surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Why can't they defend their game? I would do the same thing if I created something I was proud of and it was being bad-mouthed by someone. If they keep quiet it means that they knew the game was shit and released it anyway. As long as they are just talking and not bullying people into giving their games good scores then I see no problem with it.
Ah... marvelous backpeddling. The sweet, sweet sound of publishers convincing gamers to open up and swallow whole the crap they couldn't get to work right.
@mrlokievil
Nothing wrong with defending your game; I think it's the double standards they used while trying to defend it smacked of laughable desperation.
"Reviews are just opinions, don't listen to them" while also saying "Famitsu gave it a pretty good score, see!!!" just doesn't stir the kool-aid like it should.
Nothing wrong with defending your game; I think it's the double standards they used while trying to defend it smacked of laughable desperation.
"Reviews are just opinions, don't listen to them" while also saying "Famitsu gave it a pretty good score, see!!!" just doesn't stir the kool-aid like it should.
I'm not spending £30 on a game just to 'try it for myself'. Hell, if they give all of us trial versions I'll do just that but not until then. Hrmph.
"It's like taking candy from a crippled baby,"
"Is there an award for most badass gangsta? Because that's me!"
^^actual dialogue from the game.
wtf were they thinking.
"Is there an award for most badass gangsta? Because that's me!"
^^actual dialogue from the game.
wtf were they thinking.
I played the demo the other day.
It was fucking dogshit.
The HAZE board on GameFAQS is full of dickheads saying "since when did a demo represent the finished game?"
...errr, since everytime I've even played one.
It was fucking dogshit.
The HAZE board on GameFAQS is full of dickheads saying "since when did a demo represent the finished game?"
...errr, since everytime I've even played one.
Actually I don't see how there's anything odd about saying a review is always just a single person's opinion and still citing a favorable review.
Off to read that review, sounds genius.
I played the demo a while back, put me off getting a game I'd be looking forward to for months!
I played the demo a while back, put me off getting a game I'd be looking forward to for months!
I called it as soon as it went exclusive (made a post way back about it). The head honchos at Ubisoft knew the project was dying in the ass and refused to shell out the money for a 360 and PC port, figuring they might make some dying sales by sticking to the PS3 as an exclusive. People called me a fanboy, people said the game was going to be a 9.5, denying the obvious fact that if this game was going to be a stellar hit, Ubisoft would be more than willing to put it on the 360 and PC; they like money don’t they?
Still, I would have preferred the game to be awesome, but the writing was on the wall.
Still, I would have preferred the game to be awesome, but the writing was on the wall.
@sluxi: Then that is because you're a moron. The fact is their argument is to not listen to reviews at all... except the good ones the game got!
I agree with you on this one again, Jim.
Ubisoft is seriously slipping in my eyes. They're becoming worse than EA (yeah, I went there). After the huge disappointment that was Splinter Cell Double Agent, the over-hyped Assassin's Creed, and the complete rehash of Rainbow Six Vegas 2, and now this Haze BS... I'm really starting to lose interest in the company's properties. I used to love their titles but they really need something fresh to get me interested, and apparently that doesn't mean brand new IPs (since Haze apparently sucks) but maybe just actual time and effort put into the creation process.
I agree with you on this one again, Jim.
Ubisoft is seriously slipping in my eyes. They're becoming worse than EA (yeah, I went there). After the huge disappointment that was Splinter Cell Double Agent, the over-hyped Assassin's Creed, and the complete rehash of Rainbow Six Vegas 2, and now this Haze BS... I'm really starting to lose interest in the company's properties. I used to love their titles but they really need something fresh to get me interested, and apparently that doesn't mean brand new IPs (since Haze apparently sucks) but maybe just actual time and effort put into the creation process.
I'm glad I never cared about this game in the first place!
Then again, IGN gave God Hand a 3.0. This game is 1.5 better than that? Wow. God Hand was tits, this game must be super awesome!
But then I remembered that the IGN reviewer used the classic defence "I suck at this game, therefore this game sucks" when reviewing God Hand.
If Haze gets less than a 7 from IGN, it must be fucking terrible.
Then again, IGN gave God Hand a 3.0. This game is 1.5 better than that? Wow. God Hand was tits, this game must be super awesome!
But then I remembered that the IGN reviewer used the classic defence "I suck at this game, therefore this game sucks" when reviewing God Hand.
If Haze gets less than a 7 from IGN, it must be fucking terrible.
I mean really when was the last time a rock band wrote a song for a good game? Key word is wrote, not licensend.
Are you serious Jim? What are they supposed to do? You may as well wish that companies would just never put out crappy games or that MS, Sony, and Nintendo wouldn't allow crappy games to be published. Who wouldn't want that?
The enthusiast press is just as much to blame. They preview everything so positively and generate much of the hype themselves but then turn around and tear a game a new one once its done. The poor scores are so shocking because based on the previews (and the fact that Free Radical has a respectable pedigree) most people expected the game to be decent at worst.
The enthusiast press is just as much to blame. They preview everything so positively and generate much of the hype themselves but then turn around and tear a game a new one once its done. The poor scores are so shocking because based on the previews (and the fact that Free Radical has a respectable pedigree) most people expected the game to be decent at worst.
Jesus, some of you take the word of Jim as venom from satan or something. All he's saying is that it's funny how they claim the word of one reviewer is good enough to sell a game, but that you can't judge the quality of a game from the review of just one person when it comes to a bad game. Sure they can defend their games, it's just the way they do it that's pretty damn funny.
You peeps need to chill out a bit.
You peeps need to chill out a bit.
one word... demo. Try it.
it looks like just another generic shooter to me but what the hell, you may just find awesome... so try it
the developers should deffinetly defend their game...
I also have seen some negative reviews about assassin's creed
and the gametrailers bonus round when they imply that
assassin's creed isn't as good as trailer was..
to check out how much my opinion on games differ from reviewers I bought the game yesterday..
I simply love the game...
it looks like just another generic shooter to me but what the hell, you may just find awesome... so try it
the developers should deffinetly defend their game...
I also have seen some negative reviews about assassin's creed
and the gametrailers bonus round when they imply that
assassin's creed isn't as good as trailer was..
to check out how much my opinion on games differ from reviewers I bought the game yesterday..
I simply love the game...
B-Radicate: Oh yeah? And you're an Idiot!1!one. Talk about argumentation...
Saying reviews are personal opinions doesn't exclude you from liking someone's opinion.
Saying reviews are personal opinions doesn't exclude you from liking someone's opinion.
Instead of making something good they greenlit a game where you smoke crack then shoot people in the face. Nice going.
This game wasn't really "hyped" at all besides from the developers themselves. They're loud mouthed to begin with, and now that it's out, they'll still be loud mouthed.
Thats what the demo was for. No-one's going to drop £45 on a game based on the publisher's damage-limitation spin.
@Detry
I see, well I could take drugs (shrooms) and shoot people in Rise of the Triad. The only difference was that game was awesome.
I see, well I could take drugs (shrooms) and shoot people in Rise of the Triad. The only difference was that game was awesome.
Here we go again...
If it's just one of those games where some people really like it and some people hate it with a fiery passion (like most Nintendo games), then we'd be seeing at least some positive reviews. But nearly every major media outlet has been calling it out as crap, and if this PR shit didn't work for Sony, it's not going to work for Ubisoft.
If it's just one of those games where some people really like it and some people hate it with a fiery passion (like most Nintendo games), then we'd be seeing at least some positive reviews. But nearly every major media outlet has been calling it out as crap, and if this PR shit didn't work for Sony, it's not going to work for Ubisoft.
-To FPS Developers-
*Please take notes from COD4*
Free Radical is like the guy that brings Natural Light to a party, and Infinity Ward is the guy that brings Crown Royal and Sam Adams.
*Please take notes from COD4*
Free Radical is like the guy that brings Natural Light to a party, and Infinity Ward is the guy that brings Crown Royal and Sam Adams.
I know that that this might sound nonsensical, but I lost all interest in the game after seeing that horrible Korn video...
Why did Ubi even release this now, when PS3 owners are either a)still playing GTA IV or b)waiting for MGS 4? There is no room for a crappy big-budget game in an environment like this.
While its disappointing that it got such low scores, and the demo wasn't too interesting, I'm still gonna have to give this game a try by renting it from Blockbuster.
This is Free Radical we're talking about! At the very least, multiplayer should be interesting.
btw- my comments were given an 8.5 by Famitsu, so do read them.
This is Free Radical we're talking about! At the very least, multiplayer should be interesting.
btw- my comments were given an 8.5 by Famitsu, so do read them.
I was really looking forward to haze most of the previews seemed positive but I'm not going to spend €70 to try it for myself if the reviews are this negative.
I'm not sure some of the commenters above quite understand the difference between a publisher and a developer. Developers, being the actual creators of the game, surely have the right to defend their creation -- even if it does make them sound like whiny teenagers ("It's just not fair!!!").
Publishers, on the other hand, are in charge of a game's production, promotion, and distribution. You can see how they might not be the most objective source of information about a game. It's like asking Donald Rumsfeld for a critique of the Iraq War.
Publishers, on the other hand, are in charge of a game's production, promotion, and distribution. You can see how they might not be the most objective source of information about a game. It's like asking Donald Rumsfeld for a critique of the Iraq War.
@jack of no trades
Nintendo are the guys that bring a keg to the party....of root beer. Sure you laugh when they start tapping it, but you know you just have to try it because it's a freaking root beer keg
Nintendo are the guys that bring a keg to the party....of root beer. Sure you laugh when they start tapping it, but you know you just have to try it because it's a freaking root beer keg
@B-Radicate Shit I've been saying that for a year now, if everyone could come around to this side of the view point Ubisoft would swiftly go to hell. Every time I see the producers face of Vegas I about puke from the overly bizzare features of a rat eating cheese.
I honestly thought they gave IGN's review as an example of someone who didn't like it and Famitsu as an example of someone who did like it to prove their point that it's all up to opinion.
Yeah, the demo was crappy in my opinion, and there's no way that they're going to get me to buy the whole game.
I played the demo, and if Haze popped up from nowhere, with no hype, for 30 bucks, it'd STILL be derivative trash. Seriously, everything they do in the game was done better, many many many years ago, and they should learn from this mistake instead of clawing their way out of the pit like a frightened animal.
At some point, people need to understand that game reviews are PURCHASING ADVISE. They aren't just opinions to be debated and reviled. They are for the very users that decry them.
Game Critics, at this points, are effectively trade journalists. They're more analogous to car reviewers, helping informed readers make purchasing decisions, than they are Film and Theatre critics, pontificating about the merits of their respected medium's products, "because they can".
Game Critics, at this points, are effectively trade journalists. They're more analogous to car reviewers, helping informed readers make purchasing decisions, than they are Film and Theatre critics, pontificating about the merits of their respected medium's products, "because they can".
I agree Jim. The companies love the review if it benefits them if not they are incompetent. I say all that but also think too many reviews are nothing more than biased opinions. A healthy review should always have some bias and opinion but that should only be an addendum to solid unbiased technical info and specs on the game,its relationship to other games,etc. So often I find more of an op ed piece on a game under the rubrick of a review. Thats cool but it shouldnt be called a review. Reviews should be objective first and foremost based upon facts. If those facts reveal a poor game so be it! If its a great game so be it! One caveat is some people have a hard time thinking for themselves and rely on others to make their decisions for them. I wish folks would exercise their critical thinking skills and learn how to discern reviews-factoring in the reviewers bias and presupposition as well as their own likes and dislikes. HAZE may not me all that great of a story or just another run of the mill shooter but some people love that and shouldnt let IGN and their bar of measuring a games quality keep them from that enjoyment. I would encourage all readers of reviews to play the games you like and not be a lemming. Take the profitable parts of a review and assimilate it and ignore the rest. The reviewer is one man or woman and may have some knowledge and insight into a game, but not into you or your desires and likes so go for it and play what you want even if it has a low review score. And as far as these companies I can sympathize with them but they need to back off. THey know unfortunatley that the majority of folks dont think for themselves and let the reviewers think their thoughts-that is why they get so worried about a review.
Ubisoft is a bunch of wankers and they can ess my dee. They've thrown hissy-fits over reviews in the recent past, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised they're doing it now. I agree with them that reviews are only the opinions of individuals, but when the majority of those individuals (and gamers) pan a game, chances are that there's some validity in their statements.
They should not defend their game against bad reviews. If reviewers and gamers keep mentioning something specific and Ubisoft thinks they're mistaken, then fine. But you don't say, "Your opinions are wrong, guys."
They should not defend their game against bad reviews. If reviewers and gamers keep mentioning something specific and Ubisoft thinks they're mistaken, then fine. But you don't say, "Your opinions are wrong, guys."
ubisoft is seemingly getting too big for their britches. used to be everything they made had a certain quality to it that you couldn't find another company as consistent. Now that they're putting out more "AAA" titles a year, they all seem to be getting worse. And just to be an asshole, I AM going to take the review scores at face value and ignore the game. Make a real fucking Rainbow sequel, fuckers.
follow
