
In case you didn't know, E3 is going on right now. There are many videogames coming out, I guess? Halo 17 in stores this fall, y'all! But today we're hear to talk what went wrong with Rock Band and Guitar Hero, which is the subject of a new feature in Kill Screen, the new-ish music video magazine. It's an interesting piece, that considers the indie vs. conglomerate considerations between Guitar Hero and Rock Band, and how Rock Band will survive, alone, for the foreseeable future. Read the whole thing over here. Here's a sampling:
Activision, being a multimedia conglomerate looking to make oodles of money, did what any self-respecting media conglomerate with a highly lucrative property does: it spat out a nominally new and improved copy of what worked previously. At first, the modifications made to Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock seemed minor; there was a little more polish in the presentation, some serious product placement, and the seemingly unobtrusive presence of a few notable rock legends. Once you progressed further into the game, however, shit got silly: the momentum-killing boss battles to progress (and unlock) the next batch of songs, the "interpretation" of certain beloved tracks, and, of course, the absurd spike in difficulty level. Never mind that Dragonforce nonsense; as someone vaguely skilled at messing with a plastic guitar, the run of bullshit that kicks off GH3's version of "Holiday In Cambodia" was the sort of miracle mile that I never wanted to run. Activision needlessly turned a challenging yet enjoyable gaming/music emulation experience into the fake-music equivalent of Ninja Gaiden II. Of course, the game is the best-selling rhythm game to date, so they did something right. That "right," however, might simply have been getting the game out on the market a few weeks before Harmonix could get Rock Band on shelves.
That Ninja Gaiden II reference is the best comparison for Guitar Hero I've ever read.