "should". If someone's goal in this game is to be challenged, then why can't they dismiss a game that's meant to be fun through just the songlist or the accessability of the songs, and not through their difficulty?

If you have fun being challenged, that's one thing, but if you just want a challenge without regards to fun to be had, there are far more better skills to develop that are actually useful in life. To dismiss the entire game here just because it looks like it won't be extra difficult seems to miss the entire point of the game: to have fun.

I don't know how good you are at Rock Band (not that I think it's relevant, ultimately), but when you're really good at games like these, the whole party atmosphere of this game more or less gets lost. I still have fun playing games like these at parties, but I get a lot more satisfaction out of playing amongst one or two other people who are good at the game. Through that you can set goals, you can feel satisfaction for doing something other than passing some easy song with 3 other people who are playing on easy or medium.

Or do you think a game based around Slayer would be more fun? More challenging, likely, but more fun? How about a game that doesn't even use real music, but just has intensely difficult charts designed that go to nothing. It'd be way more difficult, but would it be fun?

Honestly, yeah, I think a game around a band or group of bands known for technical proficiency would be a lot more fun. Don't get me wrong, Creep is one of my favorite songs to play just because I like the song. Same with a few other tracks. I just think most songs have replay value because of their difficulty.

Charts going to nothing would be idiotic, though.

[fireking550]

Ok i am not going to go around quotes from different posts because mainly i don't know how xD.

But from what i have read at one point afro you said "things that are popular are popular for a reason" this does sound like you mean they are popular because they are good but good and bad are only matters of opinion so that will differ from person to person, i don't like them, you do there is a example.

Now about your ideas on how fun/challenging a game should be. Playing a game for the pure purpose of being challenging is stupid. You have to have fun in their some where and it should have the ability to make you want to play it over and over again. Here is the thing though, while the singer in Rock Band : Beatles is going to have a jolly old time the instruments are going to be bored as hell. If their is no challenge at all than their is really no point in trying. The best kind of band for this game would be a band with a good lyrical and instrumental balance. The Beatles are a bit too heavy on the lyrics which mean that the drummer, bassist, and guitar players are going to get bored with the same thing over and over even if they do like the song.

What i am saying is you need a balance of fun and challenge to the interest in the long term, too easy and you lose hardcore/length players, too hard you lose the casual gamers and past generations. Good and Bad are opinions personally i sing on rock band so i will probably enjoy this game even though i really don't like the Beatles but besides my mom i don't really see any of my friends wanting to play the instruments more than 3-4 times per song (jw we have played like every song on rb 2 like 100 times so don't say we just son't play often xD )

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by fireking550

Ok i am not going to go around quotes from different posts because mainly i don't know how xD.

But from what i have read at one point afro you said "things that are popular are popular for a reason" this does sound like you mean they are popular because they are good but good and bad are only matters of opinion so that will differ from person to person, i don't like them, you do there is a example.

I didn't say that. Only thing I did say is that if one is to look at objective evidence, the Beatles is probably the best band in every way measurable. That doesn't mean that their music is universally good in a subjective way, just that they're critically acclaimed, very popular, sold lots of records, and have managed to remain relevant even without releasing a new studio album since 1970.

Now about your ideas on how fun/challenging a game should be. Playing a game for the pure purpose of being challenging is stupid. You have to have fun in their some where and it should have the ability to make you want to play it over and over again. Here is the thing though, while the singer in Rock Band : Beatles is going to have a jolly old time the instruments are going to be bored as hell.

Eh, the point of it is to sing while playing though, right? Much more challenging, should be fun.

Charts might not be all that difficult compared to the most challenging things in the other games, but it's not like the hardest difficulty on this game will be like easy on the others.

If their is no challenge at all than their is really no point in trying.

It is entirely possible to have fun doing something without really applying effort into it. This is why I mentioned Katamari. Takes no conscious thought, no real skill, no effort. It's just fun. Sure, if you want a challenge, you can try to aim for higher sizes or faster finishes, but that's not a requirement of the game. It is very easy, but still tons of fun regardless.

The best kind of band for this game would be a band with a good lyrical and instrumental balance.

That depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to make a game where people who are just interested in instruments (as is the case with most people, especially on this forum), vocals could almost be omitted completely (recall that before Rock Band came out, no one seemed to mind that they couldn't sing along in Guitar Hero).

But personally, I think the "best kind of band" for this sort of game is a band with a strong catalog of songs that are all good listens, with songs that make the listener want to be actively engaged in the song. If you want hard **** disregarding the quality of the music, I think Guitar Hero is catering to that demographic a little more than Rock Band (don't they have an extra difficulty level of DOUBLE-expert for drums or some ****). And Guitar Hero has that option to build your own charts, so when your masterful skill surpasses the included difficulty levels, you can build your own EVEN MORE difficult charts.

Fags.

The Beatles are a bit too heavy on the lyrics which mean that the drummer, bassist, and guitar players are going to get bored with the same thing over and over even if they do like the song.

Unless they really like the music.

And unless they're willing to get into the harmonized singing.

But yeah, if you're one of the people out there who doesn't like the Beatles at all, duh, don't play it. You can have fun not playing the game, but I think I'll have more fun enjoying it.

[fireking550]

I see your points but i think singing is getting more popular, people who wouldn't even try it before are now enjoying it a lot, its like Karioki (i know i spelt that wrong) you may feel like a idiot but you really enjoy it, like DDR.

As for the best band i never said make a rock band out of **** music like Slayer I said a band with a good balance of instruments and singing, bands like breaking benjamin, Linking Park, Gun & Roses, Green Day worked quite well with their release on rb2.

As for the challenging part, YES something easy and simple can be fun i think we can all prove that through flash games. But here is the thing, after you beat the game and hear the songs 10 times each do you still want to play? Its like picking grass, its amusing for awhile, might even get you to waste a whole day ( that might just be me though) but what about when the day is up? Except for hardcore fans it gets repetative.

Yes Beetles fans are still going to want to play this mainly because this is who the game is for, Beetles fans, but that not who i want to talk about, i want to talk about the people who have never heard the Beetles or those who never liked them much before (me included). How can you make this game get them to play and like the Beetles while keeping them interested.

You need to make it somewhat of a challenge cause their is always those who want to play for a challenge, The Beetles just don't have the balance needed to keep EVERYONE, not just Beetles fans into it. I know i said it is for Beetles fans but its a game, the point is to draw in the people who don't know them all that well, marketing strategy it is called.

And didn't two of the Beetles die? so how could they release a album? Well i am happy that you will enjoy the game i am iffy right now. All i am saying is this, that this game will NOT be the best Rock Band game, it might be the best selling because of who it is, in the measurable way as you said, but i think they are getting a free ride of sorts and the hype is what will carry them over. If i repeated myself which i did sorry xD

[Dorby]

It's definately not going to be the BEST one, but Hey Jude is going to be so epic!!!!!!

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by fireking550

i want to talk about the people who have never heard the Beetles

these people do not exist sorry

this game will NOT be the best Rock Band game

I can concede that easily. A single band could never have a varied enough setlist to make the "best Rock Band game". I personally doubt if they'll ever be able to top RB1's setlist. That said, I'd think this should be the best band-centric game of this sort. Better than ACDC, better than Aerosmith, better than whoever else is getting an exclusive game.

[Dorby]

yeah aerosmith f*ckin blows

[Cyanite]

Rock Band: Muse would pretty much be the best game ever, even if they could only use maybe 10 songs that'd be fun across all instruments

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Cyanite

Rock Band: Muse

beats the hell out of rock band beatles

[Dorby]

Originally Posted by Cyanite

Rock Band: Muse

this PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

[Tibs]

Rock Band: Pantera, imo

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

beats the hell out of rock band beatles

Probably would be pretty fun, except the setlist would be way too short and replay value would take a major hit because of it.

But how are they on harmonized vocals? The more I think about it, the more I get jazzed on this aspect of the Beatles game.

[EnR]

Just get a Rock Band: Metal

[Dorby]

your sig is soooo cliche

[Sephiroth28]

Beatles will be awesome. Muse would be better.