lmfao tell me that wasn’t really the last line!!!

i agree with the concept of what you are saying but in haze’s case i agree with the reviews.
the AI was the worst i have seen since ps1 days.
the storyline was awful the graphics were terrible, there wasn’t 1 aspect of the game that stood out in any way, and the multiplayer was completely unbalanced.

obviously the hype did not help, but i honestly believe if there was no hype about this game at all it still would have recieve the same reviews.

and yes halo 3 wasn’t that ground breaking in terms of gameplay, but at least it looked nice, and the AI didn’t just run into walls and dance around each other. and the multiplayer was great, but yes the reviews were abit high.

Oh yes, I totally agree with you about “Halo” [1, 2, &/or 3]. They do nothing for me either, and First Person Shooters are my favourite gaming genre. Did “Halo 3″ really score 10 out of 10 in reviews? I bet they were biased Microsoft gaming magazines, much like “Mario Kart Wii” (that shouldn’t really have been anything over 8), and “Grand Theft Auto IV” (or “4″, or however it is quoted this week)… that scored 10 out of 10 in the Official PlayStation Magazine, but that was before all the issues with freezing game-play.

In fact, I have never found a reason to consider buying a Microsoft Xbox &/or Xbox 360. That’s not to say I would never consider it, but of all the titles released to date not one has jumped out & said “buy me”… although “Ninja Gaiden II”, if it stays exclusive to the Microsoft platform, may tempt me 

I am also running out of excuses for owning a Wii console too. “Resident Evil 4 (Wii Edition)” aside (and the, as yet unplayed, “Manhunt 2” US import courtesy of “Freeloader”, I have to-hand), I have not found anything to play that is not just a “I’ll try this for five minutes” experience. Even my kids (three under ten year olds) have not played on the Wii for a few weeks. They prefer the “adult-themed” shooters & racing simulations of the Sony console.

I tried to like “Haze” but, like you said, nothing stood out that I hadn’t seen before. I tried the multi-player online aspect of the downloadable demo & it just didn’t grab me, like, say, “Resistance: Fall of Man”. “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare”, however, gives me motion sickness with all the individual players on one team all running about. But perhaps I’m just getting old?

However, I should not need to try to like something. I thought the on-screen sight of the gun was more ridicule than reticule. For a shooter not to shoot where you are aiming is a major flaw as far as I am concerned, but what really bugged me was the constant nagging to take my medicine as if I was some elderly patient with the memory of a kitchen sieve (or one with motion sickness, as appropriate)

I managed to play the demo without needing to be nectar’ed-up (other than the mandatory dose when you start), thank you all the same. As I said, I am somewhat familiar with how to play First Person Shooters; I did not need the enemy to glow like they had all eaten far too many bowls of Ready Brek. I like to be taken by surprise occasionally. It keeps me on my virtual toes… and keeps my interest in the game. The “I’m over here, shoot me before I see you” approach just spoiled it, as there was no challenge & certainly no fun to be had

PS. “Haze” as good as “Kane & Lynch”? Wow! *That* bad!

BFN,

fp.

The problem with Haze is it does nothing new, which it promised it would. It’s all a bit generic, but doesn’t mean FPS fans wouldn’t enjoy it, and the co-op and online modes do a lot to salvage it.

It’s not ground breaking and it is all a bit generic. Some set pieces are very good, but to get to them requires a lot of storytelling and occasional bland sections and there is no real defining moment that would live in your memory.

Had Haze come out before COD4 it probably would have been a lot more warmly received. Haze for me is a standard fair 7/10 title like most other shooters - Army of Two, Kane & Lynch, Turok, Dark Sector and so many others.

Haze should have just been a nice to have PS3 exclusive released on time. Unfortunately fanboys (both PS3 and 360) wrongly held this up with the PS3 big boys like MGS4, Resistance 2, KillZone 2 etc. The result was a lot of hype for an average game – no worse than all the other average shooters that came before it on 360.

Haze should have been allowed to prove itself, and then if successful the hype should have been saved for Haze 2 - like what happened with Resistance and to a large extent Halo.

I don’t want to be controversial and start a flame war here, but to me Halo 3 (having not followed the franchise/story I might add) seemed to me as being distinctly underwhelming and rather ordinary as FPS’s go. The difference is people wanted more Halo and that’s what they got - people knew what to expect and had already bought into that universe.

Imagine for a second that Halo 3 was a brand new unproven franchise for 360 (in other words there was no Halo or Halo 2) but it still received the same amount of hype and build up it did, and for arguments sake let’s say it also suffered a couple of lengthy delays (in other words it was only just getting released around now). Do you honestly still think it would have received the same amount of 10/10’s? In that scenario I can easily imagine websites creating a storm by giving it a 4/10 – even though the game itself is no different to what we have – just the way it was delivered has changed.

Just to be clear before the Xbots bust a blood vessel I’m not trying to say Haze is better than Halo 3!!! I’m just trying to illustrate the point that review scores are not always the be all and end all and you can’t always compare one game to another on scores only. There is no scientific way to score a game and factors external to the actual game you see on screen will always play a part in reviews (is it a sequel, what else is out now, was it delayed, was it hyped etc etc).

It’s a warning to developers everywhere that there’s a fine line between releasing a game before it’s ready and overcooking it to the point of over-hyped mediocrity. Unfortunately for Haze, it crossed that line. My advice is, if you liked how the demo played you’d probably like the full game… at the very least it’s worth a rental.

Or maybe it is just me?

Yes, it may well be… if I could just find the other half of my sanity, I’d buy “Haze” & prove you all wrong.

Seriously, though… this title is a classic case of the over-hyped & over-late. If the game was worth the wait, then the delay would not be mentioned, but a combination of poor game-play & a much longer than expected & well-publicised development process meant this title was effectively dead before it hit the shelves. Just like “Assassin’s Creed” before it. The other problem was that the downloadable demo got a very cold reception. Odd… considering all the poor reviews it received from the Play.com Live! event earlier this year… you’d think somebody would have listened to the critics. But, maybe they are just over-spent on this project & didn’t want to waste any more time/resources on it.

I guess all eyes are on “Timesplitters 4″ now.

BFN,

fp.

[ http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110015 ]

So, somebody is buying it.

(A lot for sale on HotUKDeals & AVForums after an hour of play, though).

Talking of which, I bought a used “Army of Two” last week & there are some free downloadable maps on the PlayStation Store this week. That was a spot of good timing!

BFN,

fp.

I understand you want to promote the game, but c’mon this is so ridiculous.