Nice Guys Come in Last

[Lord_Jaroh]

-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.
Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

And to me, the graphics became terrible (take a look at a comparison between the singer from GH2 and GH3, or the drummer, especially for things like motion). The hammer-on engine was far worse, being less about timing and more about luck. Master recordings was where the industry was moving with those games anyway, but I never found the covers to be bad overall. Sure, there were a couple of wonky ones (Sweet Child of Mine for example) but none were so horrible that I gouged my ears out. I did play the previous games for years. Battle mode was shit, and remains shit. It's not about playing the song and more about who can cripple the opponent first. To me GH3 was less about learning to play "the song" to a degree and more about playing a new iteration of DDR, where the notes became arbitrary.

You say Rock Band has churned out two iterations that didn't advance the genre? How can you say that with a straight face considering Activision outright copied Rock Band's idea with World Tour? So for Harmonix I see Guitar Hero to Guitar Hero 2 to Rock Band, with Guitar Hero 80's being an "expansion" on the GH2 gameplay, and Rock Band 2 being an improvement on the gameplay in 1.

Whereas Neversoft took Harmonix's idea, churned out a worse version (GH3), and then ripped them off for the sequel (GH:WT), and then churned out more based on the same engine (Metallica and Greatest Hits being WT, with Van Halen as well probably, and Aerosmith being 3) Not only that, they spit them out as stand alone disks rather than DLC which they could easily have done, rather than milking the customer for as much money as they could. What will GH5 bring that will be new to the table? Nothing. And will your old DLC for GH3 be compatable with it? No. How about your DLC for World Tour? Again, No. They'll make you rebuy the same songs again at a later date (see Guitar Hero: Smash Hits) because that's the way they work.

Activision is about money first, and the consumer second, which is why they will fail in the end. They aren't thinking to the future, and retaining their customers. Eventually market saturation will hit, and their current customers will become just as pissed off with them as everyone else is and then they won't have anyone buying their games.

Either that or we have too many stupid people in this world who will continue to support them, and they will turn into the Wayans Brothers for video games...

 

[The Rockerfly]

-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.


Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

And to me, the graphics became terrible (take a look at a comparison between the singer from GH2 and GH3, or the drummer, especially for things like motion). The hammer-on engine was far worse, being less about timing and more about luck. Master recordings was where the industry was moving with those games anyway, but I never found the covers to be bad overall. Sure, there were a couple of wonky ones (Sweet Child of Mine for example) but none were so horrible that I gouged my ears out. I did play the previous games for years. Battle mode was shit, and remains shit. It's not about playing the song and more about who can cripple the opponent first. To me GH3 was less about learning to play "the song" to a degree and more about playing a new iteration of DDR, where the notes became arbitrary.

You say Rock Band has churned out two iterations that didn't advance the genre? How can you say that with a straight face considering Activision outright copied Rock Band's idea with World Tour? So for Harmonix I see Guitar Hero to Guitar Hero 2 to Rock Band, with Guitar Hero 80's being an "expansion" on the GH2 gameplay, and Rock Band 2 being an improvement on the gameplay in 1.

Whereas Neversoft took Harmonix's idea, churned out a worse version (GH3), and then ripped them off for the sequel (GH:WT), and then churned out more based on the same engine (Metallica and Greatest Hits being WT, with Van Halen as well probably, and Aerosmith being 3) Not only that, they spit them out as stand alone disks rather than DLC which they could easily have done, rather than milking the customer for as much money as they could. What will GH5 bring that will be new to the table? Nothing. And will your old DLC for GH3 be compatable with it? No. How about your DLC for World Tour? Again, No. They'll make you rebuy the same songs again at a later date (see Guitar Hero: Smash Hits) because that's the way they work.

Activision is about money first, and the consumer second, which is why they will fail in the end. They aren't thinking to the future, and retaining their customers. Eventually market saturation will hit, and their current customers will become just as pissed off with them as everyone else is and then they won't have anyone buying their games.

Either that or we have too many stupid people in this world who will continue to support them, and they will turn into the Wayans Brothers for video games...

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

 

[Warhobo]

-snip-

I'm sorry but that is just wrong, they upgraded the graphics, the hammer-on engine, most songs were not awful covers and master recordings or decent live recordings, online play, battle mode and the fact it was harder because you had to be more specfic of when you strum was more specific so you had to actually learn rather than practice.
Yeah thats true for like through the fire and flames and the devil went down to georgia, the rest I know on guitar most of the riffs and I can say that very few are over charted or under charted.


Rock band thinks that drums have just 4 pads, chords can be hammered on, singing doesn't require any form of pitching and finally you can play through entire songs with a rock band guitar and never strum.
Okay lets look at it this way, Activision have released 3 guitar heros where the dlc is compatible with each other (smash hits, world tour and metallica)
While Rock Band have done 2 games where they are all compatible
Finally Rock Band never does anything to advance the game, it just splurged out the same rock band game each time and they are both still about £40 (based on GAME website)
Sorry for the wall of text

And to me, the graphics became terrible (take a look at a comparison between the singer from GH2 and GH3, or the drummer, especially for things like motion). The hammer-on engine was far worse, being less about timing and more about luck. Master recordings was where the industry was moving with those games anyway, but I never found the covers to be bad overall. Sure, there were a couple of wonky ones (Sweet Child of Mine for example) but none were so horrible that I gouged my ears out. I did play the previous games for years. Battle mode was shit, and remains shit. It's not about playing the song and more about who can cripple the opponent first. To me GH3 was less about learning to play "the song" to a degree and more about playing a new iteration of DDR, where the notes became arbitrary.

You say Rock Band has churned out two iterations that didn't advance the genre? How can you say that with a straight face considering Activision outright copied Rock Band's idea with World Tour? So for Harmonix I see Guitar Hero to Guitar Hero 2 to Rock Band, with Guitar Hero 80's being an "expansion" on the GH2 gameplay, and Rock Band 2 being an improvement on the gameplay in 1.

Whereas Neversoft took Harmonix's idea, churned out a worse version (GH3), and then ripped them off for the sequel (GH:WT), and then churned out more based on the same engine (Metallica and Greatest Hits being WT, with Van Halen as well probably, and Aerosmith being 3) Not only that, they spit them out as stand alone disks rather than DLC which they could easily have done, rather than milking the customer for as much money as they could. What will GH5 bring that will be new to the table? Nothing. And will your old DLC for GH3 be compatable with it? No. How about your DLC for World Tour? Again, No. They'll make you rebuy the same songs again at a later date (see Guitar Hero: Smash Hits) because that's the way they work.

Activision is about money first, and the consumer second, which is why they will fail in the end. They aren't thinking to the future, and retaining their customers. Eventually market saturation will hit, and their current customers will become just as pissed off with them as everyone else is and then they won't have anyone buying their games.

Either that or we have too many stupid people in this world who will continue to support them, and they will turn into the Wayans Brothers for video games...

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

"Better drum kits"? You mean the ones that had the problem with the cymbals not responding correctly?

 

[The Rockerfly]

-almighty snip-

Some had problems but i've never experienced them yet and mainly play drums on world tour and I play them hard. Even if they do break, it's not exactly complex to repair them.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I'm kind of annoyed because I had this concersation earilier and I don't want to type it again, but I'll be civil.

You could've saved yourself the civility and the repetition had you noted that half of my response to you was a sarcastic reversal of the way you had implied that the people who think the point isn't to get as many kills as possible are the wrong ones. It can just as easily be portrayed in the opposite light, which is what I did, the point being that it is a matter of perspective. I also don't recall using the word "wrong" in association with what Activision is doing, so I am completely oblivious to why you felt the need to explain to my why it isn't wrong. If you mistook my use of the term "griefing" as analogous to "wrong-doing", then I apologize. I may not like Activision for their behavior, but I certainly am not proclaiming it to be "wrong" in any universal manner.

Are you under some sort of impression that any and all times where someone quotes you, their intent is to contradict you 100%? Geez...

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

I think you're looking at Guitar Hero through rose-colored glasses.

Guitar Hero has better sales than Rock Band due to the name that Harmonix built up for Activision before they took over. Just because they have higher sales doesn't make them better.

Most of your "arguements" are baseless opinion so I'm not going to argue them with you as there will be no convincing on either end. All I need to say that with Harmonix, they have released GH, GH2, GH80s, RB and RB2 - 5 games. 4 of which improve upon the previous versions. In 2 years, they came out with the first 3 (2005 to 2007).

Neversoft has come out with GH3, GH Aerosmith, GHWT, GH Metallica and GH Smash Hits - 5 games, none of which improve the series as they just copy what has already been done! As well, those 5 games have been released within 2 years (2007 to 2009) and there is still another one to follow (GH Van Halen)! If you can't see the disparity between the two companies, and why people consider Activision to be milking the series, well, I can't help you...

 

[The Rockerfly]

Yeah the drummer was crap on thre but if you look on 2, the entire crowd was sycronised and band members just looked like crap. The hammer on engine was easy, it was luck in 2, all you have to do in 3 was hold the note and not rely on odd timing.
You didn't find thr covers bad? You have got to be joking, "Killing In The Name Of", "Beast and The Harlot", "Freebird" sound like crap and thats off the top of my head. The guitars are right but the singers sound awful on them.
So? Battle mode is still fun, if a little unbalanced but thats the point of a game is to have fun, if I want to just play through the song I have co-op or campaign mode.
Yeah but guitar hero 2 barely advanced the series, rock band was a stupidly easy conclusion and so what if a good idea is copied, is that such a bad thing.
Activision made battle mode, online rankings, decent drum kits and vocal parts which meant you actually had to sing the song and wireless guitars
Yeah okay what about rock band expansion packs? Rock band acdc? They're just as guilty as activision and since Rock band 2 didn't advance the series in any way or form, why wasn't that released as dlc?
You have to rebuy dlc because the engine changes, it's made better and thus the old versions are not compatable.
Guitar hero has better sales than Rock band because the instruments don't feel so cheap and are more accurate on the game so if Guitar hero is going to fail, it has got a long way.

I think you're looking at Guitar Hero through rose-colored glasses.

Guitar Hero has better sales than Rock Band due to the name that Harmonix built up for Activision before they took over. Just because they have higher sales doesn't make them better.

Most of your "arguements" are baseless opinion so I'm not going to argue them with you as there will be no convincing on either end. All I need to say that with Harmonix, they have released GH, GH2, GH80s, RB and RB2 - 5 games. 4 of which improve upon the previous versions. In 2 years, they came out with the first 3 (2005 to 2007).

Neversoft has come out with GH3, GH Aerosmith, GHWT, GH Metallica and GH Smash Hits - 5 games, none of which improve the series as they just copy what has already been done! As well, those 5 games have been released within 2 years (2007 to 2009) and there is still another one to follow (GH Van Halen)! If you can't see the disparity between the two companies, and why people consider Activision to be milking the series, well, I can't help you...

You don't think that it's because guitar hero 3 was better, critics gave guitar hero 3 much better reviews then guitar hero 2 or 1. This is because it's better and it advanced the series. I'm sorry but you are saying mine are baseless opinions? Yeah but when critics, the majority of guitar hero players and guitar hero tournements use guitar hero 3 over 2 and 1 because it's better. Your view is opinionated.
GH and GH2 were on the same engine and so was 80's, Rock abnd and Rock band 2 were also identical. Gh3 improved hugely, much more than previous Guitar Hero games, guitar hero world tour also improved massively on the rock band drums and engine.
Does it mtter that they release the games quickly? DLC is released ridiculously quickly and no one complains, you're not being forced to buy games or dlc so whats the problem?
They are giving people what they want and you're at a unpopular view point and as a supply and demand view point you are wrong too

 

[AncientYoungSon]

And yet, when they have milked all their current IP into the absolute ground, as they are already doing, and when they have driven away all their creative talent, as they are already doing, they will cease to make any money off the derivative crap they continue to publish.

Carpetbagging is a bad way to do business if you intend to stick around as company. People forgive, they do not forget.

This.

EA is at least trying new things here and there.

Contrary to popular belief, people WILL some day stop buying Madden, CoD and all of the other milked franchises out there. When that happens, that's when it's great to be able to turn to a new, budding franchise that you've been selling.

Brutal Legend could've easily been made into a franchise...

 

[theultimateend]

I am tired of this " they are a company, they are suppost to shit all over you" line. No thats not how it works, they make the stuff, and I buy the stuff with my money, charging me twice as much for the same stuff is just being a greedy arse.

An arsehole is an arsehole, the fact they are making money by screwing you over doesn't strike me as a good excuse.

I was basically going to say this.

People rise to the bar you set for them, if you tell them putting a dick in babies is ok they'll do it. This article just seemed to me to be basically saying that . "Hey guys they are a business of course they should be assholes."

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I can respect that Activision is making fat stacks of cash. That said, I'm equally certain that I can be wildly annoyed that it's at the expense of anything new or exciting that can be crushed along the way. Activision has essentially taken over the position that EA held in my heart a few years back with one notable exception. While activision is running about decapitating anything that gets in their way and pumping out sequel after uninspired sequel (and I have nothing against sequels if you've got something new to show me), at the very least no one has stood up and decried their treatment of their skin-and-bone assets. That sort of sordid behavior is the very reason why for nearly three years I didn't actually pay retail for an EA game and instead waited until I could find a used copy if I desperatly needed to play one of the thousand games they were going to release in a year.

Then EA seems to have turned a corner and tried reforming their ways. They still produce uninspired sequels and decapitate people but they sprinkle in at least a bit of risky endeavor and publich smoozing. Now Activision is the company I can misdirect my geek rage into consumer activism at. It's a shame seeing how they either produced or published some of my favorite games of all time.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Activision are not really evil but they do not appear to deserve much good will. I now associate their brand name with creative bankruptcy and opportunistic price hiking.

 

[randommaster]

I'm kind of annoyed because I had this concersation earilier and I don't want to type it again, but I'll be civil.

You could've saved yourself the civility and the repetition had you noted that half of my response to you was a sarcastic reversal of the way you had implied that the people who think the point isn't to get as many kills as possible are the wrong ones. It can just as easily be portrayed in the opposite light, which is what I did, the point being that it is a matter of perspective. I also don't recall using the word "wrong" in association with what Activision is doing, so I am completely oblivious to why you felt the need to explain to my why it isn't wrong. If you mistook my use of the term "griefing" as analogous to "wrong-doing", then I apologize. I may not like Activision for their behavior, but I certainly am not proclaiming it to be "wrong" in any universal manner.

Are you under some sort of impression that any and all times where someone quotes you, their intent is to contradict you 100%? Geez...

NO I'm under the impression that I shouldn't be typing that many words and hoping for coherrence at two in the morning. I just kind of read the words and then started typing, so I apopllogize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Mordwyl]

Perhaps it's successful now... Just wait until the bubble bursts.

Kotick is a shrewd businessman. Unfortunately, to make a business successful you first have to embrace and understand it, which are two things he hasn't really proven to do at all. While his business model is simply perfect for manufactured products like hardware and appliances, games are a different classification of product entirely befitting films, literature, music and art.

Unfortunately all the aforementioned things have been subjected to Kotickism* in one way or another with such gems including Reality Television, Moeblob anime series, Wolverine Publicity, rehashing/retcons of established franchises, Modern Art and more. Eugh, modern art.


*Inb4 anyone else coins the term.