Heres my view on all the reviews that are being posted about, there to fixated on graphics adn how it visually looks
Ok so Haze doesnt have the best raphics there medicore i play on a 32" sony bravia they look ok but there not the best, but since when have FRD ever been known for their graphical design, i have observed that most reviews fixate on the fact that haze's graphics are midcore and there for scored low overall, this should'nt be so, the haze game engine and shooting system, sounds and charachter motions are great say most reviews so who care if its not another GT5 prologue standard graphics (althoug that would be ace) what im trying to say is that almost all the reviews say the system is good and that the shooting is good and the theory is great so why the low scores, graphics should not be a reason to score low

Agreed Renniks, definitely agreed.


Morne

Me three~
I was, like most, expecting way better graphics because of the 'E3 2007' rumour about the demo. With that said, I still think HAZE is great.

Not sure what IGN was expecting from FRD but what they released is awesome, IMHO. The single player's gameplay is smooth and while there may not be tons of mantle running about after you de-fect, they've done a great job in making it hard to do the whole 'run and gun' thing (I only play games on Hard for those who are playing on easy/normal, and disagree ).

Also, I had people dropping in and out of games without even noticing untill after they'd ran passed me. It was impressive.

Cheers!
PSN: haze-addict for anyone who has HAZE! Let me know it's for HAZE though, I get a lot of add requests!

People in general expects better graphics each time after seeing games like Resistance and Call of Duty 4. But the gameplays of them was decent, not to talk about the multiplayer (COD4 was too much alike Counter Strike in some points). If all the high graphical games didn't come out so early then people probably wouldn't expect more. Also I think people expected more from FRD when they delayed it to May, they all thought they were improving the graphics to max and the game got overhyped when it started to be compared to Crysis. I think if none of this happened, then the game probably should have got better score.

It's a shame for those that are missing it and just watches the reviews, the reviewer probably took a closer look and also got disappointed after also hearing all the hype. But then again, I know lots of people who doesn't read any reviews at all or info about games, so hopefully many will like it anyway.

I saw no difference graphically when I was online than any other shooter out there. In fact, I think Shanty town looks pretty damn good, there are a few textures in that map that are top notch, if you ask me.
And there's another map with rain, and the rain effect is one of the best I've seen in a game... the texture on the deck of the aircraft carrier thing map is pretty freakin' weak, straight up, but the other maps I've played look great.
Alot of bad publicity for nothing if you ask me.

There are a couple of hiccups during cutscenes, but I'm smart enough to know that it's because of the no loading screen thing, and I've rather have the occasional delay in a cutscene than a bunch of loading screens everywhere, so, again reviewers, what was your problem exactly? Especially considering Gears cutscenes were all glitched out, but the game was awesome, so you look past it.. yet the reviewers didn't look past anything with this game....

Really, after playing it, I have no choice but to think that they are just anti-Sony fanboys that got the Haze review articles. I can accept someone honestly giving this game a 6 or 7 or something, but anyone that plays this game will instantly realize that IGN 4.5 is the fishiest review score ever, especially since they've rated horroble recent shooters much much better... I'm sorry, I can see someone not liking it and calling it a 6... but anyone that tells you it is less than a 6/10 will most definitely have a book shelf full of Halo novels and a Giant Master Chief helmet on their mantle.

By the way, I rate the game, and this is an early, one day with the game opinion but...

I would give it a 9/10. Well, A soft 9... better than 8.5, not quite 9.
If it did have those "crysis" caliber graphics that people (not the devs, they never said squat about it looking like Crysis or anything like that, it was the public that pushed that nonsense around) said it would have, it would be game of the year material, IMO... but where some textures are drop-dead gorgeous, others are mediocre so it doesn't deserve a 10... and there aren't that many multiplayer maps but that's where DLC comes in... this is 2008, get used to barer bones games more and more as people sell extras that should have been part of the disc. These are the only complaints I have really.....
Gameplay/fun factor 10/10
Graphics 7.5/10
Co-op 9.5/10
multiplayer 9/10

Overall... a soft 9.
Good job guys and shame on you Microso... I mean IGN, lol. 4.5/10, for shame! I have to believe that this would have got a 9.5/10 from them if it was on 360, didn't want to feel that way, I really didn't, but after playing it, what other conclusion can you get... Seriously, Hour of Vistory was WAYY better than Haze... seriously...

I think not!

this pises me off, casue people are gonna read reviews and not buy it, so that ill mean, freeradical will make less money, so theylle spend money on their next game.. and no haze sequel...


if reviews give this game high scores, exept for graphics and alot of people bought it, their next game, could of beem great gameplay like all freeradical games out their and good graphics running at 720p...


cause these people are one of the best teams, they just need more money to work on their games,,,,,

Word of mouth WILL sell this game.... plus, not everyone reads game reviews... for those that have solely been following this game through PS store video downloads, etc., they will all be excited about it, probably buy it right away (been a long time since a new shooter has hit the shelves) and make up their opwn minds about it anyway. Plus, when the name Haze starts popping up under the names on your friend's list, the word will get out. But some people really suck at shooting games and so I'm expecting casual shooter fans not to like it. They'll take a dose of nectar, shoot their gun behind where the enemy is running like they do in every game, they get their administrator on their back shot from behind, OD, controls will go all crazy, and they'll die... this will happen 2 or 3 times and they'll cry "BAD GAME! BAD GAME!"
I think this game will be a smash hit with gamers that know how to play a FPS.

I strongly disagree. First and foremost current generation technology has demonstrated that gaming is at a point now where high quality game play can be combined with top notch visuals. Secondly visuals are inherently tied to game play through animations, physics, character models, etc. If Resistance didn't have great physics or character models than its highly possible that the game would have been given lackluster reviews. Same with Gears of War.

quote:

Originally posted by Strombole:

I think this game will be a smash hit with gamers that know how to play a FPS.

What I think is they should just get random people off the street and get them to play it and give their reviews let what THE PEOPLE think about the game to give it a score.

the more I play the more I really like the graphics, better than UT3 actually and I wore that disc out, lol. The arenas were gorgeous but the character models only looked good on the "pelvic thrust" screen at end of the round. In game the characters and animations were HORRID which I accepted because of the trade off of how fast the game was especially on PCspeedXplus. But in terms of graphics, I think nice big smooth character models and animations have the most graphical impact on me. The back grabbing OD animation is the best I've seen, IMO. And there are parts of Shanty Town that even a bunch of times through I still stop to look at. I think there just as many, if not mor beautiful parts than ugly... but there are some fugly parts. I have seen some tearing occasionally but I was looking for it because of reviews otherwise I doubt I would have noticed... and the lighting is top shef in this game. I think some people might be scared of a lynching if they say they like the graphics... I'm liking them more

And my buddy came by last night... he has a 360 but he doesn't read reviews or mags or trailers and stuff... he's a very casual gamer and when he saw the game, he said it "looked sick!" asked if it was for 360 then spent the next half hour yelling "OH BABY!" as he sliced into rebels with the minigun in a drug addicted stupor stealing nectar from teammates for the next possible OD... he was pretty greedy when filling the nectar bar lol.

The graphics are shocking tbh, on a game as hyped and delayed as this you would expect it to look good instead of looking like a top end ps2 game. I just hope the online is good.

I think that people forget what PS2 games look like or something... I don't know what PS2 you got at your house. That's like the kid that sid that the graphics in original xbox "Riddick" were just as good if not better than Gears of War.....ya I know, sur Butcher Bay...got it... sure...
Sorry, I'm rarely rude but people gotta stop with the looks like PS2 nonsense... there are impressionable meathead pube kids that will take anything repeated 3 times on the internet as gospel. I'm really thinking some of u haven't even played it and are sitting at home without even a PS3 trying to start up ****. Now I actually let the internet bug me, how did this happen... Better go...

quote:

Originally posted by Strombole:
I think that people forget what PS2 games look like or something... I don't know what PS2 you got at your house. That's like the kid that sid that the graphics in original xbox "Riddick" were just as good if not better than Gears of War.....ya I know, sur Butcher Bay...got it... sure...
Sorry, I'm rarely rude but people gotta stop with the looks like PS2 nonsense... there are impressionable meathead pube kids that will take anything repeated 3 times on the internet as gospel. I'm really thinking some of u haven't even played it and are sitting at home without even a PS3 trying to start up ****. Now I actually let the internet bug me, how did this happen... Better go...

Exactly... people that moan about the graphics obviously cant nitpick at the gameplay which is what really counts

quote:

Originally posted by Klixx:

quote:

Originally posted by Strombole:
I think that people forget what PS2 games look like or something... I don't know what PS2 you got at your house. That's like the kid that sid that the graphics in original xbox "Riddick" were just as good if not better than Gears of War.....ya I know, sur Butcher Bay...got it... sure...
Sorry, I'm rarely rude but people gotta stop with the looks like PS2 nonsense... there are impressionable meathead pube kids that will take anything repeated 3 times on the internet as gospel. I'm really thinking some of u haven't even played it and are sitting at home without even a PS3 trying to start up ****. Now I actually let the internet bug me, how did this happen... Better go...

Exactly... people that moan about the graphics obviously cant nitpick at the gameplay which is what really counts

If you were speaking about a ps2 game then i would agree, with the ps2 if you got good gameplay but poor graphics then fine, its to be expected. With the ps3 you expect both, and haze doesnt meet "good graphics".

Well when the ps3 came out nobody seem too bothered and millions played the ps2...

I admit this is the ps3 but you cant just say.. ok everything for the ps3 needs to have amazing graphics...

then you would have to say.. what is good graphics? coz by good im assuming you mean GTA4 or cod4 in which case you are just comparing the games really...

if you want good graphics ill go paint you some pictures of haze and make a flipbook

In order to inspire people to disregard a dull presentation and so-so graphics quality, the gameplay then has to really be top notch. And having played the demo, I can't say I got much pleasure out of playing it. It felt alright, but that's really not enough these days.
Now, having seen a few clips from this game, being played by actual gamers, it seems as if actually dives from being serviceable, "alright", down to being absolutely broken. I'm sure that's something few expected to experience in a Free Radical game, but the reality here seems to be that the old "gameplay over graphics" argument doesn't apply here.

I thought gameplay in the demo sucked too... at first. Until I gave it another try and tried to concentrate on what nectar does. Once that zoom is used on nectar I was tearing rebels apart one after another quicktime... zoom, kill, unzoom, quick aim, zoom, kill, rise and repeat... I sure felt superhuman quick! Then I figured out I was accidentally crouching and that u stay that way until u hit crouch again or jump then I realized I was wrong and the movement wasn't fundamentally broken.
I'm not saying there aren't people who couldn't dislike the game, but I think most that discounted the demo within minutes didn't give time to understand how the game plays... if you are the kind of played who just charged around strafing back and forth holding primary fire all game, u probably won't get it... I almost didn't and I LUV THIS GAME SINCE BUYING IT!

And if PS3 fanboys didn't spend months and months saying the graphics were better than crysis based on nothing but fanboyism, none would have said squat about grap!

quote:

Originally posted by Strombole:And if PS3 fanboys didn't spend months and months saying the graphics were better than crysis based on nothing but fanboyism, none would have said squat about grap!

Fanboys? One Derek Littlewood actually linked to a Haze and Crysis comparison made by some Playstation fansite, so I don't think you should be pinning that one on "fanboys".

He linked to a playstation fansite...

Unless i read that wrong.. you basically just contradicted yourself lol