Haze demo on PAL PSN, it's good!

[Mondain]

you know that this is just the prelude, soon after you rebel against the Mantel corporation and it opens up all new gameplay avenues

I really loved this, loved the gunfights and the team based fights too, which I usually loathe

I don't understand the people who go around and say that the dialogue and characters are so bad, obviously the characters act and talk this way on purpose, it's supposed to be a PARODY, it's in the same vein as say, Starship Troopers

also if there's no mistaking about the sub 720p resolution and if it doesn't change in the final US version, then having ANOTHER sub 720p next-gen game is mega gay, worst gen ever 

even at that I was surprised to learn that because the game still looks sharp and neat to me, very clean too, was there supposed to be aliasing all over the place? because I haven't noticed some

I'm really pumped up for this, I'm going to rent it and finish it over the course of three days at the end of the month

anyone's got some gameplay impressions? TVC?

[Mr. Gundam]

Really? Based on the demo, I thought it was a boring by-the-numbers generic FPS.

[Smooth Groove]

Looks good,  there's a certain kind of softness without being blurry -- some warmth to it.

[The Fake Shemp]

The softness is from a lack of pixels, I know this because I have counted the pixels and have seen a lot of sub-720p PS3 games in my time.

[AdmiralViscen]

I already gave you gameplay impressions.

Don't you stop using Nectar when you go rebel? How is that going to open up new shit? Are they going to stop making the game half cutscene?

[duckman2000]

I already gave you gameplay impressions.

Don't you stop using Nectar when you go rebel? How is that going to open up new shit? Are they going to stop making the game half cutscene?

I don't think you gave him the right gameplay impressions.

Anyway, the deal with getting off nectar is that you, supposedly, will use what you learned as a Mantel dude to take down your former allies. Whereas the Mantel side reaps the benefit of easier targeting acquisition and such, you will supposedly be able to turn this controlled perception of reality against them. Note the "supposedly". It sounds pretty unrealistic right now, and not in the right way either. Corpses disappearing from view when you're hopped up on nectar, that sounds like something that should have been a brief idea, discarded shortly after it was brought up. There was a time when I thought I had a good idea of where they were going with this game. Then they showed the game, and everything came crashing down.

[dark1x]

Not saying everyone needs to own a $1000 PC, but since I have the option of playing either game, Haze would definitely take a back seat, since it's basically Diet Crysis.

Well, that's always a strange way to look at things.  I mean, Crysis was one of my favorite FPS games of last year, but I've already played it many times over.  If given the choice between playing a new game like Haze (even if it isn't of the same quality) and something I've already played through many times, I think I would generally go with the new game (unless it was absolute trash).  Haze is not an impressive game, but it seemed somewhat fun.  Worth $60?  Not really, no, but it could still be reasonably fun.

I wouldn't say this is "Diet Crysis" either as the gameplay itself is quite different.

The softness is from a lack of pixels, I know this because I have counted the pixels and have seen a lot of sub-720p PS3 games in my time.

Yes, that is true, but I also believe there is some sort of selective AA going on.  The edges are simply too smooth for that not to be the case.

[duckman2000]

I guess the real question here is, is it worth the current price of entry? If I was really starved for games and I had the cash to burn on a new game, I'd probably buy it. But as things stand, I think I'll be waiting for a first price drop. It honestly doesn't feel like "good" cuts it these days. Hell, I bought a whole new video card in preparation for Crysis, simply because it had a certain greatness about it. I'm not seeing that quality here. But then the demo doesn't have MP, and I guess that's what FRD is famous for.

[Don Flamenco]

Not saying everyone needs to own a $1000 PC, but since I have the option of playing either game, Haze would definitely take a back seat, since it's basically Diet Crysis.

Well, that's always a strange way to look at things.  I mean, Crysis was one of my favorite FPS games of last year, but I've already played it many times over.  If given the choice between playing a new game like Haze (even if it isn't of the same quality) and something I've already played through many times, I think I would generally go with the new game (unless it was absolute trash).  Haze is not an impressive game, but it seemed somewhat fun.  Worth $60?  Not really, no, but it could still be reasonably fun.

I wouldn't say this is "Diet Crysis" either as the gameplay itself is quite different.

yeah, it's not a 1:1 comparison, but that's what I was feeling when I played the game.  But really, I could substitute any number of higher quality FPS games in for Crysis since Haze is just flat.  It's just that the two games seem to share some elements (power-ups, the jungle, and umm....I think that's it actually lol)
 

[Don Flamenco]

I guess the real question here is, is it worth the current price of entry? If I was really starved for games and I had the cash to burn on a new game, I'd probably buy it. But as things stand, I think I'll be waiting for a first price drop. It honestly doesn't feel like "good" cuts it these days. Hell, I bought a whole new video card in preparation for Crysis, simply because it had a certain greatness about it. I'm not seeing that quality here. But then the demo doesn't have MP, and I guess that's what FRD is famous for.

Not worth it...buy Noitu Love 2 instead.

[Don Flamenco]

just played the Haze demo....

not getting anything beyond "bog standard fps"

Requesting thread title change to "it's alright, I guess"

[duckman2000]

just played the Haze demo....

not getting anything beyond "bog standard fps"

Requesting thread title change to "it's alright, I guess"

Heh, pretty much. Gave it another playthrough, immediately after playing COD4 online, and Haze just doesn't hold up. It's not bad, but there's no greatness to it. I'll rent the game, maybe I'll end up buying it if the multi is wicked awesome, but really, it'd have to be wicked awesome at this point. Feels like it's coming a year too late.

[pilonv1]

its perfect for PS3 owners who aren't well versed in FPS's

Assault rifle that doubles a sniper rifle
Special power that highlights enemies so you can see them amongst shitty graphics

The only thing that's interesting about Haze is that it's PS3 exclusive and coming out over the "Summer drought". It's so remarkably average.

[AdmiralViscen]

It's weird though. When Free Radical dumped TS and started on a new IP I figured they would be really into it and ready to explore some new shit. Instead it seems like no one gave a fuck and they just churned out an old EA-style turd.

[duckman2000]

Reading the initial interviews, it sounded like they were genuinely excited about doing something different. Not just different from TS, but different from the common FPS blob. The first trailer had a nice Verhoeven thing going for it, which initially set off my (in hindsight somewhat, er, premature) hype alert. And then they started showing more of the game, and it's become obvious that they have either abandoned quite a few of their goals on the way (perhaps they simply didn't have the resources needed to execute these theoretically awesome concepts), or they have taken a much more blunt approach to it than I had thought they would. I expected subtle irony and cleverly mature and unflinching presentation, but right now it seems like they have taken a jackhammer approach to pretty much everything. Maybe they underestimated the audience, or overestimated their own abilities, it doesn't really matter.

I'll give it a chance though; the things they have spent the most time talking about aren't going to be demonstrated well like this, so maybe there is still something more to it. The gameplay itself though, nectar powers be damned, is certainly quite average.

[Tieno]

I played the demo and at least the controls feel decent and don't prevent me from enjoying what else is there. But the gameplay feels very average, nothing special, like Resistance  with normal weapons and enemies you can't see. It was hard to see your enemies without using the nectar. The lack of clarity and visual distinctiveness of the enemies forced me to keep injecting nectar and I just didn't like being constantly in this visual mode. It's the reason why games like Halo or Gears have contrasting (purple/white) enemies. They're easy to see and shoot at, which is fun.

[Smooth Groove]

It's the reason why games like Halo or Gears have contrasting (purple/white) enemies. They're easy to see and shoot at, which is fun.

Good point.  I found it really hard to play MOH:Airborne because it's so hard to separate the enemies from your allies. 

[Smooth Groove]

It's the reason why games like Halo or Gears have contrasting (purple/white) enemies. They're easy to see and shoot at, which is fun.

Good point.  I found it really hard to play MOH:Airborne because it's so hard to separate the enemies from your allies. 

Umm... that's how it was during WWII in urban environment.

MOH:A is far from a realistic game but I guess it's not a big deal since they don't penalize you for shooting comrades. 

I just tend to try playing it the right way. 

On a side note, MOH:A makes great use of a quad-core processor.  Before switching to a Quad, the framerate would sometimes drop to 30 or so in hectic situations but now everything runs at a smooth 60fps. 

MOH:A really isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.  It just has a different style of gameplay from COD.  Despite the realistic setting, it's mostly an arcadey shooter.

It would be nice though if they release a patch to allow manual saves.  Some of the gaps between checkpoints are ridiculously long. 

[MrSingh]

576p

You can't go much lower before you might as well put your game on Wii.

[Eel O'Brian]

It's the reason why games like Halo or Gears have contrasting (purple/white) enemies. They're easy to see and shoot at, which is fun.

Good point.  I found it really hard to play MOH:Airborne because it's so hard to separate the enemies from your allies. 

Umm... that's how it was during WWII in urban environment.

MOH:A is far from a realistic game but I guess it's not a big deal since they don't penalize you for shooting comrades. 

I just tend to try playing it the right way. 

On a side note, MOH:A makes great use of a quad-core processor.  Before switching to a Quad, the framerate would sometimes drop to 30 or so in hectic situations but now everything runs at a smooth 60fps. 

MOH:A really isn't as bad as some people make it out to be.  It just has a different style of gameplay from COD.  Despite the realistic setting, it's mostly an arcadey shooter.

It would be nice though if they release a patch to allow manual saves.  Some of the gaps between checkpoints are ridiculously long. 

I love the cover system in MOH:A, on the consoles at least it is very intuitive with a wide range of motion

It's a good game with a neat idea, and the last couple of levels are fuckawesome - the flak tower especially

the multiplayer was pretty crappy, though