Why I trust GameTrailers’s Haze review
GameTrailers has finally given its two-cents’ worth on Haze, a PS3-exclusive shooter that hasn’t been doing very well in the reviews department. Among the verdicts you’ll see, this video is perhaps one of the more grounded.
There were scathing ones, like that of IGN’s, which focused more on lambasting the game’s story and characters instead of the more important part (i.e. the gameplay). Since when was a shooter’s narrative expected to equal or surpass that of an Oscar-quality film?
The GameTrailers review took into account Haze’s semi-good parts (as any criticism should) and discussed why the universally-agreed atrocious parts (like the repetitive voice work) were appalling. The most noticeable fault leveled by reviewers against Haze is that the game is “generic.” Sounds like what I said about the game last year.
The GameTrailers clip was one of the later reviews that came out. Incidentally, IGN’s article was one of the first. I guess this says something about the so-called timeliness and accuracy of reviews. A word of advice: If a site comes out with the first review, take it with a grain of salt. A review coming out on launch day could mean it was rushed, or that the critics played the game in optimal conditions (i.e. a publisher’s posh office with good food and lag-free multiplayer). Either way, you might be reading an inaccurate analysis.
Tags: fps, gametrailers, Haze, ps3_games, review
2 opinions for Why I trust GameTrailers’s Haze review
Daniel Primed
May 29, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I agree that the time in which the review is put out can be detrimental to the quality of the review but in this case I disagree as GT reviews always take longer to get released because they need to capture and edit the reviews.
I dislike IGN reviews more so for their reviewing formula which is representative of a check list style.
Mike
May 30, 2008 at 10:51 am
Good point on the need to capture video and edit the reviews, Daniel. That said, I also like GT’s review not because it’s late, but because they took the time to consider the game’s good points, and weigh them against the bad.
IGN has made a basic English contradiction, methinks. They gave Haze a very low score and a handful of scathing remarks, however, the site said that the game is a generic FPS as well. The last time I read the dictionary, “generic” is not synonymous to “terrible.” Likewise, IGN’s rating system should reflect this.
It’s very disappointing to see that the IGN review was written by a so-called “professional.”
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: