Haze came out finally.

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BD2003
640p is one thing, thats fairly close to 720p. 576p isnt HD. Its standard def (PAL is 576i).

PAL SD is 720x576, Haze's 1024x576 is 42% better. Besides, the game looks notably better than Halo 3's 1152x640, since Haze actually uses AA and decent texture filtering, runs considerably smoother as well. Granted, neither the gameplay or the storyline presented in the Haze demo compelled me at all, but I'd play Halo 3 a lot more if it came closer to the and framerate and image fidelity of Haze.

 

[AstroManLuca]

They shouldn't have given it a 4 for graphics. Halo 2 had bad pop-in but it got a 9.5 for graphics, which was perhaps a bit high but fair considering it had the best console graphics ever seen up to that point.

Seriously, reviewers at sites like IGN that assign separate numbers to different categories should actually assign different numbers to those categories. Most games do some things right and other things wrong, and that's why they have those. Haze probably should have gotten at least a 7 for graphics, even accounting for the problems.

 

[aphex]

I hated the demo

 

[torpid]

If it's worth renting is sure as hell isn't 4.5 then. That's moronic. There are thousands of games not worth renting with ratings higher than 4.5.

 

[Baked]

What a bunch of cock suckers. Unisoft probably didn't send them an envelope full of money. It's a god damn FPS, they're all identical!!! They gave graphics a 4?! The screen caps look better than GTA4!

Just subscribe to Gamefly and do your own review before making a purchase decision.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Baked
What a bunch of cock suckers. Unisoft probably didn't send them an envelope full of money. It's a god damn FPS, they're all identical!!! They gave graphics a 4?! The screen caps look better than GTA4!

Just subscribe to Gamefly and do your own review before making a purchase decision.

Everything is identical to COD4? No way. Not even close.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: BD2003
640p is one thing, thats fairly close to 720p. 576p isnt HD. Its standard def (PAL is 576i).

PAL SD is 720x576, Haze's 1024x576 is 42% better. Besides, the game looks notably better than Halo 3's 1152x640, since Haze actually uses AA and decent texture filtering, runs considerably smoother as well. Granted, neither the gameplay or the storyline presented in the Haze demo compelled me at all, but I'd play Halo 3 a lot more if it came closer to the and framerate and image fidelity of Haze.

Seriously?

 

[Rage187]

I read this review and I was more than convinced not to buy

http://kotaku.com/5009840/haze...sure-beats-pumping-gas

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: BD2003
640p is one thing, thats fairly close to 720p. 576p isnt HD. Its standard def (PAL is 576i).

PAL SD is 720x576, Haze's 1024x576 is 42% better. Besides, the game looks notably better than Halo 3's 1152x640, since Haze actually uses AA and decent texture filtering, runs considerably smoother as well. Granted, neither the gameplay or the storyline presented in the Haze demo compelled me at all, but I'd play Halo 3 a lot more if it came closer to the and framerate and image fidelity of Haze.

Halo 3 looked a lot better to me than the Haze demo. The lighting was better, the foliage didn't look so static/bland, the textures were WAY better (I always appreciate the high quality of textures in the Halo series)...Haze looked like a blurry mess (resolution looked low, too). That may just be my monitor I play on, but I don't know. I'd say Halo 3 looked a lot better than Haze.

After reading the review and playing the demo, I'd say 4.5 is really harsh...The review even makes it sound like just an average game lacking some polish, which generally would get around a 7. But 4.5 has "Poor" underneath it. Hm...and after playing this demo and the Turok demo, how did Turok score higher?

 

[biggestmuff]

IGN also gave GTA IV a 10. Give me a break. I'll give all games a fair chance. I've rented and bought games that have gotten low scores just to try it out for myself. Sometimes I'm suprised and really enjoy a game even though it received bad press (Kayne and Lynch) and sometimes the critics were correct and sometimes I just don't agree (Timeshift sucked balls).

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

2/5 at Giant Bomb.

Though it was announced just over two years ago, the end result plays like something that was slapped together and shipped after a year or so, rather than something that was painstakingly developed and refined. While there?s nothing about Haze that?s out-and-out broken or completely terrible, it doesn?t come close to meeting the expectations that today?s first-person shooter market creates.

 

[J]

Ouch

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: BD2003
640p is one thing, thats fairly close to 720p. 576p isnt HD. Its standard def (PAL is 576i).

PAL SD is 720x576, Haze's 1024x576 is 42% better. Besides, the game looks notably better than Halo 3's 1152x640, since Haze actually uses AA and decent texture filtering, runs considerably smoother as well. Granted, neither the gameplay or the storyline presented in the Haze demo compelled me at all, but I'd play Halo 3 a lot more if it came closer to the and framerate and image fidelity of Haze.

Seriously?

Have you not actually seen Halo 3 on the 360? Most of the screenshots on the net are taken with Bungie's massively oversampled screenshot function so they look stunning, but the game itself has no AA and uses simple biliniar texture filtering, as seen in this shot here:

http://www.winhelpline.info/fo...eue-screenshots-02.jpg

 

[hans030390]

Anyone willing to rent this game and try it out?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: BD2003
640p is one thing, thats fairly close to 720p. 576p isnt HD. Its standard def (PAL is 576i).

PAL SD is 720x576, Haze's 1024x576 is 42% better. Besides, the game looks notably better than Halo 3's 1152x640, since Haze actually uses AA and decent texture filtering, runs considerably smoother as well. Granted, neither the gameplay or the storyline presented in the Haze demo compelled me at all, but I'd play Halo 3 a lot more if it came closer to the and framerate and image fidelity of Haze.

Seriously?

Have you not actually seen Halo 3 on the 360? Most of the screenshots on the net are taken with Bungie's massively oversampled screenshot function so they look stunning, but the game itself has no AA and uses simple biliniar texture filtering, as seen in this shot here:

http://www.winhelpline.info/fo...eue-screenshots-02.jpg

I've spent about 100 hours playing it. I'm just amazed that someone would choose not to play an otherwise fine game because of the graphics alone.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: hans030390
Anyone willing to rent this game and try it out?

The demo isn't enough? I played the demo a bit... I didn't think it was bad, but I also didn't care enough to want to buy it.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: mugs
I've spent about 100 hours playing it. I'm just amazed that someone would choose not to play an otherwise fine game because of the graphics alone.

People put too much of an onus on graphics these days. Yes, they do help add to the experience and if visuals hinder gameplay then thats a problem, but they're not going to kill a game for me.

Gameplay > Visuals

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: mugs
I've spent about 100 hours playing it. I'm just amazed that someone would choose not to play an otherwise fine game because of the graphics alone.

People put too much of an onus on graphics these days. Yes, they do help add to the experience and if visuals hinder gameplay then thats a problem, but they're not going to kill a game for me.

Gameplay > Visuals

Sure. Then again, since gameplay and visuals aren't correlated by this theory, why not demand both?

 

[warcrow]

I popped the game in yesterday and played around with it for about an hour. Though the visuals are really nothing special (the environments I saw were pretty lame and barren to be honest), but the feel of movement and firing felt pretty good to me.

I kind of liked the Necar thing, but I dont know if it's something that will last as entertainment or just get annoying.

My initial impression overall is not that good, especially when considering the other options out there for FPSs. We'll see how it goes though.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: mugs
I've spent about 100 hours playing it. I'm just amazed that someone would choose not to play an otherwise fine game because of the graphics alone.

People put too much of an onus on graphics these days. Yes, they do help add to the experience and if visuals hinder gameplay then thats a problem, but they're not going to kill a game for me.

Gameplay > Visuals

Yeah exactly. If he had said "I'd play Halo 3 more if it looked like Haze and had a sprint button and had a better variety of weapons and the maps were better," that makes sense. But to not play a game because of the graphics alone, that's just silly.

 

[abaez]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I hate seeing games that look like they actually had some time put into them receive such horrible reviews. I doubt this company was just trying to make a quick buck when making this game and you know it has to suck when they see what kind of 'praise' they receive upon release.

I really hate this too. When the first IGN review came out it really seemed like the devs were hurt/surprised at the rating and tried to defend themselves. It seemed like an overreaction but now with the Joystiq meta-review with 4-5 places saying it's not that good.. that must be just a horrible feeling taking three years to develop something only for people not to like it.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: abaez
I really hate this too. When the first IGN review came out it really seemed like the devs were hurt/surprised at the rating and tried to defend themselves. It seemed like an overreaction but now with the Joystiq meta-review with 4-5 places saying it's not that good.. that must be just a horrible feeling taking three years to develop something only for people not to like it.

The truth hurts. They knew it wasn't good when they were making it and they got paid for it at the same time. I'm not shedding any tears for them.

I'm amazed there was any hype for this game to begin with, it's never looked exceptional in any way.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: mugs
I've spent about 100 hours playing it. I'm just amazed that someone would choose not to play an otherwise fine game because of the graphics alone.

People put too much of an onus on graphics these days. Yes, they do help add to the experience and if visuals hinder gameplay then thats a problem, but they're not going to kill a game for me.

Gameplay > Visuals

Yeah exactly. If he had said "I'd play Halo 3 more if it looked like Haze and had a sprint button and had a better variety of weapons and the maps were better," that makes sense. But to not play a game because of the graphics alone, that's just silly.

Check what I actually said, "framerate and image fidelity ". If the framerate was stable, I would forgive the lack of AA and crappy texture flitering, but the rough grpahics along with the nasty framerate made me loose interest in the game quickly.

 

[Ackmed]

On metascore.. it has a 6.8 user review, out of almost 150 votes. Gamepro gave it a 70%.