Here are some new Haze game play videos. Haze now looks even better and watching these videos make me want the game more, check them out. What are your opinions?
It may be a fun game...but its not going to give any of the heavy hitters a run for their money. Textures on the walls and ground are very blah.
Yea this game looks ok, like I keep saying the multiplayer could be where it really shines. The most impressive thing I saw was the explosions which looked amazing.
There was nothing and I mean nothing stellar about this game. It remind me as generic. The blood, the shooting, the driving, is generic. It reminds me of that game that just game out for 360 and flopped. I can't believe people have been calling this a AAA title.
Im still gonna rent it and if i like it i might buy it. I'm thinking it will get a 7-8/10. Hopefully. If not, oh well.
i dont have a ps3 but it looks about the same as halo, textures on ground are very bland
if they can get this to be 60fps then it'll be worth buying.
lol all i can say is CO-OP CO-OP CO-OP thats the main reason why i want this game lol.
co-op 4 plyers ftw :)
Did they record all the voice overs on a short bus? That gets way annoying after two seconds.
I will purchase it >.< It is set to release May 20th so, if another cancellation then i'd say k!ss my @ss Free Radical!
This game has certainly brought many haters out of the woodwork. Can't wait to see all the fools that emerge when the real games begin to hit later this year with silly comments like "60 person MP is too much, I prefer 4v4", that one still makes me chuckle. Textures on the Ground look bland?? ROFL. Keep digging boys, won't change the exclusivity of this game.
Hey not trying to take away from this being a decent purchase. I just dont think its gonna kick the likes of MGS4, RFOM2 or Killzone 2 to the curb anytime soon based off what I just watched. Nothing graphically is OMG great. Its not horrible, but a lot of the textures seem very lack luster and run of the mill. The game just doesn't pop out at you and scream killer graphics like MGS4 did when its gameplay was first revealed. Haze will be a good addition to the PS3 stable...but its not going to be a great and in the air of the above mentioned PS3 games.
For social gaming...8v8 is too much...let alone 60. I know it shows just what PSN can do and that's impressive, but it terms of gameplay... From experience I think 6v6 is perfect
Frontlines: Fuel of War has 50 player multiplayer on Xbox 360. Today. Right now. The question isnt "how many can you have at once", but as toughname said, what are they doing? There was a 40 player-mutliplayer (forget the name at present..) on the Xbox. Having a lot of players isnt a new thing. That said, if you're looking for a break-out game, based on all we've seen so far, Haze isnt it. Haze looks like it will end-up in the 5-6/10 range on Metacritic. I'll send you an IM, and, after about 5-6 weeks after the game's release, and their are enough reviews in for a proper concensus, we'll see who's right about the chances of Haze being worthwhile.
It all depends on the game type and the map size. A tactical 6v6 or 5v5 game with a handful of players who all know what they're doing is way better than a 60 player frag fest. But at the same time I had plenty of fun with 15 v 15 onslaught with ut. So if resistance 2 can come up with HUGE high quality maps with plenty of room for 60 players and some interesting game types for 30 v 30 they might set a new standard.
He is pretty insecure about his system. If it isn't exclusive to the ps3 it isn't a real game... Right cali?
rofl "There was a 40 player-mutliplayer (forget the name at present..) on the Xbox." but admitingly theese videos dont look as good as the others that were uploaded today....media medium?
@ Dlacy13b..., I re-read my post and nowhere do I say ANYTHING about HAZE kicking any other PS3 game to the curb. My point is that people are finding anything to hate about this game and indeed all other PS3 games. It's just funny how the tide shifts and people who I have never heard of are on here hating on the smallest things in a desperate attempt to detract. The game might not look as good as some upcoming games, but I believe there will be a decent amount of enjoyment to be had here. @ yesah, The game on the 360 that had 40 players I believe is ShadowRun, which by most accounts was sub standard. @n4user1- I never said that HAZE was a breakout game so you are either putting words in my mouth or are just projecting your fears that this game will be excellent into your post. Just like car damage in Forza, Frontlines is the same, yea, it has 50 players but it doesn't do it super well as can be seen by many of the reviews you hold in such high regard. I think R2 will do a better job than frontlines so I really don't know what your talking about. He!!, Warhawk has been doing 32 players for months flawlessly so I guess when it comes to having a lot of players in a game the PS3 is the place to be. Note to all, read a person's post, then read it again before responding, it would make everyones life a lot easier.
but the gameplay is AWESOME However HAZE does look better than HALO 3 at 640P
Doesn't even look better than the year old Far Cry on the 360. The hit detection definitely needs improvement. The level design is pretty basic. Looks like this game needs another delay. Oh well....can't win them all.
Oh well at least we know the gameplay is gonna be solid, graphics arent great but the game itself is gonna be awesome...come on its free radical...they did timesplitters..
graphics are great
That's reaching. Jeeez you fanatics are jokers.
I'm fine with even 4v4 since it's more personable that way, and you get to know your opponent. 20 plus is just overkill, and a mindless frag fest. What was kinda of interesting about RFoM2 is they said there will be objectives to facilitate there being so many players, which sounds reasonable "if" it's pulled off right. People are pulling the whole fanboy card issue is just ridiculous. Just because you own a system doesn't mean you have to like all the games, and if you think that way you're just a blind sheep. I owned a 360, and thought halo was a beyond generic fps just like now I own a ps3, and think haze, and RFoM are generic shooters. Anyhow this game no doubt will, and can be easily ported over to the 360 so maybe a few people will change their tune then. I'm not to beig on fps anyhow, but I for one am waiting for killzone 2 as it seems to have it's own unique style that interests me.
Your argument falls flat when you try to justify why 4v4 is better, the key is implementation and that is fact. You could have 150 people online, if the game is designed right then there are ways to make the game competitive and fun. Really man, to say that something you haven't played is overkill is really kinda silly, you don't know what the online component will be like to say that. That's like me saying Gears 2 will suck, I can't say that because I don't know enough about the game to make that assertion. How do you know HAZE will be generic? Because of the Mantle troopers design. Your post is strife with assumptions and predictions based on nothing but your present mood and the frequency of your bowel movements, meaning they are baseless. We should wait and see what the final product is like and reserve judgement. As PS3 owners there is a lot on offer this summer so after GTA4 if HAZE fails to deliver MGS4 will be there to make it all better. I for one hope HAZE is great, but I have plenty on my plate so I am not too worried. KZ2 should be good, people always refer to the original KZ forgetting that Liberation was a very good PSP game that shows that GG has learned from their mistakes. R2 and KZ2 this holiday season and my year will be complete.
I've played enough multiplayer games to know I prefer 4v4 to 20+. It's obvious you get to know your opponent way better that way, which makes for better tactical games. It doesn't mean 20+ matches don't have their place, but I just don't prefer them to the former. Now like I said if the devs of RFoM2 fulfill their promises of bringing new objectives to that large of a match to facilitate things, and actually pulls it off right then imo it will make sense of, and bring the much needed aspects to that large of a match. Ofc we're all just assuming things right now based off what we've seen, and the true test will be upon release, and having actually played the game, but nothing I've seen right now impresses me in the slightest, and I've seen, and played enough games to formulate an opinion. As long as no one here is stating it's 100% fact then people are certainly entitled to that much so get off your high horse.
Fact is design goes a long way so you argument about intimacy or tactics is a bit thin in my opinion. I have played Gears and I can say with full confidence that SOCOM on the PS2 was more tactical than Gears with many more people online. I really don't think you are understanding the initial comment that I made and you were so quick to jump on, and I question your choice to get a PS3 especially when talking about online play. It seems you prefer smaller games so you should be right at home with only a 360, the PS3 is about pushing the envelope as we saw with resistance and warhawk when it comes to online gaming, so if you like 4v4 old school style play then the 360 is it. And please no one bring up Frontlines as that game is complete and utter garbage compared to the games on the PS3. What is funny is that you fail to mention that in ALL PS3 games you can scale the private matches or the non ranked matches to suit your needs, and resistance 2 also has this feature so your really b!tching about nothing, just a friendly reminder. As your tone indicates I can see your getting frustrated telling me I am on my high horse, LOL. And you are also running out of bubbles so as it is obvious that you completely skip over portions of my post in a futile attempt to make a non-existent point, it is clear that it is a waste trying to reason with someone such as yourself. We will simply have to agree to disagree, at least we both like games so that's a plus, LOL. Take it easy Closing or whatever you go by these days.
Anything less than 16 players on a map just feels boring, period. Guess it depends on the style you prefer but my favorite online games this gen are the ones that offer 18-40 players online. The gameplay does matter more than the number of players online... but 24-40 player maps definitely add to the intensity of the gameplay.
BOTS in MP!
with time splitters too. I remember when I only played time splitters because the bots made the multiplayer split screen soo much more fun.
the more and more videos I see of this game, the more I know this game is pure PS3 exclusive hype. Really, I mean the player motions look so robotic, especially reviving teammates. It just feels like ... another FPS game like Timeshift or some random other FPS that no one really cares about. Hell its been delayed an entire year, right there thats a bad sign.
Actually a delay means there making improvements it is not a bad sign.
having the release date pushed back over and over is a good thing? going back to the development table to "refine" the gameplay is a good thing? thats a bad sign. go to the first and second video people... look at the character movement and reactions to bullets. They act like robots and move all quirky, is that good to you? wth...
so you'd rather them shove it out the door when they don't feel its done? Obviously. Edit: and i completely dissagre with the video comments, http://n4g.com/ps3/News-130... look at those, its probably the video uploader diffrence, so go troll elsewhere.
obviously they felt it was ready for release because they actually gave definitive release dates, but im guessing their higher ups felt it needed to be better. same thing happened with army of two, and that extra "polish" really didnt help the game at all. It still was utterly mediocre. EDIT: that video is better, but it really doesnt show any character movement up close. That is the main issue I had with every other video, the movement was goofy as all hell. And if you think I'm trolling for saying the gameplay looks off, youre wrong. Thats called critiqing, just because it happens to be negative, doesnt mean its 'trolling'. Im just saying my 2 cents on the videos.
your "critiquing" them for having delays, and then "comparing it to t just feels like ... another FPS game like Timeshift or some random other FPS that no one really cares about." played it recently? You don't know what it feels like and your saying you dismiss it as another random fps which noone cares about. But i guess thats not as bad as some posts on N4G. Nothing wrong with 2 cents.
and thats called an opinion based on the videos we just watched! yes, it does look like a generic FPS. and yes, the movement does look rather quirky and not quite right. Hell, id like to see what you guys see in these videos, so pass me the cool-aid. Heaven forbid someone not think it looks that good.
Delays have been around for ever, and are only a good thing. Look the highest rated game is Zelda Ocarnia of Time, and that was delayed till no end. In fact most big titles have been delayed look at the recent ones such as mgs4, GTA4, and those games will deliver to their fans no doubt. Delay is a sign that the publishers are willing to take their time to make the best product they can instead of rushing out a half @ssed product just to cash in. You mentioned Army of Two the game came out mediocre at best, but it was the best those devs could have done for the time they were given, and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have delayed it even longer, and in the end some devs are only capable of mediocre. What gamers need to learn is no date is set in stone, and whats even worse is when games get rushed just to meet deadlines, and instead of delaying they release a game that's a shadow of what it could have been if given the time to fully bake. If you think this game is mediocre now then just imagine how bad it would have been if it was released a year too early. Just learn to have some patience because you the consumer have more to gain from delays than you seem to realize.
When this game was considered multi platform, nobody was complaining. Nuff said
Man, this game just passed from maybe. To a must buy. I don't give F*** what everybody says.
I mean I see people talking bad about this game like they played it already? I mean for crying out loud the game isnt even out yet and some of u are saying its going to be a failure. I think the gameplay looks tons better then what they have shown in earlyer builds of what they show cased of this game. It might not have any graphics that are beyond the looks of a killzone 2 or mgs4 but one thing for sure it looks as good as halo 3, maybe better and looks to be alot of fun as halo 3. I dont see what all this bs talk is about. If u havent played timesplitters then u I guess u wouldnt understand why this game looks to be another fun game. I personally cant wait to grab this game, and heck yes there will be other games maybe better but it doesnt hurt to have a game like this, that way u get bored of those other games u can switch to this and play it online which i think will be a blast.
looks like the gameplay is a run for my money. the graphics arent wow though. who cares, im getting it.
My only complaint in the jungle areas, judging from these clips the foliage isn't moving around too much. Should be a fun co-op play.
Well it certainly seems like they've achieved their aim of beating Halo 3 (as far as the single player/co-op campaign and the graphics go), but will it get over 80 on metacritic is what I'm wondering.
I dont think it will. Heck I'd be happy if it just gets an 80.
It is clear that this game seems to have surpassed Halo 3 in terms of gameplay and graphics. But it is not going to be overhyped by microsoft and reviewers wont be scared into giving it a perfect 10 just because the rest of the gaming world is. So it will not be better than Halo in that way. Thats how it is these days.
I just find it highly Ironic, the same people who loves Halo 3 is calling this game a "medicore FPS" with "Bland Textures". Crazy world we live in. Crazy.
well all i can say is that ... haze is haze ..never expected it to be something for the PS3 , besides is heading for the 360 and u all know it.. and i agree watching the vids on sd where very unimpressive unlike wat free radical said they would do..maybe the graphics are downgraded for multiplayer and coop gameplay,,who knows ..at least i am gonna waste sum time playing it ..
But it just looks so boring and released in between GTA4 and MGS4 - great reviews or not, this just wont be that big of a hit. I hope I'm wrong.
Not everyone likes mgs4 or gta games. They are not everyones cup of tea. And gta is noting special to look at either, mgs4 has more detail, but smaller terrain, its a trade off most of the time anyway. I think there's alot of fun to be had with this game tbh. Rockets look good, hdr is fine. Sandy type ground does not have alot of texture. Does everytype of wall have tons of texture, oops thought not. The game is what it is, either enjoy it or not.
Look better than it was before. Also ppl need to be realistic not every game that comes out is a cod4 or res. If they were we be buying only 2-3 games a year. This looks like a good enough title to get my money 4 player co-op should be fun and I know the online should do me over until MGS4 and maybe hold me awhile after MGS4 until Socom/Killzone2 release. Im tired of Cod4 so this should get me on another game besides nba 2k8.
Cod4 is a very good game, and online is sweet, But again, texture detail in cod4 is poor.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.