Well....because this game isn't "revolutionary" or "groundbreaking" it is considered "generic" right? Well, I guess the next COD will be generic, because it'll add nothing new to the formula, as Treyarch is going BACK to WWII, the next Gears will be meh, because all it's doing is putting more Locusts on screen and has better graphics, but other than that, Gears 1 did it already so GeOW2 will generic. Resistance was generic too because you saw a "run of the mill" shooter with typical weapons and added nothing new to the FPS genre.....
You see where I'm going? The reasons this game is getting bashed are the same reasons that other games are getting/going to get praised. And I mean, this 4.5 came from mostly stuff that had NOTHING to do with gameplay (sound...wtf?!?! 4 for graphics? 4.5 for presentation? But an 8 for Lair?) and then when they talk about the gameplay, they talk about "gimmicks" but the only "gimmick" is nectar, and you use it for less than half the game so....wtf. They want this game to fail, but for what I'm getting out of it, it's solid. I acknowledge that it's not groundbreaking in any way, but it's still solid. It's still FUN, and that's what should matter, not sound. If every game had to be revolutionary to be good (which the bias against Haze starts with) then the only games that should have gotten any good scores this generation are Wii Play/Sports, Bioshock, and arguably Resistance (for it's immense multiplayer). These reviews are nitpicking and only trying to find the flaws and not the good in the game.
Here's what I say, if you had a shelf full of FPS games and you didn't know how good each game was, if you randomly picked up Haze, you'd enjoy yourself.
It's score is low because the review is either bitching about it not being "innovative" or because he's comparing it to other FPSs. THAT'S NOT HOW YOU REVIEW GAMES!!!! You should review based on it's own merit. If it's solid, it's solid. Don't knock it simply because it didn't change the shooter genre, because Halo 3 didn't, Frontlines didn't, COD2/3 didn't, so on and so forth.
I will accept this game as being bad (even though I'm enjoying it so far) for being generic if The Conduit #1 doesn't get hyped and #2 is received as "meh" because it's just another sci-fi shooter that isn't changing how we play the game, right?
