Too Human?

[TomNook]

I'm thinking about buying it, is it good, bad, average, etc?

 

[mjhhiv]

Wrong place for this, my friend.

 

[shatnershaman]

Wrong Section.

Shameless Plug for own Too Human Review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.69610

 

[RedBeta22]

OMG it rocks! too Human, more like too awesome!

 

[TomNook]

Sorry

 

[shatnershaman]

Opinion is mixed, but a fair number have said that its worse than Haze.

Now now Metacritic has a different tune.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/haze 55

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/toohuman 68

 

[mjhhiv]

Opinion is mixed, but a fair number have said that its worse than Haze.

Let's not go that far...

I thought it was a tad below average, after playing it for an hour at a friends. Combat just isn't satisfying.

 

[Sirisaxman]

Opinion is mixed, but a fair number have said that its worse than Haze.

It's not THAT bad. I think it's in a rather similar situation to Fable. If you compare it to all the hype, yeah, it's shit. If you don't set your expectations too high, and if you like games like Diablo, it's actually pretty fun.

 

[TomNook]

I'll just save for Mercenaries then.

 

[shatnershaman]

And as you can see, Gamer.nl, Gamespot and Gamedaily all said it was worse than Haze.

Yes and IGN gave Too Human a 78 and Haze a 45. And Xplay gave Too Human a 80 and Haze a 40. Even 1up that gave Too human a 42 gave Haze a 33.

And the average is higher for Too Human

 

[silentsentinel]

Worse than Haze? Naw... Haze was the worst shooter I've ever had the misfortune to play. At least I had fun with Too Human. For a little bit. Sort of...

 

[shatnershaman]

I didn't say it was, just that in some reviewers opinions it was worse than Haze. And, if it were as brilliant as people keep claiming, there would have been no cases where that could have been possible.

You mean like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Halo 3.

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3163125 (Halo 3)

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3168151&p=37 (MGS 4)

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=83948

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=143797

How could the god game MGS4 be beat by anything in anything. The end is nye!

 

[yourkie1921]

And as you can see, Gamer.nl, Gamespot and Gamedaily all said it was worse than Haze.

Yes and IGN gave Too Human a 78 and Haze a 45. And Xplay gave Too Human a 80 and Haze a 40. Even 1up that gave Too human a 42 gave Haze a 33.

And the average is higher for Too Human

I didn't say it was, just that in some reviewers opinions it was worse than Haze. And, if it were as brilliant as people keep claiming, there would have been no cases where that could have been possible.

Bull. No matter how brilliant a game is there will be some discreprency in it's level of awesomeness.

 

[shatnershaman]

I realise that. However, I was just pointing out that some feel it had serious problems, and was more flawed than even Haze.

And most thought otherwise.

 

[shatnershaman]

I realise that. However, I was just pointing out that some feel it had serious problems, and was more flawed than even Haze.

And most thought otherwise.

yes, very good. Thats what I was saying.

So your point is? Some reviews think Haze is better than Too Human most do not? I don't get it.

 

[Altorin]

I thought GTA 3 was utter garbage

stop the presses.

 

[The Wooster]

Yeah I don't know what most people think but this 360 exclusive was FAR WORSE than that PS3 exclusive. You all know what that means.

 

[mipegg]

IGN have a habit of giving games excessively large scores. GTA4 is perfect? Hmm......

This is a point actually, since when have you seen a game get less than 60%? It nearly never happens. If a game is dreadful (as most agree haze is) it should be 1-3 surely?

 

[Sirisaxman]

There's also a free demo of the game on Xbox live. Download it, try it, if you like it, buy it. If not, save for Mercs 2. It's gonna be AWESOME!!!

 

[the monopoly guy]

OMG it rocks! too Human, more like too awesome!

I sence a tad of sarcasm.