Support NeoGAF

[sneaky77]

I have a GAME voucher, and could pick up the game right now if I wanted. I'm just too lazy to go up to the nearest GAME store (Stratford) to pick a copy up. I have yet to complete GTA IV, and I'm supposed to be watching Indiana Jones later tonight.

And that goes against what I said how? You are bashing the reviewers and you have not played the game yourself... sounds kinda ridiculous to me..

 

[TheHeretic]

I have a GAME voucher, and could pick up the game right now if I wanted. I'm just too lazy to go up to the nearest GAME store (Stratford) to pick a copy up. I have yet to complete GTA IV, and I'm supposed to be watching Indiana Jones later tonight.

So it's not on the list of my priorities right now. I did enjoy the demo though. My only fear is that the demo was one of the better levels in the game, and that the rest of the game is buggy. Because the demo level isn't. It runs smooth and glitch free.

I think the question is why you are defending a game you haven't even played. Reviews may be hit and miss but they don't make a matyr of a decent game for the hell of it.

 

[SlasherJPC]

I have a feeling this game will sell like shit. The word of mouth is horrible (demo).

Well the demo reaction seems to be 50/50 on either hating it or enjoying it. Maybe not on the GAF boards but then GAF is a totally different animal.

Considering how many people in the world play games vs how many of them flaunt to review sites to determine wether they get a game or not has got to be a huge contrast. I'm sure the game will sell decently just for the fact that its A. a exclusive PS3 title, B. Its a FPS and while the genre is overcrowded there is'nt much FPS competition to speak of lately.

Now if you go over over to gamefaqs or other gaming boards you will see that there is quite a few people that are enjoying the game. While some of these might just be trying to jusitify the fact that they just bought a game that is simply average, I'm sure others that are not effected by this thought process are really truly enjoying the game.

Yet then again, with the scores the game received and the insane ammount of backlash, anyone who forms their own opinion on the game and actually likes it will be a laughing stock and ridiculed. Granted some will play it and hate it, and while rare, some will really enjoy it, but I give anyone props for actually taking the time to form their own opinion on the game and not have it spoon fed to them through the media.

I've played the game just not the full game. But I have played SoF payback and Turning Point Fall of Liberty. And just cannot fathom how IGN feels Haze is much worse than the said games. Have any of you actually played either of the fore mentioned games?

This right here is what kills me! Those games are atrocious! Haze is definetly better then those games and to see them rate those higher definetly shows there is a fault with the review system. Thats a whole other topic though.

 

[Doc Lobster]

I write for EG, and I'm reviewing Haze for another publication -- Kristan hit the nail on the head, folks. Expectations certainly factored into his assessment, and FRD's capable of more than what Haze turned out to be.

The lack of nuance, the plainness is really what gets me. Basic, static lighting. Long corridors, stairs, and sandy vehicle sections for level design. Very standard phyics and animating. Unnoticable music, and uneven voice acting. There's nothing broken about Haze -- the AI doesn't bug up, no odd graphical glitches that I noticed, but it's really just point-and-shoot with little incentive to press on. The last level may be the exception, being a bit more cinematic.

Genuinely, Turok is a better play in any facet I can think of -- exposition, level design, weapon selection, hell...bosses. And this was the game that did somersaults with the screen any time an explosion landed nearby.

But really, stop comparing review scores. Basing your impression on a relative number when you've got a thousand words' worth of explanation in front of you isn't sensible. Thanks to folks that pull quotes from the review, though.

 

[nib95]

And that goes against what I said how? You are bashing the reviewers and you have not played the game yourself... sounds kinda ridiculous to me..

I've played the game just not the full game. But I have played SoF payback and Turning Point Fall of Liberty. And just cannot fathom how IGN feels Haze is much worse than the said games. Have any of you actually played either of the fore mentioned games?

In Payback, pressing the trigger literally results in the frame rate plummeting. And aiming mechanics, visuals and controls...wow, lets not even go there. lest we forget IGN gave the game a 6.1, and the visuals a 7.5. I just think there seems to be some real inconsistency in the industry when it comes to reviewing exclusives and multi-plat games.

 

[sneaky77]

I've played the game just not the full game. But I have played SoF payback and Turning Point Fall of Liberty. And just cannot fathom how IGN feels Haze is much worse than the said games. Have any of you actually played either of the fore mentioned games?

I am not defending any of those games, nor I am bashing haze. You cannot review a full game based on a demo. But keep up the good work.

 

[TheHeretic]

I've played the game just not the full game. But I have played SoF payback and Turning Point Fall of Liberty. And just cannot fathom how IGN feels Haze is much worse than the said games. Have any of you actually played either of the fore mentioned games?

In Payback, pressing the trigger literally results in the frame rate plummeting. And aiming mechanics, visuals and controls...wow, lets not even go there. lest we forget IGN gave the game a 6.1, and the visuals a 7.5. I just think there seems to be some real inconsistency in the industry when it comes to reviewing exclusives and multi-plat games.

Do you not see the double standard in asking us if we've played those games when you haven't even played Haze? Or is the irony completely lost on you?

Game reviews are built on expectations. You don't review an independant film in the same way you review a hollywood blockbuster. Haze set the bar high and came crashing down in flames. Soldier of Fortune has always been a generic shooter with likable, graphic, damage model. The second Free Radical started talking about Haze in light of Halo they set an expectation they couldn't deliver on.

The Eurogamer review was obviously written with a knowledge of Free Radicals previous work, and its pretty evident at this point that Haze doesn't measure up.

 

[dammitmattt]

I've played the game just not the full game. But I have played SoF payback and Turning Point Fall of Liberty. And just cannot fathom how IGN feels Haze is much worse than the said games. Have any of you actually played either of the fore mentioned games?

In Payback, pressing the trigger literally results in the frame rate plummeting. And aiming mechanics, visuals and controls...wow, lets not even go there. lest we forget IGN gave the game a 6.1, and the visuals a 7.5. I just think there seems to be some real inconsistency in the industry when it comes to reviewing exclusives and multi-plat games.

You have completely ignored the fact that the reviewer for Haze doesn't represent the opinions of every reviewer on the site. You can only compare the reviews to other reviews he's done, and even after that, he still can have legitimate reasons why he enjoyed other games more than Haze.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of objective vs. subjective.

 

[SlasherJPC]

You have completely ignored the fact that the reviewer for Haze doesn't represent the opinions of every reviewer on the site. You can only compare the reviews to other reviews he's done, and even after that, he still can have legitimate reasons why he enjoyed other games more than Haze.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of objective vs. subjective.

These sites need to take into consideration their review scores for the genre their reviewing. So in IGN's instance, they should have looked at all the FPS released in the last 6-9 months like Turning Point, Turok, Blacksite, SOF PB, Jericho. Then rate it accordingly, because unfortunatly, people compare review scores and go off only the scores in many instances. I believe anything longer then that time frame really could have been reviewed on totally different standards, depending on whats been released and improvements in the technology, so makes sense if review score varied different through the years for the same genre. Yet to see something like SOF score higher then Haze... it just makes me go bug eyed.

 

[dammitmattt]

These sites need to take into consideration their review scores for the genre their reviewing. So in IGN's instance, they should have looked at all the FPS released in the last 6-9 months like Turning Point, Turok, Blacksite, SOF PB, Jericho. Then rate it accordingly, because unfortunatly, people compare review scores and go off only the scores in many instances. I believe anything longer then that time frame really could have been reviewed on totally different standards, depending on whats been released and improvements in the technology, so makes sense if review score varied different through the years for the same genre. Yet to see something like SOF score higher then Haze... it just makes me go bug eyed.

I don't agree with your reasoning. It gives no room for individual opinions. This only makes some sense if it's the same reviewer covering all of these games.

 

[nib95]

These sites need to take into consideration there review scores for the genre their reviewing. So in IGN's instance, they should have looked at all the FPS released in the last 6-9 months like Turning Point, Turok, Blacksite, Jericho. Then rate it accordingly, because unfortunately, people compare review scores and go off only the scores in many instances. I believe anything longer then that really could have been reviewed on totally different standards, depending on whats been released and improvments in the technology, so makes sense if review score varied different through the years for the same genre.

Exactly. Unfortunately no reviewer is an island. His work stands for the entire site, and will be compared to the sites previous reviews with similar games. Hence why the reviewer should have considered the scores for other similar fps his site/colleagues reviewed as you said. That's the whole point of reviews really, so you can access them to other products/games you might rather spend your money on.

A laymen looking at IGN's review scores, would see Turning Point and SoF rated higher than Haze, and possibly purchase the said games over Haze because of it. And I don't think anyone can honestly say they think the other two games are better than Haze. I personally feel Payback is bordering on unplayable purely because the frame rate from the moment the game starts is so damn inconsistent.

There needs to be some sort of guideline set by sites imo, and research on the part of the reviewer should be mandatory. They should not let politics get in the way of review scores. So what if Free Radical has a better track record and you expect more from them, or because they spouted too much PR BS, or whatever other reason, you should judge the game based purely on the merits of the quality of the game itself and nothing else. Using your sites past reviews of similar games as a benchmark. Unfortunately with IGN's reviews, 5 is not the average. It's usually around 6+. But in the case of Haze, Jeff used the entire scale, and as such, it does not line up with the rest of IGN's similar genre reviews.

The review is still your own opinion, but you have a slight guideline to act as the starting point. That guideline being where IGN (or whatever site) draws the line of average with other games of a similar nature/genre.

 

[RubberJohnny]

Christ, nib95 is a joke. This is uniformed character assassination of game critics.

 

[dammitmattt]

Exactly. Unfortunately no reviewer is an island. His work stands for the entire site, and will be compared to the sites previous reviews with similar games. Hence why the reviewer should have considered the scores for other similar fps his site/colleagues reviewed as you said. That's the whole point of reviews really, so you can access them to other products/games you might rather spend your money on.

A laymen looking at IGN's review scores, would see Turning Point and SoF rated higher than Haze, and possibly purchase the said games over Haze because of it. And I don't think anyone can honestly say they think the other two games are better than Haze. I personally feel Payback is bordering on unplayable purely because the frame rate from the moment the game starts is so damn inconsistent.

There needs to be some sort of guidline set by sites imo, and research on the part of the reviewer should be mandatory. They should not let politics get in the way of review scores. So what if Free Radical has a better track record and you expect more from them, or because they spouted too much PR BS, or whatever other reason, you should judge the game based purely on the merits of the quality of the game itself and nothing else. Using your sites past reviews of similar games as a benchmark. Unfortunately with IGN's reviews, 5 is not the average. It's usually around 6+. But in the case of Haze, Jeff used the entire scale, and as such, it does not line up with the rest of IGN's similar genre reviews.

Seriously, everything that you seem to believe in is EXACTLY what is wrong with game reviews today. Do you honestly think that Ebert pours over every review he's given each time he reviews a movie? Do you think that Rolling Stone looks at every indie rock review over the past year when reviewing the new hot indie rock album?

This writer should have free reign to write the review and give whatever damn score he feels like.

 

[Doc Lobster]

There needs to be some sort of guidline set by sites imo, and research on the part of the reviewer should be mandatory. They should not let politics get in the way of review scores. So what if Free Radical has a better track record and you expect more from them, or because they spouted too much PR BS, or whatever other reason, you should judge the game based purely on the merits of the quality of the game itself and nothing else. Using your sites past reviews of similar games as a benchmark. Unfortunately with IGN's reviews, 5 is not the average. It's usually around 6+. But in the case of Haze, Jeff used the entire scale, and as such, it does not line up with the rest of IGN's similar genre reviews.

Yes, objectivity's great. But really -- games don't release in a vacuum. They're contextual products with a history, either in sequels, or within the developer, the genre, or platform.

EG has a benchmark. It's appended at the end of every review they publish. Some advice, though: you'll live a whole lot longer if you read the write-up rather than trying to scrutinize a review score against other outlets and same-genre games.

 

[SlasherJPC]

I don't agree with your reasoning. It gives no room for individual opinions. This only makes some sense if it's the same reviewer covering all of these games.

Well thats fine you disagree, but really when it comes down to a site giving a review.Why should we have to take into consideration "who" is reviewing the game. Its IGN as a whole thats presenting the review. I don't go to IGN to pick my favorite reviewer and read his reviews. I go to IGN to read IGN published reviews. Now obviously there going to have multiple people to review, not one person can do eveything. So why shouldn't they look back on games within the past few months and score accordingly?

Yet... I do see your side of it as well. I just wish there was more of a better balance between the two is all I'm getting at.

 

[nib95]

Well thats fine you disagree, but really when it comes down to a site giving a review.Why should we have to take into consideration "who" is reviewing the game. Its IGN as a whole thats presenting the review. I don't go to IGN to pick my favorite reviewer and read his reviews. I go to IGN to read IGN published reviews. Now obviously there going to have multiple people to review, not one person can do eveything. So why shouldn't they look back on games within the past few months and score accordingly?

Yet... I do see your side of it as well. I just wish there was more of a better balance between the two is all I'm getting at.

I totally agree with your post.

 

[dammitmattt]

Well thats fine you disagree, but really when it comes down to a site giving a review.Why should we have to take into consideration "who" is reviewing the game. Its IGN as a whole thats presenting the review. I don't go to IGN to pick my favorite reviewer and read his reviews. I go to IGN to read IGN published reviews. Now obviously there going to have multiple people to review, not one person can do eveything. So why shouldn't they look back on games within the past few months and score accordingly?

Yet... I do see your side of it as well. I just wish there was more of a better balance between the two is all I'm getting at.

You really don't get it. It's not the SITE that's giving the review. It's the REVIEWER that is giving the review for the site. IGN doesn't write reviews. IGN is just a collection of the work of its writers, editors, publishers, etc.

I totally agree with your post.

* Bangs head against wall. Repeatedly.

 

[nib95]

You really don't get it. It's not the SITE that's giving the review. It's the REVIEWER that is giving the review for the site. IGN doesn't write reviews. IGN is just a collection of the work of its writers, editors, publishers, etc.

While that may be true, that is not how IGN's reviews are perceived. People aren't going to say "What did Jeff give this, or Jeff give that". 1 because he is but one editor, and 2 because chances are he's not always going to be the reviewer for whatever game you are wanting a review score from. In most cases, it will be a case of "What did IGN give it?" hence why reviewers need to consider the sites review past as a whole, and not just their own. Their work/reviews stand for their site as a whole.

Damm I think you need to chill out. You seem to be incapable of having a level headed debate without getting all flustered.

 

[dammitmattt]

While that may be true, that is not how IGN's reviews are perceived. People aren't going to say "What did Jeff give this, or Jeff give that". 1 because he is but one editor, and 2 because chances are he's not always going to be the reviewer for whatever game you are wanting a review score from. In most cases, it will be a case of "What did IGN give it?" hence why reviewers need to consider the sites review past as a whole, and not just their own. Their work/reviews stand for their site as a whole.

Damm I think you need to chill out. You seem to be incapable of having a level headed debate without getting all flustered.

I'm not flustered, but it is like talking to a brick wall. It's very frustrating.

Also, the reviewers don't need to consider the past reviews of a site at all, though they DO need to consider the site's review guidelines, of course.

What some other reviewer gave Turning Point should have absolutely no bearing on the Haze review.

 

[hc2]

Yes, objectivity's great. But really -- games don't release in a vacuum. They're contextual products with a history, either in sequels, or within the developer, the genre, or platform.

EG has a benchmark. It's appended at the end of every review they publish. Some advice, though: you'll live a whole lot longer if you read the write-up rather than trying to scrutinize a review score against other outlets and same-genre games.

I have to say this-and I'm sounding like a fanboy- but I do like EGM as a gaming magazine and I do feel they try and do a good job with their reviews. So here is a reader who is willing to back you up.
There is too much emotion tied up in this thread now for it to be a rational discussion.

 

[pswii60]

I'm not flustered, but it is like talking to a brick wall. It's very frustrating.

Also, the reviewers don't need to consider the past reviews of a site at all, though they DO need to consider the site's review guidelines, of course.

What some other reviewer gave Turning Point should have absolutely no bearing on the Haze review.

It's alright. 99% of the rest of us agree with you. Besides, anyone who uses their fianceé in their GAF avatar must be a little odd. EDIT: Oh, apparently not an odd thing to do at all. My bad.

 

[fistwell_old]

Do you honestly think that Ebert pours over every review he's given each time he reviews a movie? Do you think that Rolling Stone looks at every indie rock review over the past year when reviewing the new hot indie rock album?

This writer should have free reign to write the review and give whatever damn score he feels like.

Some consistency would be nice is all. A rolling stone journalist doesn't need to look "at every indie rock review over the past year" to review a new album in a way that is at least a little consistent with other reviews. Shouldn't he be familiar with some rolling stone standards or review guidelines?

I think, the sticking point for some people is that, they expect reviews to reflect the quality of something. If that review exists in a vacuum, if you can't compare it to other reviews of things they're familiar with, what good is it, frankly? It's just some random dude's opinion, which you might or might not care about.

On the other hand, if there's at least some level of consistency between reviews, you might actually be able to look at what's being said, compare to what they said before about other games (that maybe you're familiar with), and actually get something out of it.

Also, the reviewers don't need to consider the past reviews of a site at all, though they DO need to consider the site's review guidelines, of course.

What some other reviewer gave Turning Point should have absolutely no bearing on the Haze review.

Yeah, i see what you're saying. Yet, as a reader, i don't really care that whoever reviewed a game now does follow the guidelines, if another dude did not for a game in a similar genre, published not so long ago. I don't care who did what wrong. If the 2 reviews don't make sense with respect to one another, i'm confused and they'r sorta useless to me.

 

[nib95]

It's alright. 99% of the rest of us agree with you. Besides, anyone who uses their fianceé in their GAF avatar must be a little odd.

You really are a pathetic user. You constantly resort to personal attacks. A sure sign of immaturity. A few times you've picked at the image of me in my avatar, this time it's my fiancee. You also keep bringing up past threads and clinging to my ass like you enjoyed the smell of it.

Seriously, stop being so damn pathetic and childish.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Besides, anyone who uses their fianceé in their GAF avatar must be a little odd.

Ok guys, really we don't need personal attacks on here.

You really don't get it. It's not the SITE that's giving the review. It's the REVIEWER that is giving the review for the site. IGN doesn't write reviews. IGN is just a collection of the work of its writers, editors, publishers, etc.

I do understand the mentality of someone reviewing a game for a site. I'm not stupid. Unfortunatly the mentality of alot of these people that do visit the sites, do see it as one collective whole source and will judge accordingly to all their reviews.

All I want is a better way of reviews for videogames is what I'm getting at. Anyways I'm done on said topic. This has turned way off the topic of Haze.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i dunno why people are talking about review *scores* when the review *text* is even more scathing. i love free radical's games, loved the demo, and even preordered the game, but after reading the review *text* (not just the review *scores) there is no way i can spend $60 of my hard earned money on this. i'll rent it later. today i pick up my deposit, hope gamestop made a few cents on that short term interest free loan.

 

[pswii60]

You really are a pathetic user. You constantly resort to personal attacks. A sure sign of immaturity. A few times you've picked at the image of me in my avatar, this time it's my fiancee. You also keep bringing up past threads and clinging to my ass like you enjoyed the smell of it.

Seriously, stop being so damn pathetic and childish.

Eh? This is the first time, actually. Never picked at your avatar before.

And I brought your past threads up once because they were so damn funny. And you've just gone far more personal than I ever went. Oh, the irony. Hypocrite.

 

[nib95]

i dunno why people are talking about review *scores* when the review *text* is even more scathing. i love free radical's games, loved the demo, and even preordered the game, but after reading the review *text* (not just the review *scores) there is no way i can spend $60 of my hard earned money on this. i'll rent it later. today i pick up my deposit, hope gamestop made a few cents on that short term interest free loan.

Be sure to give us an update with impressions!

 

[industrian]

In celebration of Eurogamer's review, Haze has jumped from 6th to 4th in the Top Selling Games list at Play.com.

http://www.play.com/Games/Games/6-/RegionHome.html

I know that Free Radical has a cult following in the UK, but hopefully they won't be drinking the Kool Aid after they play Haze.

 

[nib95]

Eh? This is the first time, actually. Never picked at your avatar before.

And I brought your past threads up once because they were so damn funny. And you've just gone far more personal than I ever went. Oh, the irony. Hypocrite.

Oh, so now you lie too?!

By the way, who is that gimpychimp in your avatar?

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Why more people don't simply ignore nib95 really makes me wonder.

Sure some people keep reading his posts because they think they're funny but this is the internet man! There's probably a thousand better ways to make yourself laugh than to read about a poster making an ass out of himself 24/7.

EDIT: Dude wtf? Shit is just getting ridiculous now.

 

[pswii60]

Oh, so now you lie too?!

No I didn't lie. You had a different avatar then. One of... yourself!

Why more people don't simply ignore nib95 really makes me wonder.

Sure some people keep reading his posts because they think they're funny but this is the internet man! There's probably a thousand better ways to make yourself laugh than to read about a poster making an ass out of himself 24/7.

EDIT: Dude wtf? Shit is just getting ridiculous now.

nib95 is the most entertaining part of this thread. HAZE didn't deliver, but nib95 has.

 

[Speevy]

the only thing wrong with game scores is that they need to stop giving out 10s. there has yet to be a current gen game that is worthy of that score.

 

[dammitmattt]

Some consistency would be nice is all. A rolling stone journalist doesn't need to look "at every indie rock review over the past year" to review a new album in a way that is at least a little consistent with other reviews. Shouldn't he be familiar with some rolling stone standards or review guidelines?

But why do you think the reviewer is not following the standards and guidelines developed by IGN?

the only thing wrong with game scores is that they need to stop giving out 10s. there has yet to be a current gen game that is worthy of that score.

10 isn't perfect. 10 is example of the best that's available. According to your theory, there is no game that represents the best of our industry, and that's just not true.

Are you saying we shouldn't have 5-star music or movie reviews, either?

 

[Agent Ironside]

WOW this game is horrible :lol Anyone who defends this one has no self respect.

 

[Doc Evils]

I'm playing the game right now. I'll give my thoughts later.

 

[pswii60]

10 isn't perfect. 10 is example of the best that's available. According to your theory, there is no game that represents the best of our industry, and that's just not true.

Are you saying we shouldn't have 5-star music or movie reviews, either?

I think Speevy meant there is no current gen game worthy of that score, meaning that we haven't seen the best of this gen yet, hence why the should stop giving out 10s so freely.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

nib95 is the most entertaining part of this thread. HAZE didn't deliver, but nib95 has.

Personally I think it's all a just a hose.

 

[Doc Lobster]

the only thing wrong with game scores is that they need to stop giving out 10s. there has yet to be a current gen game that is worthy of that score.

Extra extra, not every outlet uses the same standards to judge what a "10" is, and just because they're all numbers (aside from 1UP/EGM), doesn't mean they're all comparable.

If you ask me, the greatest plague against game scores is a readership that automatically writes off anything that's under eight, leaving us writery-folk with the fun burden of having three points on the scale (7-10) with which to judge "good" games, and twice that many to judge mediocre games.

 

[SlasherJPC]

WOW this game is horrible :lol Anyone who defends this one has no self respect.

Good: Stating the game is horrible. If thats really your opinion after playing the game. Opinion noted.

BAD:Your attempt at humor. This right here is whats wrong with forums...
Crucifying someone because they might like said game. Please. You add nothing to this thread.

 

[nib95]

Good: Stating the game is horrible. If thats really your opinion after playing the game. Opinion noted.

BAD:Your attempt at humor. This right here is whats wrong with forums...
Crucifying someone because they might like said game. Please. You add nothing to this thread.

Not just that, but when people claim a game is horrendous without any impressions or actual proper back up comments. I want to know what people dislike or like about the game. Not just a vague hate post followed by them placing a steak over the thread that will hammer down on anyone who might actually like the game.

Anyway, eagerly awaiting the user impressions from the guys above who just got the game.

 

[dammitmattt]

I think Speevy meant there is no current gen game worthy of that score, meaning that we haven't seen the best of this gen yet, hence why the should stop giving out 10s so freely.

The best of this gen is a liquid concept. There is ALWAYS a best of this gen. I think you and Speevy are mistaking our own idea of the potential of the gen to the actual.

 

[Agent Ironside]

No no no no, you guys got it all wrong, its NOT an attempt at humor, more than likely, if someone defends this for being a good (or average for that matter) game, A. They've never played a good game. B. First time playing an FPS. C. Sony fanbot.

 

[fistwell_old]

But why do you think the reviewer is not following the standards and guidelines developed by IGN?

What i was trying to say was, i like seeing some level of consistency between reviews coming from the same place, and i dont really care how the site/publisher achieves that level of consistency. Following guidelines? If that's their thing, sure. Voodoo dolls? Why not, if it works for them.

Point being, a reviewer certainly has room to voice his opinion, while keeping his review in line with the same standards other people from the same place used to review similar games. As opposed to giving "whatever damn score he feels like."

 

[SlasherJPC]

No no no no, you guys got it all wrong, its NOT an attempt at humor, more than likely, if someone defends this for being a good game, A. They've never played a good game. B. First time playing an FPS. C. Sony fanbot.

Well please, write me a list of every game that you deem worthy so that I might alter my perceptions on what a good game is, and then perhaps I can find self respect. :lol

I don't fit your criteria whatsoever. Yet I still think Haze is a average yet fun game. IMO is the key word. You won't find me pushing the game onto others as the second coming or condemning it to hell either.

 

[sneaky77]

Not just that, but when people claim a game is horrendous without any impressions or actual proper back up comments.

How is it different from claiming the reviews are wrong without playing it? That's called Hypocrisy and double standard

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

the Demo was a HUGE red Flag for me

Everything: gunplay, graphics, performance, voice acting, dialogue, animation...were terrible to mediocre

not suprised by these reviews at all

 

[Rainy Dog]

I'm playing the game right now. I'll give my thoughts later.

Phew, good to hear they'll be a second person who's contributed to this thread having actually played the game

My copy was waiting for me when I arrived home from work. But don't know if I dare even unseal it now :/

 

[TheHeretic]

When a games defence force is pressing the terms IMO, flawed but enjoyable, and reviewer conspiracy, you know the games in trouble.

 

[nib95]

How is it different from claiming the reviews are wrong without playing it? That's called Hypocrisy and double standard

I have played it. I played the demo.

And it's not hypocrisy in the sense that I can almost guarantee (based off the demo alone) that Haze is a better game than SoF Payback and Turning Point (both of which I have played).

Or do you think that the above games will be, or are better than Haze?

That was my point. Not that the review was necessarily wrong, but seemed harsh when compared to the sites history of reviews with other games in the same genre which frankly, are on another level of bad but somehow managed to receive better scores. Games that chug like a bitch from the word go in regards to frame rate issues. And have aiming and controls that are miles less refined than those in Haze, nor have any remotely competent online mode, or 4 player co-op.

 

[Evander]

Game seem okay so far (just switched sides) but they sure do beat you over the head with the morality message. I wish I could have clicked a box saying "I get the point" so that I could skip the lectures.