Rock Band 3 isn't a bad game by any standards.
It's just a end of an era of my life I'll probably, regrettably, call one of the best.
For those out of the loop, publisher Activision decreed last May the "indefinite hiatus" of the Guitar Hero franchise. After the disastrous sales of Guitar Hero 5 and Warriors of Rock, both very excellent games in their own right, the writing appeared on the walls.
While Rock Band 3's downloadable songs aren't ending anytime soon, the big game releases likely are. RB developer Harmonix, arguably the saviors of rhythm gaming in America, have said they feel the franchise has reached its inevitable conclusion by teaching you to play guitar.
In short, they're done.
While we couldn't have expected the plastic instrument bubble to last, after all what grown person wants all those toys hanging around the living room, I still quietly weep since this game marks the last, dying gasp of a fad.
Every decision and change made to Rock Band 3 isn't just a misstep, it feels akin to active attempt to sabotage their own creation. I'm reminded of the agitated musician with a one hit wonder: Detesting their creation but savvy enough to recognize their one source of revenue. Alien Ant Farm where art thou?
Let's run down the ways RB3 blew it:
You can't assign characters to a certain instrument
You can't play with 5 players.
You can't play online in any real capacity unless you know at least 60 other people who own the game.
They only created two new venue assets for the entire game. We have played the same backgrounds for over 5 years at this point what was your art team doing?!
Oh wait I know what they did: they created terrible patterns on your note highway to distract you while you have a streak going. They also spent an awful long time finding ways to completely break character animations and remove any sort of personality from your dancing marionettes.
There's no competitive modes at all.
There's no way to filter DLC from core content easily while browsing songs online. Let me tell you how much fun it is to try browsing close to 700 songs with only 10 at a time on the screen. Spolier: it's not.
They added an instrument no one cared for or cares to buy.
The Vocals engine/hit detection system was imported from the Beatles, which wasn't good to begin with. Hope you like humming or singing the complete opposite of the lead signer.
Enough of the shit train through, what are some positives?
The game can boast of a fairly solid setlist with a few heavy hitters such as Space Oddity and 20th Century Boy, but then they completely have to act like Boston hipsters and throw in The Power of Love or Rock Lobster.
You know who likes singing or playing these songs? People who hate themselves.
You can now make fat characters and unlock clothing through a fun series of challenges, an idea they experimented with in Rock Band 2. As with Rock Band 2, however, your fun with these COD-style missions will be short lived as they won't generate any new ones or incorporate any DLC going forward. Once you've bought everything up to Rock Band 3's release, you've unlocked it all.
The Pro Mode drums are a worthwhile addition to actually make drumming semi-realistic and the harmonies do much to expand the Vocals gameplay.
At the end of the day though, Harmonix phoned in the entire experience. I remember listening to a Harmonix podcast wherein a lead designer rambled on about ideas for a 7th star rating, mini-cutscenes and other small touches to the game for a splash of personality.
Shame they cut all of that and we instead got a game akin to Nirvana's self-titled best of album. It open's with a smash then leaves us with half-hearted repeats and the sinking feeling that it's over.
6/28/11
But I just couldn't tell her so
Reading about the controversial board game/museum piece "Train" has reignited a old debate within myself: the narralogical game versus the ludological game.
For those not in the know, Train is a game designed about loading passengers onto trains and making sure they reach their destination. Of course, since it's a board game, most of the pieces are fairly abstracted to yellow pegs and some box cars.
When you play it, you find out their destinations are all concentration camps. Thus, you're left to either win by going through with it or simply rage quitting from the actual, physical, game itself.
Obviously, if it gets a full release it'll be an absolute blast to pull out at a party.
Sarcasm aside, I do applaud a designer for taking authorial control to such an extreme. Hell, you can't even play this game without her present.
To a certain extent, her game is what I had proposed months before with having location based "narrative devices" that allow a group of users to generate a story. While her game has certainly stirred up the "artgames" crowd, as insufferable as they are, most gamers have already been complicit in an experience she has proposed for years.
Take, for instance, every single player game released ever. As much as she'll try and push the heavy-handed idea of her games being true personality tests, all games ultimately require you to sacrifice the control of yourself in order to abide by their rules.
Now if she had made a game with the ability to generate win conditions dynamically via an in game mechanic, I might start listening.
For those not in the know, Train is a game designed about loading passengers onto trains and making sure they reach their destination. Of course, since it's a board game, most of the pieces are fairly abstracted to yellow pegs and some box cars.
When you play it, you find out their destinations are all concentration camps. Thus, you're left to either win by going through with it or simply rage quitting from the actual, physical, game itself.
Obviously, if it gets a full release it'll be an absolute blast to pull out at a party.
Sarcasm aside, I do applaud a designer for taking authorial control to such an extreme. Hell, you can't even play this game without her present.
To a certain extent, her game is what I had proposed months before with having location based "narrative devices" that allow a group of users to generate a story. While her game has certainly stirred up the "artgames" crowd, as insufferable as they are, most gamers have already been complicit in an experience she has proposed for years.
Take, for instance, every single player game released ever. As much as she'll try and push the heavy-handed idea of her games being true personality tests, all games ultimately require you to sacrifice the control of yourself in order to abide by their rules.
Now if she had made a game with the ability to generate win conditions dynamically via an in game mechanic, I might start listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)