Haze demo coming soon

Commented on 2008-04-16 11:43:08

Can't wait to grab the demo that day, been watching the sucker ever since the announcement and the demo can hit or miss.
Good thing it comes out BEFORE the demo for those "hmm I dont know" people, and good its coming early, I need my FPS fix.

The only thing I am worried about is the controls, and that is the main factor for me in FPS.
COD4 nailed the best FPS "feeling" as controls, aiming, shooting, I hope Haze has a good controls in its own right as well.

Visuals looks very good, really like the bloom effect...etc.

The art of the Mantel side looks great, reminds me of "Killer bees", they look like bees and they kill :P

Anyway, can't wait!

In reply to

digi_matrix

Commented on 2008-04-16 12:07:39

There shouldn't be a problem with controls if they're customisable in the options menu. Halo nailed the best controls IMO, and I hate throwing grenades with the Right Bumper in CoD 4.

In reply to

Sath

Commented on 2008-04-16 12:17:55

Yeah if you can customize the controls its good, I know that the aiming sensitive is pretty much in the game like any other FPS out there.

But we well see, thats the point of the demo anyway :)

In reply to

jmd749

Commented on 2008-04-16 12:56:10

sweet, a demo is always appreciated.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2008-04-16 13:08:36 In reply to digi_matrix

Posted by digi_matrix

There shouldn't be a problem with controls if they're customisable in the options menu. Halo nailed the best controls IMO, and I hate throwing grenades with the Right Bumper in CoD 4.

I think he's talking about more than just the level of sensitivity or where the buttons are mapped. And while I agree with him that Call of Duty's controls (which are as much about movement as they are about aiming) are fantastic, I'm glad that every FPS doesn't feel quite the same.

When it comes to how an FPS might handle with console inputs, a lot of consideration has to go into the level of aim assists and the method in which they function (from camera adhesion to straight up auto-aim). This is often something that must be balanced versus movement speed. There's also the notion (which functions very well in several console FPS) that sensitivity may not be equal across all axises. Quite a bit of thought must go into how a game like this handles on its feet. Let's not even get into vehicles just yet.

A good deal of what COD does right has to do with the way the weapons are designed. IW meshes somewhat realistic concepts in ballistics with arcade inspired running and gunning. Range, recoil, bullet spread, and how that all relates to movement and stance--as well as how hipshot accuracy versus scoped accuracy varies greatly from gun to gun. It works well in that it is both fun and offers a good deal of diversity while using real world weapons, many which use the same ammunition.

But as quick as I am to praise it, I'd also quickly point out that it's not the only sound approach to FPS design. There's a wonderful amount of variety to be found in game design, even within a genre where it seems like everything has been done before. Just between the ideals of arcade or simulation there are a tremendous number of options there for a developer.

There are games based almost solely in their arcade roots, like Halo 3 (or UT3, etc) and games that approach military simulation, like ArmA (or America's Army, etc) and there are games that sit comfortably between the two. No where on that scale can you identify the right way to design infantry combat, and two games could sit at almost identical spots on that scale and be wildly different.

As for Haze, I guess I'm one of those "hmm I dont know" people. I love this genre, but it's a crowded space. I'm glad they're being sensible enough to offer a demo.

In reply to

[quote=digi_matrix]There shouldn't be a problem with controls if they're customisable in the options menu. Halo nailed the best controls IMO, and I hate throwing grenades with the Right Bumper in CoD 4.[/quote]

I think he's talking about more than just the level of sensitivity or where the buttons are mapped.  And while I agree with him that Call of Duty's controls (which are as much about movement as they are about aiming) are fantastic, I'm glad that every FPS doesn't feel quite the same.

When it comes to how an FPS might handle with console inputs, a lot of consideration has to go into the level of aim assists and the method in which they function (from camera adhesion to straight up auto-aim).  This is often something that must be balanced versus movement speed.  There's also the notion (which functions [i]very well[/i] in several console FPS) that sensitivity may not be equal across all axises.  Quite a bit of thought must go into how a game like this handles on its feet.  Let's not even get into vehicles just yet.

A good deal of what COD does right has to do with the way the weapons are designed.  IW meshes somewhat realistic concepts in ballistics with arcade inspired running and gunning.  Range, recoil, bullet spread, and how that all relates to movement and stance--as well as how hipshot accuracy versus scoped accuracy varies greatly from gun to gun.  It works well in that it is both fun and offers a good deal of diversity while using real world weapons, many which use the same ammunition.

But as quick as I am to praise it, I'd also quickly point out that it's not the only sound approach to FPS design.  There's a wonderful amount of variety to be found in game design, even within a genre where it seems like everything has been done before.  Just between the ideals of arcade or simulation there are a tremendous number of options there for a developer.

There are games based almost solely in their arcade roots, like Halo 3 (or UT3, etc) and games that approach military simulation, like ArmA (or America's Army, etc) and there are games that sit comfortably between the two.  No where on that scale can you identify the [i]right way[/i] to design infantry combat, and two games could sit at almost identical spots on that scale and be wildly different.

As for Haze, I guess I'm one of those "hmm I dont know" people.  I love this genre, but it's a crowded space.  I'm glad they're being sensible enough to offer a demo.

Sath

Commented on 2008-04-16 13:35:33

The buttons are something to get used to, but the aiming, if it feels tight or sloppy or just weird...etc. its just the aiming movement that is worrying me.

Some FPS games you can adjust the aim sensetivity all you want, but you can't make the small detail in the analog "pushing" go away, a bithard to describe from my part,so I hope one expert can describe it better than me :)

In reply to

FreedomTIBET

Commented on 2008-04-16 14:04:43

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i want fire x.......................

In reply to

Haseo

Commented on 2008-04-16 14:35:32

Looking forward to this game the Time splitter games were always great for co op and this one should hopefully live upto that.

In reply to

synce

Commented on 2008-04-16 15:10:56

Don't care for the game but I like the notion of co-op demos.

In reply to

purbeast

Commented on 2008-04-16 16:26:21

i was excited about this game until i saw gameplay videos.

In reply to

Trup1aya4rea1

Commented on 2008-04-16 16:40:40

finally we will reach a verdict. I too was excited about this game until i saw gameplay videos...

In reply to

Jigen

Commented on 2008-04-16 17:17:20

I'm not too excited over this one, but I'll try the demo for sure. Graphically I think it looks pretty bad, based upon gameplay videos. The gameplay I saw didn't look overly inspired either, and as much as I like FPS games, I don't think I'm going to buy any FPS for 'more of the same' anymore.

In reply to

ManThatYouFear

Commented on 2008-04-16 18:20:32

I am just amazed by people slate its graphics, it looks stunning in the visual department, mayb e because i dont expect much in the visuals or niether do i really care as long as its a good game

In reply to

Sath

Commented on 2008-04-16 18:45:35 In reply to ManThatYouFear

Posted by ManThatYouFear

I am just amazed by people slate its graphics, it looks stunning in the visual department, mayb e because i dont expect much in the visuals or niether do i really care as long as its a good game

Haven't you learned, people expect Far Cry 2, Crysis, Gears of War visuals in all games now, gameplay comes later.
Look at Ninja Gaiden 2, every thread is about its graphics and not about its gameplay and new features.

Do what I do, ignore and let them battle it out themselves, leave the stress to them and enjoy your titles the way you always do ;)

About Haze...I don't have a mic for the PS3, but we gotta play some online co-op together in this game :)

In reply to

KORNdog

Commented on 2008-04-16 18:51:04 In reply to Sath

Posted by Sath

Haven't you learned, people expect Far Cry 2, Crysis, Gears of War visuals in all games now, gameplay comes later.
Look at Ninja Gaiden 2, every thread is about its graphics and not about its gameplay and new features.

Do what I do, ignore and let them battle it out themselves, leave the stress to them and enjoy your titles the way you always do ;)

About Haze...I don't have a mic for the PS3, but we gotta play some online co-op together in this game :)

i'd be up for that too, sadly dont have a mic tho either. will probably pick one up when MGS4 comes out tho.

In reply to

Jigen

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:02:05 In reply to Sath

Posted by Sath

Haven't you learned, people expect Far Cry 2, Crysis, Gears of War visuals in all games now, gameplay comes later.
Look at Ninja Gaiden 2, every thread is about its graphics and not about its gameplay and new features.

First off, I think Gears of War looked and looks really bad, not what I'd like to compare games to. I think a FPS should at least look as good as the majority of other current FPS games, but it's not a deal breaker. There are tons of other games that seem to look better than Haze (won't be able to tell for sure until I get the game). It'd be hard for me to pick out 360 or PS3 games that actually look worse, based upon what I've seen. That's why it's OK to complain, when the game is worse looking than most other games, why not complain?

In reply to

Sath

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:02:09 In reply to KORNdog

Posted by KORNdog

i'd be up for that too, sadly dont have a mic tho either. will probably pick one up when MGS4 comes out tho.

Hehe, good we are in the same boat, give me your PSN and I will add you next time I start the Ps3, would be fun to play ;)
I just hope its a good level and not some shitty one like that warehouse level.

This one...
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/6093/10...

I really want to play in that Landcarrier level, looks awesome.
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8108/10...
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8108/10...

The only weapon I like in this game is the Mantel assault rifle, looks so cool, maybe because I am a futuristic AR liker :)

In reply to

Jigen

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:04:10 In reply to Sath

Posted by Sath

This one...
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/6093/10...

I really want to play in that Landcarrier level, looks awesome.
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8108/10...
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8108/10...

See if the game actually looked / looks that good I won't complain at all, those shots are great. That's not what actual gameplay videos have shown though. Those shots of tons of AA and AF, and probably even way better LOD for that matter.

In reply to

Sath

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:24:01

I know, these are bullshots, but you don't see me complain and all that.
Besides if you are basing it based on GameTrailers.com they upscale their shitty videos and puts on "HD" tag.
I saw some great ones from IGN in 720p with no upscale.

I don't trust videos from sites that much because they upscale most of it or just do crappy compressed videos.

But when I see a demo or a full game running infront of my on PS3 or 360 on a HDTV then it is better to see how it truly looks like, then you don't have to be worried about if it is bullshots, bad compressed or upscaled.

In reply to

Jigen

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:26:31 In reply to Sath

Posted by Sath

I know, these are bullshots, but you don't see me complain and all that.
Besides if you are basing it based on GameTrailers.com they upscale their shitty videos and puts on "HD" tag.
I saw some great ones from IGN in 720p with no upscale.

I don't trust videos from sites that much because they upscale most of it or just do crappy compressed videos.

But when I see a demo or a full game running infront of my on PS3 or 360 on a HDTV then it is better to see how it truly looks like, then you don't have to be worried about if it is bullshots, bad compressed or upscaled.

Well I really hope the game is fun and looks great, I agree that seeing a game running in real time on your own HDTV is a different thing sometimes.

In reply to

Jato

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:26:38

My main problem with this game is that it looks plain boring. No sense of atmosphere, no cool ideas (and no, the nectar thing isn't interesting at all imo) and no satisfying combat, judging from the footage I've seen.

I'll give the demo a try, just not expecting anything above average.

In reply to

blinx01

Commented on 2008-04-16 19:47:10 In reply to Jigen

Posted by Jigen

First off, I think Gears of War looked and looks really bad, not what I'd like to compare games to. I think a FPS should at least look as good as the majority of other current FPS games...

You do realize that the vast majority of FPS games released over the last year use the same engine as Gears of War?
For me, Gears of War is still the best looking game released on consoles this gen and most likley will continue to be until the sequel is released later this year.

In reply to

Jigen

Commented on 2008-04-16 21:29:08 In reply to blinx01

Posted by blinx01

You do realize that the vast majority of FPS games released over the last year use the same engine as Gears of War?
For me, Gears of War is still the best looking game released on consoles this gen and most likley will continue to be until the sequel is released later this year.

#1. The engine is only a small factor in a game.
#2. Most of the FPS games *I* think look great on 360 and PS3 don't use UE3 : GRAW2, The Darkness, Halo 3, Call of Juarez, COD4. Bioshock also looks great, but it was developed mostly on UE2.5, so I think that UE3 development has a large amount to do with the 'less good' looking games.

I still don't see what people like in Gear's visuals, but I wouldn't say the fault lies only in the engine for that game either. The animations in the game are HORRIBLE, especially in cutscenes. The textures often end up looking flat, and lots of the textures seem to glow. Character models are pretty good in cutscenes, but the framerate gets really bad, even when zooming with the left trigger the FPS will drop below 30fps a lot.

I've never seen a decent argument of why Gears looks good, I think PDZ looks way better if only for the nice parallax mapping effects and lighting. Gear's graphics looks just as rushed to me.

[edit : oh, and as long as we're talking about third person shooters too, Lost Planet and Uncharted look way better than Gears to me too.]

In reply to

[quote=blinx01]
You do realize that the vast majority of FPS games released over the last year use the same engine as Gears of War?
For me, Gears of War is still the best looking game released on consoles this gen and most likley will continue to be until the sequel is released later this year.[/quote]

#1. The engine is only a small factor in a game.
#2. Most of the FPS games *I* think look great on 360 and PS3 don't use UE3 : GRAW2, The Darkness, Halo 3, Call of Juarez, COD4.  Bioshock also looks great, but it was developed mostly on UE2.5, so I think that UE3 development has a large amount to do with the 'less good' looking games.

I still don't see what people like in Gear's visuals, but I wouldn't say the fault lies only in the engine for that game either.  The animations in the game are HORRIBLE, especially in cutscenes.  The textures often end up looking flat, and lots of the textures seem to glow.  Character models are pretty good in cutscenes, but the framerate gets really bad, even when zooming with the left trigger the FPS will drop below 30fps a lot.

I've never seen a decent argument of why Gears looks good, I think PDZ looks way better if only for the nice parallax mapping effects and lighting.  Gear's graphics looks just as rushed to me.

[edit : oh, and as long as we're talking about third person shooters too, Lost Planet and Uncharted look way better than Gears to me too.]

phalanges

Commented on 2008-04-16 22:15:15

This will determine if I buy the game or rent it. It better blow my socks off or I'll go back playing GTA4 and waiting for MGS4.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2008-04-16 23:58:45 In reply to Jigen

Posted by Jigen

First off, I think Gears of War looked and looks really bad, not what I'd like to compare games to.

.. I've heard it all now.

Haven't you learned, people expect Far Cry 2, Crysis, Gears of War visuals in all games now, gameplay comes later.

This assumes that Haze will have thrilling gameplay.

In reply to

Haze demo coming soon

1 image

All comments (48)

LEGO Horizon Adventures

Dragon Quest III HD-2D Remake

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl

P55 Pro HQ video coverage: Day One

To the Moon is now available on PS5 and Xbox Series

Our PC video of Albatroz shows the game struggles