Haze : The official game thread

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
???



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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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
 
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...
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
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.

It's certainly not a 4/10 though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top