The Beatles: Rock Band

Lyall said:
Actually, those are both valid points. I for one agree and think Kurt Cobain is not only incredibly overrated but talentless to boot. The reason I didn't include the other ones is because I never played GH3 or WT. Well, I played WT long enough to play the Tool songs. I only used Cobain for reference because its been on Kotaku's front page like, 3 times in the past week and there's a lawsuit about it. Anywhoo:
Click to expand...

See and the fucked up part is we know Activision wasn't at fault here, considering how far they went out of their way in GHWT to accommodate Tool and Hendrix.

In the same time it took for RB2 to eventually get released, there were something like 3 or 4 GH games in the same window. (3, WT, Aerosmith I think, and I think Rock the 80s but I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about that one). I'd rather pay for DLC to get music I like then see a franchise get shoveled out annually.
Click to expand...

Rock the 80s was released by Harmonix (not Neversoft) prior to Harmonix's transfer over to MTV Games to work on Rock Band.

GH3 was released against RB1, so comparing it to RB2's launch is really unfair.

GHWT was the competitor to RB2 (and it kinda sucked a lot), and Aerosmith was released in between GH3 and GHWT.

So 2 games, not 3-4.

Also, note that Aerosmith was the first "band-centric game" and introduced many of the concepts that were expanded upon and improved greatly in the fairly excellent Metallica and The Beatles games. while it kinda failed in its own right it paved the way for much better and more fleshed out experiences.


edit: I'd also like to note that the GH sequels have done a much better job bringing along new features than the handful of RB ones have.
 
Yeah, I'm not trying to turn this into a RB vs GH debate, I was just trying to point out maintaining the integrity of the artists is why none of the Beatles stuff is cross-compatible.
 
What are you talking about? They license their music out for profit.

We pay money for the license.

What happens beyond that point is none of their fucking business.

If I'm a painter and I sell a painting, and someone wants to take that painting home, cut a hole in it and fuck it, that's their right. When I took the money I lost the say.
 
Then its up to you to sell your painting to people who you expect to treat it well. That's what happened in the Beatles game: The rights were only handed over after Harmonix promised to treat it well. There were numerous sessions where they had Yoko and Harrison's wife and son and Paul himself show up and go over things, where they had final say in how people moved, or what things looked like, or how it all came together. This isn't just "Play these songs, grind achievements," its an actual showing of the Beatles history and is treated with a palpable reverence.

Now, whether or not you think its earned, or deserved, or worthwhile is your own bag. If you want to fuck a painting, look elsewhere, because that's not the game they made available.
 
You guys need to remember this game exists for us, the consumer, not the Beatles. They're the ones getting paid. We're the ones paying. If it's decided that they come first, before us, and they can't be reasoned with, and one of the billion or so other bands out there isn't contacted instead, then why should we buy the game?

I'm not saying the things that you're saying are factually inaccurate. I'm just pointing out you're taking the position of, 'there was an explanation, so it's alright!'

Yeah, obviously there was an explanation. This game exists in a form to maximize profit for the company. Which as their perogative is fine, but if the product as a result is low in value to us as a result, we should move on and spend other things with our money.
 
I understand, this is a matter of personal opinion in the literal sense.

I think the purchase was a fair one, I got what I wanted and feel the price was right. I'll probably get most of the DLC and even if they get my money, that's fine too. I'm purchasing it because I feel its worth it.

The game was designed for people who wanted to experience the band and music without being all GRINDAN SCORES AND STREAK COMBOS that hardcore gamers follow. If not being able to whammy or have the Beatles play Iron Maiden or have your rocker from RB play Helter Skelter drives you off, you're not the demographic they're selling to. Which is also fine.
 
As stated, I don't give a damn about anything but core gameplay and song selection. I play on medium, I'd only play with friends locally, and most of them play on easy. I don't know what half of the features discussed on these RB/GH threads even mean. To me it's all about listening to the music and killing time with friends who are all well aware of the fact we're not actually playing music.

To me, switching back and forth disc is a major pain in the ass. I don't give a fuck about the venue or the avatars of the rockers. I just want simple and painless. I just want songs I want to play. I don't want to have to pay $60 a year, rather I want to ber able to pick and choose from every available song when I've got the RB1 disc in. In my heart of hearts I have to imagine all of you really want the same thing. While the new features may hold some interest I don't think any of you would pay $60 for them or would buy every song on each disc if they were available individually.

Obviously, I'm not entitled to what I want. Admittedly, I'm bitching. However every year the "line" of what's acceptable behavior for these gaming companies is lowered and I'm just providing a commentary on it. The games are getting better, no questions asked, just, it's really not what it could be.
 
RB Beetles isn't cross-compatible with previous games because Apple corp said it couldn't be or else they wouldn't hand over the license. Don't blame Apple, blame the people who want to play the game enough to agree to buy it as it is.

Then again, being the most popular band of all time probably means people would've bought it regardless.

At least the RB franchise games export songs forward, and at 59.99 you can think of it like a really big song pack for really cheep.
 
I think the big reason Rock Band had to be left as a platform and required a sequel was squarely because of GH decided to release their own version of Rock Band. If WT didn't add drums and vocals I don't think RB would have needed to expand.

When RB came out, it was a definitive "band" game experience. When Activision decided to jump on it and release their own, RB needed to step up what they offered in order to continue to be on top, arguably or not. RB2 and WT were released in the same month, iirc, and remember that all of the DLC AND 55/58 of the songs from RB1 could be licensed over for like, 5 bucks on xboxlive. WT came out and the tiny little handful of DLC GH had was, I think, unusable. When GH5 came out, they featured a similar thing to be able to port over WT music. Of the list of about 80, only something like 33 worked. I heard there was supposed to be a patch or something, but I lost track of the story.

RB could have stood on one disc for their platform, but why bother letting your competition use your idea and improve upon it without retaliating?
 
Last edited:
RB2 was necessary. RB1 had lots of flaws, the most extreme of which actually made the game almost unplayable for people with a large amount of DLC - at the time about 200+ songs. The huge number of songs slowed the song selection menus to a crawl.

And YES, they did issue patches to try to fix the menu issues. They didn't help for long.

edit: there was also stuff like no hyperspeed or no fail that hurt the game's overall playability some.
 
Tag, you need to calm down. A LOT.
 
i bought it for rockband it self bc where i went they didnt have rockband 2 and my wife wanted rockband so i just bought it she likes the beatles one, i just bought a music pack with the music i like..... when i play the beatles one though i must admit it makes me want to trip on some acid and pretend im living on a yellow submarine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top