Hope it comes out on other plattforms so they dont lose too much money. Are we still in the denial stage? The game is bad accept it.

 Even I will say GoldenEye is one of the legendary FPS tites. It should not beeven compared to Halo as its miles ahead of it.

 No the game is at least of Killzone 1 level. 7/10. Grapically Haze is better the most games, like Killzone was, but the gamplay is average.

Even if Haze is the worst game on the planet, which it probably isn't, I like how it has helped gamers on all sides of the console war agree on something. =P

Anyway, I was mildly amused when I heard of the 4.5 score, but now that I think about it, the score is probably too low. Haze may not be original, or even good, but scores this low should only be given to games that are virtually unplayable. The tone in the IGN review sounds like they'd give it a 6 or 7 or something, and nothing they say makes it sound completely horrible. Also, every single aspect of the game being bad enough to be rated 4-5? That's a damn near perfect example of halo effect we got her.

I can fairly be described as anti-PS3, but honestly think IGN should rethink the score. Maybe have someone else give it a second opinion, since the guy who did the current review obviously enjoyed it less than the average guy. I have absolutely no interest in ever playing Haze myself, but a dodgy review is a dodgy review, and we shouldn't pretend it isn't just because it's for an exclusive on a console we don't like.

I disagree on your assessment of how review scores should be used. It's your thinking that caused EGM to go to the letter system. 5 should be average. It is inbetween 0 and 10. The middle. That's average. 4.5 should be barely "below average." Almost unplayable should be 0-2. Anyway, based on the scale everyone uses now, where 7 is even listed as average (as if we need 0-6 to determine below average), it would seem this game really sucks to get that low of score. It's rather hard to believe. It does make me extremely curious to see future review scores.

Why is everyone all up and arms about this review?

Rent the game, if its good buy it...if it sucks don't.

This isn't an anti-PS3 world people but people (including crittics) have variable tastes so you may still like the game.

Besides if you wan't to play great FPS games, why don't you have a PC or a 360?

The IGN review will obviously be at the lowest end of the reviews for this game, so thats why you wait for the average i.e. the Metacritic score. But the early indications are not good.

4.5 to me is 2/5, which means a lot of flaws and is average. 1/5 is unplayable.

I completely agree with your disagreement. ^^

Reviewing games with a scale of 1-10 and using only the grades from 7 to 10 really annoys me as well. If I had to review games, then I'd use 1-5, with 2-5 roughly corresponding to 7-10, and 1 for everything from 1 to 6. Why have four ranks for playable games, and six for ones that are complete rubbish?

Anyway, the problem here is that IGN normally goes with "1-10 in theory, 7-10 in practice", but suddenly gave Haze a score using the full 1-10 scale, and thus a much lower score than other comparable games. Maybe the cause for this whole controversy is how one reviewer got fed up with scores nowadays, and decided to make a statement?

@disolitude

lol,,you are right man,,,,you know what's funny?UTIII got really good reviews and no one even bought it(including myself),,,,now this FPS gets a bad score and all of a sudden we are outraged lol

theyre worried it might stop some of its sales