Rock Band. More Awesome.

[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.