Haze : The official game thread

[djskribbles]

I have seen more fanboys downplaying the game then praising it.

+1. personally, i haven't seen many people praising it, and i visit quite a few gaming forums. thats why i don't mind the delay if they're making it better. because early previews weren't so good.

 

[patsu]

I thought it's clear that Haze is multi-platform (only timed exclusive) ?

I know many complained about the bloom, but has anyone played it ? These people invested time and resources in the game. It's better to hope that they turn out well.

 

[PARANOiA]

I did get a quick 10-odd minutes at a game show a while back and posted my thoughts earlier in this thread. The game was an ugly, jerky mess, with staples of bad visuals that I would have expected last gen (octagonal trees, etc). The segment I played was 'just another squad shooter', so possibly the game offers more than what was demo'ed. While obviously there's still a lot of time to fix these problems, this game was at the time still an '07 title that got jerked back due to the fact it would become another Lair.

I do think the premise could be nice, though, and I'd like to see it work well. I felt a similar response to Timeshift, which was originally nearly complete before they hit the drawing board from scratch..

 

[Squilliam]

+1. personally, i haven't seen many people praising it, and i visit quite a few gaming forums. thats why i don't mind the delay if they're making it better. because early previews weren't so good.

..

I sometimes feel like a laugh so I google xbox 360 vs PS3 I have too much free time. So many times I saw that haze was one of the reasons to not get a "crappy xbot" and get a PS3 because its like so much better omg.

I personally perfer the xbot, but the ps3 has some good titles. I perfer the rumble to sixaxis and the controller feels nicer.

If its sub 85% reviews and or and doesn't come out on the xbot or pcbot im skipping it.

Edit: Shooters are nicer on the xbot

 

[Cornsnake]

I'm all for delaying games if their not ready yet, but if they release it next to Resistance 2, Killzone 2 and Call of Duty 5 then who needs it.

 

[Squilliam]

I'm all for delaying games if their not ready yet, but if they release it next to Resistance 2, Killzone 2 and Call of Duty 5 then who needs it.

I played killzone 1 and it was a solid but average game. What makes you think that it will sudenly get better?

Though I think I have a confession hehe, I liked the story of resistance better than halo 3 I just played it. But the gameplay was more fun... But! It was sameold sameold. They really need a new frachise! Edit: Ooops offtopic

 

[Cornsnake]

Killzone was a solid game but it lacked polish. Killzone Liberation has that polish and is a beter game. So Killzone 2 has potential if they take their time. Resistance is excellent and Insomniac is aiming even higher for the next one.

Back ontopic. I played a demo of Haze last year. It looked bad next to the other games and the gameplay was bland. Nobody I talked to liked it. There is also a newer demo that is suppose to be better but I haven't played it.

 

[patsu]

Wow, that bad huh. I am sure the developers know they are in trouble by now. Hope they can turn the situation around next year. Will leave them alone to do their thing.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Not sure why'd they'd want to delay a finished product to have a similtaneous release... doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Realistically they probably need more time on the PS3 version, though this will likely lead to the "timed exclusive" gap diminishing.

Because if you dont do a simultanious release you need 2 marketing budgets...

 

[Skrying]

Because if you dont do a simultanious release you need 2 marketing budgets...

If the game is good it should sell itself on the next platforms. Still two marketing budgets but the second would be extremely small in comparison to the first I'd guess.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

If the game is good it should sell itself on the next platforms. Still two marketing budgets but the second would be extremely small in comparison to the first I'd guess.

Not at all.

No game on the PS3 sells itself, without marketing. It can be 90% on gamerankings, and sell absymal results, as proven with quite a few titles now.

And with the amount of AAA shooters on the X360, (and not to forget the amount of big shooters that will come by the time this is released) you need solid marketing for this aswell.

 

[holsty101]

Back to a ps3 exclusive?

"Haze Never Coming Out on Xbox 360"

 

[Nesh]

Well seems the title needs to change again

 

[AlphaWolf]

Well seems the title needs to change again

I wouldn't bother changing the title, they'll undoubtedly change their minds at least 3 more times.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Indeed, two random Ubisoft reps at a show don't constitute the ultimate source of Corporate Planning information. Though I will change the title to the Haze thread.

 

[deepbrown]

Indeed, two random Ubisoft reps at a show don't constitute the ultimate source of Corporate Planning information. Though I will change the title to the Haze thread.

I spoke to three. They were very knowledgeable. Explained all the previous decisions, and didnt just say "they didnt know" which they said they didn't not too long ago, but that they now knew the decision had been made to be just PS3.

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

Odd choice, but I guess some monetary agreement has been reached between Ubisoft and Sony. I am not sure whom to direct my puzzlement at? Why would Sony want to pay for an exclusive like Haze, a game which by all first hand accounts was pretty mediocre. On the other hand, Ubisoft probably could have made more money releasing this game across multiple platforms (X360, PC). I guess Sony felt justified in paying for exclusivity, while Ubisoft felt that the monetary compensation was significant enough to outweigh the opportunity cost of forgone sales on other platforms.

I remember seeing the first videos of this game, and thinking it looked incredibly mediocre, but in the recent media the game seems to have shaped up quite a bit visually.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There are also the comments from Sony spokespersons that they don't pay for exclusives to worry about. Are they bald-faced lying? Or is exclusivity solely the developers choice?

Reason for the developers to go exclusive isn't as bizarro as at first it seems. If by focussing on PS3 they've made a better game, they'll improve it's merchantability no end. Insomniac have shown you can sell well and make money by being exclusive and focussing your tech. So if the choice was a mediocre title across two/three platforms, or a good title on one, maybe the choice to go one way was preferred?

It'd be nice if devs were more open about reasons to go exclusive when they do. I'm sure someone will pose that question in interview.

 

[JPT]

Or they feel they have spent enough money on this project and they just want to try an recoup as much as possible without spending anymore, ie lets not port and market it 2 more times.

I liked the story and promo videos etc of Haze, but still the gameplay videos I have seen seems a bit lacking....

 

[Arwin]

Ubisoft has a long standing tradition of abusing the fact that a perceived exclusive attracts more attention. For that reason alone, any comments on exclusivity from their end means nothing to me other than that it will most likely be a timed exclusive and the 360 game won't be there for at least 6 months. It's a viable strategy for multi-platform development, because you can first focus on the first platform, and then on the second, and you can save some money should the project fail.