RBN DLC for 09/22 + New RBNStuff features

atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
edited September 2011 in The Rock Band Network
Yes, RBNStuff is back with a fully functioning, up-to-date website. We've added a feature that will need help from the community, though.

On the upcoming songs page on RBNStuff.com, we've added ratings to the side. These ratings take into consideration many aspects of a song. Not just how good it sounds. Also, it is not genre-dependent. While I know most people here are tired of metal, metal songs will be rated as they are: metal songs. (just an example)

Ratings on RBNStuff's upcoming songs page will be HEAVILY effected by community input (either on these threads or on the RBNStuff forums, probably mostly on these threads). So if you've downloaded and played any of these songs (or know any problems with them), let me know on here and I'll take it into consideration.

This will allow those browsing songs to see the list as more than just a list of songs, but a list that has a correlation between quality songs and noticeability. I'm hoping that this encourages authoring groups to put up preview videos, as songs w/o preview videos will most likely be not rated upon release.

Anyways, here is the up-to-date list of songs that should be available next Thursday: rbnstuff.com/music/upcoming

Comments

  • SideshowNSideshowN Rising Star
    edited September 2011
    There is a purchase link for "Heavens Calling" on RBN Releases but for some odd reason "Children Surrender" and "Perfect Weapon" links dont exist anymore on RBN Releases. At least I dont see them. Anyhow, I got the info from The Authority Inc authoring groups youtube page regarding them finally being released this Thursday after the links being available for several weeks.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    We got a fantastic track by Halcyon Way called "Mouth Without a Head". Whether or not you are interested in buying it on RB3, it's a good listen in and of itself.

    full list: http://rbnstuff.com/music/upcoming
  • Bront20Bront20 The Writing's on the Wall
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4502015 said:
    We got a fantastic track by Halcyon Way called "Mouth Without a Head". Whether or not you are interested in buying it on RB3, it's a good listen in and of itself.

    full list: http://rbnstuff.com/music/upcoming
    That does sound good.

    BTW, I do warn against rating charts based off of the video. There's a few songs I've found are more fun than the video suggests (or less fun in some cases).
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    Bront20;4502472 said:
    That does sound good.

    BTW, I do warn against rating charts based off of the video. There's a few songs I've found are more fun than the video suggests (or less fun in some cases).

    That's why community reviews from people who have played the song will have a significant effect on the website's rating. I can't download all of them.
  • Cipher_PeonCipher_Peon I don't get it at all
    edited September 2011
    Sorry if I'm asking a stupid or old or irrelevant question, but I was wondering...
    Why isn't That Authoring Group in your list of authors? Aren't they authors too... ;_;
  • MegaIronDragonDethMegaIronDragonDeth Post Ratio > 3 a Day
    edited September 2011
    The Rotting Christ track looks awesome. I especially love the part at 3:30 on guitar.
  • FlyGuyLXIFlyGuyLXI Headl!ner
    edited September 2011
    Please, remove the rating system, because I could not disagree more with them.
  • kingtonyxkingtonyx Unofficial
    edited September 2011
    FlyGuyLXI;4503104 said:
    Please, remove the rating system, because I could not disagree more with them.
    It's his site, why should he remove it because YOU don't like them? Hell if you had your way 95% of the tracks would have a 1.
  • FlyGuyLXIFlyGuyLXI Headl!ner
    edited September 2011
    kingtonyx;4503106 said:
    It's his site, why should he remove it because YOU don't like them? Hell if you had your way 95% of the tracks would have a 1.

    The reason I took offense is because the way it's being represented, it's almost like he's shoving their opinions down our throats.

    And even if he's going to rate, at least be descriptive to why the rating.
  • bjyaritzbjyaritz Road Warrior
    edited September 2011
    Any words on new Free Spirit tracks? I know they are in the pipeline, just thought we might see a new one this week.
  • SeymourDuncan17SeymourDuncan17 Road Warrior
    edited September 2011
    FlyGuyLXI;4503109 said:
    ... it's almost like he's shoving their opinions down our throats.

    He gives a number/10. And done.

    I'm not seeing the problem.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    A few things about the rating system:

    - I never rate below a 5 or above an 8. Any ratings past those will have to be done by community response (for example, if I make something an 8 because it's got good charts, good playability, and nothing that would make it a bad RB track, and you guys all go "THIS SONG IS FRIGGIN AMAZING", I'll probably bump it to a 9 or 10. If I make something a 5 or 6 because there are things wrong with it, and you guys go "Wow, this has a terrible chart", I'll probably bump it to a 3 or a 4.
    - The ratings are not based on how good the song is, but rather on things like notability, playability, and interest. For example, Nugget Man would get rated highly because it's humorous. We don't get a lot of those. Whereas a lot of the Free Spirit songs (while they are all fantastic plays imo) might not get rated so high because there are a lot of them.

    I'm hoping this clears the air on some of that. The ratings are for people to take notice of songs that stand out from the rest.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    Cipher_Peon;4503093 said:
    Sorry if I'm asking a stupid or old or irrelevant question, but I was wondering...
    Why isn't That Authoring Group in your list of authors? Aren't they authors too... ;_;

    I'd love to answer this.

    We have the list of authors based on the authors that are involved with the site. The first step for the authors is to give me that information, the next step is to register on the forums, and the step after that is to post announcements on the news page. Some authors have gone through all steps (Chart Toppers, Gigakoops, etc) while others haven't gone through the first one (RockGamer, That Authoring Group).

    Last I heard from That Authoring Group, they plan on getting started, but haven't yet. If you want to see them on there, I'd suggest emailing them about it.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    AND one more notice (hate to triple post)

    We got "Diana Don't Slow Down" by Gary Dean Smith
    Great song to listen to (for some) but I'm not sure how well it translates into RB format. We'll have to see a playthrough video, so hopefully one of those shows up eventually.
  • DragoonXDDragoonXD Road Warrior
    edited September 2011
    Offbeat usually has previews up for their songs the day they hit the store.
  • FlyGuyLXIFlyGuyLXI Headl!ner
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4503172 said:

    - The ratings are not based on how good the song is, but rather on things like notability, playability, and interest.
    atalkingfish;4501621 said:
    These ratings take into consideration many aspects of a song. Not just how good it sounds.
    Based on what you've said earlier that felt like the message I was receiving from you.

    If it's solely about chart playability, then that's fine, since that's less subjective.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    FlyGuyLXI;4503190 said:
    Based on what you've said earlier that felt like the message I was receiving from you.

    If it's solely about chart playability, then that's fine, since that's less subjective.

    Well, obviously how the song sounds has something to do with it. Because songs that are great to listen to are often more fun to play than other songs with similar charts and less sound quality.

    For example, "Internal Cannon" is not my type of music, and it probably never will be, but for its genre, it's a pretty good song. That helps its rating.

    "Mouth Without a Head" isn't my type of RBN DLC, and I probably won't get it. But it's one heck of a good song. I mean, I've listened to the playthrough video 3 times so far. I want people to know that songs like these are coming through so they don't miss them. Because for guitar, it'd be a really fantastic song to play.

    EDIT: To clarify, though, the songs listenability will only come into consideration if I feel it effects the playability of the song. Some songs sound great but suck to play and vice versa. In those situations, the playability will come before listenability.
  • FlyGuyLXIFlyGuyLXI Headl!ner
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4503193 said:
    For example, "Internal Cannon" ...for its genre, it's a pretty good song.

    And you're basing this off what?
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    FlyGuyLXI;4503198 said:
    And you're basing this off what?

    The majority of screamo/metal songs that come through the RBN.

    As I said before, these ratings are based on community review. right now, I, personally, am only 1/3rd of the vote. Every community review (even as simple as "this song is fun" or "don't buy this") is taken into effect and that fractions goes to 1/4 to 1/5 and so on and so forth.

    If you have opinions about songs, lemme hear them. Otherwise, move along.
  • FlyGuyLXIFlyGuyLXI Headl!ner
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4503214 said:
    The majority of screamo/metal songs that come through the RBN.

    You see, this is one of the problems I have with the general Rock Band audience with metal and how they react to this.

    It really saddens me that when people think about metal, they think about screaming, growling, breakdowns and scatterbrained riffs with the occasional clean vocals that come at the chorus. That's just metalcore, a sub-category of metal.

    Metal sure didn't start out screaming and wailing on guitars as Black Sabbath represented. In fact there are so many different metal categories now that the only thing that defines metal overall is the crunchy distortion put into the instruments.

    There's power metal with clean vocals, emphasis on melodies.

    Black metal with raw production values, intense distortion and drumming blended with harsh, screaming vocals.

    Doom metal, slow tempo music with thick instrumental sounds, might I add we have none of in RBN as I said so many other times before.

    Folk metal, death metal, speed metal, thrash metal, neo-classical metal, sludge metal, gothic metal, it goes on.

    But, the fact that you base metal on the equivalent on basing metalcore and how you put it on the same level is really unacceptable.

    And might I add:

    Screamo is a punk genre, it has nothing to do with metal.
  • decyferdownrocksdecyferdownrocks Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    FlyGuyLXI;4503198 said:
    And you're basing this off what?
    August Burns Red is easily the best working band in the metalcore scene right now. Metalcore is pathetic, it's all generic 4/4 with alternating scream and clean vocals with albums that usually just sound like one continuous song, all the way through. August Burns Red differentiates themselves and their technical prowess is fantastic.
  • DragoonXDDragoonXD Road Warrior
    edited September 2011
    Memphis May Fire is the only metalcore band I can stand to listen to outside of Rock Band, and I quite like them. We need some stuff from their new album.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    FlyGuyLXI;4503217 said:
    You see, this is one of the problems I have with the general Rock Band audience with metal and how they react to this.

    It really saddens me that when people think about metal, they think about screaming, growling, breakdowns and scatterbrained riffs with the occasional clean vocals that come at the chorus. That's just metalcore, a sub-category of metal.

    Metal sure didn't start out screaming and wailing on guitars as Black Sabbath represented. In fact there are so many different metal categories now that the only thing that defines metal overall is the crunchy distortion put into the instruments.

    There's power metal with clean vocals, emphasis on melodies.

    Black metal with raw production values, intense distortion and drumming blended with harsh, screaming vocals.

    Doom metal, slow tempo music with thick instrumental sounds, might I add we have none of in RBN as I said so many other times before.

    Folk metal, death metal, speed metal, thrash metal, neo-classical metal, sludge metal, gothic metal, it goes on.

    But, the fact that you base metal on the equivalent on basing metalcore and how you put it on the same level is really unacceptable.

    And might I add:

    Screamo is a punk genre, it has nothing to do with metal.

    Seriously? You took one sentence out of that entire thing to focus on?

    I think I just realized how much time I wasted just now. Holy cow.

    Anyways, the ratings are there, whether you want to use them or not. Do not use them as an indicator for how good it is as a song, but for how good it is as RBN DLC.
  • Bront20Bront20 The Writing's on the Wall
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4503172 said:
    A few things about the rating system:

    - I never rate below a 5 or above an 8. Any ratings past those will have to be done by community response (for example, if I make something an 8 because it's got good charts, good playability, and nothing that would make it a bad RB track, and you guys all go "THIS SONG IS FRIGGIN AMAZING", I'll probably bump it to a 9 or 10. If I make something a 5 or 6 because there are things wrong with it, and you guys go "Wow, this has a terrible chart", I'll probably bump it to a 3 or a 4.
    - The ratings are not based on how good the song is, but rather on things like notability, playability, and interest. For example, Nugget Man would get rated highly because it's humorous. We don't get a lot of those. Whereas a lot of the Free Spirit songs (while they are all fantastic plays imo) might not get rated so high because there are a lot of them.

    I'm hoping this clears the air on some of that. The ratings are for people to take notice of songs that stand out from the rest.
    Ugh, that sounds like a horrible way to do it. It'd be better to either let it be a publicly open vote, or simply take the numbers from DLC Quickplay (which does band ratings as a combo of the instrument ratings, which works pretty well.) That way it's more of a community rating rather than your personal ratings.

    Still, your site you rules.
  • Cipher_PeonCipher_Peon I don't get it at all
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4503176 said:
    I'd love to answer this.

    We have the list of authors based on the authors that are involved with the site. The first step for the authors is to give me that information, the next step is to register on the forums, and the step after that is to post announcements on the news page. Some authors have gone through all steps (Chart Toppers, Gigakoops, etc) while others haven't gone through the first one (RockGamer, That Authoring Group).

    Last I heard from That Authoring Group, they plan on getting started, but haven't yet. If you want to see them on there, I'd suggest emailing them about it.
    Thank you for answering my question in a really polite way :D
    I was actually worried that there was some behind the scenes meanness going on ><
    Glad that isn't the case :)

    And keep up the good work, man. You're doing a damn good job.
  • atalkingfishatalkingfish Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    Bront20;4503273 said:
    Ugh, that sounds like a horrible way to do it. It'd be better to either let it be a publicly open vote, or simply take the numbers from DLC Quickplay (which does band ratings as a combo of the instrument ratings, which works pretty well.) That way it's more of a community rating rather than your personal ratings.

    Still, your site you rules.
    I think you think that I'm putting more work into than you think. It's not that hard for me to mentally keep tabs of all the songs as they go through. I hear things about them, if I hear enough, I change the rating. Anything below a 5 is a no-buy (which rarely happens) and anything above an 8 is a definite-buy (which also doesn't happen too often). Then it's just separating the "well, we've heard this before" from the "hey, this is new", which is what I do normally when looking through the songs.

    It's really nothing too technical, but does require outside reviews (whether they be actual reviews or casual feedback, which also happens anyway)
    Cipher_Peon;4503283 said:
    Thank you for answering my question in a really polite way :D
    I was actually worried that there was some behind the scenes meanness going on ><
    Glad that isn't the case :)

    And keep up the good work, man. You're doing a damn good job.

    Oh, certainly not. I, for one, am a great fan of That Authoring Group (AND RockGamer Studios, for that matter). They both contribute a lot to the RBN, which is why it's shame they haven't gotten involved yet.
  • BlasteroidsBlasteroids Road Warrior
    edited September 2011
    Personally I do not like the rating bits as they currently stand. Things like ratings should be user generated. But I can learn to ignore them ;) If you are going to continue with this style of rating then, as someone else said, at least give reasons why. Even if you just quote people from here, it would be better than nothing.

    There is a huge amount that could be done to get the community more into the releases, but at the moment I am unsure which direction you are wanting to take this on that site. Will you be keeping a history of releases? For example, I was away for a week and had to go elsewhere to find out what was released. Should you not be aiming at centralising all of the RBN releases, or are you only interested in the next 6-7 days?

    Anyway, back on topic: I purchased (My first and probably last) early track, 'Halcyon Way - Mouth Without a Head'. I am not over keen on their other songs, and this is the first one of theirs that I have purchased. It is really good fun on Pro Drums and certainly worth the 80msp. The first 3-4 minutes are pretty slow on drums, but the last couple of minutes certainly makes up for that :)
  • ThatLattyThatLatty Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    I don't mean to be offensive, but RBNStuff is a horrible website.

    First of all, as a web developer and programmer, the code is literally disgusting. It's not even near HTML compliant, it's missing the HTML tag, the head tag doesn't enclose all the head content, it uses javascript where CSS would do, there is no separation of style from content, it uses tables for layout! Seriously. Tables. For. Layout. This is just the tip of the iceberg in a cacophony of poor design. This means the site will be lucky to display correctly everywhere, and from a usability standpoint it's horrible. There are a great many issues there.

    I'm sorry, if you are offering your services as a web developer professionally, I can only hope that no one hires you. There are no words for quite how terrible that website is.

    Beyond that, the site is awkward to navigate, slightly ugly, and the whole ratings thing? I don't think anyone would agree with you becoming an arbiter over RBN songs. Allow community ratings, or do editorial reviews and make it clear you are doing so - don't try and make out they are objective when they are not. The content across the site is pretty weak.

    Overall, I would be very wary of supporting the site in general - there are better resources for the RBN, and this is not a good choice, it has too many problems.

    Again, I don't want to come off as insulting, I know I've been harsh here - but the reality is the site is just that bad. I'm sure the intentions were good, but you need to learn a lot more about web design, and I question the validity of the content on the site too.
  • ZemanatorZemanator Rising Star
    edited September 2011
    atalkingfish;4503293 said:



    Oh, certainly not. I, for one, am a great fan of That Authoring Group (AND RockGamer Studios, for that matter). They both contribute a lot to the RBN, which is why it's shame they haven't gotten involved yet.

    Noble's been slackin', i'll get on him about it :P


    @thelatty: you ARE trying to be insulting, trying to claim you aren't doesn't mean you aren't. stating the negative without offering a way to improve it directly, is l for being insulting. offering criticism and suggestions to improve the site, is helpful. While the site isn't the best, it is helpful for what it was meant to be for.
  • ThatLattyThatLatty Opening Act
    edited September 2011
    Zemanator;4503370 said:
    Noble's been slackin', i'll get on him about it :P


    @thelatty: you ARE trying to be insulting, trying to claim you aren't doesn't mean you aren't. stating the negative without offering a way to improve it directly, is being insulting. offering criticism and suggestions to improve the site, is helpful.

    This is what I mean, I wasn't trying to purely be negative, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. My problem with the site's code is simple: the whole thing needs to be rewritten conforming to web standards and making sure it's well designed. Going into more detail than that would mean teaching the entire process of web design in a post, as there is barely anything right on the site. The site, as it stands, is a tangled mess of code that isn't right in any sense. As I said in my original post, the ratings should either be community-based or clearly marked as editorial content, as a review of the song, not trying to pretend to be some objective scale.

    I am offering suggestions here, it's just not a suggestion that sounds very nice. The reality is, the site is really that bad it needs to be completely re-done, and atalkingfish needs to learn a lot more about web development before that. It sounds like I'm being negative without giving ways to improve it because it's something with nothing positive to say about it, and the only way to improve it is to virtually re-write the entire thing.

    This is why I tried to clarify I wasn't trying to be insulting. Or rather, I wasn't doing it out of malice. It's probably insulting to say that atalkingfish has made a very poor site, but it's also true. What I was saying was I didn't say it to be cruel - I said it because I can't recommend anyone support a site like that.

    Look, I've been in that position. When I first started with web development, I made the odd horrible site and people told me the truth they were basically unsalvageable. Yeah, at the time, I took offence and thought they were just being cruel, but the reality was they were right, looking back, I can see that. Web development is a very easy thing to do very, very wrong - and I'm not going to just sit here at let it slide, even if it's not particularly nice for the person that made the site - in the long run, it's actually the best thing for them. Sometimes, there is nothing good to say about something, and that doesn't mean you just shouldn't say anything.

    The problem is, if you don't know much about web design, you just look at that site and see something that works. I see something that won't work on different browsers, different platforms, won't work with screen readers for blind people, and won't work if you disable CSS or javascript, I see a tangled mess of code that is hard to update, that mixes style with content, that is hard for search engines to index, that doesn't offer semantic content, that uses depreciated, outdated and incorrect methods of doing things. So to you, I sound like I'm being horrible about something that looks fine, but it's really not the case.

    I would love to see a good resource for RBN tracks, and it'd be great if that could be RBNStuff - but without a lot of changes, it definitely can't be.
Sign In or Register to comment.