IGN reviews Haze

[crimsondynamics]

personally, i can't stand LCDs either -- especially when playing something as shitty looking as the wii.  i've since bought a 50" 1080p plasma and i don't think i can go back.  for a while i've wanted to buy a 16:9 Flat CRT HDTV just for gaming (and to improve the IQ of the wii) but it seems like even those are becoming extinct.  the drawback of those is the weight and size.  even the 32" version is over 100lbs if i recall. 

This is what kills the Wii for me - the fact that I can't even find a decent-sized (20" or higher) LCD that can handle 720x480 or even 640x480. CRTs are out of the question,as they're not even sold anymore. At least when I'm 10 feet away you don't notice the blur / aliasing that much.

Having said that, I bet the Wii, on the right screen and the right game of course, would look quite good. I've set one of my LCDs to output in native source resolution. While the image is the size of a postcard, Super Mario Galaxy looks fantastic.

[dark1x]

I *did* the same actions on Pariah back when Xbox 1 was still around and Xbox fanboys was hyping that through the roof.

Heh, great mention there.  I had forgotten about it, but Haze reminds me very much of Pariah.

[duckman2000]

Games such as Blacksite, TimeShift, Jericho, and the like did not receive anywhere NEAR this much negative attention. 

hooooold on there, none of those games are made by anyone of the standing as Free Radical.

I have no idea why everyone feels they have to back track on this one so heavily. I'm somewhat sick of seeing people say "well, no one expected this to be good anyways" - yup... no one expected the makers of Timesplitters to make a good FPS....

I can agree with the criticism at this point, although I still don't understand the whole pile-on phenomenon. I am deeply disappointed, and contrary to popular myth I have been disappointed for some time, that FRD couldn't hack it and deliver on all the promises. In hindsight, it's possible that I should have known better, but it really sounded like FRD was hellbent on exploring some very interesting concepts and topics. So now I'm genuinely disappointed because I honestly wanted a good game out of it. Most of the "critics" who now pat themselves on their swine backs for their supposed foresight have pretty damned clearly been hoping for this game to be a failure. And that mentality is just weird. Granted, it's just as screwed up that some were hoping for it to be a good game purely because of its target platform.

As for the capabilities of these consoles, it'd seem as if only the very good developers can get anything good out of them. Engine developers and studios with long experience in working with impossible hardware seem capable of getting good results, the rest just seem to fail.

[crimsondynamics]

Anyway dark1x to furhter prove my point about ABSOLUTE PC superiority when it comes to playing multiplatform games (for a HEFTY price, though):

Those benchmarks just don't work, however.  They list average numbers.  When I benchmark at high resolutions I also get similar numbers.  It's about slowdown.

Lower resolutions generally mean that you will be able to achieve 60 fps without EVER encountering ANY slowdown.  At 1080p, slowdown begins to creep in.  Some ports can't even manage that (Assassin's Creed).  AC is the type of port that I can't enjoy as holding 60 fps seems difficult, yet it constantly jumps around.  If they provided a 30 fps lock, that would help.

What's up with those COD4 numbers?  I mean, there is no reason why a 9800 in SLI should EVER drop below 60 fps, but there it is.  That type of slowdown IS bothersome.  On my 8800GT I can achieve a 100% flawless 60 fps in 1360x768, but at 1080p, slowdown begins to occur regularly enough.

UE3 ports are also less impressive than they should be.  For instance, Bioshock mostly runs at 60 fps, but for some reason, there are times when the framerate drops.  It's distracting and strange.  Then you have Gears of War which has awful stuttering while moving through certain areas (even with 4gb ram + ultra fast HDD).  It's a bug in the game, not the PC.  Other games such as Blacksite have slowdown while Turok adds loading screens (console versions were streamed).  Stranglehold is jaggy as hell and won't use AA at all (no DX10 option available).  So, yeah, UE3 PC ports have been generally disappointing.

They list Min / Avg / Max numbers.

Console games ported to the PC are not optimized for the PC. Normally devs just make sure the game runs on the PC and that's that. It's more due to the sheer brute power of the PC that the game even runs acceptably. Now apply the reverse: PC games (where the PC was the lead development platform) ported to consoles. What do we get? Far Cry Instincts?

The framerate drops are a shame in UE3 games. Also, regarding 720p vs 1080p: every time you double resolution you are quadrupling the processing requirements. That's a main reason why even PCs, given a game demanding enough, struggles as well.

[cool breeze]

Games such as Blacksite, TimeShift, Jericho, and the like did not receive anywhere NEAR this much negative attention. 

hooooold on there, none of those games are made by anyone of the standing as Free Radical.

I have no idea why everyone feels they have to back track on this one so heavily. I'm somewhat sick of seeing people say "well, no one expected this to be good anyways" - yup... no one expected the makers of Timesplitters to make a good FPS....

poppycock i say!

Timesplitters games were great, but they never got the attention/critical praise that games like Halo or Half-Life did.  Jericho, despite not  being the same dev, also carried the name of Clive Barker which could have confused some people (and it did on some forums); and as we all (should) know, Undying was an awesome game.  Can't really defend the devs behind Timeshift, but the Area 51 game on Xbox was pretty solid.  I would even say that Starbreeze going from Riddick (awesome) to The Darkness (bad) is an even bigger case than what FR dealt with.

The thing Haze had different in terms of marketing was all the stuff Rob whatever did to try and sell it.  I mean, did anyone see that horribly bad fake dating show crap they put up the other day?  Ugh, and they even had Korn on board calling the game "the shit".

[Smooth Groove]

Resolution has a massive impact on performance in many cases.

So?  Just buy a bigger PSU and add another GPU or two.

...because it doesn't make a huge difference?  A high quality CRT displaying 1280x720 will produce an image superior to an LCD displaying 1920x1080.  When driving a PC game at 720p, it becomes easy for nearly every game to run at 60 fps without ANY slowdown.  Even Crysis can run smoothly with maximum detail.  

I'd imagine that, in most cases, people gaming at 1920x1200 with 4x AA are not seeing a flawless 60 fps.  You know, the type of framerate that NEVER budges.  I can run games at high resolutions and still achieve playable framerates that generally reach 60, but the additional slowdown that occurs simply isn't worth it.

Again, my argument has nothing to do with the PS3.  If a PC version of a game is available, I'm generally going to select it.  I much prefer playing on the PC.  I'm simply getting a laugh out of people who believe they have "high standards" and then turn around and use an LCD.  What a joke.

Recent multiplatform games like COD4, MOH:Airborne, Lost Planet, Grid all run at a constant 60fps at 1920x1200 w/max settings + 4x AA on my PC. 

Don't be making assumptions about high res gaming on PCs  because you're gaming like a dirty poor. 

[Smooth Groove]

It's just silly to imply that it's not possible to get a flawless 60fps at 1920x1200 on modern PCs.  There are tons of people at Nvnews that have PCs that can play games w/60fps at 2560x1600.

Also, I don't know why Dark1x keeps bringing up the CRT vs LCD issue.  It's not like anyone is still making CRT monitors anymore.  Even if you can find a good, 2nd-hand CRT, it's still going to die in a few years. 

Besides, LCDs have many big IQ advantages over CRTS which he didn't mention.  Glare, for exampe. 

Anyway dark1x to furhter prove my point about ABSOLUTE PC superiority when it comes to playing multiplatform games (for a HEFTY price, though):

Those benchmarks just don't work, however.  They list average numbers.  When I benchmark at high resolutions I also get similar numbers.  It's about slowdown.

Lower resolutions generally mean that you will be able to achieve 60 fps without EVER encountering ANY slowdown.  At 1080p, slowdown begins to creep in.  Some ports can't even manage that (Assassin's Creed).  AC is the type of port that I can't enjoy as holding 60 fps seems difficult, yet it constantly jumps around.  If they provided a 30 fps lock, that would help.

What's up with those COD4 numbers?  I mean, there is no reason why a 9800 in SLI should EVER drop below 60 fps, but there it is.  That type of slowdown IS bothersome.  On my 8800GT I can achieve a 100% flawless 60 fps in 1360x768, but at 1080p, slowdown begins to occur regularly enough.

UE3 ports are also less impressive than they should be.  For instance, Bioshock mostly runs at 60 fps, but for some reason, there are times when the framerate drops.  It's distracting and strange.  Then you have Gears of War which has awful stuttering while moving through certain areas (even with 4gb ram + ultra fast HDD).  It's a bug in the game, not the PC.  Other games such as Blacksite have slowdown while Turok adds loading screens (console versions were streamed).  Stranglehold is jaggy as hell and won't use AA at all (no DX10 option available).  So, yeah, UE3 PC ports have been generally disappointing.

In most cases, a 9800 GTX performs worse than a 8800 GTX once it's running at 1680x1050 or more with anti-aliasing.   It's because of the 9800's gimped memory controller and only 512 mb of ram. 
On my 8800 GTX SLI setup, the minimum framerate is much higher.

You're right about Bioshock.  It does slow down a bit on most PCs despite running at 60fps in most spots. 

Bioshock requires at least two 8800 GTS in order to run at a constant 60fps at 1920x1200.  Once I got my 2nd 8800 GTX, there wasn't slowdown anymore. 

PS3 fanboys/PC fakers like Mickeyknox just exaggerated the performance of Bioshock on PC to advance their usual agendas. 

[dark1x]

Recent multiplatform games like COD4, MOH:Airborne, Lost Planet, Grid all run at a constant 60fps at 1920x1200 w/max settings + 4x AA on my PC.  

Don't be making assumptions about high res gaming on PCs  because you're gaming like a dirty poor.  

Oh, so despite the fact that the benchmarks above prove that a 9800GTX in SLI is unable to hold 60 fps 100% of the time in CoD4, you have a magical machine that can?

I'm not sporting the fastest hardware out there, but it can still holds its own.  I'm using a Core2Duo at 3.2 GHz + 8800GT + 4gb ram with a Vista 64/XP 32 dual boot config.  I'm making no assumptions.

What are your specs?  I'm extremely skeptical that you are able to run Lost Planet at 60 fps 100% of the time at such a resolution.  Heck, even at 720p, the game still occasionally slows down on my PC when explosions are near the player.  Benchmarks have supported my findings.

Why not benchmark the game on your PC and post a screenshot to prove that your minimum framerate never dips below 60 fps.  You must also enable vertical sync and use the highest detail settings.

It's just silly to imply that it's not possible to get a flawless 60fps at 1920x1200 on modern PCs.

Quite frankly, I believe people have a different definition of "flawless".

Using CoD4 as an example, I can indeed pull of 60 fps the majority of the time at 1080p, but there are moments of slowdown introduced that do not occur at 1360x768.  Even the 9800GTX SLI benchmarks demonstrates that the framerate can drop below 60 fps (and their numbers would also suggest that they do not use v-sync which I ALWAYS enable).

Also, I don't know why Dark1x keeps bringing up the CRT vs LCD issue.  It's not like anyone is still making CRT monitors anymore.

That's my problem.  LCDs killed off CRTs and I remain bitter.  I'm using a nice NEC Mitsubishi CRT at the moment, but when it eventually dies, I don't know what I will do.  I literally can't stand using an LCD for gaming.  They rock for general PC usage (very clear), but fall apart when gaming.

I suppose glare can be an issue for some, but I can't stand matte displays.  If I were looking for an LCD, I would buy one with a glossy screen.

[Fragamemnon]

No difference. The exclusive PC gaming market is pretty much dead after Crysis "bombed" (didn't sell 3M copies at least).

The era of the PC exclusive big budget action game is over. That writing has been on the wall since like 2005. You'll still see some cool PC-specific stuff come out of the Europe from time to time though.

Other genres will still sport plenty of PC exclusives. I don't see Blizzard's games or stuff like Dawn of War 2 coming to the 360 anytime soon.

[Mupepe]

well yeah, there will always be games that sell well on the pc and exist mainly because they can't be done as well on consoles.

ex: mmo's

[Smooth Groove]

Oh, so despite the fact that the benchmarks above prove that a 9800GTX in SLI is unable to hold 60 fps 100% of the time in CoD4, you have a magical machine that can?

I'm not sporting the fastest hardware out there, but it can still holds its own.  I'm using a Core2Duo at 3.2 GHz + 8800GT + 4gb ram with a Vista 64/XP 32 dual boot config.  I'm making no assumptions.

What are your specs?  I'm extremely skeptical that you are able to run Lost Planet at 60 fps 100% of the time at such a resolution.  Heck, even at 720p, the game still occasionally slows down on my PC when explosions are near the player.  Benchmarks have supported my findings.

Why not benchmark the game on your PC and post a screenshot to prove that your minimum framerate never dips below 60 fps.  You must also enable vertical sync and use the highest detail settings.

My PC is a 3.4 ghz Quad and 2 8800GTX running at Ultra speeds.  

Read above regarding COD4.  

LP's performance increases significantly with a Quad-core.  In the very first scene, it used to run on my old dual-core at 30fps w/max settings in DX10.  Now it's 60fps.  

At 1920x1200 w/4X AA, LP runs at mostly 60fps w/max settings on my rig.  It might dip to 45 fps or so for 5% of the game but I don't see how that makes it equivalent to you having ocassional slowdowns at 720p.

You seem to be be saying that gaming in True HD is worthless because the framerate might drop to "only" 40FPS for 5% or less of the game.  

That's a ludicrous argument from someone who's tolerated the low framerates in almost every PS3 game.  

That argument makes about as much as sense as Kittowny saying that the 360 running Madden at twice the framerate doesn't matter because Madden sucks anyway.  

[dark1x]

You seem to be be saying that gaming in True HD is worthless because the framerate might drop to "only" 40FPS for 5% or less of the game. 

That's a ludicrous argument from someone who's tolerated the low framerates in almost every PS3 game. 

Why on earth do you continue to bring PS3 into this?  That has nothing to do with this.  I will tell you right now, however, that I much prefer a solid framerate to one that slows down.  A rock solid 30 fps is superior to 60 fps with slowdown.  That said, I do find that most console games deliver poor performance and it does frustrate me.

I'm very happy with the performance of my PC as virtually every non-Crysis game runs at 60 fps 99% of the time (though some buggy ports do slow down at times).

I had forgotten that Lost Planet supports quad core, but I still would like you to run the benchmark and post a screenshot proving what you say.  You initially stated that it was 60 fps 100% of the time, but now you're dropping to 40 at times?  Let's just see the benchmark and get it over with.  As someone noted, rendering in 1080p requires four times the processing power.  I somehow doubt that your PC is four times faster than the one I'm using.

My argument against Full HD has more to do with the fact that most users are using LCDs.  I believe that a good CRT can run rings around a higher resolution LCD even when displaying lower resolutions.  I also use a 1366x768 Pioneer Kuro plasma as my living room TV and have no desire for 1080p (I actually would prefer NOT to use a 1080p display).  I've done extensive testing with 1080p panels, however.  I'm forming my opinion from experience.

I must stress that this argument does not involve the PS3.  It kind of irritates me that you would assume I've changed my standards as a result of something like that.

[AdmiralViscen]

Oh gawd.... I can't stand the whole thing.... and it's not just for this game. The whole " haha, your game sucks!" *points fingers, snickers, epenis enlargement* stand is so juvenile..... so elementary school playground little girl cheer leading.

The whole division of gamers now days. It's like gaming is a religoun and software is the scripture. And like all religoun, differences in scripture is the difference between the believers and the infidels. So fucking sad.

I kind of agree with that.  It's one thing to discuss while you dislike something, but it's another to basically dance and sing on the grave of something that didn't turn out well.  I feel bad for the guys that worked on this game.  People seem genuinely happy that the game is of poor quality.

Haze is not hugely hyped by most people.  There are some people who were optimistic about the game, no doubt, but it's not as if most people were expecting this to become the next Halo.  Games such as Blacksite, TimeShift, Jericho, and the like did not receive anywhere NEAR this much negative attention.  I suppose its marketing campaign was bound to draw more attention, but it's out of control.

edit: wow at this thread

[Smooth Groove]

1920x1200 w/max settings, 16x anisotropic filtering, 4x AA in DX 10

It actually drops to 54 fps at one point.   

I guess I better stick with the locked 30fps console version. 



http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u173/train28/LostPlanetDx102008-05-2110-56-54-50.jpg
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u173/train28/LostPlanetDx102008-05-2110-57-00-80.jpg

I somehow doubt that your PC is four times faster than the one I'm using.

Actually, it's more than 4x when you're bandwidth and memory limited at high resolutions. 

[abrader]

Its stuff like this that has me excited to pick up the full game today;

In spite of this brainlessness, Haze offers the occasional golden nugget of utter brilliance, and most of those moments come courtesy of some intelligently designed levels that are too good for the AI that inhabits them. Two on-rails sequences are exceptionally thrilling. In one, you defend a village from behind the turret of an aircraft; in another, you race alongside an enormous land carrier while trying to take down its defenses. The carrier sequence in particular is a total rush, pulverizing you with its sense of breakneck speed and using scripted camera adjustments to enhance the thrill. A few other levels are equally enjoyable in spite of the shortcomings, such as a climb toward an observatory and a tense village battle capped by the destruction of a rocket-launching tank.

[dark1x]

Well, I was hoping for a screenshot of the benchmark screen (which displays details on the benchmark).  What were you minimum, maximum, and average framerates (according to the benchmark)?

Are you using v-sync, by the way?  Even with triple buffering, I've never been able to get odd framerates like that.  When it drops from 60 fps, it doesn't hit stuff like 54 fps.  Still, using 1280x720 with 4x AA and 16x AF, the benchmark reports an average of 60 fps with no slowdown.  During the actual game, however, I do occasionally see slowdown when explosions go off near the screen.  At 1920x1080, however, it averaged lower (still playable, but not as smooth).

Oh, and for the love of god, would you stop bringing console bullshit into this?  I'm discussing PC performance here.

Actually, it's more than 4x when you're bandwidth and memory limited at high resolutions.

Based on benchmarks, I'm not seeing a massive difference between the 8800GT 512 I'm using and dual GTXs.  There is certainly improvement there, but it doesn't seem like night and day by any means.

Still, I suppose my display choices prevent this from becoming an issue.  My main PC display is a CRT which looks fantastic with any resolution while my living room display is a 1366x768 Pioneer Kuro.  It's easier to drive games at the resolutions those displays demand and they both look incredible.  1080p isn't necessary and the only 1080p display I'd take in place of my current plasma would be a 1080p Kuro.

[Smooth Groove]

Yes, I'm using Vsync. 

[Pharmacy]

Sadly pretty much ZERO. Almost every exciting game that comes to the PC in the next 6-12 months is going to be a console port. That means, yeah you will be able to play it SMOOTHER than on consoles but it won't take advantage of your PC power. Crysis was the last grand PC exclusive game that pushed the graphics forward. I think a game like Crysis will never happen again. Even John Carmack from id software said that you won't see any game pushing the PC platform forward again. That means it will run @ 200 fps in 720p (whereas @ 30 on PS3/ 360) but it won't have bigger levels, better geometry, better textures, better lighting etc. All that power of your PC is going to be wasted on rendering pretty simple stuff hundreds of times a second.

so, if i was to buy a PC that has one of these up and coming nVidia graphics cards, decent memory and processor, i would be set for a good few years to come?

cos that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. i was put off PC gaming when i bought a rig with 2x 7600GT's in SLi to play Oblivion and they couldnt even do that @ 30fps :\

[dark1x]

Yes, I'm using Vsync. 

Do you have a shot displaying the benchmarks stats?  I'm still very interested in that.  54 fps seems like a strange result even when triple buffering is enabled.

[dark1x]

Come on dark just drop it. There's no point in defending "locked" 24 fps (that drop here and there even more every once in a while) and 570p resolution that is in the overwhelming majority of PS3 and 360 games.

Yeah, PC games often drop to 54 fps.

Pathetic PC gaming. Can't even keep up constant 60 fps!

I suppose on the PC side, the fact that you can modify settings causes it to become slightly irritating at times.  On a console, if you encounter framerate issues, you realize that there isn't a damn thing you can do about it and just play on.  It still annoys me, but I can generally deal with it well enough.  I suppose in a way, it's akin to those using LCDs.  They suck, but you just learn to live with them.  Of course, LCDs impact EVERYTHING you view.

With the PC, however, you realize that minor modifications of settings can change performance and unless the absolute top settings deliver 100% perfect performance (which does occur, actually) I find myself pre-ocupied with fiddling.  Personally, I have a difficult time ignoring these visual settings.  Of course, I still managed to find solid settings in games such as Crysis knowing that I could not possibly achieve 60 fps without killing the visuals, but in other games, tiny slowdown issues will immediately send me to the options.  I find myself bouncing back and forth between various settings trying to find the perfect balance.

Fortunately, I've managed to avoid these issues this time around by sticking with CRTs and a non-1080p plasma.  Both displays look better in my eyes to any LCD on the market, yet I do not need to worry about driving them at higher resolutions.  1360x768 on the Kuro plasma looks fantastic and is easier for the PC to handle.  I don't even need to worry about native resolutions with CRTs either.  These lower resolutions look incredible, yet are less demanding on the hardware allowing even better performance.

Now, regarding what consoles are doing, I think upscaling lower resolutions to 720p is absolutely terrible.  A 1024x576 image on a CRT would actually appear very sharp, but when upscaled to 1280x720, it becomes blurry (or pixelated) as hell.

[duckman2000]

The Gamespy review opener is brilliant. "Free Radical bit off more than it could chew, and Haze is their half-digested leavings."

Pretty brutal review, this one makes the game sound down right broken. What a fuck-up.

http://ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/free-radical-project/875472p1.html

[AdmiralViscen]

I was thinking of buying it if it was merely competent

[duckman2000]

Yeah... there's no excuse for this mess. I've come to expect some shoddy work from Ubi, but Free Radical has had plenty of time. Ambition is great, when it works out. Ambition leading to failure is just sad. I imagine they really wanted to succeed in stepping outside the safe goof-shooter realm, so I'm sure workplace morale at FRD is low right now.

[crimsondynamics]

From the GameTap review:

Sure, it has a consistent framerate and no loadtimes (thanks to its four gigabyte install)

Seriously now, WTF is up with all these PS3 4GB installs? At this rate even the 80GB would need a hard drive upgrade.

Perhaps Sony should simply come up with the 0GB PS3 model. Hard drive required, but you get to put your own in. Makes a helluva lot more sense than having to pay for a hard drive that you will forcibly have to upgrade (and in the process render useless) in the near future anyhow.

[abrader]

i got the game - just havent had a chance to try it yet.

[Mr. Gundam]

If everyone is brave/stupid enough, Fry's has Haze for $45.