I told some that I would post my impressions of the game soon, so here goes:

First off, let me apologize for getting all up in arms about the initial reviews, because as of right now, I am disappointed with this game (jumped the gun, just like with Lair)...not 4.5 disappointed, but disappointed nonetheless. I'll bring this to you in IGN fashion (along with some comparisons to IGN's review)

Presentation: Great concept....poorly executed. My internet has been screwing up lately, so multiplayer had been thrown out for a while, so I stuck with the single player. As far as thee campaign went, I thought the level design was pretty good (contrasting what the guy from X-play said) but the way everything pans out is kind of lackluster. As everyone knows, you are a Mantel soldier, then when you realize that Mantel is "bad" you switch sides.....well the way that plays out in the game is kind of typical. Everyone calls this game "generic, and some parts were pretty predictable, but it did have some good points...but overall the execution of the story was average. About a 6.0 from me.

Sound: Not much to say here. The sounds of explosions, gunshots, general movement, etc. are all pretty good, but the dialogue is pretty cheesy ("Is there a nomination for the #1 badass? Cause that's me!!!" or something like that) but not Ao2 cheesy. If the dialogue going about when you finish missions or are actually in mid mission bother you, score a point under mine, but I tend to block that out when I'm playing, and only listen to what happens that will progress the story. Another 6.5

Graphics: MY BIGGEST GRIPE WITH THE IGN REVIEW! This game by no means is a 4 in terms of graphics. IGN (along with X-Play) complained about "bland visuals" because the forest areas looked "typical" when in actuality, lush forests with a lot of variety in color are about a dime a dozen this gen (on HD consoles), so how is it "typical"? Uncharted has it, and it's one of the contributing factors as to why is has good graphics, so why does it not benefit Haze, when it comes to major gaming outlets? Moving on, the weapons look pretty good, but they aren't THAT great. But overall, the visuals in this game are pretty good.....I honestly don't know where that 4 came from. An 8.0

Gameplay: Believe me, the shooting mechanic WORK in this game. Don't listen to anyone of those reviewers who say they are broken, because the mechanics are solid. I don't know how I want to word this, but even though the mechanics work, in single player, it gets kind of redundant. And that's all you can expect from it. I don't really know how to put into words what I want to say, but hopefully my score will give a good reflection of what I think. A 7.0

Lasting Appeal: I generally associate LA with multiplayer, when it comes to shooters. With this game, it will draw you in quick, and make you say "oooh, this game is great", but after awhile, it loses it's luster. Gamespot said it was unbalanced because Nectar makes you rape player who are Rebels, really easily. There is a degree of strategy in multiplayer that brings you back to wanting to play some more. For Mantel players, you need to always make sure Rebels aren't playing dead, and you have to watch out for Nectar abuse. For Rebels, you have to trick the Mantels into thinking your dead, making them overdose on Nectar with eaither Nectar bombs, or by shooting there backs. But once you figure that out, it, once again, gets redundant. With only 3 different modes, it allows for more entertainment....but only 3 modes makes it wear out quick. I like it, but I realize that some want more than that. I can't really put a finite number on this one, because it depends on how much you like the strategy involved. Anywhere from 6.7 - 7.2

Final Score:

Presentation: 6.0

Sound: 6.5

Graphics: 8.0

Gameplay: 7.0

Lasting Appeal: 6.7 - 7.2

Average: 6.8 - 6.9 (because of my lasting appeal score

Once again, I have to apologize for my rabidness, but that was only because the reviews weren't reviewing Haze, based on Haze. They were reviewing it #1 based on other games, and #2 subjectively. I tried to stay objective, mentioning both the pros and the cons of this game, so I hope this helps you out.

Ending comments: This is DEFINITELY not a 4.5 game. I hyped up Lair, and got pissed about it's score, but then when I played it, I accepted what it received. However, with Haze, my experience was different (not vastly) than what everyones lambasting it for. 6.8 - 6.9 isn't the best score, but I don't believe this game is a complete bomb, like IGN is telling the masses. I tire quickly from few games....as I tend to avoid shovelware. This is just me, but I think I may sell Haze to Gamestop after I play it a little more, to see if my opnion changes. This situation for me is just like Army of Two, I played it, and told myself that I liked it, and I honestly thought "Hey, this is cool" but the more and more I played it, the more and more I was willing to get rid of it. This game isn't terrible, but....make it a bargain buy. Only game that I've bought and played for less time than this or Ao2, was Unlimited Saga for PS2....played it for 10 minutes, and sold it RIGHT BACK to Gamestop.....Haze is not like this, but...well...you know my opinion now.

Edit: not "a dime a dozen" but rather a few out of many, or something along those lines 

Pretty good, but don't average out the scores. Use a weigthed scale, because I don't think anyone thinks that sound makes or breaks a game like gameplay.

Thanks for write up and your apologies, I think most of us felt you were very pent up and defending this game way too much.

All reviews will always be based on other games, you cant ever avoid that. Even you did it in your Graphics section by comparing to Uncharted. It gives a point of reference to the readers, and you shouldnt discount other reviews if they do compare.

Haze has HD graphics obviously, but most of the reviews marked down on the Graphics because of the technical faults like slow texture loading, pop-ins, models getting stuck etc. etc. Didnt you see any of this? They also marked down that the character models were all pretty much the same throughout the game, so were the weapons.

I myself think the IGN was harsh based on the current Metacritic average of 56. There were reviews at 7/10, so your review pretty much follows those.

what's AO2?

If they were a dime a dozen, then it would be typical.  Haven't read the whole thing, but I just glanced over and noticed this.

 Army of Two

was it still worth the purchase?

@Pooper (haha, I left it as only "Pooper")

In retrospect...I wouldn't buy it for $60....there are some interesting quirks to the game that will draw you in for a while, but after that short while, you'll lose interest little by little. Like I said (at least for me, anyway), when you first play, you'll feel like "Wow, that's really cool", then after you play more and more, you like it less and less......I'm sorry, but for me, there are so many parallels with Army of Two that I could damn near say it's the same game, minus the Nectar. Bottom line: fun at first, ok afterwards, .......whatever later. You make the decision as to whether you'd engage in that. To me, it's worth the purchase to some extent, but not all the way, if that makes sense

I think comparing Haze to Army of Two is unfair... to Army of Two. At least Army of Two brought a few new and interesting things to the genre, and had a less clunky cover mechanic than a lot of games I could name.

Haze is just...

Well, let's just say I was really, really, really looking forward to it, and now that I've played it, I couldn't agree with IGN more. Complete and utter disappointment. It had all the ingredients of greatness, but unfortunately, Free Radical baked the cake completely wrong. Haze is one cake I will not be eating.