| IllegalPaladin said: BMaker11, I think it also has to do with the features of the game not working out that well. Nectar is cool, but if the complaints are about not getting to use it a whole lot and the rebel's abilities to fight the Mantel troops aren't that great and have some problems, then there goes the things that are making the game unique. If the mechanics (unique or not) aren't solid, then what merit is there to praise the game with a great review? Also, the next Call of Duty is pretty much expected to be crap by gamers because not only it's going back to World War 2, but that it's also being made by Treyarch instead of Infinity Ward. Everything should come into play in how great a game is, not just one aspect. Sure, Haze's nectar is cool because it boosts performance (sounds dirty 0_-), but if the other aspects of the game aren't good as well, then it should be no question that criticisms should follow. I agree that comparing games to other games can get a little annoying and terms like 'Halo clone' and 'Halo killer' are two bothersome examples. However, Haze looks like it has more problems that are making it a bland experience rather than a good one. |
The thing i...they were complaining that no matter what difficulty you were on, Nectar made the game TOO EASY, which is why I said that since you don't use it for very long, then why are you complaining? And also, in no review that's been out yet has there been a complaint about the mechanics. They were simply "solid", which means that the game works.
I don't expect this game to get "amazing" "stellar" or "astounding" reviews because it is a "generic" shooter, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a fun one. But the way they are criticizing this game is laughable. I mean, they gave it a 4 for graphics. WTF. The only game that should get that rating is Cruis'n for the Wii....ESPECIALLY when GTAIV got a TEN for graphics. They gave it a 4.5 for sound (referring to dialogue and musical score) yet Army of Two had the corniest dialogue ever, and it got an 8.5. They said the story was weak, so presentation got a 4.5, although all previews praised the storyline......the story hasn't changed, it's the same concept, just the gameplay got more polished, so why does it get a 4.5 now when the same storyline had IGN intrigued when they first heard about it? That's the BULK of the review, even though those have NOTHING to do with actual gameplay......yet people are using this as a "credible" reason why the game "sucks". The thing that got me the most is that multiplayer is what makes most FPSs last for a while, which makes them have "lasting appeal" and IN THE REVIEW, he praises the multiplayer and says it's fun....then turns around and gives it a 4.5 in that department. And laslty, he based gameplay on campaign mode alone....and blames AI as the reason for scoring it low, but if AI was the end all for gameplay, then Halo would be considered mediocre at best amongst reviewers. But then he mentions how the co-op is smooth and makes the campaign fun....yet still marks it low.
I've said ti before and I'll say it again.....they want this game to fail.
