Ben-DutkaYeah, I’m going to take a lot of flak for apparently not rewarding a game with clearly excellent online multiplayer. But I remain stoic in my belief that a single-player campaign should boast a solid story and shouldn’t merely serve as a warm-up for the multiplayer, as great as the latter may be. It’s true that Starhawk ’s predecessor was only online but then again, it made no effort at a campaign…and when you do that, I have certain expectations, as should everyone.
We’ll get to all that in a minute. Firstly, the technical elements of Lightbox Interactive’s title are good albeit not spectacular, and they excel during periods of frenetic action (and there are many such periods). The best part about the visual presentation is the variety and diversity with which we are presented; the developers put a ton of effort into creating environments that are both engaging and intriguing. The landscape isn’t as barren as I might’ve thought, and the special effects really light up the screen, thereby enhancing the immersion factor.
The audio features a compelling, fitting soundtrack and a series of effects that coincide nicely with the bombastic nature of the graphics. Whether you’re playing the campaign or online, the sound typically proves to be a positive aspect of the experience. That being said, the balance can be a little off and I’m not overly thrilled with the music selection, although that’s definitely a subjective viewpoint. The good news is that both the visuals and the sound combine to provide the player with an accomplished and invigorating foundation.
As you already know, Warhawk was strictly online, while Starhawk boasts a much-anticipated single-player mode. I was happy with the multiplayer in Warhawk and in truth, the online action in the successor is deeper, more involved, and potentially more rewarding. But the campaign lacks a decent story and basically plays like you’re online. It reminds me of last year’s Brink , which was also purported to feature an entertaining single-player option. However, in both cases, neither really deliver on that promise.
You will play as Emmett Graves, who becomes infected with Rift energy, which is a valuable commodity in the Starhawk universe. The problem is that while Graves can control his infection, others view him as potentially dangerous; a member of the violent “Outcasts” who are capable of all sorts of rash destruction. Emmett’s brother, Logan, is one such individual. Now, one would assume that such a plot would result in all sorts of great emotion and drama but despite one big surprise (which isn’t all that shocking, really), the story is a missed opportunity.
Graves becomes nothing more than a clichéd action hero during combat and the somewhat lame storytelling and mediocre writing don’t paint a gripping picture. Couple this with the fact that the campaign is merely a five-hour tutorial for the multiplayer experience, and perhaps you will understand my bitterness. But provided you’re only in this for the multiplayer and you really don’t care about the campaign, I can almost promise that you’re in for a wild yet strategic ride that is bound to satisfy in the long run. I don’t want that message to get lost.
Starhawk thrives on the Build & Battle system and this works extremely well in all respects. You build up Rift energy, which can be expended to develop the surrounding area, giving you and your team the advantage. The options are numerous and appealing; there are walls to build, supply bunkers for big-time weaponry, and all sorts of vehicles with which to experiment. There’s a ton of complexity and, although I speak badly of the campaign, this is one instance where it’s not necessarily tacked-on and worthless. As I said before, it’s a tutorial and it’s one you’ll definitely want to play; otherwise, the multiplayer could feel a little overwhelming.
As one might expect, the best part is the open-ended freedom. There’s really never one set way to achieve an objective, and this flexibility becomes all the more apparent as you learn the game’s intricacies. Plus, with a maximum of 32 people going at it, the action never stops; there’s always something to do and somewhere to go. The only downside is that you really need everyone to be a team player. Otherwise, a match can regress quickly and become a frustrating mess, which is why I would advise playing with a group of reliable, quality players.
But if everything clicks, there’s no doubt that this game becomes one of the most fulfilling and addictive online experiences out there. I’m not a fan of RTS and although this doesn’t really qualify, I’m not in the business of building stuff when it comes to my games. Never liked that kind of thing. And yet, I really took to this like a fish to water; the process is both accessible and deep; the developers walk a fine line and they do so brilliantly. Standard matches like Deathmatch and Capture the Flag always feel fresh and new because everyone attacks and defends differently.
The number of players, structures, and vehicles is impressive, and the dynamic nature of the competition is almost unparalleled. There are all sorts of cosmetic upgrades to earn as well, and getting involved with friends on a consistent basis could result in a weekly (or even daily) scheduled event. From thoughtful positioning to out-and-out firefights across nicely appointed and ever-changing landscapes, the multiplayer is definitely a triumph. Like I said, though, the only drawback is that only fair, avid players let it shine; online idiots can really hinder this one.
In my opinion, Starhawk is a great multiplayer game that should’ve shipped without a single-player option. If you want to give us a multiplayer tutorial, then just do that. The story is weak, I don’t really care at all about the character, and there’s very little difference between the campaign and the online action. The single-player missions do serve a purpose, though, and that’s to introduce players to a rich multiplayer experience that encourages experimentation at every turn. You just have to accept that the campaign doesn’t do much else.
The control is sound, the depth is there, the 32-player matches can be downright epic , I love the vehicles, and the detail and general construction and presentation of the setting is pretty damn good. If you can focus on all this, you’re good to go.
The Good: Solid technical elements. Great style and design. Good control throughout. Inventive, endlessly entertaining multiplayer. Action blends nicely with strategy. All future map packs will be free (big bonus).
The Bad: Campaign is only a multiplayer tutorial. Story is weak. Multiplayer can be tough to fully embrace.
The Ugly: “If you’re gonna do this, just don’t bother with a campaign.”
Pretty much dead on review. I was thinking around an 8/10 for pretty much the same reasons. I'm finding the campaign entertaining but not stellar. I would have given it a couple more points for the sheer fact that the Multiplayer is so damn fun. But I think you nailed the review.
I also had my eye on the 8's for this game too.
Funnily enough me too… from playing the beta I thought an 8.2 was in the offing… anyway, I hope people who get it enjoy it.
I will get it but later…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Last edited by Qubex on 5/10/2012 3:58:43 AM
7.6?
Multilayer is the best on the PS3.countless hours of gameplay.
Great review. I picked this up and tried jumping right into the MP but I just couldn't kill anybody or really do much. After reading your review though I'll go through the SP first to understand it better.
In the few matches I played last night only 1 or 2 people had mics besides me and it seemed like everybody was just using hawks when they played. I never saw anybody really build stuff except for the big guns. I'm pretty sure over time though when I get better I'll find better people to play with.
Last edited by DazeOfWar on 5/9/2012 12:13:10 PM
An interesting – and surprising! – review. I get the impression that you are kind of setting an example here.
I am in not in any way indicating that I think you are wrong or did any mistakes here. It just looks to me like you are saying "enough is enough!" and this title just happened to cross your path in that moment.
Only, this game *is* first and foremost a multiplayer game. The campaign is most likely the consequence of the need of an extensive tutorial to learn the mechanics.
But again, interesting review. Gutsy.
Last edited by Beamboom on 5/9/2012 12:15:20 PM
It had to be said. This trend of using the campaign only as a vehicle, a multiplayer tutorial if you will, is a dangerous one.
I promise this game would've scored well into the 8s if it had been multiplayer only, like Warhawk. But I can't very well ignore a less than mediocre campaign when it's included, right?
"I promise this game would've scored well into the 8s if it had been multiplayer only, like Warhawk"
Flawed logic is flawed. A game can't score lower for a gameplay mode, If you don't like it, you just don't play it. MGS4 had a kinda crappy multiplayer, but It didn't (and shouldn't) have made its score go down, since It was obviously a SP oriented game. So I think the same should apply here, since Starhawk is clearly a MP oriented game, It's score shouldn't be deducted because it has a crappy campaign.
Whoa, I think this is the first time EVER I've disagreed with you Ben in the 6 years I've visited this site, almost thought It wasn't going to happen…
It isn't flawed logic at all. By your logic, any mode that exists is good because it exists. If it's terrible, it can't be counted against the product as a whole.
…I fail to see any logic there at all.
That wasn't the point Ben, the point was that by your logic, MGS4 should've scored into the 8s instead of the 9s because it included and advertised a bad MP mode, even though It was clearly a SP focused game.
No. MGS4 featured what is possibly the greatest story campaign of the generation (especially at the time).
Nothing about Starhawk is to that level of greatness, including the multiplayer. The comparison is ridiculous.
Well I loved the review but I agree with Darxed on that point. It is true that people could have been called lenient towards MGS4 by not punishing it for it's bad MP when this is getting punished for it's bad SP…
StarHawk is an MP game and MGS4 was a SP game so in that respect they should be mainly judged by those criterias. Though I think they should have called the SP campaing: Tutorial lol
Why even bother with a campaign then, use the space for better mutiplayer. I really wish designers would start splitting into 2 games and give me the very best of both. And now we even have games like God of War getting mutiplayer, what in the "F" for, that just takes space for the single player campaign.
Then we have games like Uncharted stellar single player and a very good mutltiplayer.
It's not like some franchises have to put all the mutliplayer content on the disc cause they're just going to have day 1 download content anyways, or worse yet it's already on ur disc they're just make u pay more to open it up.
I didn't down vote you by the way but, they specifically stated that the MP in GoW: Ascension will not hinder the SP in any way, I have confidence in them to do a good job, we shouldn't come to conclusions just yet on it though, we should wait and see.
The sp campign was put in there for sales purposes. The lack of a sp campign in Warhawk stopped some gamers from purchasing the game. I remember reading that Sony insisted upon a sp campign in Twisted Metal after some of their research showed the lack of a sp campign hurt Warhawk sales.
78 metascore. It looks like the sp campign is drawing the most complaints.
They may say it won't hinder the sp play, but fact is the more you add to the disc the less space you have for the game, in GOW case that takes away from sp play, cause they never had mp before.
Nice review. On a completely unrelated note. I just bought journey and it brought back some joy from the monotony of gaming I have feeling.
guys i saw the starhawk poll.more than 40% won't buy it.what the matter with you guys? Multiplayer looks and plays spectacularly.Day one buy people.
It could quite possibly be that a majority of the people here aren't all about multiplayer-only games. I know that was the case for me and the reason I won't be buying this game.
I personally don't enjoy multiplayer games where the other players are in other parts of the city/state/country/world. If I am to play with other people I prefer to do it with them in arms length. Different strokes for different folks.
2 thumbs down because I stated the obvious….
1. Why put in a shitty single player campaign, just make it multiplayer only, multiplayer crackheads aren't going to play the single campaign anyways…..
2. If they're only going to make multiplayer download content, then I should get the best single player campaign they have to offer for my $60, proven by Uncharted 3
I think the issue is that nobody wants a dev to split a game into two simply to appease the masses on either side of the coin. Not only is that more money to develop but it's also a loss in sales being that you're likely to have large amounts of either version that would not be sold. There are a ton of games that give you the best of both worlds and Uncharted is one of them as you mentioned.
DLC is a wild card. Some put it on the disc as a unlockable and some actually create it and put it on the store. Uncharted had dlc characters already on the disc but you had to pay for it..
With Starhawk I think they implemented a campaign b/c that's likely what they heard from fans of Warhawk.
I found the building portion to be stupid and pointless in in my opinion, people were either abusing it or not using it properly. I put 100 hours in to warhawk and about 10 in starhawk before i had enough.
Sadly this is what I was afraid of and since I rarely ever play online mp, I'll be passing on this one.
Last edited by kraygen on 5/9/2012 2:29:04 PM
Ouch.
Ben, I am curious.
COD MW 3, average single player, good multi player, 9/10
Battlefield 3, average single player, good multi player, 9/10
Starhawk, average single player, good multi player 7.6/10
Please someone explain why this seems to affect some games more than others?
also, MGS4 a perfect score, even though the online in that game was not the greatest.
I am not a game reviewer nor do I want to be. Also, not looking to start flame war, just looking for an explanation.
I answered this over at N4G.
n4g? Have you started writing for them too? Where in n4g is this answer? Link please 🙂
I'll probably think if this game didn't have single player, the score review would of been higher. 7.6 is not bad and it's not excellent. I'll be waiting for some time on this game.
if thats the case couldnt the exact same thing be said about all CoD and BF games? "great" multiplayer but horrible single player… so then all those games shoud get 7s too lol.. though mind you 7.6 isnt a bad score i usually round my reviews up so anything that 7.5 or higher is an 8 in my book which is perfectly fine as i dont expect many games to get 9s or 10s lol
That's a fallacy. Never has CoD or BF featured "horrible" single player. That's the problem with the argument.
compared to single player in games like resistance or killzone Cod and BF single player just seems "tacked on" for the sake of saying the game has SP.. whereas the multiplayer is the real selling point… to further prove the fact if I asked anyone about coD of BF (or ANY fps) they could tell me all sorts of stuff about multiplayer but couldnt answer a single, single player question lo.. i know ppl who have had CoD for years and havent even TOUCHED the SP campaign.
Of course they haven't. They play it only for multiplayer. That doesn't mean the single-player is terrible.
And the production values in the campaigns you bash are WAY too high to say they're "tacked on."
ok well "terrible" may have been the wrong word but definitely "average" which the same could be said about starhawks :p yert those other games with great multiplayer but average single player still get higher scores lol
CoD's single player is good, short but good, but battlefield's single player was boring, this game is made for multiplayer and it is amazing for this. I think it's the same case with starhawk. Im not buying starhawk for the single player, i just want to play a new version of warhawk, one of my favorite multiplayer games, and i think it will deliver !
its funny cause i mostly got it for the single player.. i played the beta and it was ok.. im sure Ill be playing it too but i liked the isngle player trailer.. especially the flying around in space parts… havent played a game like that since battlefront 2 or starfox and i think for that Starhawk will do just fine until we finally get a worthwhile space combat game this gen… a new X wing vs Tie fighter would be great
Hmmm, not the score I would have given it. Having a blast with this game!
I'm about 3 hours into the campaign and it's pretty bad (from a story telling stand point, and overall plot and character development). The missions are real mundane, and given that I already poured hours into the beta it felt easy and boring.
That being said the game is a multiplayer bonanza. It should be evaluated (by a purchase stand point) as if you like online MP gaming, because this is a game that I can see myself pouring hours into. And the free DLC mappacks for the entire duration of it's online existence? It'll last people who like online shooters months if not years of fun.
I get why you gave it the score you did,Ben because the campaign is really awful and should be scored accordingly, but from a value/purchase perspective, people who are interested in this game should evaluate it a little differently. Well worth the $60 if you like a unique style of online shooters.
Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 5/9/2012 8:47:51 PM
That's the point of the text in the review. I make what you say pretty plain, I believe.
But as far as I'm concerned, you can't give me a campaign that isn't a campaign and then tell me to just ignore it and score the multiplayer. That's just unfair.
You do make it clear in your review, and I agree with everything you talked about. I was more or less referring to the overall score which is what most people base their purchases on judging by the amount of emphasis placed on websites like metacritic.
Just afraid that this could be another solid PS3 exclusive that doesn't sell well.
Perhaps this is further evidence for the need to give separate scores for multiplayer and singleplayer? Or perhaps a good solution would be to give separate scores and then an overall combined score?
Probably. I'd do it if it was commonly accepted. You're risking not getting on GameRankings and Metacritic if you do something like that. They only use one score value; even when there are three scores, as there are from GI sometimes, they're averaged into one score for those sites.
I think it's a fine idea, though. Just not in a position to pioneer it…I don't THINK.
@Ben: As long as you don't drop out of Gamerankings cause of it (that'd be a major bummer) I'd say do it! Your score today already is kind of an average between the single and multiplayer part of the games anyway, so why not?
Last edited by Beamboom on 5/10/2012 5:16:11 AM
Excellent review. Normally I am all about my single-player experience, but Starhawk is better served as a feast. I am definitely willing – at least this time – to forgive a lackluster campaign in exchange for a rewarding multiplayer experience.
I usually wouldn't bother with games soley multiplayer based, I'm definitely one for the single player campaigns but anyone unsure on this I'd highly recommend picking it up, just from my experience on the beta. I did love Warhawk but this feels really fresh and is utterly addictive, I can only see them adding and improving it over the years aswell. I'm from the UK so hoping my copy will be waiting for me when I get home!!
oh come on you cant drag a game which is whole point is MP down because its SP is mediocre.
its like saying the Rolls Royce Pahantom is flawed because it does not have the boot space of a estate.
ITS NOT SUPPOSE TO!
neither is starhawk suppose to have a stellar campaign.
the campaign is meerly there to aid people into the multiplayer which i think is a brilliant idea!
so many games these days throw you into the deep end, its nice to see a developer create a training mode that teaches you how to lay the smack down!
Weren't you heavily upset about the single player not being very good a couple weeks ago? Now its all about the multiplayer to you?
I bet you guys a million bucks, if the campaign was just called training or training mission or something this games would have scored well into the 8's. People are forgetting the focus of the game and the point of the campaign itself: it was never meant to be a campaign only training for multi-player.
Hence if they just called it training in the 1st place, no one expecting a campaign would have been disappointed and thus the only legitimate flaw whould have been moot. Thought atleast other people would have realised that. Although why they called it campaign in the 1st place is as good a geuss as anyone's.
I agree with bens review on the single player portion being not so great. It does seem like its a glorified tutorial. However, I think they kind of needed it for this game. It is so deep and there are so many nuances to the multiplayer I think it was a good way for them to do it. However they should have gone just that little extra mile to make the story a little more interesting.
Personally it is better than a long list of tutorials, and definitely more entertaining. But needed a bit of a kick in a butt to bring it up to the next level. They are lucky multiplayer is so unique and fun that it makes up for this.
On a side note, whats with no dodge or dive roll? Probably was a design choice, but coming from Binary Domain, sometimes I try to roll and it becomes my undoing in a firefight.
Anyone playing through the campaign think that Lightbox Interactive borrowed heavily from inFamous' story? Even the story telling via comicbook animations are the same.