Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

after resently viewing multiple reviews on the web from big online websites like ign i found the same negative main points of the game repeated over and over again. so based on these reviews I came to this conclusion.
Pros: 4 player co-op
Decent mutiplayer
creative abilities for both sides. ( mantel and the promised hand )
delivers a slightly above average fps experience
Cons: -AI is pretty bad and repetitive
-Nectar spoils alot of the challenge and fun in the game
-Graphics and sound could have been alot better along with textures in the game
-story line/ plot was a good idea at the drawing board but the result was a pretty dumb
and confusing story.

So overall I would give this game a 6.5 to 7 out of ten at the most. i ersonally have a ps3 and breifly played this game and just like some other hype feasts "cough" heavenly sword and lair it had alot of potential to be great but totally got ruined it somehow. I still believe the ps3 will get close to par with the gaming experience and popularity of the 360 however sony has to start managing the development and growth of their games. but if you looking for a new fps on the ps3 i would say Haze would be at least a rent. or you could go waste $60. i really don't give a shit.
I just wanted to tell this to the NG community so it saves alot of ps3 users cash and time.

Of course it's average! It's another FPS with a faceless hero who IS DOING THAT WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND LIVING UP TO HIS FAMILY NAME AND FACING FULL LIFE CONSEQUENCES.

At 5/20/08 10:36 PM, AshfordPride wrote: Of course it's average! It's another FPS with a faceless hero who IS DOING THAT WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND LIVING UP TO HIS FAMILY NAME AND FACING FULL LIFE CONSEQUENCES.

bingo you got it exactly. sony should at least make exclusives with well known chararcters like kratos or Jak instead of risking like a 10 mill investment on some guy no one could give a shit about

It got a 4.5 from IGN, but a 9 out of ten from PSU.

Gee, PSU giving a PS3 exclusive game a great score?

At 5/20/08 10:40 PM, seahawk95 wrote: bingo you got it exactly. sony should at least make exclusives with well known chararcters like kratos or Jak instead of risking like a 10 mill investment on some guy no one could give a shit about

Or (gasp!), they could even make a completely new game that's actually original and inspiredand not phoned-in for a quick buck!

...Naw, silly me. That'll never happen :'(

At 5/20/08 10:45 PM, Bomshaw wrote: It got a 4.5 from IGN,

IGN only rates video games on scale from seven to ten.

At 5/20/08 10:46 PM, AshfordPride wrote:

At 5/20/08 10:45 PM, Bomshaw wrote: It got a 4.5 from IGN,

IGN only rates video games on scale from seven to ten.

Flew right over my head

I was fully expecting this too. Might be something interesting to rent, but I planned on completely passing up the option of buying it when I saw the nectar gimmick.

Why would a game like this appeal so much to Famitsu?

(34/40 If I recall)

Played the demo on my beautiful PS3. It seemed, exactly as you said, average. I found aiming to be a bit tough, but that could have just been me, or the sensitivity. The best part about the nectar is the ability to make other players freak out... then you can keep reviving them and slapping them into "heavily injured" mode.

At 5/20/08 10:48 PM, Bomshaw wrote: Flew right over my head

Seems like Ubisoft didn't throw enough money at IGN for them to give it a 10/10, unlucky.

At 5/20/08 11:48 PM, McPaper wrote: Why would a game like this appeal so much to Famitsu?

(34/40 If I recall)

Haze got a 33/40 from Fam for reference.

They typically rate games from Japanese companies high.

At 5/21/08 04:29 PM, zimzap wrote:

Haze got a 33/40 from Fam for reference.

They typically rate games from Japanese companies high.

What a great reviewing style.

At 5/21/08 04:30 PM, Jezuz wrote:

At 5/21/08 04:29 PM, zimzap wrote:

Haze got a 33/40 from Fam for reference.

They typically rate games from Japanese companies high.

What a great reviewing style.

You always have to look at your source when checking reviews. People give IGN a lot of crap but over the ten years that I have been visiting the site, they have provided the most objective reviews overall.

At 5/21/08 04:33 PM, zimzap wrote:

You always have to look at your source when checking reviews. People give IGN a lot of crap but over the ten years that I have been visiting the site, they have provided the most objective reviews overall.

Agreed. Their track record for me is near impeccable. Haven't been going there as long mind you, but none the less they're my favorite resource for game reviews.

Remember when people could form their own opinions without relying on review sites? I liked those times. Sadly, they have long passed.

At 5/21/08 04:40 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Remember when people could form their own opinions without relying on review sites? I liked those times. Sadly, they have long passed.

I'm sorry, I don't have 60 dollars to spend on every piece of shit modern game that comes out to do so. Word from friends is always more valued, anyhow.

You always have to look at your source when checking reviews. People give IGN a lot of crap but over the ten years that I have been visiting the site, they have provided the most objective reviews overall.

yup ign does get alot of crap from all consels fan boys but in my opinion there in my top three sources for video game reviews. but overall i believe that their reviews are sometimes "harsher" if a game was hyped then was an average or less experience. but they give multiple reasons for why it got that score so it's okay at the end.

At 5/20/08 10:36 PM, AshfordPride wrote: Of course it's average! It's another FPS with a faceless hero who IS DOING THAT WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE AND LIVING UP TO HIS FAMILY NAME AND FACING FULL LIFE CONSEQUENCES.

Also it lacked zombie goasts.

Yeah. Thats what i think to. IT is just as over-hyped as halo and GoW.

At 5/20/08 10:12 PM, seahawk95 wrote: after resently viewing multiple reviews on the web from big online websites like ign i found the same negative main points of the game repeated over and over again. so based on these reviews I came to this conclusion...

I would actually buy or rent it. At least try it out before you make other people's opinions your own. I bought mine yesterday and it kicks a$$
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/7167 99

$60! JESUS! Over here PS3 games that are new sell for £50 (Roughly $100) Thats why the PS3 isn't doing well in Britain. It's just too expensive once you add Tax+British Expensiveness

Oh well, always the 360

At 5/22/08 04:02 PM, sirbobsalot2 wrote: £50 (Roughly $100)

Whatever happened to the weak dollar?

At 5/21/08 07:13 PM, DasUberCow wrote: Yeah. Thats what i think to. IT is just as over-hyped as halo and GoW.

I don't think Gears of Wars was overhyped, it delivered. Halo 3 may have not been everyone's favorite but it still broke records and there will be still be tons of people playing it in years to come. Unlike Haze.

The satisfying aspect of this situation is that so many Sony fanboys used this game as their ace in the hole when it came to FPS's and upcoming exclusives

Now all they've got is Resistance again. A launch title

Graphics are good, storyline is so so.

forgot those websites it is your own opinion not some guy who types on his computer for a living

At 5/22/08 04:13 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: I don't think Gears of Wars was overhyped, it delivered. Halo 3 may have not been everyone's favorite but it still broke records and there will be still be tons of people playing it in years to come. Unlike Haze.

So has anyone here actually PLAYED IT besides me?

and to all those people who say i have no opinion i based my review from some sites all i have to say is I played it first hand when i played it for a good hour at my friend's house. so i do have an opinion which was close to the web reviews so i just wanted to include them as an addition to make my point more clear and known