Haze : The official game thread [Archive] - Page 2

deepbrown

09-May-2008, 08:27

Stop fighting guys.:-|

and @deepbrown : how does the in-game messaging work? is it in the demo?

It works in the menu screen - which is something that warhawk and cod4 annoyingly lack. And it tells me I have a new message ingame (little yellow envelope) but haven't quite worked out how to read it yet.

Gradthrawn

10-May-2008, 14:14

It works in the menu screen - which is something that warhawk and cod4 annoyingly lack. And it tells me I have a new message ingame (little yellow envelope) but haven't quite worked out how to read it yet.

From what I've seen, based on the demo, the full friends list is only available when you're not in an active gaming session. When in a game, you're restricted to access to Game Invites only, and cannot bring up the XMB friends list. But, that's just the demo.

Nesh

10-May-2008, 15:40

I didnt play the demo much, but the visuals based on what I ve seen werent spectacular.

RenegadeRocks

11-May-2008, 14:44

I liked the co-op, play at the night sometimes.Adds a lot of replayability!

deepbrown

14-May-2008, 19:28

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/05/14/haze-your-questions-answered/

From some other comments I read, I wanted to clarify that the game runs at 720p resolution.

oh reealy :???:

RenegadeRocks

14-May-2008, 20:36

Famistu has a review 34/40 ! I am pleasantly surprised ! i didn't expect such good scores, I thought it would be just 6 or 7/10 :wink3:

Cornsnake

14-May-2008, 21:14

I wouldn't ask a japanese mag to judge an FPS.

whome0

14-May-2008, 21:46

From what I've seen, based on the demo, the full friends list is only available when you're not in an active gaming session. When in a game, you're restricted to access to Game Invites only, and cannot bring up the XMB friends list. But, that's just the demo.

I realised it only today that demo had a some form of ingame-XMB access :-)
Maybe I was just playing a demo happily. I do actually like this game a lot, Nectar brings new aspect to the gameplay. The final storyline may bring this game to a new level.

And graphics look good in my tv screen (32" 720p Sony Bravia).

PARANOiA

15-May-2008, 00:46

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2008/05/14/haze-your-questions-answered/

oh reealy :???:

Runs at or is rendered at? Halo 3 runs at 1080p out of my 360 thanks to the scaling :razz:

patsu

15-May-2008, 02:37

I played the Haze demo for the first time late last night. Thanks to all the negative reporting, the game is underrated. I expected to quit half way in disgust. Instead, I actually couldn't find any major flaw with the game. May be people very picky with graphics can and will point out all the inadequacies but as an average gamer, it's not bad at all.

There're abundant vegetation and enemies were all hiding in the right places (until I had my first dose of the Nectar to reveal them all). The guns had very good feel to them (looks heavy and sounds loud with strong bass). I don't particularly love the art style (Then again, I have the same feeling towards Resistance's art style till today). The guns look a little generic. In fact, I didn't know I had a sniper rifle to boot. I thought that was a pistol with one-hit kill :lol:

Fresh from RFOM, there were a few details I needed to get used to, but the level design seemed tight enough. I left the demo thinking I should re-evaluate the game. I was too tired and have not tried MP (Is it available in the demo ?).

Gradthrawn

15-May-2008, 02:46

The guns look a little generic. In fact, I didn't know I had a sniper rifle to boot. I thought that was a pistol with one-hit kill :lol:

Where's the sniper rifle? Does one of the rebels drop it?

patsu

15-May-2008, 03:14

I thought it's your secondary weapon (Press O, I think) ? Or is it really a large pistol with zoom ? :lol:

Gradthrawn

15-May-2008, 03:18

I thought it's your secondary weapon (Press O, I think) ? Or is it really a large pistol with zoom ? :lol:

Holy crap. I'll have to recheck. Either way, it proves your point!

RenegadeRocks

15-May-2008, 07:36

Its the pistol! very powerful one shot kill. The zoom is standard Nectar zoom and can be used with any weapon. i like the rebel gun the best! :) nice firing rate

patsu

15-May-2008, 08:19

One of my section mates was overdosed in the demo. So I shot him and took his ammo. The giant pistol is actually my favorite weapon in the demo. The rebel gun and the standard issued assault rifle are both satisfying to use. But they are a tad normal compared to the Resistance guns. ;-)

RenegadeRocks

15-May-2008, 08:23

Resistance Carbine is my fav gun ever I can say :) ! i don't know why but I just feel so confident with it! very solid!

deepbrown

15-May-2008, 10:16

Well we'll see just how far Haze has come on tomorrow, in Derby. Should be fun.

DaJuice

15-May-2008, 23:55

I played through the demo once and deleted it. No thanks.

Gradthrawn

16-May-2008, 00:15

Did another play through to find this supposed "sniper-rifle." :grin: It is the pistol as others have now stated. I never even gave it a try any of the other times I played the demo. It is quite powerful! Despite the rate of fire being slow, I like it.

That is probably my 5th or so play through. My opinion of it hasn't changed much from what I wrote above. Solid controls and weapons. Possibly involved and engaging story. Found it quite enjoyable, despite the graphics which I initially felt to be disappointing, but they've grown on me.

Definitely want to give the full game a try. I still feel $60 might be bit hard for me to chew though. We'll see. I've paid as much for worse and bigger letdowns. :razz:

patsu

16-May-2008, 00:25

I think the demo would be more distinct if I use the pistol exclusively. May be they should have let us play the rebel instead. It should give a more unique experience. I'll find another opportunity to replay.

deepbrown

18-May-2008, 21:22

Got my copy, so I'll let you know :)

pipo

19-May-2008, 11:42

Haze is blurry because it's 576p, according to Quaz.

Contrary to a PlayStation blog post which suggested that PS3 exclusive FPS Haze ran at 720p, developer Free Radical has said that it natively runs at 576p, leaving the PS3 to upscale.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10540&Itemid=9

ultragpu

19-May-2008, 12:21

thats really dissapointing, no buy for me. and this better not a be an ongoin trend for this gen, shame on you freeradical for following that route.

DJ12

19-May-2008, 13:25

I think it's fine if it was the greatest looking game ever, but it's little better than average in my opinion. They must've really zagged when they should've zigged when writing their engine.

Cheezdoodles

19-May-2008, 13:29

Tried it today, no buy for me, this game has nothing on the top FPS games out there, and i dont have time to play average games.

inefficient

19-May-2008, 13:32

I did not like anything about the game. It's too bad. But it seems like it is going to be dead on arrival.

liolio

19-May-2008, 13:34

Shifty Geezer

19-May-2008, 14:59

thats really dissapointing, no buy for me. and this better not a be an ongoin trend for this gen, shame on you freeradical for following that route.It was an ongoing trend last generation! Just no-one was counting pixels and reporting it. We run the risk of people being blinded by numbers. All that matters is what's on screen. If it looks good, who cares what techniques the devs have used?! Any complaint should be about results, rather than focussing on numbers, especially when 5 years ago people the same 'problem' existed but people were content to watch upscaled games with nary a worry.

JPT

19-May-2008, 15:15

Tried it today, no buy for me, this game has nothing on the top FPS games out there, and i dont have time to play average games.

Did you try Co-Op? I haven't tried that and that is actually the only part that interests me with this game, but all my friends, thats both of the really, are busy playing GTA4 :)

ultragpu

19-May-2008, 16:39

It was an ongoing trend last generation! Just no-one was counting pixels and reporting it. We run the risk of people being blinded by numbers. All that matters is what's on screen. If it looks good, who cares what techniques the devs have used?! Any complaint should be about results, rather than focussing on numbers, especially when 5 years ago people the same 'problem' existed but people were content to watch upscaled games with nary a worry.
if anything i hope the game to look sharper if not 720p and i know 720p would definetly help. im gonna find it hard to to get use to the blurriness after uncharted. does it really make that much of a framerate difference from 576p to 720p?

deepbrown

19-May-2008, 17:02

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10540&Itemid=9

Perhaps link to the original source?http://www.ripten.com/2008/05/18/free-radical-confirms-final-haze-resolution/

BoardBonobo

19-May-2008, 17:36

deepbrown

19-May-2008, 18:07

Played through the demo a few times now, and decided to preorder. The graphics kind of grew on me (40" Bravia) and whilst some of the techniques used to render stuff seem a little... old (bill board vegetation), it's still absorbing enough.

The story seems very solid like Resistance and could quite possibly be engaging enough to make this into a great game (it not being about just the graphics).

All in all I'm quite looking forward to playing it all the way through now!

I can confirm, that despite what's shown in the demo, the story is quite serious (with a dark comic edge) and the presentation is sufficient to portary this in an edgey way. In fact, there's some gameplay sections that are going to get you thinking hard.

I understand how the graphics can grow on you.

desmond

19-May-2008, 18:29

It was an ongoing trend last generation! Just no-one was counting pixels and reporting it. We run the risk of people being blinded by numbers. All that matters is what's on screen. If it looks good, who cares what techniques the devs have used?! Any complaint should be about results, rather than focussing on numbers, especially when 5 years ago people the same 'problem' existed but people were content to watch upscaled games with nary a worry.

Lack of resolution is a huge problem for people who use large displays. 720p image quality starts to degrade at about 40". This game looks like a mess on my 52" screen, just terrible.

-tkf-

19-May-2008, 21:52

Lack of resolution is a huge problem for people who use large displays. 720p image quality starts to degrade at about 40". This game looks like a mess on my 52" screen, just terrible.

I guess it depends on your preferences.. on my 140´sh inch screen it would be playable and enjoyable even if it isn´t 720p. The only problem it has, it´s a FPS.

As a sidenote, the 1080p Wipeout Trailer is incredible and one of the best "demos" i have when i want to impress with "real" HD.

Mobius1aic

19-May-2008, 22:11

I tried out the demo, and was not impressed. It just didn't feel very good to play, when I shot my gun I didn't feel like I was really doing much of anything. Maybe it was just that part of the game, but I think I'm probably not going to pick it up.

PARANOiA

19-May-2008, 22:31

I read an report on Eurogamer and I like the dev attitude, like ok we did this choice to favor framerate etc.

It's better than straight lies and like they state resolution didn't prevent CoD4 to top the charts.

I mean they did whatever they can given the budget and time they were granted with.
Heh have you played both COD4 and Haze? There's a massive difference in graphical quality. COD4 gets the free pass because (besides the obvious resolution difference) it looks amazing. Haze does not.

Tap In

20-May-2008, 08:56

ouch ... IGN 4.5 (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/875/875229p1.html)

Blade47167

20-May-2008, 08:59

ouch ... IGN 4.5 (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/875/875229p1.html)

Really... It can't be that bad but who knows lol.

patsu

20-May-2008, 10:42

Hmm... the demo felt like a regular but capable FPS. It's too bad the developer could not deliver a complete and polished experience.

On hindsight, I wonder if they might be better served focusing on just one platform initially.

Cheezdoodles

20-May-2008, 10:43

I can confirm, that despite what's shown in the demo, the story is quite serious (with a dark comic edge) and the presentation is sufficient to portary this in an edgey way. In fact, there's some gameplay sections that are going to get you thinking hard.

I understand how the graphics can grow on you.

You must be playing a completely different game than the one i played.

patsu

20-May-2008, 10:52

I don't find the graphics distracting. According to the IGN review, the complains seem to be game design related (balance, plot, weapons, AI, etc.). I thought the demo was easy too since the Nectar allowed me to see the enemies clearly. However, I find playing with the giant pistol (slow load time but one-hit kill) without Nectar rather entertaining.

deepbrown

20-May-2008, 13:31

You must be playing a completely different game than the one i played.

In relation to which comment Oste?

DrJay24

20-May-2008, 15:11

ouch ... IGN 4.5 (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/875/875229p1.html)

I find it hard to swallow considering it has 4-player co-op and games like Turning Point and Area 51 got higher scores from IGN. Either they are easier on multi-platform games or they really have something against Haze.

Any game in which I can play through the campaign with my buddy is a minimum 7/10 IMO, it makes any mediocre game fun. Maybe they should even review the game co-op with a second office mate in same room with a separate console.

Phil

20-May-2008, 15:40

Sadly, this review by IGN sums up my fears for the title. Horrid plot, weak presentation and uninspiring gameplay.

What a shame. TimeSplitters was such a good game on the PS2 - it would have been nice to have a multiplayer game to that caliber on PS3 as well.

Tap In

20-May-2008, 16:55

...or they really have something against Haze. ...

well yea... sine they have played it in its entirety and scored it publicly as crap then yea, I'd say they do not like it. :wink:

4.5 Presentation
A bland story with weak characters and simplistic commentaries on serious topics, Haze is a generic tale at best about war.
4.0 Graphics
Tons of visual issues abound within the game, from texture tears and non-descript environments to pop-in and odd animation problems.
5.0 Sound
Dialogue is hokey and repetitive regardless of what side you're on. Sound effects are good, but that's not enough to make you turn the volume up once you've hit mute.
4.5 Gameplay
A creative concept hampered by gimmicks, a weak story and poor AI, Haze is a disappointment from a developer well versed in shooter mechanics.
4.5 Lasting Appeal
Two player split-screen and four player co-op helps put a minor spin on the campaign, but it won't extend the replayability of the game much. Nor will multiplayer modes and its useless merit system.
4.5
Poor OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)

-tkf-

20-May-2008, 18:10

Damn, it was supposed to be a Halo killer...

http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1618/HAZE/p1/

Tap In

20-May-2008, 18:32

Damn, it was supposed to be a Halo killer...

http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1618/HAZE/p1/

Four PC’s running PS3-spec code (yeah, we’re a little fuzzy on what’s going on with the Xbox 360 version) were networked together,...

This game is simply poetry in motion (best. Water effects. Ever) running on whatever-spec hardware happened to be crammed into the PC.

it must have run much better on the PCs back then they were able to get final code on PS3 as they said at the time (1 year ago) that it looked great.

I think UBI knew this was gonna bomb when they dropped it to one platform.

patsu

20-May-2008, 18:37

I wonder whether the score is too harsh (It's lower than Lair, which was kinda unfinished and buggy). They probably didn't live up to the high expectation in the FPS/shooter genre. It doesn't help too when people have just experienced MGS4, KZ2, and R2 gameplay recently.

it must have run much better on the PCs back then they were able to get final code on PS3 as they said at the time (1 year ago) that it looked great.

I think UBI knew this was gonna bomb when they dropped it to one platform.

Early impressions highlighted inadequacies in the graphics department. The flip-flop between different platforms may have caused development difficulties too. The game is still going to 360 right ?

-tkf-

20-May-2008, 19:03

it must have run much better on the PCs back then they were able to get final code on PS3 as they said at the time (1 year ago) that it looked great.

What?

This is what you posted yourself from IGN:

4.5 Presentation,4.0 Graphics,5.0 Sound,4.5 Gameplay,4.5, Lasting Appeal , 4.5, Poor OVERALL

I dont see how the most powerfull hardware in the world could make a difference.

Why do i get the impression your happy this game sux? :-)

Tap In

20-May-2008, 21:04

I wonder whether the score is too harsh (It's lower than Lair, which was kinda unfinished and buggy). They probably didn't live up to the high expectation in the FPS/shooter genre. It doesn't help too when people have just experienced MGS4, KZ2, and R2 gameplay recently.

Early impressions highlighted inadequacies in the graphics department. The flip-flop between different platforms may have caused development difficulties too. The game is still going to 360 right ?

and compared to CoD4 with its online multiplayer, golden honey goodness...

yea sounds like development was a mess... sent to die is how it looks. not coming to 360 any more AFAIK

edit:
but to your point, I can not see it being any worse than Time Shift or Frontlines: Fuel of War for that matter. It's either being held to a higher standard due to hype or it really is bad.

patsu

20-May-2008, 21:10

and compared to CoD4 with its online multiplayer, golden honey goodness...

Yes, if we include already launched games, then CoD4 and R1 are both superb shooters.

sent to die is how it looks.

???

not coming to 360 any more AFAIK

If true, should have focused on PS3 from day one.

Tap In

20-May-2008, 21:14

???

If true, should have focused on PS3 from day one.

see my edit

... also re: sent to die, meaning it looks like UBI was afraid to drop any more money into multiplatform so they just released one platform and put it behind them.

Asher

20-May-2008, 21:20

It looks to me like Ubi spotted trouble with the game and dropped one of the platforms to make the job easier on the devs. Since the 360 has Halo, PS3 doesn't really have a recent competitor there, the PS3 choice was easy.

I'm not sure a simple "should've focused on PS3 from day one" is a really valid comment. To me the problems look to be in game design (nothing new, and the stuff carried over doesn't look particularly well-executed), weak story, weak voice acting...this is in addition to the crappy graphics. I played the demo the other day and quit after about 3 minutes -- I lasted longer in the Turok demo.

To me it seems to be a trainwreck in game development from start to finish rather than an issue in platform choice or being multiplatform.

patsu

20-May-2008, 21:32

There are too many shooters already: R1, CoD4, UT3, plus others. Given the negative buzz, I doubt they will move many units. :(

Focusing on one platform has smaller scope and is more economical. They may have more resources and time for other aspects as a result. Resistance, Warhawk and MotorStorm are all great examples (First game, well executed).

I mentioned cross platform development because this was the only thing that stood out (Their flip-flopping). Lair was problematic too, but at least it had an ambitious visual target to hit (Scale is still impressive by today's standards).

DrJay24

20-May-2008, 22:03

GoGamer.com has been advertising the PC version for a while.

Release Date: Jul 1, 2008

http://www.gogamer.com/Haze-Front-Page_stcVVproductId42080314VVcatId444710VVviewprod .htm

If it's real, I doubt the PS3 exclusivity was nothing more than a timed exclusive deal.

ninzel

20-May-2008, 23:27

Some real disappointments from this spring lineup. Dark Sector is horrible,now this.

Asher

21-May-2008, 00:52

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/haze/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary

From Gamespot's review:

The term "artificial intelligence" only half-applies to your computer-controlled challengers, who are laughably, painfully stupid. Foes will run directly past you as if you aren't there, stand motionless as you fire, and completely ignore grenades tossed toward them. On the occasions when they do notice that a grenade has been thrown, they will wait a few seconds and then leap forward as if stealing second base--sometimes choosing to dive toward the grenade, rather than away from it. You may even find an enemy facing a wall, pointing his gun at a texture rather than noticing that you are standing directly beside him. You're frequently accompanied by AI-driven squadmates, and sadly they fare no better. They seem incapable of using cover intelligently, they stand in your line of sight, and they're often more hindrance than help. In tandem, the AI of both factions will create scenes of comical ineptitude, such as when a trooper and rebel circle one another for 30 seconds in a surreal do-si-do.

That's hilariously bad. Makes me wonder what those sites were thinking when they gave this game a 9?

Scott_Arm

21-May-2008, 01:18

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/haze/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary

From Gamespot's review:

That's hilariously bad. Makes me wonder what those sites were thinking when they gave this game a 9?

That review almost makes me want to play it. Hilariously stupid things, even unintentional ones, can be pretty entertaining.

patsu

21-May-2008, 01:43

It sounds like the demo is the most normal level coz I didn't think it was that bad. The AI was ok (nothing surprising). I killed one of my comrades because he shot me and I thought he was overdosed. May be it's just bad AI :lol:

How many years/months was it under development ?

patsu

21-May-2008, 06:11

Well even so, the demo was not too bad for me. It was mildly entertaining. I like the pistol and don't have a big problem with the graphics. My berserked comrade may indeed be overdosed since I saw yellow stuff leaking out. But it's all very vague now.

People spent months if not years of their lives trying to make the game work. I am sure they have made the best of it given the time, money and other constraints they faced.

deepbrown

21-May-2008, 10:56

Indeed, I'm interested in hearing from those in this thread that have the game and/or have been praising it as being a high quality title. What do you find is flawed in these reviews that makes the game so different from your experience?

Oh and it's a shame 1Up won't be reviewing this one thanks to being blacklisted by UBI... would have been good to get another bit site's thoughts up.

I've always had it around a 7/10 and there's plenty of good about it.

I've always called for a map and torch - cause you get terribly lost in dark corners. A compass is not useful inside >_> a place full of boxes. A compass is for rambling mountains and reaching the north pole.

And yes I've experienced enemies running straight past me and to a squad mate

Cheezdoodles

22-May-2008, 19:27

it must have run much better on the PCs back then they were able to get final code on PS3 as they said at the time (1 year ago) that it looked great.

That means nothing, all previews are super positive, no matter how bad the game is, mainly because gaming journalism builds around hype...

RobertR1

22-May-2008, 20:34

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=142250

4/10.

"You really have to wonder how it all ended up this dreadful, especially after all the time and resource Ubisoft and Free Radical expended telling people the opposite. The combat's weak, the storyline's excruciating, it's technically deficient - Haze really is this year's most significant gaming disappointment. The fact that the creative forces behind this moribund excuse for a blockbuster feel that it is BAFTA-worthy has to be one of the most tragically comic examples of self-delusion we've ever witnessed."

AlphaWolf

22-May-2008, 20:39

While its getting mostly crucified by the press, I have seen a fair number of advertisements for it (not as many as GTAIV or AC but way more than the average game seems to get). It'll be interesting to see if that translates into numbers despite the reviews.

the ignoramus

23-May-2008, 08:17

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/haze/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary

From Gamespot's review:

That's hilariously bad. Makes me wonder what those sites were thinking when they gave this game a 9?

Except the problem with this, is that not only is Haze's AI a fair challenge, it's significantly better than the truly braindead, heavily scripted Combine soldiers in HL2 or the suicidal Germans/Russians/Arabs in Infinity Ward's games.
C'mon man, have you played the game?
Haze's AI isn't all that bad. I'm not sure what kind of issues this reviewer ran into, but playing the game on its second hardest difficulty, I am encountering AI that sticks to cover, moves when it's exposed, dives away from incoming vehicles, etc. It's basic AI.

patsu

23-May-2008, 16:18

Except the problem with this, is that not only is Haze's AI a fair challenge, it's significantly better than the truly braindead, heavily scripted Combine soldiers in HL2 or the suicidal Germans/Russians/Arabs in Infinity Ward's games.
C'mon man, have you played the game?
Haze's AI isn't all that bad. I'm not sure what kind of issues this reviewer ran into, but playing the game on its second hardest difficulty, I am encountering AI that sticks to cover, moves when it's exposed, dives away from incoming vehicles, etc. It's basic AI.

I see. I thought the demo played like a normal FPS (The AI wasn't too stupid, but wasn't as smart as RFOM and Uncharted). Unfortunately, the game will be compared with other quality ones. So if it's not polished, it may stand out like a sore thumb. For what it's worth, I saw the game retail for $45 in Fry's. May be hardcore FPS players will bite.

BoardBonobo

23-May-2008, 22:16

Having read the online reviews and then the customer reviews on Amazon and few other hands on experiences I've decided that Haze really seems to be worth a go. From what people who have actually played it have said it seems a lot better than the reviews have made out. Will let you know in a few daze...

ninzel

24-May-2008, 04:05

So I'm about 3 levels into this game(if you can call them levels) and I'm just not getting the intense criticism of the game. The game is not perfect but has some really strong points.
The gunplay is good,not the best but nowhere near the worst either. The pacing is quite good and the game moves at a nice clip mixing things up.
Graphically I'm really liking it.It is definately not as high res as I've come to expect,but at the same time the texture work is great with some very realistic surfaces. The lighting and shadowing is fantastic and overall the art work is very well and tastefully done.
Some of the environments are the most natural looking I've seen in a game. AA is applied well. The overall impression is very polished.
Maybe it depends on the TV you play it on.
So far it looks really good and is fun.

deepbrown

24-May-2008, 10:36

ninzel

24-May-2008, 11:46

Nah...gets worse as it goes on visuallly. First level is the best looking. Don't see how you can say there are realistic textures - there are none.

There is no AA, so it can't be well applied.

It's certainly not a 4/10 though.

Realistic surfaces as in the colours chosen and the art work of the textures.They might not have that wet plasticy look that seems to be all the rage,but that effect is most often overdone IMO.
If there is no AA at all why don't I see big jaggies while watching it on my 62" TV? That's usually the first thing I notice,in this game it's just not popping up on my radar.
Every level graphically so far has impressed me in it's own way.
I would give the game about a 7.5-7.8 so far.
Edit: I had read that the game had no AA,but comparing it to my Wii games there is a huge difference in noticeable jaggies. Wii games at 480 have BIG jaggies that are obvious and sometimes distracting.I didn't thjink that less than an extra 200 lines of resolution would account for no noticeable jaggies by itself.You can see them if you look closely in Haze,but no worse IMO than games that are supposed to have actual AA. The apprent lack of AA just does not stand out.

deepbrown

24-May-2008, 12:27

Realistic surfaces as in the colours chosen and the art work of the textures.They might not have that wet plasticy look that seems to be all the rage,but that effect is most often overdone IMO.
If there is no AA at all why don't I see big jaggies while watching it on my 62" TV? That's usually the first thing I notice,in this game it's just not popping up on my radar.
Every level graphically so far has impressed me in it's own way.
I would give the game about a 7.5-7.8 so far.

There are no depth to the textures - so this "plasticy" thing you talk of is irrelevant. The textures are low resolution, almost flat - go up close and they are all pixelated to the nth degree. I have no idea how you can say the game is impressive on your 62inch screen, especially with pop-in on troopers outfits when you move two feet towards them, the bland environments, the blurriness, the awful gfx.

Let's make no mistake - FR's graphics engine has been continuously downgraded over the last year so they could hit a solid framerate.

ninzel

24-May-2008, 12:43

There are no depth to the textures - so this "plasticy" thing you talk of is irrelevant. The textures are low resolution, almost flat - go up close and they are all pixelated to the nth degree. I have no idea how you can say the game is impressive on your 62inch screen, especially with pop-in on troopers outfits when you move two feet towards them, the bland environments, the blurriness, the awful gfx.

Let's make no mistake - FR's graphics engine has been continuously downgraded over the last year so they could hit a solid framerate.

Weird.I actually think this is one of the better looking games I've played in awhile especially compared to games like Dark Sector that I just finished.
I guess I just find some of these next gen techniques and effects applied to surfaces actually make games a little cartoony looking when overdone.
It definately looks more like a last gen game in that flatter, drier look,but a very tasetefully, polished and well done version of last gen.
I have no problem at all with the look of this game.

deepbrown

24-May-2008, 12:48

Weird.I actually think this is one of the better looking games I've played in awhile especially compared to games like Dark Sector that I just finished.
I guess I just find some of these next gen techniques and effects applied to surfaces actually make games a little cartoony looking when overdone.
It definately looks more like a last gen game in that flatter, drier look,but a very tasetefully, polished and well done version of last gen.
I have no problem at all with the look of this game.

O.K...technically Haze looks awful ;) It looks worse than launch games on both platforms.

My guess is that they had a problem with getting it to run well on the PS3 - and so instead of refining their engine like most developers (of course involves a bit of "downgrading") they just downgraded their engine - lowering texture resolution, lowering resolution, removing AA, etc etc...until the framerate was fixed (which it isn't all the way through).

The engine would have faired much better if they started on PS3 and actually developed to it, rather than PC to PS3 - they should have also got more help from Sony. And they should have wanted to do it - they didnt care about the graphics.

Dark Sector looked pretty good in the demo....nice water streaming down surfaces.

obonicus

24-May-2008, 16:53

There is no AA, so it can't be well applied.

Unless you know something about the full game, Quaz confirmed the demo at 2xAA.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

deepbrown

24-May-2008, 19:22

Unless you know something about the full game, Quaz confirmed the demo at 2xAA.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Oh he did? I take that back then.:grin:

DrJay24

24-May-2008, 21:46

O.K...technically Haze looks awful ;) It looks worse than launch games on both platforms.

I've only played the demo, which may look better than the other levels, but worse than PDZ?

deepbrown

25-May-2008, 02:04

Unless you know something about the full game, Quaz confirmed the demo at 2xAA.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

hold on...no he didnt http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157872&postcount=812

Cheezdoodles

25-May-2008, 12:36

In relation to which comment Oste?

I only played 3 levels, but my impression from that was terrible story, ridiculous AI comments and horrible graphics. The Nectar thingy was imo stupid (its basically a wallhack and a total rip off from Far Cry Insticts Predator), it made the game ridiculously easy.

You on the other hand, seemed all postive to this game (after you had tried it on several occasions)....

That's both rude and untrue. It's got a great story for a shooter, no loading, 4 player co-op, bots in multiplayer, Haze powers are great fun, as are abusing them...so yeah don't talk against Free Radical unless you've had a go.

obonicus

25-May-2008, 15:56

hold on...no he didnt http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1157872&postcount=812

Check again:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1162818&postcount=1086

deepbrown

25-May-2008, 19:17

Check again:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1162818&postcount=1086

That's the problem with forums - you can quote one post and then later the previous post is disproved :) Thanks.

deepbrown

25-May-2008, 19:20

I only played 3 levels, but my impression from that was terrible story, ridiculous AI comments and horrible graphics. The Nectar thingy was imo stupid (its basically a wallhack and a total rip off from Far Cry Insticts Predator), it made the game ridiculously easy.

You on the other hand, seemed all postive to this game (after you had tried it on several occasions)....

Aye I still stand by all of that - the co-op, nectar powers, etc. Story - after playing the full game, does not touch upon every area I was expecting it too - what I had seen previously (the serious part when you changed sides) was really good...but after playing the full game, it doesn't see much of that quality again.

I never thought the graphics were great (something I continually brought up with Ubisoft and FR), and the forest graphics did grow on me...until I played the latter levels where it's gloomy, drab, unimpressive.

ninzel

25-May-2008, 20:16

Some levels are ugly like the village and bridge defend,but others like the quarry,hotel,beach, swamp and forest were very nicely done. Artistically they stand with any other game this gen. In particular I thought the design,architecture and colour choices on the hotel level were very strong. The artists did a very good job of walking the line between stylistic and realistic. I still think lighting is very good,especially the outdoor lighting and indoor to outdoor transitions.
Other games I've played and seen are much more drab and bland than this one,but will likely get a pass do to them better meeting a technical checklist of features.
I see where the criticisms have come from,but they seem to have been over dramatized with this particular game for some reason. I don't usually care how a game fairs,but this game IMO has been very unfairly criticized. Anything under a 7.0 is ridiculous,it's a solid AA game that's worthy of at least a rental.

Shifty Geezer

25-May-2008, 20:32

Some levels are ugly like the village and bridge defend,but others like the quarry,hotel,beach, swamp and forest were very nicely done.Are there any screenies? Gamespot's selection is lack-lustre, and filled with older pics at higher resolution and much greater clarity than the final game.

ninzel

26-May-2008, 02:22

Are there any screenies? Gamespot's selection is lack-lustre, and filled with older pics at higher resolution and much greater clarity than the final game.

These were just taken with my digital camera from my TV.
I liked this level a lot. You start in this cave ad work your way through this small beach.
As you come up to the hotel you see these empty but beautiful turquoise pools,contrasted against this taupe background.
Moving into the hotel you fight your way through the apartments where really nice bright lighting is used. Again it's the use of the natural greys against the terra cotta rooms and the light transitions that make it stand out.

http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze1.jpg
http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze2.jpg
http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze3.jpg
http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze4.jpg
http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze5.jpg
http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze6.jpg
http://s164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/MousPotato/?action=view&current=haze7.jpg

BoardBonobo

03-Jun-2008, 03:02

OK. I've played the game through from start to finish. It's suprising. The story line is half what I expected, no real involvement and to a point boring. The promise hand people repeat the same lines over and over, and so do the mantel troopers (who become so easy to kill late on). The graphics vary from Halo 3 quality to PS2 some times. I hit a few glitches where I had to sit through few reloads before the clipping worked (the observitory level). It was fun to play through. But not the best.

The online has been an absolute hoot though. Brilliant in places. The matched and ranked games are perfectly balanced and the lurning curve is spot on. Nectar versus playing dead. Cool!

Overall I say buy it for online not for single palyer, that would only dissapoint.

Shifty Geezer

04-Jun-2008, 22:57

I played the game last night. One of my budski's meets up with a friend every week to play coop games, mostly shooters. They've gone through pretty much everything on XB360 and PS3, and he bought Haze as the latest fix, so we tried it out in our three-player Tuesday fun-nights (two player of course. No four-player split screen; curse developers!).

It was diabolical!

Seriously, it looked bad, played terribly, had a 'deep story' that we didn't care about, hated the characters, virtual acting sucked, that buggy vehicle thing was a clunky nightmare with the performance of a horse-drawn carriage and a gun with the targeting stabilisation of heavy-weights on elastic. We then tried an online game and it was chaotic and deadfully dull in comparison to Warhawk, which we switched over to playing (friendly fire FTW!).

I don't see any worth to this title in PS3's library - it's superseded on every front by other, older games. And I'm confused how the developers could release something this bad. What went wrong?

Neb

05-Jun-2008, 13:05

It has its moments but of the time I played I felt disgusted by the AI, the graphics alright but a bit late so to say generation wise imo. Co-op is fairly entertaining.

sevanig

05-Jun-2008, 13:58

Ubisoft must be pissed, how much did they sink into this game...

RobertR1

05-Jun-2008, 17:38

Ubisoft must be pissed, how much did they sink into this game...

Depends on how much they scammed out of Sony into make this an exclusive, I'd think.

Gradthrawn

06-Jun-2008, 19:59

Ubisoft must be pissed, how much did they sink into this game...

About the quality of the game? I doubt it. Free Radical probably is (quietly), but I would guess Ubi is more concerned about sales. I have seen quite a bit of marketing force behind it (in the US). More so than other PS3 titles that were actually very good. I wonder how that will translate into units sold. This will be a good model for the review score vs. advertising debate.

deepbrown

06-Jun-2008, 20:17

About the quality of the game? I doubt it. Free Radical probably is (quietly), but I would guess Ubi is more concerned about sales. I have seen quite a bit of marketing force behind it (in the US). More so than other PS3 titles that were actually very good. I wonder how that will translate into units sold. This will be a good model for the review score vs. advertising debate.

Ubisoft seems to be the producer to go to for new IP's, considering AC sales...and I presume Haze sales.

RobertR1

06-Jun-2008, 22:00

Speaking of sales, it'll be $39.99 starting next week at Gamestop and assocaited stores.

AntShaw

06-Jun-2008, 23:46

Speaking of sales, it'll be $39.99 starting next week at Gamestop and assocaited stores.

As terrible as I thought this game was, if I can find it for $20, I would purchase it so I could play co-op.

DrJay24

07-Jun-2008, 01:08

As terrible as I thought this game was, if I can find it for $20, I would purchase it so I could play co-op.

Same here, co-op makes just about any game good. I enjoyed Army of Two co-op, but I doubt I could stomach it solo.

AntShaw

07-Jun-2008, 02:37

Same here, co-op makes just about any game good. I enjoyed Army of Two co-op, but I doubt I could stomach it solo.

Seconded. That game was just as terrible, but my buddies and I got some good fun out of playing co-op.

I really enjoyed 4 man co-op with Halo.

Anyone want to buy this game, and send it to me? I'll play a bunch of co-op with you!! :)