By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - What the gaming community has done to Haze

twesterm on 15 May 2008
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:

First off, being delayed indefinitely a month before launch when print ads are already being ran is a very telling tale. Hopefully they got all their problems sorted out, but that fact alone tells anyone that the game had something seriously wrong with it.

As for Halo, it's true that many games have multiplayer and many of those have *fantastic* multiplayer. Still though, Halo 2 and Halo 3 stand out as two of the best multiplayer games. Halo 3 just has an insane amount of depth that most other games don't have. Sure, it doesn't have 40 player deathmatch, but it does have just about everything else and all of it very well polished.

..the issue is that people WANT this game to fail, mostly from the Xbox side. I don't want this to turn into a 360 bashfest, as my situation may not have happened to anyone else, but the fact that the first thing he asked was "How is this game revolutionary?" without seeing anything else but the name on screen makes me believe that everyone has convinced themselves that this game will suck.

I think you're reading too much into this. He truly might have said it sucked mainly because it's on the PS3 and 360 (because those people do exist) but there are other reasons to assume the game is going to suck. The first and foremost reason are the delays. A delay can make a game good but when it's an unknown game it can also put a lot of worry into someone.

The other thing that makes people worry is that the gameplay videos just don't look that great. I haven't actually watched any of the recent ones because I stopped paying attention to the game when Gamestop said they wouldn't be actually giving the game away for free but I have been at least paying attention to the comments. I could be wrong, but the vast majority of the comments are meh.

I mean, how many games this generation have been "revolutionary"? Not that many, yet there are still great games out that allow gamers to enjoy themselves. What happened to that? What happened to a solid game coming out that we, as gamers, can enjoy? Why does EVERY game have to break new boundaries? This is like something I agreed with in the thread about MGS4 getting a 10:

Not every game has to be revolutionary (and there have been a lot this generation alone) but we do also want something different. Why do I want to pay $60 for a game I've already played over and over again? There's nothing that's wrong with an overly generic game that's cheap, but if you expect me to pay full price for a game give me a good reason to want to pay full price.

And yes, a problem with a lot of games is that they get announced way to early and then get delayed way too much.

 


The first thing bolded: But you see, those same gameplay videos from when the game first showed up had everyone saying "I can't wait for this game to come out" Just look at the comment on gametrailers. The opinion has only changed to "meh" now because it was delayed. But I mean....wasn't GTA delayed a month before release?

Second thing: If that's the case, I guess you won't be buying Gears 2, Resistance 2, or, dare I say it, Halo 4 (if it ever comes out..probably will), because all those games are going to have the exact same formula as there predecessors, just with better graphics and a little more tweaking and polish, yet they're still going to be fun games, which is why I'm asking, what's the problem with that?


 Ah, but see Gears 2 has shown me things I like from something I already really liked.  I loved the gameplay in Gears so I don't mind paying for it again.  From what I've seen so far they've also improved the look of the game (hooray for color), there will be even more enemies during the combat, and some of the new mechanics like meat shields look pretty awesome.

If the trailer had just been Gears with different levels then yes, you would be right.  With something like Haze, it's copying other games and not giving me anything new that actually looks interesting. 



 

Around the Network
dbot on 15 May 2008

What would be considered a success for this game? 85% + a million sold? Do you think that is high or low?



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Torillian on 15 May 2008

ooo.....innovation junkies....it's like a phrase to combat the whole Graphic whores phrase. I like it, but it should be more insulting. Whore is far more insulting than junkie imo.



...

SlumsofOhio on 15 May 2008

Haze and it's online co-op is enough for me to buy this game. I have yet to play a co-op game, so it would be a first.



                                   

BMaker11 on 15 May 2008
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:

Not every game has to be revolutionary (and there have been a lot this generation alone) but we do also want something different. Why do I want to pay $60 for a game I've already played over and over again? There's nothing that's wrong with an overly generic game that's cheap, but if you expect me to pay full price for a game give me a good reason to want to pay full price.



 Ah, but see Gears 2 has shown me things I like from something I already really liked.  I loved the gameplay in Gears so I don't mind paying for it again.  From what I've seen so far they've also improved the look of the game (hooray for color), there will be even more enemies during the combat, and some of the new mechanics like meat shields look pretty awesome.

If the trailer had just been Gears with different levels then yes, you would be right.  With something like Haze, it's copying other games and not giving me anything new that actually looks interesting. 


So, you're syaing that you WOULDN'T pay for something "you already played before", but since Gears 2 will have gameplay like Gears 1, you don't mind paying for it...as you so eloquently put it, AGAIN?

Which once again brings up the issue, what's wrong with Haze? As long as it's fun, what's the problem? Gears 2 will be fun, whether it's just a rehash of the first or not, but at the end of the day, you enjoy the game. That's all that should matter



Around the Network
azrm2k on 15 May 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
This generation ESP the Wii is just pushing innovation, innovation, innovation and seemingly anything NOT innovative is instantly garbage xD. I'm just relieved that they're taking the things I loved and they're making them better ;)


 Hahahahaha this cracks me up.

 So the Wii is bad because it is trying to change everything up and doing the same old year after year is now garbage?

 Isn't the Wii bashing mantra usually that Nintendo just takes the previous game, add's a new title and ships it out year after year?  Everybody rags on Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc... for being retreads.  People bash so many Wii games for being the same old graphics and gameplay with "waggle" thrown on.  And yet you're upset that the Wii is abandoning the staples of gaming and focusing only on doing new stuff?



Words Of Wisdom on 15 May 2008

People were more excited about generic shooter #23 when the PS3's library was still made of suck and fail.

Now that the PS3's library is improving and other high quality shooters have been released on the PS3 and other platofrms, it's much less appealing. 



twesterm on 15 May 2008
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:

Not every game has to be revolutionary (and there have been a lot this generation alone) but we do also want something different. Why do I want to pay $60 for a game I've already played over and over again? There's nothing that's wrong with an overly generic game that's cheap, but if you expect me to pay full price for a game give me a good reason to want to pay full price.



Ah, but see Gears 2 has shown me things I like from something I already really liked. I loved the gameplay in Gears so I don't mind paying for it again. From what I've seen so far they've also improved the look of the game (hooray for color), there will be even more enemies during the combat, and some of the new mechanics like meat shields look pretty awesome.

If the trailer had just been Gears with different levels then yes, you would be right. With something like Haze, it's copying other games and not giving me anything new that actually looks interesting.


So, you're syaing that you WOULDN'T pay for something "you already played before", but since Gears 2 will have gameplay like Gears 1, you don't mind paying for it...as you so eloquently put it, AGAIN?


 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. 



 

BMaker11 on 15 May 2008
azrm2k said:
ChronotriggerJM said:
This generation ESP the Wii is just pushing innovation, innovation, innovation and seemingly anything NOT innovative is instantly garbage xD. I'm just relieved that they're taking the things I loved and they're making them better ;)


 Hahahahaha this cracks me up.

 So the Wii is bad because it is trying to change everything up and doing the same old year after year is now garbage?

 Isn't the Wii bashing mantra usually that Nintendo just takes the previous game, add's a new title and ships it out year after year?  Everybody rags on Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc... for being retreads.  People bash so many Wii games for being the same old graphics and gameplay with "waggle" thrown on.  And yet you're upset that the Wii is abandoning the staples of gaming and focusing only on doing new stuff?


I don't think he's bashing the Wii at all. He's just saying that what the Wii is doing is making traditional games get a bad rap, even though they're still fun. The Wii is breeding mindsets that screw over what regular gamers are used to. Because Haze is not "innovative" it's crap now. Because Wii Fit is completely new, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. You see the conundrum? This mindset screws up the entire industry, because if only "innovative" games do well (meaning that the kind of games we're used to do badly), then, as I've said before, "we'll have so many ridiculous genres of games that it won't even be gaming anymore". At the current pace, we'll have a game out of changing he channel.

No one's saying that innovation is bad, but it shouldn't be the standard



BMaker11 on 15 May 2008
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:

Not every game has to be revolutionary (and there have been a lot this generation alone) but we do also want something different. Why do I want to pay $60 for a game I've already played over and over again? There's nothing that's wrong with an overly generic game that's cheap, but if you expect me to pay full price for a game give me a good reason to want to pay full price.



Ah, but see Gears 2 has shown me things I like from something I already really liked. I loved the gameplay in Gears so I don't mind paying for it again. From what I've seen so far they've also improved the look of the game (hooray for color), there will be even more enemies during the combat, and some of the new mechanics like meat shields look pretty awesome.

If the trailer had just been Gears with different levels then yes, you would be right. With something like Haze, it's copying other games and not giving me anything new that actually looks interesting.


So, you're syaing that you WOULDN'T pay for something "you already played before", but since Gears 2 will have gameplay like Gears 1, you don't mind paying for it...as you so eloquently put it, AGAIN?


 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. 


Well then I guess Uncharted was "generic" too, because all it was was a mix of Tomb Raider and Indiana Jones, right?