Haze came out finally.

[Modeps]

I'm really interested in seeing how the reviews pan out for this one... mostly because this is one of the few exclusive third party games the PS3 has going for it.

IGN == 4.5
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/875/875229p1.html

 

[erwos]

I'm not terribly interested. "FPS with story" - big deal.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: erwos
I'm not terribly interested. "FPS with story" - big deal.

Dont forget about NECTAR!

 

[sanzen07]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: erwos
I'm not terribly interested. "FPS with story" - big deal.

Dont forget about NECTAR!

Don't forget about the fact that they got Korn to do a song for the game. That almost killed any interest I previously had in the game.

 

[Engraver]

I played the demo (which was supposedly from E3 2007, or so I heard), and wasn't particularly impressed. The nectar system doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to restore health and make your enemies easier to see, the other benefits are negligible.

 

[CasioTech]

ummmmmm. juiceeeeee... I mean, nectarrrrrrr...

 

[Queasy]

Heh, Haze is the latest game to be struck with the "It's not 720p!" controversy.

When I mentioned our story, Derek told me that the final game does indeed render at 1024by576, contrary to what is said by Ubisoft on the Playstation Blog; ?From some other comments I read, I wanted to clarify that the game runs at 720p resolution.? Of course, Haze will output at 720p since the Playstation 3 can upscale, but this is not reflective of the game?s native resolution. Derek exclusively told us why they made the decision to render at a lower than HD resolution:

We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res. Personally, I don?t really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games ?It?s not running at true HD!? And it?s like, I don?t care. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me.

In asking whether the resolution was decided towards the end of development, Derek replied:

Yes. Well, as you develop an engine you?re aiming for a certain thing, but as all the pieces slot into place, you end up realising what sort of resolution you can run it at and that?s where we ended up with for Haze.

If you were to move forward with our next games, then as we optimise the engine we might be going, ?Oh yeah, we?ll step things up and change things.? But then different games we work on might have different requirements, so things may change there again. It?s all about how you use the resources you?ve got. But I don?t understand why people care whether there?s 20 pixels, 50 pixels, or 100 pixels more?

Naturally, I said that it?s not only a 100 pixel difference. 720p is over 300,000 pixels more than 576p:

Well, I always say, judge it [Haze] by the whole experience. Sit down with it and enjoy it. If people come away from that saying ?Yeah, the resolution was a bit lower than I was expecting? then I hope people wouldn?t, because it has other things it does really well.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Heh, Haze is the latest game to be struck with the "It's not 720p!" controversy.

When I mentioned our story, Derek told me that the final game does indeed render at 1024by576, contrary to what is said by Ubisoft on the Playstation Blog; ?From some other comments I read, I wanted to clarify that the game runs at 720p resolution.? Of course, Haze will output at 720p since the Playstation 3 can upscale, but this is not reflective of the game?s native resolution. Derek exclusively told us why they made the decision to render at a lower than HD resolution:

We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res. Personally, I don?t really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games ?It?s not running at true HD!? And it?s like, I don?t care. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me.

In asking whether the resolution was decided towards the end of development, Derek replied:

Yes. Well, as you develop an engine you?re aiming for a certain thing, but as all the pieces slot into place, you end up realising what sort of resolution you can run it at and that?s where we ended up with for Haze.

If you were to move forward with our next games, then as we optimise the engine we might be going, ?Oh yeah, we?ll step things up and change things.? But then different games we work on might have different requirements, so things may change there again. It?s all about how you use the resources you?ve got. But I don?t understand why people care whether there?s 20 pixels, 50 pixels, or 100 pixels more?

Naturally, I said that it?s not only a 100 pixel difference. 720p is over 300,000 pixels more than 576p:

Well, I always say, judge it [Haze] by the whole experience. Sit down with it and enjoy it. If people come away from that saying ?Yeah, the resolution was a bit lower than I was expecting? then I hope people wouldn?t, because it has other things it does really well.

yea, I don't even care though. Game looked nice in the demo.
this going to be one game though, that I definitely want to see the reviews. I'm interested in how multiplayer will pan out, because timesplitters multiplayer was fun.
And I enjoyed Timesplitters single player too. The demo gave basically no taste to the game, but it gave me a good impression for the shooter parts, except no cover system. But, this is taking the game back from the realistic shooters of this generation, to the arcadey shooters of the past, but with better shooting. I don't mind that at all, brings back the crazy run and game aspect that doesn't really exist anymore.
If its a game that reviews deem as worth buying (regardless of scores), then it'll be a long while before I buy it. With MGS4 coming out in a few weeks, and with money being tight, I'm not buying games left and right.

+

 

[randay]

i dont think ill pick it up, dont really like fps on console personally.

as for the native res crap. im kind of disappointed. at least with the upscaling its not noticable. guess the video card is also the limiting factor in consoles just like in pcs.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Heh, Haze is the latest game to be struck with the "It's not 720p!" controversy.

When I mentioned our story, Derek told me that the final game does indeed render at 1024by576, contrary to what is said by Ubisoft on the Playstation Blog; ?From some other comments I read, I wanted to clarify that the game runs at 720p resolution.? Of course, Haze will output at 720p since the Playstation 3 can upscale, but this is not reflective of the game?s native resolution. Derek exclusively told us why they made the decision to render at a lower than HD resolution:

We prioritise a nice smooth framerate over a different res. Personally, I don?t really buy the whole thing. People did the same with Call of Duty, they did the same with Halo, and they say with those games ?It?s not running at true HD!? And it?s like, I don?t care. If the game looks good and it runs smoothly, those are the important things to me.

In asking whether the resolution was decided towards the end of development, Derek replied:

Yes. Well, as you develop an engine you?re aiming for a certain thing, but as all the pieces slot into place, you end up realising what sort of resolution you can run it at and that?s where we ended up with for Haze.

If you were to move forward with our next games, then as we optimise the engine we might be going, ?Oh yeah, we?ll step things up and change things.? But then different games we work on might have different requirements, so things may change there again. It?s all about how you use the resources you?ve got. But I don?t understand why people care whether there?s 20 pixels, 50 pixels, or 100 pixels more?

Naturally, I said that it?s not only a 100 pixel difference. 720p is over 300,000 pixels more than 576p:

Well, I always say, judge it [Haze] by the whole experience. Sit down with it and enjoy it. If people come away from that saying ?Yeah, the resolution was a bit lower than I was expecting? then I hope people wouldn?t, because it has other things it does really well.

640p is one thing, thats fairly close to 720p. 576p isnt HD. Its standard def (PAL is 576i). Theyre pushing it a little too far. I'm all for a solid framerate, but there should at least be some sort of bare minimum standard. I don't recall last generations games being run at 320x240 with upscaling to 480p. At this rate, everything will just be plain ol 480p by next year.

 

[Kromis]

Big whoop

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: Kromis
Big whoop

Thank you for your constructive addition to this post.

 

[Thraxen]

Demo was fairly bland the first time through, but I enjoyed it more the 2nd time through in co-op. I think this game will be a Gamefly rental for me. I'll probably play through once or twice on co-op and send it on back.

 

[jrphoenix]

Unless it comes out for the 360 I won't get a chance to play. I don't want to spend $400 for this game. Is this a timed exclusive?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Unless it comes out for the 360 I won't get a chance to play. I don't want to spend $400 for this game. Is this a timed exclusive?

Not really known.
It was originally going to all PS3, 360 and PC, then they announced it would be a timed exclusive for the PS3, and then they announced, or it was revealed, that they dropped development on PC and 360. So at this point, who knows...

+

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Unless it comes out for the 360 I won't get a chance to play. I don't want to spend $400 for this game. Is this a timed exclusive?

Not really known.
It was originally going to all PS3, 360 and PC, then they announced it would be a timed exclusive for the PS3, and then they announced, or it was revealed, that they dropped development on PC and 360. So at this point, who knows...

+

Weird... Sony must have paid them a lot of money to exclude 20,000,000 potential consumers? Good luck to them... we'll see the reviews soon.

 

[potato28]

I've heard a few people talking about it, and a few that are excited just because they're PS3 fanboys.

 

[BoberFett]

I'll be much more excited when the next Timesplitters comes out.

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: Kromis
Big whoop

Thank you for your constructive addition to this post.

Lol, sorry. I meant that as a reply to the above post about HD and 576p.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: Kromis
Big whoop

Thank you for your constructive addition to this post.

Lol, sorry. I meant that as a reply to the above post about HD and 576p.

i agree.

it's pretty sad all the "bad publicity" these huge games are getting because they aren't 720p native.

as long as the game looks good who gives a shit what resolution its running at?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: Kromis
Big whoop

Thank you for your constructive addition to this post.

Lol, sorry. I meant that as a reply to the above post about HD and 576p.

i agree.

it's pretty sad all the "bad publicity" these huge games are getting because they aren't 720p native.

as long as the game looks good who gives a shit what resolution its running at?

Hey, I agree with that and all, but if I had a dollar for every time I've heard the wii get shit on cause its only 480p I'd be a rich man.

Personally it seems silly to me to lock it at near low-res. Why cant we have the choice of resolution, and let us decide how framey we want it to be? I'm perfectly fine with the fact that GTA4 runs smoother at 480p than it does at 720p on the 360. It just seems like a dirty hack the way theyre lowering the resolution.

To be fair you need to be sitting pretty close to a decently large TV to notice the full detail of 720p, but these standards exist for a reason. Games are supposed to look better over the life of a console, not worse. This is the system that promised full 1080p and all.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: Kromis
Big whoop

Thank you for your constructive addition to this post.

Lol, sorry. I meant that as a reply to the above post about HD and 576p.

i agree.

it's pretty sad all the "bad publicity" these huge games are getting because they aren't 720p native.

as long as the game looks good who gives a shit what resolution its running at?

Hey, I agree with that and all, but if I had a dollar for every time I've heard the wii get shit on cause its only 480p I'd be a rich man.

Personally it seems silly to me to lock it at near low-res. Why cant we have the choice of resolution, and let us decide how framey we want it to be? I'm perfectly fine with the fact that GTA4 runs smoother at 480p than it does at 720p on the 360. It just seems like a dirty hack the way theyre lowering the resolution.

To be fair you need to be sitting pretty close to a decently large TV to notice the full detail of 720p, but these standards exist for a reason. Games are supposed to look better over the life of a console, not worse. This is the system that promised full 1080p and all.

thing is, the ps3 upscales it to 720p, so what you see is still 720p resolution, it's just scaled to that res. the wii doesn't do that. and check all the times i shitted on my wii, i didn't really mention that it can't do HD. i just said the graphics typically dont look that great, however some games look great (mario).

also, like you said, you can pick the res of the games you want to run them at when you set the consoles display.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
thing is, the ps3 upscales it to 720p, so what you see is still 720p resolution, it's just scaled to that res. the wii doesn't do that. and check all the times i shitted on my wii, i didn't really mention that it can't do HD. i just said the graphics typically dont look that great, however some games look great (mario).

also, like you said, you can pick the res of the games you want to run them at when you set the consoles display.

The PS3 scaling it to 720p would be no different than your TV itself scaling it to 720p, and therefore no different than plugging in my Wii on 480p and having it scale to 720p. Exact same thing. For some reason people seem to think that "ooh, but the PS3 is scaling it" actually means something good, but the end result is theoretically worse, since its usually being scaled twice (to 768p/1080p).

As far as the shitting on Wii goes, I wasnt referring to you specifically. I know you love shitting on the Wii, but it was meant as a generality.

Believe me, I'm much more of a frame rate whore than a resolution whore, but I dont like the idea of faking it - IMO they'd be much better off just lowering the detail to the proper amount where it can run at a decent resolution - you might have the choice between 480p and 720p in the settings, but if the game is locked to 576p, it isnt much of a choice.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: purbeast0
thing is, the ps3 upscales it to 720p, so what you see is still 720p resolution, it's just scaled to that res. the wii doesn't do that. and check all the times i shitted on my wii, i didn't really mention that it can't do HD. i just said the graphics typically dont look that great, however some games look great (mario).

also, like you said, you can pick the res of the games you want to run them at when you set the consoles display.

The PS3 scaling it to 720p would be no different than your TV itself scaling it to 720p, and therefore no different than plugging in my Wii on 480p and having it scale to 720p. Exact same thing. For some reason people seem to think that "ooh, but the PS3 is scaling it" actually means something good, but the end result is theoretically worse, since its usually being scaled twice (to 768p/1080p).

As far as the shitting on Wii goes, I wasnt referring to you specifically. I know you love shitting on the Wii, but it was meant as a generality.

Believe me, I'm much more of a frame rate whore than a resolution whore, but I dont like the idea of faking it - IMO they'd be much better off just lowering the detail to the proper amount where it can run at a decent resolution - you might have the choice between 480p and 720p in the settings, but if the game is locked to 576p, it isnt much of a choice.

yea i see what you are saying about the locking.

the thing is, it may not lock it. i know for a fact that when i got saints row back in the day, i was running it at 720p on my tv and it looked pretty bad. i brought it to the beach and hooked it up to a 27" round screen tube, and it was only 480i. the game ran TONS smoother than it did on my 720p screen, i'm talking like night/day. so i'm assuming that game had some kind of actual true scaling in game, and that was way back in the early days of the 360.

so i would guess these games may too have true scaling based on the settings of your console, but it may not be the case.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: purbeast0
thing is, the ps3 upscales it to 720p, so what you see is still 720p resolution, it's just scaled to that res. the wii doesn't do that. and check all the times i shitted on my wii, i didn't really mention that it can't do HD. i just said the graphics typically dont look that great, however some games look great (mario).

also, like you said, you can pick the res of the games you want to run them at when you set the consoles display.

The PS3 scaling it to 720p would be no different than your TV itself scaling it to 720p, and therefore no different than plugging in my Wii on 480p and having it scale to 720p. Exact same thing. For some reason people seem to think that "ooh, but the PS3 is scaling it" actually means something good, but the end result is theoretically worse, since its usually being scaled twice (to 768p/1080p).

As far as the shitting on Wii goes, I wasnt referring to you specifically. I know you love shitting on the Wii, but it was meant as a generality.

Believe me, I'm much more of a frame rate whore than a resolution whore, but I dont like the idea of faking it - IMO they'd be much better off just lowering the detail to the proper amount where it can run at a decent resolution - you might have the choice between 480p and 720p in the settings, but if the game is locked to 576p, it isnt much of a choice.

yea i see what you are saying about the locking.

the thing is, it may not lock it. i know for a fact that when i got saints row back in the day, i was running it at 720p on my tv and it looked pretty bad. i brought it to the beach and hooked it up to a 27" round screen tube, and it was only 480i. the game ran TONS smoother than it did on my 720p screen, i'm talking like night/day. so i'm assuming that game had some kind of actual true scaling in game, and that was way back in the early days of the 360.

so i would guess these games may too have true scaling based on the settings of your console, but it may not be the case.

The reason it ran so much better in 480i is because the game was GPU limited, and running it at a lower resolution allowed for a higher frame rate. It had nothing to do with scaling. If you would have changed your settings to 480p on your 720p TV, it would be super smooth as well. You'd also get the same effect with GTA4, but its much less pronounced since its not as entirely GPU limited.

If theyre running the game stock at 576p, they've got two choices for people running 480i/p sets. They can let it run at a true 480p and itll be a little bit faster, or they can just downscale the 576p and the 480i/p will have very nice AA, and run the same speed.

I'm curious what frame rate the game runs at though. If its 576p and 30fps, thats just terrible coding.