Just devote the entire game to tracks by John Petrucci, Michael Romeo, and Joe Satriani. Now, a conceptual focus on some releases like Guitar Hero: Virtuosos would be great. And likewise, even less would enjoy a Guitar Hero: Cannibal Corpse or Guitar Hero: Cattle Decapitation. While I think the idea of Guitar Hero: Iron Maiden would be great, lots of kids who don't like Metal would not enjoy it. In fact, I don't think any band really should have their own Guitar Hero. Sure Jimi was a great guitarist, but not everyone who enjoys "guitar based music" enjoys his tunes. I have to say that a Guitar Hero based on Aerosmith tracks isn't a great idea. I'd rather sound terrible on a real guitar playing the songs I like, than be forced to play Aerosmith (no matter how accurate I sound to the read thing).
#Where to buy guitar hero 3 pc for real how to#
On a side note, when are they going to develop an "advanced" Guitar Hero that will allow you to plug in a real electric guitar and teach you how to play a real instrument?.
The expense to produce and distribute a "new" game every few months must be astronomically high. Why go through all the trouble of manufacturing discs and all the packaging involved when you could just post them on a server and collect the cash? Worried about advertising and shelf space? Pay the box stores to put up glorified posters above the game aisles. It would be far more cost effective to simply sell individual songs or a suite of songs in a downloadable format. I do agree with you that selling a set of songs based on one band, and packaging it as a "new" game is a bad move. So whether Rock Band will completely outshine Guitar Hero is debatable. I'm sure there are quite a few people out there that feel the same. Personally, I would rather play (or at least pretend to play) a guitar than sing. Simply putting out a new collection of songs on disc, when they could be downloaded instead, won't cut it with a lot of gamers. If Activision or EA are going to put out a new Guitar Hero or Rock Band game, respectively, they had better improve and innovate the overall experience enough to warrant the purchase of an entirely new disc. That could also be ill advised and gamers could take it as a cash grab by Activision.
How exactly does Guitar Hero compete, or even survive, when its entire premise is replicated by Rock Band, which also gives players drums and vocals to boot? It's looking like Activision's solution may be to flood the market with Guitar Hero games - there are rumours of four separate titles this year, with the company already having confirmed two by the end of June. Then there's the larger issue of Guitar Hero being eclipsed by its more ambitious rival, Rock Band. Unfortunately, because people's musical tastes are so varied, there's simply no way to win here - no matter what band is given the spotlight, a good number of potential buyers won't go for it simply because they hate the band (unless, of course, you were to focus the game on a band that should be universally accepted as awesome, such as Tool, but I digress.). If the immediate reaction is anything to go by, Activision has clearly turned off a large portion of its Guitar Hero fanbase with a focused title. Whether or not Aerosmith does indeed suck is open to debate, but whether it's a good idea to devote an entire Guitar Hero release to one band does seem questionable at best and perhaps ill-advised at worst. Many of the comments showing up on blogs are of the "Aerosmith sucks!" variety. So far, the reaction from gamers is quite negative. Guitar Hero: Too much of a good thing? Friday, Febru| 05:22 PM ETĪctivision today announced the newest addition to the Guitar Hero franchise and this time the game focuses entirely on the songs of one band: Aerosmith.
0 kommentar(er)
