Daniel Hirshleifer reports:
''You know a game series has finally made it when it gets a corporate sponsorship. Of course, with most of the game publishers being a part of one mega-conglomerate or another, perhaps that's not as big of a deal as it sounds. But when a series like Guitar Hero starts signing worldwide superstar bands to be featured in their own games, you know that the title has become a massive hit. And so Guitar Hero introduces us to what will be the first of many licensed band specific games: Guitar Hero Aerosmith.
Guitar Hero Aerosmith is not a sequel to Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. It is, at best, an expansion pack, and, at worst, a shameless money grab. I wouldn't be so disparaging if the game wasn't listed at full price ($59.99) while offering only 31 tracks and 10 bonus songs (most of which aren't worth your time, as I will explain later). Also, the developers at Neversoft took almost no time to address the various blunders that marred the last Guitar Hero game and made it such an inferior entry in the series.
Guitar Hero Aerosmith has six venues, each of which the real band actually played in at one point. Each venue is introduced by the band, who reminisces for roughly 30 seconds before you're catapulted into the set. Now, I enjoy Aerosmith, but I'm by no means an expert on the band, and the members kept referring to events that sounded infinitely more interesting than the high school they played their first show at. It's a shame Neversoft didn't give the band a little more time to talk about their own history.''
Neversoft's Brian Bright has told GamerZines that Activision has no plans to launch any band-specific Guitar Hero games this year, telling us that "this year they (Activision) really wanted to just focus on two games," presumably the recently announced Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock and DJ Hero 2.
lol now theres some good news seeing how all those band specific games didnt fair much
Craig Hasselback writes: "Activision just continues finding new ways to go from the popular publisher that stayed the course and rose to number one, to being the big jerk that is too big for their own britches as my grandpa would say. Since becoming the number publisher, Activision has done everything possible to piss off gamers."
Well sadly, until the average gamer realizes that they are getting screwed over, Activision is going to be number 1 for a while(as much as I hate to say it).........
... it seems they can.
You need to get the message across with your wallet!
If you LOVE gaming, and if you HATE the way Activision is doing business: DON'T BUY ACTIVISION GAMES (or buy them used) and certainly DON'T BUY THEIR DLC!
It's THAT simple!
Amen. Honestly all the major pubs are starting to become jacked up. Take-Two with the DLC on BioShock 2's disc. EA with selling "DLC" that unlocks content in sports games instead of playing to earn it.
They're all borderline A-holes
Overcharging is the problem. Dragon Age Origins is one of my favorite games but the dlc is overpriced. dlc should cost a few dollars or it should be free.
GamerNode's Mike Murphy writes..."There are several different elements that go into a game when it is made. Several factors that developers need to consider when creating their next product for the gaming masses. Factors that determine how the game looks, sounds, feels, and plays. These aspects are dissected and analyzed by reviewers in magazines, newspapers, and websites to determine whether games are bad, good, or great.
Many people wonder just which elements are the most important. Do good graphics trump poor level design? Can a great soundtrack make up for gameplay lapses? Can an unforgettable story be remembered if the main characters faces look like blocks? I have my own belief and theory on just what aspects of a game are the most important and which among them is most important of all."
I have to say that I really disagree with this column. It's a pet-peeve of mine when someone tries to separate all these elements to deduce a score out of it. SomethingAwful had a great review of Deadly Premonition where they admit that when looked at in isolation, each individual component wasn't that good. But taken as a whole, it blended together very well. Sure, I like good graphics, but if a game has poor ones but is good in every other capacity, you stop looking at them early on. Design and gameplay is more important, but what would you say of a game like Killer 7 that has poor straight-forward repetitive design and gameplay, a confusing story, yet is consistently intriguing? You have to look at how these elements come together as that's what counts.