Well, Harmonix is known for fucking up, even their own rules. Neither I nor farottone invented the rule. Harmonix did. So either they broke their own rule on purpose, or because they didn’t give a crap. I don’t know.

I don’t think that’s a mistake, that’s probably a judgment call, as are a few other choices Harmonix made. The rules laid out set guidelines because Harmonix couldn’t trust people to make the same judgment calls without the experience they have (and people who did work for RBN know what I mean…) If a Nyx or a Bearz or a pksage break the rules, it’s probably in great taste because they know exactly how authoring works, how a song is supposed to look in game and what it should feel like playing it. The same can’t be said for inexperienced authors. For that reason, if anyone wants their songs to look like the real deal to the average user they should stick to the rules. Or not, but always remembering they are coloring outside the lines.

If they do this is a means of what they call their “creative license”, I can respect that.

If an author chooses to undercharted by a half all of their songs (for every 2 16th notes they only author 1) or chooses not to author any kick note for any song for “creative purposes”, do you respect that or do you think the chart is not what the game calls for?

Authoring rules: Because having any sort of “charting style” whatsoever is wrong.

@Froogs:

“Authoring rules: Because having any sort of “charting style” whatsoever is wrong.”

(Quoting isn’t working right now??, so this will have to do)

 

Well, to be fair, even if it is personal preference, that doesn’t change the fact that those “charting styles” can be sloppy.

 

Also, it’s wrong to imply that following the rules means you can’t have your own style. Authoring to a 16th grid on vocals is wrong, not a style, for example, because it makes it harder to play. Authoring an insanely complex guitar solo on grid but less realistically or not snapped to grid but more realistically is a style, for example.

 

I know, that’s why I said they “can be sloppy”, I did not in any way, say all personal charting styles are sloppy.

As my previous post said, I was making a point that the authoring rules are there for a reason. I am fully aware that charting styles/choices can also be good, and did not imply otherwise.

I was agreeing with you. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”>

Wait, what?

I’m unclear, you replied to me with what seemed like a refute and not an agreement. I’m running on like 1 hour of sleep so I’m a bit confused lol.

It was a refute to the message you quote, hence my beginning the sentence with “also…”, which means I was adding to your comment. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_wink.gif”>