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.

Wow, I actually am starting to feel sorry for Sony fans. Nintendo finally beating them in sales is one thing but their bad luck is starting to get ridiculous. If MGS4 and FF13 do bad it's going to be awkward.

It should be noted though, perhaps developers need to seriously stop focusing on graphics so much. Nice graphics are a great addition (GTA4, SMG) but when such a badly designed game has thousands of man hours of perfected graphics on it, just a waste. When Crysis came out I remember Sony fans saying Haze would rival or surpass Crysis in terms of realistic graphics. Maybe if FreeRadical was less worried about doing that the game would have been great, I know the developers there have it in them.

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."

Average should be 5.

Nice AAA title. So good that I could write a terri...terrific review on it!

DEE-DEE-DEE!

Crazzyman: I predicked Haze will sel above 1 mil =))))))

Gotta love those multiple chins. Seriously, who goes on a video game chat forum with a Finding Nemo avatar.

Try getting through school with 50% on all your tests and assignments.  See if they mark you as average.

 I respectfully disagree.

They are completely different titles for many different reasons. There were few out there that were very excited for Haze in te first place.

I don't doubt that Haze is terrible. But 4.5?

Really? It seems to me Jeff Hanes wants the famous notariety of handing out very bold scores, just like the Lair review. Lair was different, however, because of how it was hyped by Sony, and the expectations it carried with it. Haze on the other hand was always a title that nobody seemed to care much about. 

Last I checked, videogames aren't homework. School is the only place grading scales are used. This is why EGM changed to grades, though. They actually used the full scale. There is no need for 0-4 if you only use 5-10. Halfway through whatever point system you use should be average. That's just logic.

I agree with you. 5 should be average, but in todays reviews a game that gets a 7 sucks and anything under that is just horrific. When in reality 7-7.5 should be a fairly good game with anything above that being a damn good game. Anything below should be an ok game.

Also I'm gonna have to agree with BMaker on this one. Even though he sounds like a ranting lunatic right now he does bring up some good points on the review.

The review system is broke. We determined that for GTA4...