I beg to differ

I played a crappy video game recently. I quite enjoyed it.

Every review I can find about the video game Haze says that it’s awful. Really awful. It was universally panned. Yet when a friend and I recently played it our impression was that it was a fun game and a good time. A lot of reviewers that I respect and normally agree with found the game to be absolutely despicable. This leaves us a bit confounded – why did we have such a giant disconnect with the rest of the gaming industry? I’ve been thinking about that and I have a few theories.

First thing first though. I must share our purchasing experience. We were actively seeking a new co-op game to play. We had criteria to fulfill. The game must support couch-coop (as opposed to on-line coop which seems to be more popular). As we entered the GampStop we knew we had our work cut out for us. There weren’t a lot of new couch coop games for the offering. We narrowed it down to only two possible candidates: America’s Army or Haze. They were the dregs of the gaming barrel, but as desperate men we had little choice. Both games got horrible reviews and had bad reputations. Something led us to decide to go with Haze. As we put the game on the checkout counter the checkout lady winced and groaned. “Are you sure you want to buy that?” We nodded. “I haven’t played it, but I hear it’s horrible. I was here when the game released and many people brought it back the same day. No one likes that game. I don’t want to sell you a bad game.” We acknowledged the bad reviews and the fact that she was giving us sage advice but persisted in the transactions. She made a few more attempts to protect us from ourselves but acquiesced to sell us the stinker. We went home mentally preparing ourselves for the worst. We even watched Dollhouse before playing the game just to fully immerse ourselves in the spirit of mediocrity and meh.

So why don’t the critics like it? Most reviews cite the same litany of complaints. The graphics are subpar, the plot is dumb, and the hero is not likable. I think that is the punch list to criticize any game. Of the three complaints I think the last one has the most credence…but I’ll get to that later on. Let me first address the first two complaints and why I think they’re mitigated for us.

The graphics are subpar: I didn’t really notice this – they weren’t the most amazing graphics ever, but they did not actively detract from the game for me. This might be due to the fact that we played it as a couch coop game or so called “split screen coop.” This means the game had to render two different views on the same screen. I’m no expert, but I think most games have to make tradeoffs and cut out bells and whistles when they are basically rendering two independent game sessions instead of the usual one. Perhaps the single player experience is lack luster compared to other single player experiences…but the slit screen graphics looked pretty much on par with other split screen graphics to me.

On top of that, the split screen coop engine worked well, better in fact than some A-list video games I could name (I’m looking at you Resistance Fall of Man 2). We were able to play the whole campaign as coop. There was a ‘heal your partner’ mechanic were you had a limit amount of time to rescue your downed coop partner. Failing that, it would respawn your partner if you managed to make it to the next checkpoint. The combination added a nice balance of being able to help each other out…but not necessarily have to replay a section if one of use could get successfully through it. That’s a pretty flexible system. There were frequent enough checkpoints that we didn’t get frustrated playing any particular section of the game over and over again.

The plot is dumb: Really? I think the plot is more original than most. The plot of Haze is your working for a private army in South America that is waging a war against guerrilla fighters. It’s the future and the army is pumping you full of a anti-depressant drug that helps numb you to the atrocities of war. Initially you are told you are fighting tyranny and working to prevent ethnic cleansing in the area. Later one you learn that’s not really the case and you’re actually helping repress the locals to further the goals of the private corporation…then you swap sides and join the locals and help fight the man.

Let’s look at the basic plot of the current crop of A-list shooters (that aren’t WWII rehashes)….we’ll take Halo, Gears of War, Resistance Fall of Man, and Killzone. People are fighting off an alien invasion and then….they take the fight to the aliens. You can change up the motivations and origin of the aliens but it’s basically the same thing. These are games that are heralded for their awesome plots.

I think Haze is interesting because it seems to break the unwritten rule of shooters. Basically you’re only allow to enjoy shooting one of two well established enemies (Nazis or terrorist) or aliens (but not plain ol people). There is a taboo about building a murder simulator where you don’t kill bad guys…because after all, you want to feel good about your slaughter. In Haze you start off by killing what you think or terrorist but find out to be just civilians trying to protect their homes..eeek. You’re a bad guy. Then you swap sides and start killing well intentioned soldiers who enlisted out of sense of nationalism and are now being manipulated by drugs towards evil ends. You don’t really get to feel good about killing them either. Shucks. Well then who can I feel good about wholesale slaughtering? Nobody…that’s kind of the point of the game.

The hero is not likable: Unlike most shooters where you are the brave rugged alpha male determined to fight improbable odds, Haze casts you into the role of a college graduate who joined up in an attempt to take an active role in making the world into a better, safer, place only to find out that’s not how its working out. He keeps discovering that he’s responsible for reprehensible actions and poor decisions. Basically he’s a wishy-washy unintentional screw-up. I thought it was a refreshing change of pace for a protagonist…but I can see how people might react poorly to this forced casting (after all they’re probably fulltime screws-up as their day job…zing!) The game doesn’t let you feel good about your killing. It will let you savor the accomplishment of getting out of a tough spot then shows you that you’re not killing people who are intrinsically evil. Bummer. Supposedly they toned this aspect of the game back! Originally it was so strong that they were afraid that the game was too preachy about the nature of war. Go figure. I think some critics who got an early look at that version were ultimately disappointed that the game got mellowed. I think it retained enough of an edge to not allow you to feel like you’re in some adolescent male’s fantasy. Which is probably not a selling point for this sort of game. I will say I find it unpalatable that your character learns about the dangers of blindly following orders and responds by immediately finding a new person to blindly follow orders from…but that is hardly unique to this game (I’m looking at you GTA4).

Why did it work for me and not some many others? Perhaps I wasn’t burdened by expectations. The game had very favorable press prior to release. People were expecting a lot out of it. On the other hand, thanks to our helpful GameStop salesperson, my expectations were set exceedingly low. Or perhaps it’s simply the magic of couch coop. It’s no secret to me that having real live friends, like in the same room, can take a boring and repetitive single player experience and turn it into a memorable and enjoyable evening.

Overall I found the game to be successful. The only thing that could have made it better for me is if you discovered that the company you were working for was a banana company and you were working to oppress fruit laborers. There is a historical precedent!

I enjoyed the experience, laughed out loud, and walked away with something to think about. What more can you ask from entertainment?