Haze Video

Halo2 is closer to 8Million copies and Golden eye is how much older? But anyways Halo is much more mainstream. Goldeneye doesnt stand a chance with there not even being online gaming then. Thats a huge part in halos popularity and no matter what cant be counted out. Again which is why these games cant be compared. Like Arod compared to the Babe.
EDIT: Was sure Halo 2 sales were over 8Million so had to find something. Now these are some interesting numbers over 9Million copies? lol. But i dont know if there is a way to get some sales site confirmed numbers. Doesnt matter anyways. This is fro Wiki, same place that says goldeneye sold over 8M copies.

"The game sold 2.4 million copies and earned up to US$125 million in its first 24 hours on store shelves, thus out-grossing the film Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest as the highest grossing release in entertainment history. As of November 9, 2005, exactly a year after its release, Halo 2 had sold more than 7 million copies worldwide. Official Xbox Magazine reported that the Halo 2 launch was the biggest event in entertainment history, grossing $125 million on the launch date alone. The game sold 260,000 units in the United Kingdom in its first week, making it the third fastest-selling title of all time in the UK. On June 20, 2006, Xbox.com reported that more than a half-billion games of Halo 2 have been played on Xbox Live since its debut; it also reported that 9.2 million units of Halo 2 have been sold worldwide."
 
Last edited:
There were more units of Halo 2 out there than Goldeneye(slightly, the 9 million number is incorrect but it was higher in the 8 millions), however the concept of online gaming trumping Goldeneye is incorrect. First off, even on the Xbox 360 most estimate that of 10.5 million 360 owners and 22 million original Xbox owners who equal 7 million live members, about 3 million of them actually pay for gold..

The question becomes, of the original Xbox, how many were actually gold members? As far as online gaming goes, it may have been Halo's best feature, not that Timesplitters didn't have it on the PS2 for free, but it's doubtful that it was how it was most used. It was used for offline multiplayer, for LAN parties like my friend and his frat house, syncing the boxes together and playing peer to peer. Mostly it was just used splitscreen, just like goldeneye.

Only goldeneye was all that there was as far as shooters in its time. There were many alternatives to Halo last gen, there were no alternatives to Goldeneye. To understand why then Halo 2 was able to hit the 8 mill mark with competition, it's for 2 reasons.

1) Twice as many gamers PS2/Gamecube/Xbox generation as PS1/N64/Satrun gen.
2) Microsoft dumped unbelievable amounts of money into Halo 1/2 launch. Despite making good Halo sales, they overall lost 4 billion dollars that gen.

Considering that that 8.1 million of Goldeneye was of around 75 million gamers and the 8.5 million of Halo 2 was of 150 million gamers, the idea that it was more mainstream is absurd. It sold more, but there was more to sell to.

On top of which, from my own perspective, in competitions, people tended to use timesplitters 2 as their game of choice, like if a school was having a video game tournament, because it was a console neutral game.

If Halo had been multiplatform, there's no question it would have been mainstream. To get the success it had on the Xbox is crazy, but in my mind an xbox 1 exclusive is not mainstream because it didn't have as big of the percentage of the overall gamer community.
 
Your comments about live make no sense to me. They dont matter here. Comments about MS losing money last gen had nothing to do with halo or promotion. Doesnt matter here. Comments about bigger market now doesnt matter. With the bigger market here there is also more competition and for Halo to create the sales it did in a much more competative environment is more mainstream to me. I mean you said it yourself, there were no other shooters for goldeneye to compete with. Halo's had plenty yet outsold em what... 8/1? Anyways this thread was about haze. Sorry for derails.
 
Last edited:
Some cool shit that might hype you up some for Haze:

Haze Gaming will feature some of the most innovative multiplayer elements to appear on a next-generation console game. There will be multiple ways to play both co-op and online against friends and strangers. It you can imagine a combination of playing co-op and online, it will probably be available to you.

Perhaps the most notable multiplayer feature wil be the four-player co-op mode. During single player, you command three squad members, which are controlled by the computer. The fun part is that you have a choice where you can have one, two, or all three of the squad members controlled by friends, online, offline, a combination of split-screen and online, or even through LAN.

You can also seamlessly jump in and out of any game at any time. One minute you could be playing co-op with buddies, and the next minute you can be fragging them in a deathmatch.

· Rebels have the ability to disarm Mantel soldiers of their weapons.
· State of the Art multiplayer gives you more control and ability than any game on the market. An incredible combination of how both online play and co-op can be completed is a first.
· The Nectar drug will give you special abilities that will both help and harm your play experience.
· There are no cut scenes within the game. Once you begin your mission, everything is dynamic. No cut scenes, allowing you to enjoy a more realistic war experience.
· There are no loading times between levels. Everything is open ended and the only loading time you will see is when you first start the game up.
· You will fight on both sides of the conflict, meaning that you’ll start off the game fighting for Mantel and you’ll become a member of The Promise Hand later in the game.
· Your visor will block out the wretched part of the war, but if the visor is removed, you’ll see the destruction around you and the atmosphere that results of it.
 
Halo 3 stole the Co-op feature recently, or "announced it" recently, whichever way you want to spin it. So Haze can't use that as a bragging point, other than being the first.

The only problem I have with Halo is that they made it easier between 1 and 2 for versus. It made me feel like being good was useless when any dipshit can pull headshots out of their ass with auto-aim.
Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au7KE9xUVTk&search=Halo
 
Other games have had online co-op. Haze did not create it. They upped it to 4man. Which is cool, but cant call it halo stealing lol. It was in developement first and besides who cares? Both games have it! Thats a good thing lol.
 
TheOsyris said:
Other games have had online co-op. Haze did not create it. They upped it to 4man. Which is cool, but cant call it halo stealing lol. It was in developement first and besides who cares? Both games have it! Thats a good thing lol.
Click to expand...

Online co-op yes, but the four player and mixed is new, so and it was introduced to Halo 3 well after the announcement and excitement from Haze. It's a direct ploy by them to steal the thunder from Haze. But yes, both have it so we can all be happy.
 
Well taur you must also think about this. Bungie wanted to do 4man co-op in halo2. They were not able to. Halo3 has been in the making far longer then Haze. Haze had every reason to reveal such a feature so early, other wise we would be in the dark about the game kinda like we are now... Bungie had every reason to hold back this info for hype. They dont need to reveal anything about halo3 and it will sell millions, revealing co-op late like this just adds more punch to the hype. I even saw adds with the co-op players(masterchief, arbitor and 2 new elites welcomed to the story) with huge signs "Done complaining?". Aimed at the people who just will never like halo, the ones who say well it doesnt have this or that, then bungie reveals it and they complain about something else lol. Because they revealed it after haze means nothing close to they stole it or only made it because haze did. Glad you agree we can just be happy both have it. Oh also, i do feel one HUGE mistake on the haze devs part... Dude they called out Bungie on their last video... Wtf... Just setting themselves up for fail. Last people to do that were GGames and Kzone flopped hard. Oh then there was... Black? lol... When will people learn. Halo may not be your cup of tea, but Bungie are some sick devs man. Just why dont some of these guys mature and make their shit then shut up. Haze guys messed up there imo.
 
Firestreak said:
Only dev who really needs to shut the hell up is that guy from Too Human.
Click to expand...

While i dont like that Haze devs are killing themselves. I do agree Too Human guys need to stfu lol.
 
In my opinion, Haze looks shittier every day.
 
Lanien said:
In my opinion, Haze looks shittier every day.
Click to expand...

I agree, i think the graphics look worse, however I still think it looks fun and will probably buy it.
 
I can only hope that the graphics get tuned up before launch, but the gameplay looks solid to me. I liked the "jump into friends games" from UT3, and I'll like it here.
 
My main problem is the whole Nectar into rage thing. You would think that someone who gets enraged from overuse would go after the closest thing to kill. Every footage of gameplay I see, he immediately goes for a teammate to kill. Makes no sense at all.

I also find it funny that they have pushed it back this far to what will amount to a mediocre game. Ubisoft knew they couldn't release it against the big boys, so they pushed it back to a time when it is going up against nothing.
 
Graphics wise, would fall short against COD4, Mass Effect and Uncharted... however they could have released it against Halo 3 and not taken heat. Gameplay wise, it looks similar to Halo, only with less interesting environmental elements. AI I can't comment on with tons of brief clips. Need to see them in action in an entire fight. I will probably buy this, but only for the campaign and mostly for splitscreen action.

But yeah... it's not going up against anything FPS wise. Resistance 2 isn't til later and MGS4 and GTA4 aren't the same kinda game.

Overall, MGS4, GTA4 and Haze... dunno, not a bad 6 weeks of gaming. Haze will fill in for FPS bloodlust while MGS4 and GTA4 will be their own thing.
 
Firestreak said:
Haze will fill in for FPS bloodlust while MGS4 and GTA4 will be their own thing.
Click to expand...

I dunno, isn't MGS4 supposed to be packed with the online multiplayer version of MGS? That alone would make me even buy the game despite not liking the story since the PS1 release. I had a blast with Lost Planet (which MGS online looks like, mechs aside), literally playin' my fingers to their cores every night. I could definitely see myself gettin' into the MGS Online action over something as crummy lookin' (not talking graphics here) as Haze and most definitely over something as weak as Halo 3.

As per the graphics, I've always said graphics don't matter. The thing about Haze is it has always made me think of a Halo type gameplay (despite only seein' videos). If it has a better gameplay style than Halo 3 mediocre graphics wont stop it. R6V2 may look identical to R6V but really, it was such a stand out game it really didn't need a change. It's more of a who cares complex in my opinion. I know I'd still play CoD4 religiously even if it didn't look half as good as it just so happens to.
 
Well, I'd say as far as R6V:2 is concerned, I was told the PS3 version improves over the original because the original PS3 port wasn't up to par with the 360 and the 2nd is, but they all look the same to me, so I was expecting a little bit more.

The story mode was too short to justify a new disc purchase, the online was no improvement at all in my opinion and I actually felt like the original was a little tighter control wise. It's a nice excuse to go back and play more Rainbow 6, but yeah... it's possible I just had an inflated opinion of the original since back when it came out there weren't nearly as many decent shooters.

As for Halo, I think the gameplay works for campaign well. I don't think it does for multiplayer, so I'm gonna assume similar for Haze. As for Metal Gear Online, it'll be a fun game to play online, but not a FPS as campaign, which is all I'd really use Haze for.

As for graphics and gameplay... obviously gameplay is most important, but at the same time graphics really do matter when I'm putting down $60. They don't all have to look like COD4, it's more like the way with good art a weak engine can be alright. I mean if you look at Haze, something about the character models looks funny, the way that they're shaped. Now look at Warhawk. It's not a graphics powerhouse, but it's smooth enough that it feels fluid and polished still, even if the models aren't detailed.
 
My biggest issue with Haze is a graphical issue. Not only that the games graphics are not up to par but its also the art style. When people look at Haze shots they think Crysis art style. And Haze looks like shit in that style. Halo may not have been so impressive graphicaly but it stayed in its own art style and looked great in it. Its just an opinion i guess. Hell i hate the way CoD4 looks still. I could only decide on a game like Haze after playing it for a while. Maybe the controls are great, i dunno..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top