|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Doesn't mean that Nectar isn't stolen from Crysis' Nanosuit abilities with all the good ones removed.
No it's not, it's the last stage.
No, it's not. A huge amount of the pre-release hype went into the single-player experience; among other ludicrous claims, it was said that the script was five thousand pages long and bigger than that of MGS4. Having played both, that would only be if Haze's script was written one paragraph per page. You can't get out of a weak singleplayer by saying the multiplayer solves everything; statistically, the majority of players will never play a game online. In addition, with less than four players in a game, the poor singleplayer AI is still going to be trying to take up the slack, and so is still relevant.
No. That would be the extended analogy fallacy you've got going there. I'm saying that the argument 'if you like this sort of thing, you'll like a poor example of it' doesn't hold any water at all. ----------------------------------
Not true, no. The point is that while the conclusion of a review is opinion, the supporting arguments that form the body of a review tend to attempt to use objective points and therefore are not. Dismissing the entire review as 'just opinion' is a lazy way to avoid addressing those arguments.
That's nice, now look up 'scientific theory.' Note that it's different. |
||||
|
I disagree with pretty much everything GBB_Doramascher said, and believe he needs tobe banned for trolling
|
||||
|
The definition of trolling is not 'making points I don't agree with.' |
||||
|
The individual who reviews a game may base his write up on actual facts or scenerios, and I have no problem with that. But the problem is, everything he/she/it depends on is disputable. Lazy? Not at all. Personally, I understand that some people like red, and some people like blue. Plus, what is left to address on a game like Haze? Our reviews are very similar with one exception (You gave it 6, while I scored it a 7). You nit-picked far to much. Almost as if you went looking for issues instead of playing the game. Of course scientific theory is different. You added another word. Plus, I ask you again..why are you bring "science" into a video game and and the review process?? Not neccessary, and you know it. Plus, answer my question. Why are reviews so different from one person to another or site to another?? Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
Come on man...  Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
Disputable yes, but that's why it's not just opinion. In fact, there really isn't such a thing as 'just' opinion in any rational sense, since you must have some reason for having a particular opinion in the first place.
The point is that dismissing all reviews and their contained arguments with the broad sweep of the hand that is 'it's just opinion' is just a lazy way to get out of addressing the particular points that those reviews have made. For example, texture pop-in is not just opinion, it's a concrete phenomenon that either happens or does not. A disjointed story is not just an opinion, it can be evaluated by examining the story for plot issues or logical problems. As an example of the latter, Haze's plot was obviously mutilated severely to fit a cut-down set of levels; not only do the trailers tell an entirely different story, but there are happenings that just don't make sense such as Shane being able to break a steel ship hatch off it's hinges with his bare hands as a Rebel, when he had no such ability with Nectar and the Mantel soldiers themselves are shown using acetalyne torches to perform the same feat. The story twists and turns so awkwardly because it's trying to fit into a space far smaller than it was meant to, and is being told with the player on the wrong side in some levels.
I wouldn't say I nit-picked, do you have specific objections?
Because both a scientific theory and a review are based on demonstrating the truth or falsity of a particular premise by evaluating objective data. In a review's case, the premise is usually the game's own press fluff, with the question 'is this game as good as the manufacturers claim it to be?'
Because their interpretation of the facts they cite varies. The logic they use to evaluate the evidence can itself be evaluated to determine if their arguments are valid or not. |
||||
|
Of course there are things such as opinions, and while I agree with some of your reasons, you continue to act as if everything is black or white without any shades of grey. While you could find fault in the audio/visual presentation of Haze, the rest is all left to what any certain individual likes or dislikes. Outside of the what we see and hear, there are no absolutes when it comes to a person's taste in video games and what he/she deems acceptable or outstanding. The steel door?? Nah, the door couldn't have been broken or anything, or perhaps even rusted to the point of failure, now could it? Yes. Nitpicked. One of the things I noticed was the constant gripe about the weapons featured in Haze. Keeping the graphics out of the equation I found the guns a perfect fit for this type of game. Plus, your complaint on the Nectar perception was a complete nitpick if I ever saw one. Complaining that you didn't recieve Predator type abilities when it was obvious that it wasn't intended to do so?? Here is another one. You complain about the vehicles. Since you are such a RFOM fan, how many vehicles does that game allow to use as compared to Haze?? There you have it. You state that reviews are an interpretation of viewer. That's my point. Everybody see's things in a different manner. No one is right or wrong in some cases regardless of your Sigmund Freud like reasoning. Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
You telling people who like the game that they aren't allowed to, and making up flaws with the game that don't exist, do fit the definition. |
||||
|
Nonsense, there are accepted general standards of game design. Low enemy variety, nothing to go back to once you've been through a map once, a variety of weapons that all do more or less the same thing and so on are generally considered bad.
What, every single door in the ship save the one that Mantel troops wanted to go through? It makes far more sense that the level was originally created with the idea that the player would be Mantel on that level [given the old intro, you were supposed to 'wake up' in a city area], and so the Rebels would have to cut open the door but you could easily smash them. It also makes more sense to be securing the incriminating evidence from the Rebels as Mantel, since if Mantel hold the ship, why don't they blow it up? Hell, since it must be theirs, what's it even doing there?
They're not, though. They're boring, lacking anything like alt-fire modes or mods to give them any sense of distinctiveness [and this is another cut, since the Blacksaw obviously has something mounted under the barrel]. Everything just throws bullets forward, and in a game with the setting Haze has that shows a criminal lack of imagination; just look at games like Resistance or Perfect Dark and the incredibly imaginative weapons design they have.
My point is it's nothing more than a glorified set of thermal goggles; AVP2's vision modes actually linked in to how some of the weapons operated and so had benefits above and beyond 'enemies go all glowy.' It's part of the greater criticism that none of the Nectar abilities are in any way game-altering; there's nothing you can do on Nectar that you couldn't do, albeit slightly less well, without it.
Three, the Stalker [Chimeran mobile AA], Wolverine [US tank] and Lynx [US / UK jeep]. All are fairly different [the Stalker uses top-attack anti-tank missiles and a machine gun with a very broad spread, the tank has a cannon, much tighter rotary gun and a secondary machine gun, and the Lynx a rotating gun turret]. Haze has three, the Mantel buggy and the Rebel technical, which is basically identical to the buggy save weapon placement, and the Rebel quad, which has no weapons or unique abilities and is absolutely no fun to use; at least Cartwright stands a snowball's chance in hell of actually hitting something while the Lynx is moving, you're lucky if your gunner on the quad even bothers to fire. Since the AI can't drive, you're stuck doing that throughout, and none of them have driver-operable weapons. I'm not sure what point you think you made there.
Look at it like this: you bought up 'professional opinion' as an example of opinion earlier. Let's say you call in a builder, and get him to study your house. He says you need a new damp course put in. That's his professional opinion. You then ask him why you need a new damp course put in. He explains it to you. What you have then is his professional opinion and the reasoning behind it. If that reasoning is faulty, you can dispute the validity of his opinion. Same deal with a review. If the reasoning of the review is flawed, you can challenge the validity of the conclusion. Therefore, a review is not just an opinion, it's an opinion plus the supporting logic used to justify it. Again, ignoring the latter with the handwave that the entire review, conclusion and body, is 'just opinion' is simple laziness. |
||||
|
apparently you don't know this but the point of all guns are to throw bullets forward and the whole point of the game is that nectar is your "alternate fire modes"
|
||||
|
1 - You continue to cling to low enemy variety. I believe this stems from lack of playing an alien vs. human game such as RFOM. With Haze, it's one side versus another. You switch roles. The variety is acceptable if come to grips with what type of game you are purchasing. If that bothers you, you failed in exercising common sense prior to picking Haze up. 2 - Are you seriously taking this route? Finding scenerios that don't add up when it comes to reality? If that's the case, you should hate RFOM. Care to comment on how the US was using 2000 technology in the 50's in that game? Talk about hypocracy. This goes back to my original comment that you looked for "steel door" issues more often then enjoying and playing a game. 3 - Nitpicking defined sir. You are complaining about a lack of secondary fire modes like it's a must in a FPS. It's not. There have been plenty of games that have gone either way. Again, it all comes down to the player's preference, and not some reviewer who believes he is the final word on a product. 4 - Missing the point once again. This is a perfect analogy. Nectar perception in Haze is another version of NVG's in COD4. What's the problem?? Does the color difference bother you? Is that it? You need to treat the Nectar perception as a different type of NVG's. It's obvious that's what they were intended to do. 5 - Wow. 3 vehicles in each title. I am aware of what all the vehicles do being how I own the game, but thanks for the refresher course. Two of the 3 vehicles in RFOM follow the move and shoot formula, while the 3rd uses the drive from point A to point B style of doing things. While RFOM's vehicles DO offer 2 DIFFERENT varieties, nothing offered is revolutionary as you seem to believe is imprortant. Haze's vehicles are perfect for the game's level's they are featured in. Groundbreaking, no. Acceptable. Yes. 6 - Well, considering I am in the construction business (I have owned my own Residential Design Firm for several years now.), I must say that comparing video games to construction is like comparing apples to oranges. Try again. Or at least explain better, because your offering makes little sense. 7 - Wrong. A review is an editorial. While any given reviewer can mention technical flaws in the audio and visual spectrum of things and state them as facts, the rest is an opinion on what they felt was wrong with the game. How does this compare to construction again? Construction has building codes such as the IRC and IBC to follow, while the video game reviewer magazines and websites follow nothing of sort. This explains why so many people review things in so many different way's. They don't stay consistant with what they say. Gears of War is a fine example of the review system gone bad. What was so varied and revolutionary with that title? Nothing. Yet people from every website and magazine wouldn't stop loving it. Shame really. A video game reviewer is a professional journalist (hopefully) and that's it. People should only use reviews to influence there decision making and not dictate it. If were to conduct a poll, my guess would be that people listen to friends and other players more then reviewers. I wonder why.. Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
Im sorry. But reading through all of this and other topics.
GBB_Doramascher just PWNED you all. He used by far the best examples and constucted the best arguments. I DO NOT own a copy of this game. So am impartial to everybodys views. |
||||
|
With GBB, I respect what he has to say. Why? Because he isn't just running his mouth throwing around garbage. With you? The simple fact that you don't even have Haze makes your comment pretty much worthless. No offense.  Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
|
Suspended |
I thought this was open forum discussion. But, Sterio, you point out exactly the problem I have with GBB's posts. It seems rather than entering into friendly discussion, he enters the room with this one agenda... And like a little bottom feeder you come along to exclaim "He PWNED you"... if that's the point of these forums I got no interest in them.
I've disagreed many times with maxpontiac's views, but he has never displayed the pompous arrogant rude superiority complex that GBB has in almost every one of his posts. The thing to admire is, maxpontiac or any of the other people posting here can come to these forums, share a point of view that differs from others and still make friends. GBB doesn't seem to have any interest in making friends, and though I don't think he should be banned for it, I do think he's kind of a troll in that respect. GBB is a good debater, I just wish he would use his powers for good, and show a little more respect to those he disagrees with. After all, we're all kind of the same in that we're all a bunch of nerds on the Haze forums and the guy who hates the game and pwns the fans left and right might be the biggest nerd of them all. |
|||
|
How does it make it worthless? It makes it more valid than any of yours when trying to make a neutral decision. It means i do not have any preconceptions of Haze, therefore am not in the slightest way edged to the person who says it is a good game or the person who says it is a bad game. You however did not construct your arguments to any where near the level GBB did and you came across as a mardy child. SpirtualZombie has made some very good comments and he and GBB are much more clued up it seems than you are. |
||||
|
no one but GBBs alt would think he had a clue let alone argued well
|
||||
|
Simple. You don't own Haze, yet you are on this forum. I had to ask myself why. I came to conclusion that you are in all likelihood a friend of GBB or GBB himself cross posting in an attempt to "win" an internet debate. If you are neither, my original comment stands. As for my "argument", I challenge you to find fault where I have stated something erroneosly or have not been clear enough. If it's over my lack of multisyllable words, you have some issues to resolve. Plus, you state that I came across as a child, yet it was YOU who used teenage verbiage in stating we were all "PWNED". All I can do laugh because I never took GBB as someone who needed to call in reinforcements if this is the case... Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
Appreciate the respect, you have mine as well. Yeah, we disagree it seems on some of the small details, but that's what makes message boards so entertaining to me. Agreed, GBB is a good debater, and I thought we were having a decent discussion. It was obvious that our opinions were completely different, and that's a good thing. LOL - Yeah. Nerds. But hey, as long as your family still loves you, it's all good!!! Faith Based Risk. |
||||
|
I don't really think that's an acceptable defence. Haze is a game set in a nebulous near-future, not a 'modern warfare' game like CoD4 where low enemy variety is a given. Haze has an aircraft carrier on tank treads, for crying out loud. We could be looking at guys in exoskeletons, robot drones, mutants, all kinds of stuff. Instead, it's still 'guys with guns you have' and a sentry turret. It does nothing at all with the potential it has; none of the enemies have any particular variation in hitbox size, movement speed or shooting method, save the occasional annoying drone gun or completely scripted helicopter. That's the frustrating thing about Haze; it has every bit of potential to be a wonderful game, but does nothing with it.
Resistance's Osprey clones are indeed the silliest thing about it, but their development is actually part of the game's backstory and timeline, if you've seen it. It's also not directly relevant to the game like the doors in the container ship are; in that, you've literally just lost your Nectar abilities, only to find yourself stronger than the Mantel soldiers. There's some other obvious fallout from the rewrite present if you look; a good example is when Merino states, regarding the attack on the Land Carrier, that 'a drunken man who kills is still a murderer in the morning.' We're supposed to side with Shane's objections there, but they make no sense; Mantel soldiers are said to be volunteers in this version of the plot, meaning they chose to take Nectar, and therefore are entirely guilty [let's not even bring up the numerous soldiers for some reason not effected by the shutdown of the Administrator]. Originally, Mantel was to have been portrayed as a force for law and order in a violent and chaotic world, the soldiers joining up because there was really no other choice. This would have made Shane's objection much more valid than it ends up being. Weirdly, though, the biggest problems with the game's plot all centre on that container ship; what it's doing there, why it even has non-field soldiers [Teare's drill sergeant] on board, and why Mantel hasn't destroyed it. From what I can guess, it too is a relic of an older, longer plotline; perhaps Mantel had Merino dispose of the dead in exchange for giving him a market for his country's Nectar crop and he tried to make a deal with a rival corporation, and you, as a Mantel soldier, would have been charged with detroying the ship which he had planned to use to blackmail the company. Makes more sense than Teare running there for no apparent reason and Mantel fortifying the surrounding area and then doing nothing about the ship itself.
No, I'm complaining about a lack of anything notable about the weapons period. Again, this is a near-future game, imagination should be running wild in the weapon designs. Instead, we have a list of weapons all of which work in almost exactly the same way; no charge-up weapons, no unusual functions, no secondary fire modes, and some fairly good evidence of cut secondary fire modes, with both the Rebel and Mantel rifles having an odd structure under the main barrel with no in-game function. It's certainly not the worst example of weapon design I've ever seen [because Blacksite will most likely never be beaten on that front], but certainly there's a hard divide between the useful weapons and the ones slung in just to make up the numbers like the Rebel minigun. Moreover, it's the combination that hurts Haze the most: it has very few enemy types and very few weapon types, and none of them really do anything new throughout the game. It means shooting becomes drab pretty quickly due to the lack of variation.
But it's not. NVGs in CoD4 allow you to see the laser sight on your gun as well as allowing you to see the enemy; it's a fairly mild difference, but a difference all the same. My review was mainly written to address claims that Nectar was somehow unique and different from anything in any other FPS; it's not, and the functions it does have don't really even add anything to the game.
I don't believe revolutionary is important, just interesting will do. The vehicles in Resistance are entertaining to use; two of them give you vastly more firepower than you'd have normally, while the other at least has the decency to be invincible and have a strong weapon with a gunner who can actually aim. Nevertheless, the vehicle levels are among the game's weakest; the tank segments ['A Lone Survivor' / 'Ice and Iron'] are much too short, the Lynx segment in Cheddar Gorge takes much too long and the buttons are far too awkwardly placed, and the poor Stalker gets a ridiculously short level where it might as well be a gun turret ['Parting Ways'] and hands-down the worst level in the entire game ['Giant Slayer']. Haze's vehicles suffer a similar problem; while they're less interesting to start with since all you can do is drive them and watch the AI not shoot anything, the levels they're afflicted with are awful. The Quarry has one place in the whole level where the vehicle benefits you [the jump]; the rest of the time, the mines will go off before you even reach them if you're on foot; you actually have to be in the buggy to be damaged by them, which is amazingly poor design. The quad is rather pointless in the level it has, which is equally easy to negotiate on foot and less risky if you do, and the only reason to use the Technical in the level it has is the frequent near-unavoidable artillery barrages and some jumps. The Technical's level is at least the closest to being right for an unarmed vehicle level, since it encourages you to go fast rather than having traps that can only hurt you if you're going fast like the Quarry, but narrow paths surrounded by fences aren't a good choice in a game where vehicles take utterly disportionate amounts of damage for grazing barriers.
I was comparing video game reviews to building evaluation, not video games to construction. That's the extended analogy fallacy you've got there.
No. The conclusion is an opinion, the rest is arguments which can be true or false.
Don't know him, didn't call him. Also, I have a low opinion of people who use 'pwned' in a debate and mean it. It'd be far more effective to use an alt to supeficially agree with your position while undermining it with backhanded compliments or trying to make you look unreasonable [so you might have a case for NeoTechni being my alt on that front]. As seen here, if someone just walks in and supports me, everyone immediately suspects it is me. Bottom line: how stupid do you think I am? This message has been edited. Last edited by: GBB_Doramascher, |
||||
|
Actually, let's whip this out [SPOILERS]:
I think the parts of the story I had the most problems with were [Big, huge spoilers ahead]: * The container ship. Because: [1] Why would Mantel load so much incriminating evidence on a single ship, allow it to run aground, and then do nothing about it? Teare specifically says not all of the dead are field soldiers [he points out a drill sergeant] which means they didn't all die here; it's implied through this that the ship is carrying everyone who's ever died from taking Nectar. Why? [2] How do Mantel manage to cause a ship that's grounded in shallow water to fill with a good fifty feet of water? [3] What exactly is the point of sending a cleanup squad to shoot Teare if they're going to blow up the tanker anyway? Why haven't they done this already, when there's an artillery gun in a position nearby? [4] Why is it implied Mantel didn't even know about a ship which couldn't possibly belong to anyone but them? Why is Teare sending a Mantel-standard distress signal if he wants to contact the Rebels? If normal soldiers aren't allowed to go inside the ship, why are Carpenter and Duvall en route to do exactly that before diverting to the Copper Plant? [5] Teare mentions black ops soldiers are destroying plants to allow Mantel to monopolise the supply of Nectar and protect their profit margins, but this makes no sense since we're never told Nectar has any non-military applications, and Mantel must know that Nectar is killing people, which would quickly lead to massive lawsuits. It doesn't make sense for them to want to monopolise the supply of a drug that isn't particularly optimal as a combat enhancer [it seems doubtful that Nectar is really any help at all to the soldiers that take it given the side-effects make them less capable than regular soldiers], isn't making them any money and has known lethal side effects. [6] Moreover, Mantel are described as a Private Military Company, so how would they justify deploying when nobody had hired them? Such an operation would be a guaranteed dead-loss for the company; Nectar makes their troops fight recklessly which makes for a high soldier turnover with attendant training and equipment costs, and once again it's never shown that Nectar has any use outside Mantel's own army, which again comes out of the company's pocket. *The observatory. Because: [1] Right near the start of the game, 'observatory guard duty' is discussed, as if it's something all the soldiers already know about. If guard duty at the observatory isn't limited to black ops troops, why doesn't everyone know that's where the Administrator is? It's not like there'd be any point keeping it secret, given how possessive Mantel soldiers are about their supply of Nectar: knowing what they were guarding would only make them more eager to defend it. [2] How was this thing constructed without anyone realising what was going on? At very least, all the parts would have to be flown in and assembled, along with the prefabricated buildings, weapons and so on. As well as this, the entire approach is guarded more heavily than any other location. How could Merino have possibly not recognised this as an important structure? [3] Why is the Administrator placed here rather than on a satellite, and why is there only one? It's pure lazy plotting to have what amounts to a switch to turn off more or less the entire enemy army. Moreover, why aren't the Black Ops affected by it's deactivation? Why aren't the shotgun soldiers affected? Why can't the soldiers continue to use their own Administrators manually? Shouldn't the suits have a crash mode that slowly releases the remaining supply if the central signal is cut off, or simply an automatic backup system if the central command signal is cut off? [4] For that matter, what's the main Administrator actually supposed to do? Nobody's seen operating it, and no reason is really given for this giant dish to exist. If we go by what Teare says, it's essentially doing nothing more complicated than a central heating system's thermostat, so why can't Mantel troops do that themselves? It would just about make sense if Mantel's soldiers were remotely controlled robots [though you'd still expect them to have a crash mode if command was cut off without a valid shutdown being executed, say firing at anything that moves], but not when they're humans. Were they really that desperate for a deus ex machina that they copied, of all things, Star Wars Episode 1? * The Land Carrier. Because: [1] The Land Carrier is shown as following her own tread impressions; this implies she's being driven in a gigantic circle constantly. Why have the Carrier in motion if it's not required? [2] The Carrier is only shown as being capable of launching tiltrotor aircraft that could operate from dirt strips just as easily, and only has short-ranged defensive guns. At no point are we ever given any reason why this thing exists, especially since the Mantel transport aircraft we see are far too large to land on her. There seems no reason why the vehicle would be constantly moving; it's not like she's shown launching long-range missiles or functioning as a mobile artillery battery. [3] The Land Carrier has no crew and no officers; we never have any real idea who's responsible for her or how Mantel's chain of command operates, or why a Sergeant like Duvall would be adequately trained to not only operate her at a basic level, but also handle command overrides on the never-seen point defence guns she presumably has. [4] We're never given any idea how she got there or why she was sent: she certainly isn't the right shape to be amphibious, and doesn't appear to have any kind of aquatic propulsion system either. Similarly, Mantel obviously has airfields for their transport planes to use. This is the sort of thing that should have been explained by Merino, rather than having him parrot Duvall [twice!] as if we didn't know what the final plot twist was going to be from the stolen Nectar shipment our idiot player character never questioned him about. [5] Why does the Land Carrier have two bridge towers, one on either side of her deck? Real carriers tend to keep all superstructure on the same side of the deck, to maximise available deck space. For that matter, why does a helicopter carrier with no conventional aircraft and no catapults have deck-mounted blast deflectors, and why does she have a set astern where they'd be completely redundant since jet wash would go straight off the back of the carrier? Why on Earth does she have two identical radar masts? |
||||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
