The Haze review scores have been a bit of a mixed bag so far, with some painfully low scores being slapped on Ubi's shooter. But, in its defence, Free Radical says that "even GoldenEye got 4/10 when it first came out".
The lowest score dished out yet is a damming 4.5/10, which was surprising after the game scoring well in Famitsu (34/40) and Italian PSM (9/10). But Free Radical's Rob Yescombe has brushed it off.
"Haze has had mixed reviews, but even GoldenEye got a 4/10 when it first came out," he told PSU, pointing to the N64 classic which several members of Free Radical worked on as former Rare employees.
"With a 9/10 in the Italian PSM, and an extremely positive review in Famitsu, we're looking forward to people playing Haze and making a judgement for themselves," added an optimistic Yescombe.
I played the demo and to be honest I didnt really like it much, thought it pretty bland but i'll wait til I read more reviews and hear what other people say before deciding if im getting it or not!
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
All I can say is that whoever gave Goldeneye 4/10 needs their head read. Probably someone trying to be a bit controversial at the time and not seen to be jumping on the bandwagon.
So it got a crap score? They should get over it. If they're feeling the need to defend it this early it doesn't exactly instill much confidence in the product.
Haze may not be the best game in the world, but 4.5/10 seems overly harsh. I played the demo a couple of times and enjoyed it. Didn't make me say wow to be honest, but I did have fun, and it was pretty smooth. The review even made me doubt my own judgement, but I stand by it. Never noticed any graphical quirks, and certainly not as many as GTA4, which recieved 10/10 in IGN. Something smells fishy, if you ask me. Not trying to stick up for FR here but giving a decent(ish) shooter a lower score than Ironman is verging on madness. Madness I tells ye!!
wouldnt trust famitsu or a psm mag for a review. on metacritic there are 3 scores so far a 45, 58, and 65 so whatever the dev thinks i reckon this is decidedly average.
I was thinking exactly that!! What moron gave GoldenEye 4/10? I remember NOTHING but glowing reviews of it, and when I first played it, I knew why - and knew that it was defining a genre.
After playing the demo I think this game is nothing more than a run of the mill shooter which is a real shame as I had a lot of hope in FR. 4.5 is a very harsh review and I am sure the game is better than Turok!
5 reviews which span from 4.5/10 to 9/10 hardly decides how good Haze actually is - could well be a game you either love or hate.
Haze has had so much negative hype over the last 5 months these reviews haven't suprised me especially as the positive hype around other games (like halo 3 and gta4) gave games reviews that were far too high.
Unfortunatley in this day and age you can buy good reviews and others can pay for bad ones.
Haze isn't necessarily a bad game design-wise, the graphics and mechanics are all there... but it's not good either. It's average, but so incredibly average that it's not even worth playing, which makes it bad. It's like Halo 3 or Turok... there is a game there, just not a particularly exciting or standout one. It's bland, it's vanilla, it's run-of-the-mill shooter stuff that's all been done before and done better.
With the amount of the bastards on the market these days, it takes something special in an FPS to hold my attention. Bioshock did it. Call of Duty 4 did it. Haze does it not.
I wouldn't ever trust an IGN review after they gave the PS3 version of Pro Evo a 9.2 out of 10, failing to mention even one of the many flaws and glitches.
Was looking forward to this especially the co-op bit, but after playing the demo was quite unimpressed. The demo was badly paced, boring and the cutscenes was uninspiring. Don't developers test their games anymore? A simple test to see if players are smiling, screaming or falling asleep will do. Gutted I liked The Timesplitters series too.
this doesnt really bode too well for the game, and its a shame as it might dent sales aswell.
I'll still gonna get though to make up my own mind
on a side note to LordVonPS3 only
some quotes of yours:
"Haze - May '08. Will certainly SELL very well. Sales will certainly rival Ninja Gaiden 2 on 360."
"Haze will sell very well because as you know, FPS games have a tendency to do well and unlike the 360, the PS3 isn't mostly made up of FPS / 3rd person shooters. People who did get a PS3 and are after more FPS games will be happy."
you see the problem you have LordVon is that you believe you know for definate what will sell what prior to a game's release. Having said that it might sell very well or very poorly(maybe just average) but reviews tend to sway people (£40 is not peanuts). So if you had said "Haze COULD sell very well etc, but then again you have a better informed opinion eh?! peace
Haze may not be the best game in the world, but 4.5/10 seems overly harsh. I played the demo a couple of times and enjoyed it. Didn't make me say wow to be honest, but I did have fun, and it was pretty smooth. The review even made me doubt my own judgement, but I stand by it. Never noticed any graphical quirks, and certainly not as many as GTA4, which recieved 10/10 in IGN. Something smells fishy, if you ask me. Not trying to stick up for FR here but giving a decent(ish) shooter a lower score than Ironman is verging on madness. Madness I tells ye!!
totally agree, it didn't set the world on fire, but it was fun! Definately one to pick up when it's £24.99 or less.
The same happened with Kayne & Lynch, very average, got completely panned, but once you got over yourself about it's inperfections was actually really good fun!
What's more criminal (if you pardon the pun) is the fact that GTA4 got 10/10 accross the board, it's basically the same game as before with pretty(er) and very glitchy graphics (I have 360 version)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive GTA fan, but 8/10 is closer to the mark
Haze may not be the best game in the world, but 4.5/10 seems overly harsh. I played the demo a couple of times and enjoyed it. Didn't make me say wow to be honest, but I did have fun, and it was pretty smooth. The review even made me doubt my own judgement, but I stand by it. Never noticed any graphical quirks, and certainly not as many as GTA4, which recieved 10/10 in IGN. Something smells fishy, if you ask me. Not trying to stick up for FR here but giving a decent(ish) shooter a lower score than Ironman is verging on madness. Madness I tells ye!!
totally agree, it didn't set the world on fire, but it was fun! Definately one to pick up when it's £24.99 or less.
The same happened with Kayne & Lynch, very average, got completely panned, but once you got over yourself about it's inperfections was actually really good fun!
What's more criminal (if you pardon the pun) is the fact that GTA4 got 10/10 accross the board, it's basically the same game as before with pretty(er) and very glitchy graphics (I have 360 version)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive GTA fan, but 8/10 is closer to the mark
It's like Halo 3 or Turok... there is a game there, just not a particularly exciting or standout one. It's bland, it's vanilla, it's run-of-the-mill shooter stuff that's all been done before and done better.
How can you compare Haze to Halo 3. Did you see a single review of Halo 3 that described it as bland. Turok was poor, Halo 3 is far from bland. You lost all credibility with your post when you compared Halo 3 to Turok!! Have you even played the games you mentioned, I doubt it!
I don't know anymore. IGN are beginning to disappoint me as their reviews are all over the place. They give another game (can't remember what it was) 3 out of 10, so i thought well that must be s**te. Soon after i think i picked up a demo of the game and thought i had got them mixed up as their review did not match my opinion. The one though that ruined it for me was yes...... Halo 3. How wrong they got the review of this game. It was loved on but to my surprise was another generic FPS that offered nothing new in story or gameplay (yes, i bought it, played it, completed it, sold it, before the fanboys get in). As much as this latest review is not good i think as is usual these days i will get Haze and make my own judgment.
I hate it when developers defend the bad review scores by saying that gamers should try it out for themselves. Do they not realise that £40 plus is a lot of cash to splash on a game that they may or may not like? isnt that why we buy the mags, play the demo's and go to websites such as this in the first place - to find out if there any good rather than wasting our money?
At best it seems a good to average first person shooter, at worst its mediocre. Hardly inspires confidence in buying it. A rental when desperate for a game perhaps.
Haze is an average game. last i checked, average games were deserving of neither a 9 out of 10 or a 4.5 out of 10. personally, i think ign too often likes to take the axe to games they themselevs overhype.
on another note, what idiot rated GoldeyeEye 4/10? that game is easily the best shooter ever (sorry Halo, Bioshock and CoD fans).
i did think the demo was crap but ever since haze was first previewed it didnt look good. but it was obvious this game was gonna be rubbish, it got pushed back so meany times, it was meant to of been out dec 2007
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
Do us a favour. instead of whining about your PS3 just sell it/give it away and f**k off over to the 360 forums with the rest of the fanboys.
IGN gave it this score and whined about bonding with your character and graphical glitches and then gave it a ridiculously low score. We've played the demo, seems like nothing spectacular but then again FPS games have been done to death so just sit back and enjoy. If you take that review to heart and then never play it then fine. Best thing to do is rent it for a couple of nights and then return it.
I enjoyed the demo even it does seem a bit generic. Then again I enjoyed Timeshift even though the scores weren't that good. Actually I just liked blowing people up with the crossbow
Haze may not be the best game in the world, but 4.5/10 seems overly harsh. I played the demo a couple of times and enjoyed it. Didn't make me say wow to be honest, but I did have fun, and it was pretty smooth. The review even made me doubt my own judgement, but I stand by it. Never noticed any graphical quirks, and certainly not as many as GTA4, which recieved 10/10 in IGN. Something smells fishy, if you ask me. Not trying to stick up for FR here but giving a decent(ish) shooter a lower score than Ironman is verging on madness. Madness I tells ye!!
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
Okay, I'm not sure what to think of Haze now (except for STOP FECKING HYPING IT Free Rad!) but aren't IGN possibly the most erratic games journalists in the whole bloody universe? They tend to only get it right around 60%, sometimes slating good games while praising games that are absolute bottom. I'll check out the demo in the meantime to see what it's like...
Haze is an average game. last i checked, average games were deserving of neither a 9 out of 10 or a 4.5 out of 10. personally, i think ign too often likes to take the axe to games they themselevs overhype.
on another note, what idiot rated GoldeyeEye 4/10? that game is easily the best shooter ever (sorry Halo, Bioshock and CoD fans).
actually 4.5 isnt far of what an average game deserves, 5 supposedly being the average point in all 10 point scoring systems. its a bit of travesty that a game has to get 7 to be considered average and 9 or 10 to be good. why bother having all 10 if only 5 get used?
Haze may not be the best game in the world, but 4.5/10 seems overly harsh. I played the demo a couple of times and enjoyed it. Didn't make me say wow to be honest, but I did have fun, and it was pretty smooth. The review even made me doubt my own judgement, but I stand by it. Never noticed any graphical quirks, and certainly not as many as GTA4, which recieved 10/10 in IGN. Something smells fishy, if you ask me. Not trying to stick up for FR here but giving a decent(ish) shooter a lower score than Ironman is verging on madness. Madness I tells ye!!
I've never cared much for what other reviewers or anyone else says. If they don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
I've been interested in this game ever since I first saw it over two years ago. I've played the demo, and really enjoyed it. It still has it's faults, the graphics for one arn't as good as I hoped they'd be with some low res looking textures and models, but crucially it's still good fun to play which is what's important to me when I buy a game, not peoples opinions.
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
Do us a favour. instead of whining about your PS3 just sell it/give it away and f**k off over to the 360 forums with the rest of the fanboys.
IGN gave it this score and whined about bonding with your character and graphical glitches and then gave it a ridiculously low score. We've played the demo, seems like nothing spectacular but then again FPS games have been done to death so just sit back and enjoy. If you take that review to heart and then never play it then fine. Best thing to do is rent it for a couple of nights and then return it.
I enjoyed the demo even it does seem a bit generic. Then again I enjoyed Timeshift even though the scores weren't that good. Actually I just liked blowing people up with the crossbow
A) I have a ps3 B) I played the demo several times and it was s**te C) FPS is one of my favourite genres so i ahve plenty of playing experience. D) Why dont you go back to licking windows.
actually 4.5 isnt far of what an average game deserves, 5 supposedly being the average point in all 10 point scoring systems. its a bit of travesty that a game has to get 7 to be considered average and 9 or 10 to be good. why bother having all 10 if only 5 get used? Thats so true, it never fails to amaze me that people seem to think that out of ten seven is a half way mark.
As IGN is an absolute disgrace to videogame reviewing forgive me if I wait for a reputable source to pass judgement. I'm also not moronic enough to pass a game off as average after only playing a tiny, five-minute sliver of it. I thought the demo was solid enough to warrant a fair chance.
Part of the reason why IGN gave the game such a low score was because it was really hyped up because it's from Free Radical so people expected alot from it. Then you also have the fact taht the FPS genre is really crowded this days... To be fair it seems like a 6/10 game from the reviews I've read.
actually 4.5 isnt far of what an average game deserves, 5 supposedly being the average point in all 10 point scoring systems. its a bit of travesty that a game has to get 7 to be considered average and 9 or 10 to be good. why bother having all 10 if only 5 get used?
Thats so true, it never fails to amaze me that people seem to think that out of ten seven is a half way mark.
That's because that's the way games are scored nowadays. Unlike movies, where if one scores 7/10, people would consider that pretty good, games that score under 8/10 are considered not worth the effort. It's a sorry state of affairs, and one that artificially increases all scores across the board.
Can't say that i'll be amazed if it turns out to be crap. Seeing as they haven't been giving reviewers the final game in advance to the release date shows that they have something to hide. Hoping to get people to buy the game before they see any reviews.
I think the low score came from ign who dont seem to like ps3 exclusives anyway. I am not a big fan of fanboy sites and ign seem to base there reviews on this in my opinion. I am not saying i fancy this game or anything but the recent news of mixed reviews hasnt made my mind up.
actually 4.5 isnt far of what an average game deserves, 5 supposedly being the average point in all 10 point scoring systems. its a bit of travesty that a game has to get 7 to be considered average and 9 or 10 to be good. why bother having all 10 if only 5 get used?
Thats so true, it never fails to amaze me that people seem to think that out of ten seven is a half way mark.
That's because that's the way games are scored nowadays. Unlike movies, where if one scores 7/10, people would consider that pretty good, games that score under 8/10 are considered not worth the effort. It's a sorry state of affairs, and one that artificially increases all scores across the board.
thank you. i thought that should've been painfully clear.
not necessarily like my faith in site previews and reviews was high to begin with, but after the Gerstmann/Gamespot fiasco, ign giving Assassin's Creed a 7.5/10, Gametrailer's recent GRID snafu and a host of other incidents i think i'm just gonna visit sites strictly for news from now on. most developers release demos to their games on PSN and Live for gamers to try out anyway, so there's really no need to have to rely on sites much anymore.
Part of the reason why IGN gave the game such a low score was because it was really hyped up because it's from Free Radical so people expected alot from it. Then you also have the fact taht the FPS genre is really crowded this days... To be fair it seems like a 6/10 game from the reviews I've read.
hyped without good reason. they have never really made a great game, if you list the best fps of all time do any of free radical appear, they don't get close on mine. goldeneye doesn't count as only some of them worked on that for a different company, and judging by their later work i doubt they influenced it that much or they just got lucky.
Well supposedly after the Gamespot fiasco, most review sites/mags have changed their scoring policy, or at least tried to make it clear what they mean. 5/10 might be an average game, not a terrible game, 4.5 being slightly below average.
Oh and as a side note, let's not get carried away with the GoldenEye gushing shall we? It wasn't the second coming of Christ, it didn't invent or define the FPS genre, it simply bought it to the N64.
Oh and as a side note, let's not get carried away with the GoldenEye gushing shall we? It wasn't the second coming of Christ, it didn't invent or define the FPS genre, it simply bought it to the N64.
I'd go back and check your history - GoldenEye was the first fps to use the 'dual control sticks' (though the N64 didn't have a second stick, the theory was the same). This is now the accepted control method of all fps's. It was also brilliant.
Some reviewers may not have got as far as the others. Maybe the ending is awesome!
The problem is that this is Free Radical we are talking about. They are renown for the Time Splitters series, one of the greatest FPS series of all time, up there with the likes of Halo and Call of Duty. If Free Radical is failing at a FPS, its a sting for Time Splitters 4.
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
Do us a favour. instead of whining about your PS3 just sell it/give it away and f**k off over to the 360 forums with the rest of the fanboys.
IGN gave it this score and whined about bonding with your character and graphical glitches and then gave it a ridiculously low score. We've played the demo, seems like nothing spectacular but then again FPS games have been done to death so just sit back and enjoy. If you take that review to heart and then never play it then fine. Best thing to do is rent it for a couple of nights and then return it.
I enjoyed the demo even it does seem a bit generic. Then again I enjoyed Timeshift even though the scores weren't that good. Actually I just liked blowing people up with the crossbow
A) I have a ps3 B) I played the demo several times and it was s**te C) FPS is one of my favourite genres so i ahve plenty of playing experience. D) Why dont you go back to licking windows.
you sir, are an absolute liar... every f@cking post you do, is ANTI ps3...do me a favour and add your 'imaginary' psn to mine.... seedaripper1973 then when i consistantly pwn you on gta4 multiplayer, we can decide if your lying or not
Oh and as a side note, let's not get carried away with the GoldenEye gushing shall we? It wasn't the second coming of Christ, it didn't invent or define the FPS genre, it simply bought it to the N64.
I'd go back and check your history - GoldenEye was the first fps to use the 'dual control sticks' (though the N64 didn't have a second stick, the theory was the same). This is now the accepted control method of all fps's. It was also brilliant.
So what? It bought FPS to console, big deal. I say again, it didn't invent or define the genre.
To be honest i rather prefered the picks of Haze when it was announced and before the whole Nectar crap and it actually looked next-gen. now it seems as if Free Radical just gave up on the game at the end. Anyway i hope this doesn't effect other future releases from Radical like timespliters and rumored Star Wars Battlefron 3. And towards the IGN review i think it was accepltable for it would score in a range from 4/10 to 7/10. and that each console is run by a different team on IGN so it was definetely no bias. And towards Goldeneye it brought FPS to the N64 and there was nothing really intruitive about it. It was Halo that defined the control layout for FPS.
So what? It bought FPS to console, big deal. I say again, it didn't invent or define the genre.
No, but a game doesn't need to do either of those things to be considered a classic.
Goldeneye had both an excellent single player and multiplayer mode. At a time when most decent FPS games could only be played on the PC, Goldeneye brought a solid FPS experience to the console crowd. At the time no game came close to being what Goldeneye was, the sheer number of ways the multiplayer could be customised was incredible.
I'm not saying it was the second coming, but anyone who played it knew what an absolutely solid game it was.
It was a good game for sure, but just one of many.
I think console players have a tendency to subconsciously fall into the mentality of "I didn't play those other games, therefore they don't exist".
Goldeneye brought FPS to the masses, though there were plenty of better fps games on PC.
The local multiplayer options were superb though.
I'm not getting too far into this argument again, some people will go to any length to defend Goldeneye.
Couldn't agree more. I was playing DN3D on the PC at that time and loved it to bits. But of all the multiplayer games on the N64, Goldeneye occupied most of mine and my mates time.
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
Do us a favour. instead of whining about your PS3 just sell it/give it away and f**k off over to the 360 forums with the rest of the fanboys.
IGN gave it this score and whined about bonding with your character and graphical glitches and then gave it a ridiculously low score. We've played the demo, seems like nothing spectacular but then again FPS games have been done to death so just sit back and enjoy. If you take that review to heart and then never play it then fine. Best thing to do is rent it for a couple of nights and then return it.
I enjoyed the demo even it does seem a bit generic. Then again I enjoyed Timeshift even though the scores weren't that good. Actually I just liked blowing people up with the crossbow
A) I have a ps3 B) I played the demo several times and it was s**te C) FPS is one of my favourite genres so i ahve plenty of playing experience. D) Why dont you go back to licking windows.
you sir, are an absolute liar... every f@cking post you do, is ANTI ps3...do me a favour and add your 'imaginary' psn to mine.... seedaripper1973 then when i consistantly pwn you on gta4 multiplayer, we can decide if your lying or not
Why the hell would he want to add you? You come across as a complete c**k. Just because someone owns a PS3 doesn't mean they can't criticise it. Grow up.
No, it didn't invent, but it certainly defined. Who knows what CoD4, Halo, Killzone, Resistance etc etc would be like now if it wasn't for GoldenEye, and Rares invention of the 'dual control stick' controls.
Sure, it had no bearing on PC fps's, but so what - it certainly defined this generation of console ones. And if you have a 360, you'll know there's a fair few of those to choose from...
So two pro playsdtation magazines give the game a decent mark and its suddenly a great game, i think not.
IGN panned it, maybe 4.5 seems harsh but when you look at some of the great games on the market then frankly haze looks a complete pile of s**te.
I hope this game falls on its face, not because its a ps3 exclusive but because if it sells well then developers everywhere will be encouraged top sell s**t. The only form of quality control gamers have is the financial one, they wont make s**t if we dont buy s**t.
Do us a favour. instead of whining about your PS3 just sell it/give it away and f**k off over to the 360 forums with the rest of the fanboys.
IGN gave it this score and whined about bonding with your character and graphical glitches and then gave it a ridiculously low score. We've played the demo, seems like nothing spectacular but then again FPS games have been done to death so just sit back and enjoy. If you take that review to heart and then never play it then fine. Best thing to do is rent it for a couple of nights and then return it.
I enjoyed the demo even it does seem a bit generic. Then again I enjoyed Timeshift even though the scores weren't that good. Actually I just liked blowing people up with the crossbow
A) I have a ps3 B) I played the demo several times and it was s**te C) FPS is one of my favourite genres so i ahve plenty of playing experience. D) Why dont you go back to licking windows.
you sir, are an absolute liar... every f@cking post you do, is ANTI ps3...do me a favour and add your 'imaginary' psn to mine.... seedaripper1973 then when i consistantly pwn you on gta4 multiplayer, we can decide if your lying or not
Why the hell would he want to add you? You come across as a complete c**k. Just because someone owns a PS3 doesn't mean they can't criticise it. Grow up.
er...why am I a 'complete c**k' when all i did was point out that, a certain console owner has to FUD another console maker and claims to own both??? i was making a point about DAEDALUS79 being a liar, and inviting him to prove me wrong i have no qualms with any critical analysis providing its not blatent lies... besides you're a 360 chap and all your doing is backing him up...seriously do 'I' need to grow up?
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
