What the gaming community has done to Haze

[twesterm]

Played_Out said:

twesterm said:

 

Read the entire post.

Gears = a game I know is good, a game I enjoyed, and adds more things that actually looks good.

Haze = a game that feels only generic, tries to do what almost every other FPS has done, adds nothing that actually looks interesting.

One of those two games is good and is alright to buy again until it actually becomes old (kind of like the single player in Halo 3), the other game is a copy of meh games that have been done a hundred times before.

So you bought Gears of War despite it being a completely generic sci-fi shooter that has been done a hundred times before and added absolutely nothing new to the mix (Cover? Seen.)

But you won't buy Haze because of it being a completely generic sci-fi shooter that has been done a hundred times before and adds absolutely nothing new to the mix.

Sound logic.

For the record, I think Gears is one of the best games so far this generation, but it is still nothing more than a solid shooter from a reputable developer. I expect Haze to be the same.

 I initially bought gears because the multiplayer was supposed to be really good and my friends convinced me to buy it when I was thinking of getting an XBox.  The multiplayer was good but I enjoyed it for the single player (though not right away).

When Gears was released how many other games had a cover system similar to it?  How of those games actually did it well?  I didn't play it for the story part and each battle was essentially you in a round arena but they actually did a good job of varying those experiences and making each one feel fresh (which is very hard to do).