Last "angry about Haze reviews" post:
It's funny how everyone calls this game "average" yet it's getting "below average" scores. Isn't "average" a 70-75 (what people were predicting)?
Because you've seen this kind of game before, does that make it bad? I mean, a hypothetical, if a game came out with similar mechanics to COD4, would that inherently make it a bad game, since you know what you're getting into? NO, because it would still be a solid experience.
And lastly, why is it that no one takes into consideration that every review actually praises the online component (which is what most FPSs are played for anyway)? Why only focus on the single player? Sure, it's story based, but if you don't like the story, then why don't you just go online and blow shit up!?!?! That's what you do in the other FPSs that this game is "trying to copy"
The perfect fan review (He gave it a 7.5):
"This game has a bad story, bad AI and mediocore graphics. Well, AI who cares about that when your playing online which most of us will do anyway, bad story? we don't like saying stories online, we just like to kill and be #1, graphics, i'm pretty sure any game that comes out on the ps3 looks better than any game on the ps2, xbox, gamecube or wii. So, instead of comparing it to games as cod 4, why not enjoy the game as it is built. So, if warhawk is doing fine being just an online game, why can't haze. We should look at the single player as an added value rather than base it and review it as the whole game. This is why games have online these days, to take a break from single player and enjoy the competition with friends and the people online. If you don't enjoy the story don't bash the game, enjoy the online, after all its gameplay first rite......it is a game after all."
