Dev responds to IGN's Haze review - "MEGAowch"

As said above, Free Radical are the guys behind Goldeneye.

Famitsu+FPS don't mix. Infact FPS+Japanese don't mix!

Somehow I doubt Haze will be as good as GoldenEye (in it's day), besides just because the dev house made the one game doesn't mean those same talented people are still working there 13 years later and it doesn't mean they can pull it off twice.

While I think the game does look ok, I don't for one minute think it's going to have the same impact and do the same things for games that GoldenEye had back in the day.

To compare the two I still think is very ambitious and a little bit pompous.
 
Well IGN hardly ever give a decent review, why did it get all good reviews apart from IGN. The game surely is not that poor!
 
Last edited:
Well IGN hardly ever give a decent review, why did it get all good reviews apart from IGN

Well I doubt they did it for the hits or "to be different". It's one persons review after all.

IGN don't give bad reviews. You may not agree with them but they don't give games like GoW a 2/10.

I can't comment on the game because I haven't played it. But if they are so wrong then maybe people who argue about the score should play the full game when its out.

If someone chucks a PS3 my way I will review it if you like :p
 
Did they just compare themselves to GoldenEye?

erm... yeah... sure

Yeah, good point. :p

Comparing yourself to one of the best, most successful first person shooters of all time isn't a particularly good idea in any case. Let alone this one.

They didn't compare themselves to Goldeneye at all, where did you read that? All they were saying is that Goldeneye was an amazing game and sometimes reviewers get it wrong which might be the case with Haze. There was no comparison between the two games at all.
 
Surprising, it appeared to be just another average FPS. I was never hooked by the game's Nectar mechanic to begin with and never on my list of games to buy, didn't even bother with the demo. But 4.5/10 seems a bit harsh. To give it a review like that the game needs to be bugged and crap, not even worth it in the budget bin.
 
I played the demo and although co-op sounds good I didnt really like the overall game and thought the nectar thing was a bit naff. Best thing to come from this game will be the yahtzee review tbh.
 
Surprising, it appeared to be just another average FPS. I was never hooked by the game's Nectar mechanic to begin with and never on my list of games to buy, didn't even bother with the demo. But 4.5/10 seems a bit harsh. To give it a review like that the game needs to be bugged and crap, not even worth it in the budget bin.

I think it was an extra slap on the hand from IGN for overhyping the game, if it hadn't been in our face so much despite delays it would have probably recieved more in the 5.5/6 area. Too right i say, developers should learn to be more careful when hyping their games up, far too often recently has a game been made out to be the second coming of jesus but it actually turns out to be above average at best.
 
Strange i thought IGN was "one of those pro sony" sites out there.
You would think so after giving GTA IV a 10/10 even with mentioning that the game isn't perfect.

Maybe they wanted to give a game a low score just so it doesn't look like they always give high scores?
 
Somehow I doubt Haze will be as good as GoldenEye (in it's day), besides just because the dev house made the one game doesn't mean those same talented people are still working there 13 years later and it doesn't mean they can pull it off twice.

While I think the game does look ok, I don't for one minute think it's going to have the same impact and do the same things for games that GoldenEye had back in the day.

To compare the two I still think is very ambitious and a little bit pompous.

Well it wasn't free radical that made it, it was Rare. But the guys that were behind it left to start up Free Radical and made the Timesplitters series. I am not trying to say that it could end up been the next Goldeneye, just that they have a pretty good reason for using that comparison, even if it is just spin.
 
This Is What Scares Me

"That being said, you are going to have to put up with some extremely weak visuals within Haze. There is a litany of problems with the game, from the odd warping of allied soldiers that blink into view suddenly at arbitrary checkpoints to poor texture work. Many of the environmental textures are generic and weak, and you'll frequently see seams or tearing constantly pop up within the game, which distracts from the action onscreen. The worse example of this has to be the visuals for the flamethrower, the Dragon de la Gente, which vomits a horrid cone of supposed flame that looks visually on par with what you'd find from the 386 PC days 15 years ago. The same could be said of the reboot text for Mantel troops, which looks blocky, heavily aliased and nondescript. Not only will you constantly see render passes over levels or character models, you'll find extremely generic faces on some soldiers and odd detail work on others. Duvall, in particular, frequently looks as though his eyes are going to pop out of his skull (Then again, that's when his hands aren't found with objects blatantly running through them, such as a bar in the helicopter during a cutscene.). Even odder is the fact that many cutscenes will cut to a looped section without any dialogue being said, but characters are continually performing their last seen action for a few seconds before the cutscene breaks away to a new gameplay element. "

To me that quote above taken from that review says it is just another buggy rushed beta being sold as the finished product. They probably knew it was going to suck so cut their costs and cut corners by not spending anymore on it. Makes you wonder why they even bothered finishing it as obviously it is going to be very weak so not many will buy it now.
 
it it just a coincidence that this game is published by ubisoft?

i can think of another 2 big releases from them recently which have been buggy as hell. ie r6v and assasins creed.
 
That's a very good point. RSV2 was a complete disappointment for me with bugs in it which the first one had.
 
Oh dear, from reading that review that AWPC posted I am not suprised that IGN gave it such a low score then.
 
To me that quote above taken from that review says it is just another buggy rushed beta being sold as the finished product. They probably knew it was going to suck so cut their costs and cut corners by not spending anymore on it. Makes you wonder why they even bothered finishing it as obviously it is going to be very weak so not many will buy it now.
They had three choices, spend more time and money on the game to try and make it better (Duke Nukem), stop spending money on it and release it (Haze) or stop all together and take the loss.

They took the one that cost them the least but has a chance to generate some revenue but could hurt them when peeps find out it is a crap game.
 
Back
Top Bottom