I'm glad I Gamefly'd this instead of buying it. It just shipped a couple of hours ago, so it should be here on Saturday. Honestly I thought the demo was ok, but now I'm not even sure if I want to play the game after all the reviews. Then again there's a part of me that wants to torture myself and try it. >_<
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Haze Official Thread, JCBossman Memorial and Skittles Appreciation. BOOSH!
- Thread starter FabCam
- Start date
The Faceless Master
Member
should they even buy the game to review it considering the other bad reviews?Jtyettis said:
???nib95 said:Be sure to give us an update with impressions!
impressions of how easy it is to get my money back from gamestop?
yeah, we also shouldn't have two thumbs up, no movie deserves two perfect thumbs!dammitmattt said:
mr_bishiuk
Banned
nib95 said:
They are hardly going to give you the worst bit of the game i the demo, and the demo was pretty bad, you need to play more like the reviewers before giving a final opinion!
Anyway what makes you say turning point is worse than Haze?
nib95 wtf are you into facism much? It would be impossible for reviewists to 'suit' their text and score by other reviews. If they would not have finished the other games, they'd just have to trust that the scores given are ABSOLUTE and always correct.
Read the reviews. That's my advice to you.
Read the reviews. That's my advice to you.
"Tell us a little about your role on the game.
Rob Yescombe: Let me get this out there first... my job is the screenwriter, so it's kind of difficult for me to talk about how good the script is, because that would be supremely pompous of me. So what I'll tell you is this: the lead actors in Haze are from the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. Those kind of actors don't do video games. However, actors are interested in two things: lots of money, or a good script. And we didn't have any money. So hopefully that's testament to the script being a pretty decent piece of work. "
How bad could it be?
Rob Yescombe: Let me get this out there first... my job is the screenwriter, so it's kind of difficult for me to talk about how good the script is, because that would be supremely pompous of me. So what I'll tell you is this: the lead actors in Haze are from the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. Those kind of actors don't do video games. However, actors are interested in two things: lots of money, or a good script. And we didn't have any money. So hopefully that's testament to the script being a pretty decent piece of work. "
How bad could it be?
dark10x said:
That's exactly it. With Haze, I'd say that the aiming was a tad twitchy, in that the speed of aim tends to vary a little too much when you're trying to get headshots, but on the whole, you can generally get the cursor to point where you want it to. The aiming is still relatively fluid and well balanced. In Turning Point (and Blacksite) I found the aiming to be really clunky. As if the analogue sticks were jammed with vaseline. It's so much harder to get the cursor to aim accurately as compared to say Haze. So if the aiming and controls are off, that from the get go leads to failure.
The other thing with Blacksite and SoF payback especially, the frame rates are atrocious. Prologued fire and explosions just rape the frame rate, this makes aiming at times excruciating, because the frame rate kills the smoothness of cursor movement. Again, I did not have the same issue with the Haze demo at least. But you have this problem from the moment you start SoF or Blacksite.
Mammothtank
Member
Evander said:
"MESSAGE!"
Fistwell said:
I agree with this post. I understand that all reviewers have their own opinions and can judge a game based off previous developer success if they want, but the reality of the business is that the score is the only thing that a lot of people look at, and should reflect the overall quality of the game in comparison to other games released within a relative time period. It's not like a majority of people are looking at these reviews and taking notice of who is writing them, and reviewers DO use other games in the genre to compare to each other (take IGN's COD4 (9.4) and Halo3 (9.5) reviews for example, both written by Hilary Goldstein) . If a single reviewer is going to compare games of the same genre and assign scores based off their comparison, then that should be the standard for how a game is reviewed.
I can guarantee you that my friend, who is a bit of a 360 fanboy, looked at the Haze review, saw the 4.5, and immediately assumed that the game is worse than Turok or SoF
ayback when in reality that may not be true. I'm not denying that Haze is a bad game, but saying it's considerably worse than SoF: P is VERY hard to believe.Mammothtank
Member
I got my copies today. Will play it tonight, but I must say I was extremely disappointed in the lack of 4-player splitscreen. Nearly every FPS worth it's salt this gen has it. No LAN parties for HAZE for us because of that. They even messed up a bit on the listing on the box. Normally it says "Number of Players: 1-2 (Online 16)" Here is says "Number of Players: 2 (Online 16)"
DaRk_jAcKaL
Neo Member
My pre-order copy of Haze is on it's way from the US now... and after reading the reviews I went from "intrigued" to "WRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYY!!!!!!!". Oh well, I'll still give it a go and if I don't like it I can always eBay it, maybe even make a profit (paid $65AUD, can probably get $75).
mysticstylez
Banned
At my local Gamestop they had 3 preorders for Haze, as of earlier today, they still had the 3 copies waiting.
dammitmattt
Banned
dark10x said:
This is why Halo has always been the defacto party/LAN console game.
Also, Mario Kart Wii
Y2Kev said:
That's what I was saying dude! They gave that shit a 6.2, and I found it near unplayable because of the frame rate. I'd be shocked if Haze was worse. :lol
Oh and if you want a laugh, seriously, go rent SoF payback. Me and my mates were both shocked and amused at how bad the game ran/played. Shooting resulted in the frame rate clamouring lol.
Mammothtank
Member
dark10x said:
Resistance: Fall of Man
Halo 3
Warhawk
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Call of Duty 4
Rainbow Six Vegas
Rainbow Six Vegas 2
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2
Perfect Dark Zero
So basically you want IGN review staff to intricately look through all 10,000+ previous reviews from colleagues and predecessors before awarding a score in future?nib95 said:
This is why scores suck. Because people become too attached to them. Take the score away, and it'll force people like yourself to actually read the review text. Or, at the least, they should change it to the movie-rating system of 5 stars. But in the sense that 3 stars is actually a good game, just like a 3 star film is good.
dammitmattt
Banned
pswii60 said:
I agree. Games should be rated on a 4 or 5 star scale. For instance, USA Today gave Indy 4 2 1/2 stars, which is the equivalent of a 6.3 on the 10-point scale. 2 1/2 stars sounds a lot more digestible than a 6.3 thanks to the way the game press has turned it into a 50-100 scale.
fistwell_old
Member
Cause there've done 10,000+ reviews of fps for current gen systems in the last couple of years?pswii60 said:
Besides, why would they need to "intricately look through" other reviews at all, don't they have other ways to try and make sure their reviews make sense compared to one another?
I'm all for a 5 star scale too, actually.dammitmattt said:
fistwell_old
Member
Preview hyperboles coming back to bite the previewers in the ass? About time, honestly.Dever said:
Oh, and also, PR, obviously. The probably figured it'd look better than
all media outlets said:
Iron_Scimitar
Banned
Keep
On
Rocking
Nectar
:lol
On
Rocking
Nectar
:lol
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
DC R1D3R said:
It is out of context.
here is the quote as put on next-gen.biz:
" Watching Hazes development from the outside has been a strange experience. After an initial rush of information the November release date came and went, and the month-by-month delays that followed didnt inspire confidence although whether that was more to do with Ubisofts financial statements or hesitancy on the part of Free Radical isnt clear. But things are funny sometimes: behind what looked like a stuttering and slightly troubled end to development, Free Radical has taken the time to refine Haze beyond expectations."
The second quote is the real deal however, as the second half of the preview is overly positive on the story angle.
"Perhaps Haze still looks a little underwhelming in places, and perhaps the cry of political game will scare players away. Its neither. Haze looks like being, first and foremost, a brilliant current-generation shooter debut for Free Radical. Alongside that, there are individual scenes featuring subject matter few other pieces of entertainment go near. If Hazes excellent design is sustained throughout, then alongside its new narrative territory it may be that rarest of beasts: an excellent game that dares to treat us like adults."
I do expect to see a LAIR type of review for the title though.
Zeitgeister said:
Here's my question bro, are they trying to take the piss?
Zeitgeister, I've been reading Edge for at least 12 years easy. Even though staff have come and gone on numerous occasions, I've NEVER once doubted Edge's pedigree...... all until EGDE May, 2008. Something just clicked!
The June edition will reveal all I need to know.
Heh, yeah, I admit that the reason I picked up Lair was simply due to the negative attention. If it had been reviewed as a mediocre "7-ish" game, I probably would have skipped it. There was something about the complaints that compelled me to judge it for myself. It was not a great game (though I did have some fun with it), but I did actually master the controls with ease.
I must admit the oddball controls and the incredible musical score probably pushed me towards it as well. Haze, however, has a demo so I already know how it plays and there was nothing else to attract me to it. I may have checked it out had the scores been decent, but as it stands, I'm not going to touch it. No point in wasting money on what seems to be an awful FPS.
I mean, Dark Sector at least received fairly positive impressions from people (with a hint of caution), and I found myself bored and disappointed with it. Haze somehow seemed a bit more appealing, yet it also felt pretty bland.
Of course, I universally low scores do not necessarily mean one will not enjoy a game. I remember Jurassic Park Trespasser receiving absolutely awful scores (around 3/10 on average), yet I found it to be a highly engaging experience. Of course, it failed under the weight of its own ambition while Haze is the type of game that simply doesn't seem to present anything worthwhile. I've often found that ambitious games that seem to falter can still become enjoyable.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
besada said:
I'm not trying to say it didn't deserve the 3/10, but since when was GameCentral valid in the grand scheme of things? If it was Digitiser then hell yeah, but GameCentral pales in comparison.
Im beginning to enjoy reading reviews of the same game and trying to figure out how people, who are professionals in their field, can view things so differently.
IGN UK / IGN AU, give it a 6.5 / 6.2, and a 7 and 6.5 in game play, calling it passable and both saying the multiplayer (which is why most people buy FPS's (my educated opinion)) has some redeeming quality of play...while IGN US gives it a 4.5 and a 4.5 for gameplay and pretty much dismissed it totally.
Then of course there are the 7's, and the famitsu 34, edges review...and the 3...
This is like a table of food critics eatings a decently cooked supermarket grade steak and either saying "this is a decently cooked run of the mill steak, not worth $59.99, but worth eating" or "This is horse meat, bad horse meat". The level of inconsistency in the field only serves to cheapen it...professionals should be able to judge like items on a fairly consistent basis, be it cars, wines, food, or games. Without consistency, there is no point to professional opinions.
I'll rent it..but won't buy it...no need for another FPS until R2 as I see it. (R1 and WH fill that need now)
IGN UK / IGN AU, give it a 6.5 / 6.2, and a 7 and 6.5 in game play, calling it passable and both saying the multiplayer (which is why most people buy FPS's (my educated opinion)) has some redeeming quality of play...while IGN US gives it a 4.5 and a 4.5 for gameplay and pretty much dismissed it totally.
Then of course there are the 7's, and the famitsu 34, edges review...and the 3...
This is like a table of food critics eatings a decently cooked supermarket grade steak and either saying "this is a decently cooked run of the mill steak, not worth $59.99, but worth eating" or "This is horse meat, bad horse meat". The level of inconsistency in the field only serves to cheapen it...professionals should be able to judge like items on a fairly consistent basis, be it cars, wines, food, or games. Without consistency, there is no point to professional opinions.
I'll rent it..but won't buy it...no need for another FPS until R2 as I see it. (R1 and WH fill that need now)
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
FabCam really needs to update the OP with the review scores.
I'm surprised at IGN's UK and Australian guys giving it an "average" score after the 4.5 score.
I'm surprised at IGN's UK and Australian guys giving it an "average" score after the 4.5 score.
RubberJohnny
Banned
pswii60 said:
Worked for LAIR. OH WAIT.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
besada said:
It's a Teletext-based gaming news outlet. Nothing to be taken seriously. It's probably on par with the Italian PSM when it comes to credibility.