First Review Oxm

[AMAN991]

First review at oxm IT's 9.5/10:D :D :D
:p to guitar who only got a 8.0/10

[ATVMAN29]

cool,but i was never a fan of oxm when i subscribed, so i'll take it with a grain of salt! i bet this game will be amazing

[HeXcoda]

Did the OXM review reveal any details about how the game works that we didn't know already, or it was it a general "You plays the music! It's fun! WOOO bigscore outta ten" review?

[iNiGhTmAr3]

so how come the guitar only got an 8.0/10? what was their reasoning behind that score?

[MaineDrummer]

so how come the guitar only got an 8.0/10? what was their reasoning behind that score?

Do you think there is any chance they got a pre-production model? Wouldn't make sense I know but with supplies so tight..

[tantric132]

so how come the guitar only got an 8.0/10? what was their reasoning behind that score?
If you are refering to OXM giving GHIII a 8.0...

I have that magazine with the review, and if I remember it correctly, the biggist quote out of the review goes something like this:

"GHIII goes from making you feel like a guitar hero to realizing you suck"

Pretty much, they're biggist thing was lack of originality(visually exactly like GHII pretty much) and GHIII is extremely hard compared to GHII....

[blue_dragonzero]

Do you think there is any chance they got a pre-production model? Wouldn't make sense I know but with supplies so tight..

Not the RB guitar. Guitar Hero

[dinga6969]

so how come the guitar only got an 8.0/10? what was their reasoning behind that score?

The 8.0 score is referring to guitar hero III's score from the magazine's review of that game.

[HeXcoda]

And justifiably. Other than the sloppy art direction, that was my primary problem with Gh3... too damn hard. (Try "Raining Blood" on EASY. On easy it's absolutely ridiculously screwball...) RB is more about having fun than about handing you your ass on a regular basis. It's no Heroin Hero, but it should be great for casual gaming.

Honestly, though, numeric scores are pointless. What matters more is WHY they give something a score, the reasoning behind it. Knowing those details is what makes or breaks a sale. Or, in a sane world, WOULD make or break a sale...

[tantric132]

I like the way IGN scores. They state the score in each department(can't remember them all but its like a score in Gameplay, Sound, presentation, ect ect) it states why it got that score in each department, and then it averages those scores together to form the overall score. You can find this at the ending of each written review on their site.

[HeXcoda]

Yeah, but in the end, they still rarely give anything below a 7 unless a game is terrible. It's really a 5 point scale, not a 10...

If you have to stick a number on something, I prefer X-Play's method. It uses a true average score for average games...

1 = Terrible
2 = Flawed but decent for diehard fans of the genre/franchise
3 = Average, plays okay with some high points and low points (most common)
4 = Very solid title, far more highs than lows
5 = One of the best in its genre; not perfection incarnate but extremely good.

No mid-points, just 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5... but even then it's important to hear/read the full review to know why it got that score. Sites like Metacritic and such just average and weigh the numbers and don't provide much value without reading text excerpts.

[seafisch]

Did the OXM review reveal any details about how the game works that we didn't know already, or it was it a general "You plays the music! It's fun! WOOO bigscore outta ten" review?

That's a pretty good summary. Regulars of these parts won't find anything new, but those who don't follow gamesites regularly will find some cool new tidbits. For a six (?) page article, though, it was pretty light on details.

[Ardius]

And justifiably. Other than the sloppy art direction, that was my primary problem with Gh3... too damn hard. (Try "Raining Blood" on EASY. On easy it's absolutely ridiculously screwball...) RB is more about having fun than about handing you your ass on a regular basis. It's no Heroin Hero, but it should be great for casual gaming.

Honestly, though, numeric scores are pointless. What matters more is WHY they give something a score, the reasoning behind it. Knowing those details is what makes or breaks a sale. Or, in a sane world, WOULD make or break a sale...

Hmmm, well, although I too dislike GH3 and its rediculous-ness, it does have valid motivation - getting a high score, beating the hardest challenges, generally challenging the player and the whole "braggring rights" thing.
I dont think GH3 is a rubbish game, it just has different player motivations which clearly dont interest a lot of the old GH players.
Were essentially looking at the difference between gamers here - those who look for challenges and those who play for fun. (although, a challenge can be considered fun).

Anyway, Im not disagreeing with anything you said, just pointing out that GH3 isnt necessarily a bad game like a lot of you seem to rant, its just a different style of game.

[toefer]

I like the way IGN scores.

I tend to like them too, except when they review multi-platform games, since they have separate teams doing each one, and you don't necessarily know which one is better (if you're debating on which system to get a game for). Most recently, for example, they gave Assassin's Creed a 8.5 for graphics, I think, and a 8.0 for PS3, but didn't really explain why. Other reviews have mentioned the contrast might be a bit better on the 360 version, but it has more framerate issues than the PS3 one. So go figure.

Anyway, their final score is not an average of the individual scores. The secret code for how they come up with a final score is probably in vault somewhere with the Colonel's secret recipe.

[Nilsen31]

IGN's overall rating is not an average of the ratings of each of the categories...

Theres a disclaimer in the ratings area.



X-Play, while I love Morgan Webb, I don't like their rating system...or well, maybe I don't agree with the ratings of games...

They gave Sega Rally and that Juiced game 3 out of 5... Both those games deserved a 1 or a 2 because they were terrible...if I found those on the street, I would only pick them up to sell them.

[Comedian]

Hmmm, well, although I too dislike GH3 and its rediculous-ness, it does have valid motivation - getting a high score, beating the hardest challenges, generally challenging the player and the whole "braggring rights" thing.
I dont think GH3 is a rubbish game, it just has different player motivations which clearly dont interest a lot of the old GH players.
Were essentially looking at the difference between gamers here - those who look for challenges and those who play for fun. (although, a challenge can be considered fun).

Anyway, Im not disagreeing with anything you said, just pointing out that GH3 isnt necessarily a bad game like a lot of you seem to rant, its just a different style of game.

Well said.

Did anyone else read that part of the six-page interview with Alex and get to the point where he talks about game mechanics ideas they tried out but rejected and think to themseleves "Battle Mode"? That feature in GH3 just screams of something that sounds fun in the abstract, but when you actually play it just sucks all the joy out of the song.

Not that there is anything wrong with it if you are looking for a competitive experience with some music on top of it. But if Harmonix's goal is "recreating the experience of being in a band" then it's just right out.

I really see the two franchises going in different directions from here on out - and I think that's great. The more variety to the game marketplace the better.

There are some songs in GH3 I really enjoy playing, though. Lay Down is one, and Cliffs of Dover is another. Oh, and Black Magic Woman - tons of fun. Raining Blood is one of those songs I woudn't play for fun no matter how well it is charted - just not my kind of music.

[tombrady]

gh3 imo is actually a lot easier than GH2.

GH3 has harder note charts certainly, but the window for hitting the notes is so ridiculously large, me and my friends who are pretty good at GH2 (not like 5* jordan every time on expert good, but solid) belting out phrases that we couldn't touch on GH2.

For me GH3 didn't suck because of difficulty; it sucked because of the mostly pathetic set list, and the usually TERRIBLE note charts. Fact is, the "crap" factor is up a lot in GH3...GH1 and 2 there were maybe 5-7 songs I'd play once and never again...GH3 pretty much 80% of the setlist is not fun to play at all.

I'm all for making easy songs a bit more challenging...it is a video game, not a guitar...but when the only thing they can do to up the difficulty is turn notes that are on 1 string on a guitar into alternating 3 note chords, it lacks creativity.

Gh3 also has very half assed DLC. I caved in and bought the velvet revolver pack just because I wanted to play the solo on she builds quick machines...absolutely terrible note chart...solo makes no sense, main riff is just the same thing over and over again but for some reason they thought it'd be funny if the note chart mutates every now and then despite nothing sounding different.

[LongDarkBlues]

gh3 imo is actually a lot easier than GH2.

GH3 has harder note charts certainly, but the window for hitting the notes is so ridiculously large, me and my friends who are pretty good at GH2 (not like 5* jordan every time on expert good, but solid) belting out phrases that we couldn't touch on GH2.

For me GH3 didn't suck because of difficulty; it sucked because of the mostly pathetic set list, and the usually TERRIBLE note charts. Fact is, the "crap" factor is up a lot in GH3...GH1 and 2 there were maybe 5-7 songs I'd play once and never again...GH3 pretty much 80% of the setlist is not fun to play at all.

I'm all for making easy songs a bit more challenging...it is a video game, not a guitar...but when the only thing they can do to up the difficulty is turn notes that are on 1 string on a guitar into alternating 3 note chords, it lacks creativity.


That was my experience exactly - I'm an ok GHII player - I get a little past half-way on Expert, and I was 5-starring the first 3/4 of GHIII Hard on the first try, and then to make it seem hard, the note charts just got stupid - I was getting 100% on One on Hard up until that absurd hammer-on business 5 mins in- it was like it's huge timing window couldn't keep up with its own game.

[HeXcoda]

Wheeeee going off topic, buuut... actually, I agree that high score grinding is a perfectly valid gameplay style, as is a hardcore-focused game that serves up difficult songs. It's not a game I'D play but I think it's the best way for Guitar Hero to survive against Rock Band, if it caters to that audience while RB is targeting another. Sort of a Wii60 deal, I suppose. :)

As for the actual OXM review, I managed to find a copy, and yeah, it's pretty skimpy. I guess they're figuring you're either on board and know everything already, or need to be educated about the concept. The fine details aren't useful to either camp.

[tombrady]

Wheeeee going off topic, buuut... actually, I agree that high score grinding is a perfectly valid gameplay style, as is a hardcore-focused game that serves up difficult songs. It's not a game I'D play but I think it's the best way for Guitar Hero to survive against Rock Band, if it caters to that audience while RB is targeting another. Sort of a Wii60 deal, I suppose. :)

As for the actual OXM review, I managed to find a copy, and yeah, it's pretty skimpy. I guess they're figuring you're either on board and know everything already, or need to be educated about the concept. The fine details aren't useful to either camp.
Problem is, only the last set and 1 song in the previous set are any hard on GH3...most of it is just really really terrible music with really really terrible cover songs and really really terrible note charts.

[TheREVALOProject]

We all knew here that Guitar Hero was gonna score lower.

[iNiGhTmAr3]

First review at oxm IT's 9.5/10
:p to guitar who only got a 8.0/10

sorry I didn't realize that was Guitar HERO lol
I thought they reviewed the instruments too, like how good each one is.

I saw that Guitar Hero 3 got a crappy score lol. I'm glad Rock Band got the genre right (wasn't surprised though :) )

[Stevenam81]

gh3 imo is actually a lot easier than GH2.

GH3 has harder note charts certainly, but the window for hitting the notes is so ridiculously large, me and my friends who are pretty good at GH2 (not like 5* jordan every time on expert good, but solid) belting out phrases that we couldn't touch on GH2.

For me GH3 didn't suck because of difficulty; it sucked because of the mostly pathetic set list, and the usually TERRIBLE note charts. Fact is, the "crap" factor is up a lot in GH3...GH1 and 2 there were maybe 5-7 songs I'd play once and never again...GH3 pretty much 80% of the setlist is not fun to play at all.

I'm all for making easy songs a bit more challenging...it is a video game, not a guitar...but when the only thing they can do to up the difficulty is turn notes that are on 1 string on a guitar into alternating 3 note chords, it lacks creativity.

Gh3 also has very half assed DLC. I caved in and bought the velvet revolver pack just because I wanted to play the solo on she builds quick machines...absolutely terrible note chart...solo makes no sense, main riff is just the same thing over and over again but for some reason they thought it'd be funny if the note chart mutates every now and then despite nothing sounding different.

I completely agree. I was able to ace hard and expert until I got to the last 2 or 3 tiers. Before I Forget was just plain irritating because of all the chords. I've been playing the guitar for 12 years and have been able to play One by Metallica, note for note, rhythm and lead, since 8 years ago. Playing the solo in One felt nothing like playing it for real. The beginning is just tapping, not moving my fingers so fast they cramp up. I don't like how they turn simple 1 finger 2 note bar chords in the solo (on a single fret in real life) into having to use two fingers on two buttons. It's definately starting to feel more like what it is. Playing a game.

Here is my view of it. I play through all of the filler songs to get to the good ones. At this point, I haven't really been challenged. Then I get to the good songs and they just frustrate me. I fail them due to chords where there should not be chords, and ridiculous note charts. Passing the songs starts to feel like work. By the time I pass them, I'm not even enjoying myself and am about one failed song away from smashing my guitar.

I think their difficulty and time window snowballed each other. I think what happened is this. They felt they had to follow the formula of having 4 difficulties. They should have just changed it to 3, not by just cutting expert out, but by making hard a little harder, just not as hard as the last songs on expet. They really shouldn't make easy any easier. Medium is about right. Hard feels closest to playing the songs on a real guitar. Then they are left with having to make expert. They just had a really tough time with balancing. They had to make expert harder so they just made it crazy. Then they had to increase the window because of expert being so ridiculous. That in turn made the other difficulties easier. Believe me, I was pretty concerned when I played the last songs on Hard. I was thinking, oh crap, I don't know if I want to see these on expert. And I was right...I'm about to give up on Raining Blood. It's the only song I have left on expert. Well that and the Devil Went Down to Georgia if I ever get to it. On Raining Blood, during mosh 1, it seems like the notes are coming faster than my guitar is able to register the pull offs. I know people have passed it, but it's a little overboard if you ask me.

[admanimal]

I agree about the difficulty levels. In GH1/2 I always prefer playing the songs on Expert because it is most like what I imagine playing them for real is like. But in GH3 I prefer playing on hard because expert is just annoying/frustrating in most cases and it feels like I'm just banging on some buttons.

[seafisch]

X-Play, while I love Morgan Webb, I don't like their rating system...or well, maybe I don't agree with the ratings of games...

I'm with ya there. She doesn't strike me as the brightest knife in the drawer, though, so I tend to watch it on mute. As such, I can't really speak intelligently about their rating system - other than the final numbers don't seem to match what I would expect from the games being reviewed.

[mxmarks]

I'm with ya there. She doesn't strike me as the brightest knife in the drawer, though, so I tend to watch it on mute. As such, I can't really speak intelligently about their rating system - other than the final numbers don't seem to match what I would expect from the games being reviewed.

I agree. I get the G4 podcasts, and Im always amazed that one game can be completeley destroyed in the review, but it ends with "It gets a dissapointing 3 out of 5."

and the next game gets high praise and ends with "Its a good game - 3 out of 5."

The ratings system makes zero sense whatsoever.

[Bakkster]

I'm with ya there. She doesn't strike me as the brightest knife in the drawer, though, so I tend to watch it on mute.

Check out her new video tech vidcast. She knows her stuff, but G4/X-Play are pretty bastardized.

[army_of_me]

Check out her new video tech vidcast. She knows her stuff, but G4/X-Play are pretty bastardized.

She does know her stuff. I'm also skeptical as to how much of the writing for the show, if any, Adam and Morgan can actually take credit for. It seemed like to me the quality of the show started to decline a couple years ago.