I think this game has been hyped up WAY too much. With games like MGS and GTA, you know what you're going to get. I'm not so sure about this. I think it could turn out to be a similar run of the mill shooter like Timeshift was. I wasn't really blown away by the demo to be honest. I've decided not to preorder this game and wait for the reviews!
Come on PS3! jesus christ I bought this console for these exclusive titles like HAZE and looks like i'm going to be disappointed yet again, and once again returning to my XBOX 360, why did I bother paying this much money for a console when the only decent exclusive titles are Drakes and MGS4 (hopefully).
I hope IGN are wrong and this game is really good cause so far 2008 (supposedly the year the PS3 is meant to show what it can do!) is pretty disapointing
Yeah-I know exactly how you feel-I was really looking forward to this, but now it looks like another chance for PS3 to get its awesome exclusive FPS has gone begging...!
Still - Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 are on their way, and hopefully at least one of those two will reach CoD 4/Halo 3 standards - they certainly look like they could - Resistance 2's online looks truly revolutionary (But then again, we said that about Haze!)
But as for MGS4 - let's just say if it's not one of the best games of this console generation so far, I'll do something MAJORLY drastic! Certainly the MGO beta didn't disappoint me at all - it's hyped me even more for it!
Looks to be a bit a of a turkey from initial reviews. A real disappointment. I've cancelled my pre-order and I suggest people consider doing the same. Poor visuals, gameplay and a derisably laughable plot and voice-acting from what I've heard. Time these developers started concentrating on quality single-player games again. Just makes you appreciate how good some much criticised games like Killzone (come on 2!) and Stalker:SoC really are! Come on though Mr Charlton, what about R:FoM, that's a pretty good exclusive title as well!
Like James P, i cancelled my pre-order with Play as soon as i read the IGN review. However, according to Games Radar, the famed Famitsu magazine in Japan gave it 34/40, which is none too shabby, so i may pick it up if i see it going cheap.
Yeah Resistance was pretty good for a launch title but it didn't set the world alight for me it certainly wasn't Gears Of War standard. As for Haze I suppose that all our comments area a little premature the only review Ihave read is IGN's and I am still waiting for Gamespots. After all IGN review is just one mans opinion! isnt it, and if Mr Wong is correct and other mags are rating it 34/40 there is hope. I also thought the demo was pretty good I had another play last night and enjoyed it again. I don't think the graphics are half as bad as people are making out, the character details on the Haze soldiers look pretty cool. I think I will still get it anyway I mostly disagree with most mag reviews when they slate a game, I mean i really enjoyed Kane and Lynch.
Quick update- Gamespot have now reviewed HAZE its a little more encouraging 6 out of 10!
Summary is it has a really bad story and also tells it very badly, voice acting is bad! But has some fantastic set pieces and the 4 player CO-OP is great fun, which is good enough for me to give it go and buy it
You've just made a good point. Developers should concentrate on single player campaigns. I'm currently on a very tight budget and have not had broadband for about a year. I can't help but think that we're being shortchanged on single player campaigns. I understand that it costs money to create a multiplayer mode for a game, however, I still feel short changed. Take COD4 for example. It is phenomenal online and off, however there were two development teams (an online and offline) and I paid the same as anyone else to play that game, but i only get half the experience. It's a good job that cod4's single player is f***ing amazing, and worth the £50 alone. Anyway, my point is that it's not exactly hard to include a multiplayer splitscreen mode and AI Bots.
Also, I hate the developer/publisher (most definately publisher) idea to get a buggy game on the shelf, and later release a patch. What about the people without the net? We just get left with a buggy, half boiled game.
Also, major criticism with regards to downloadable content. I applaud some developers for giving us the option to expand our existing game collection, but i can't help but feel that some publishers are milking it, by leaving items out of the finished game (that should have been on the disc), and making us pay for them later, or go without.
Perfect example, EA were going to release a set of weapons for Battlefield Bad Company as downloadable content. However, these weapons were required to complete the single player campaign. To add insult to injury, they were gonna charge money for each of them.
Only bad thing about this game I've seen is the visuals, they're pretty iffy for the most part, but the gameplay is good(Note no reviews are saying much against how the game actually plays, which should be the primary concern, no?), if a little stifled by straightforward level design. The online though, is simply excellent from what I've seen, and manages to largely redeem other shortcomings in my eyes.
It's no classic sure, but IGN really are talking out of their arses if they're seriously labelling this a '4.5/10' game. I'd spring for a 7/10 minimum, and even that's mostly for the visual shortcomings. Then again, IGN's bias against the PS3 has been well documented in recent months, so it's perhaps no real surprise.