Starhawk - Video Review
GameSpot Asia's Jonathan Toyad speaks with new SCEA president Hiroyuki Oda about the challenges of the PS Vita, the progress of the company's collaboration with Nanyang Polytechnic in Singapore, and the PlayStation Network Store in Asia.Posted Nov 14, 2012 | 7:46 | 5,364 Views
Anyone can become an architect of destruction with the build-and-battle system featured in Starhawk.Posted May 15, 2012 | 1:25 | 1,964 Views
Learn to love again by playing Starhawk.Posted May 15, 2012 | 0:54 | 886 Views
Zone warfare: it's like the real estate business, but with tanks.Posted May 10, 2012 | 2:54 | 1,757 Views
Starhawk is now available!Posted May 9, 2012 | 2:01 | 2,417 Views
- May 8, 2012
Chris Watters builds and battles on the fierce frontiers of Starhawk.
Like I said when I saw the first footage of this "Exclusive"....Meh.
XBox 360 is the BEST console EVER made. --John Carmack
This comment has been deleted
@MaI45g9K they only have halo, gears of war and... that's it lol. just mgs4 will devour all x360 exclusives
@buying1999 Not true. Ive had my original playstation since 1997 and it still work's. Ive gone through 3 xbox 360's in 5 years. Xbox is trash.
@buying1999 and yet your watching this
"youre left with only voice chat to cordinate your team"...this is why modern games are so sad. strangers cant be trusted to communicate sensibly / constructively so no one uses mics. this game kinda makes me wish i had a ps3. like the construction elements.
Game looks awesome, defo gonna get!! Can't believe gamespot is annoyed that a game is challenging them lol
It sounds like he's giving each mode a 8.5/9 then the whole package a 7, which doesn't make sense. The only gripe he has is the jarring change of pace, but each time he says that, he also says, "But once you get the hang of it, it.s a blast, and well worth the trouble" Seriously, WTF? The score doesn't jive with what he's saying.
If you buy a multiplayer focused game and play the single player first you must know...wait what? Who bought Battlefield 3 and played the single player first? Nobody cares about StarHawks single player.
Wow. .F.LI.C.K. .Y.O.U. Gamespot and your default auto - go to next video system. I just typed a humongous comment and was about to post it when it all got erased because the video ended and it went to the next one...
I think if the game was an x360 exclusive, at least they would give it 8.0.
sometimes friends ideas are more reliable than review scores.
Wow, one reviewer against many gamers! I like the point system on Game Stop. Each aspect of a game is separated. But its primarily rated by gamers that bought the game. The average score is at 8.9 right now. But I will have to just go get it and find out for myself. I would like to know if it has 4 local players online like Warhawk. That was awesome. Wife, 2 kids and myself loved it. Honestly, I am tired of seeing 7.5 for so many games. They should ban the number.
@tisoyboy2 Scores should be banned. Watching/reading a review should tell you IF you want to play said game.
Other sites say the campaign prepares you for the online, this review says differently. I don't get it.
This game is great! If you don't enjoy multiplayer, I think the 7.5 score is reasonable. The online stuff is a lot of fun, runs smooth, and rewards strategy as much as it does skill. 9.0 in my eyes
tacked-on single-player and a multi with a steep learning curve. I might rent for the former, I'll probably pass on the later.
PS3 has few voice chatters and the ones that are there have awful blutooth headsets that pick up and transmit the game noises because there is no push-to-talk button.
@professorXzaver Its ment to be a multiplayer game. a lot of people are getting it because of the awesome multiplayer in warhawk, and i think they added a campaign cuz people complained about how there wasnt any in the last game.
isn't that the entire call of duty series?
@professorXzaver well mw3 is a 4hour campaign but yet tons but yet tons of people go out and buy it and it is $60
I think GS knocked the score down by a full point just because they are mad that they can't buy the game for their Xbox 360s'. If it had come out on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, I have a feeling their review would have been at least an 8.5, or maybe even a 9.0. Knocking the score down to a 7.5 because the single player campaign didn't prepare him to kick azz in multiplayer is just plain stupid. Of course they are going to have to balance weapons and mobile units differently in a multiplayer facet of the game then they do for the single player side.
The multiplayer is the cream of this game, the single player campaign was just an add on here. To compare this to a 10.0 game on GS, Metal gear Solid 4 got a 10,0 score with a very average sub-par mutliplayer tacked on to it. The single player game is obviously the cream of that game, and a lack luster multiplayer did not hurt it's score.
This score is very unfair, and there are no valid reasons for knocking this games score down a full point below the score that Warhawk got five years ago. Starhawk is superior in every way and deserves at least the same score as its predecessor, if not higher.
Well in my opinion, this guy's review is very...sorry. Since when does any game's singleplayer component ever fully prepare you to play the multiplayer? The singleplayer campaign taught me how everything works and that's it. What the singleplayer campaign doesn't teach you is how NOT to be a dumb*** online. No one ever uses the "instincts you learned in the campaign" online. Why? Because the AI won't act like a human being does. Just because the AI never tried to nade your hawk in campaign doesn't mean you were ill prepared for online. If you die online from something like that, then in my honest opinion, you're just a nooby dumb***. More than likely, GS probably played the whole campaign on the lowest difficulty setting which btw is the default setting and expected the multiplayer to be just as easy. That's basically what I got out of this review. Smh
Don't understand why so many gamers take reviews as law. They're someone else's opinion. They aren't meant to be the final word on a game's quality, just how the person feels about the game, same as if I told you my opinion. The only difference is that its his job. And i know, it takes work to become a journalist, but that doesn't make critics any more insightful to how I personally will enjoy the game. They're still simply stating their opinions.
@criticfromhell the reason why we are complaining is because of the stupid reasons why he give the game that score it seems to me he is just making stupid excuses to why he sucks at the game and he lower the score because of that
@shadowhunter0 that sounds more like a fanboy complaint to me. I love the game. I love it a lot. But i respect that he has a different opinion. Accusing someone of making excuses for not being good at games is simply juvenile. Do I think the score is off? Yes. But again, its his opinion and I respect that. it doesn't dampen the game for me in the slightest. Besides, he still likes it.
@criticfromhell And thats the problems of reviews here today. They've become alot less objective and become alot more subjective. One person cannot possibly represent the entire appeal of any given game. I mean hell they dont even have a Judgement criteria for their reviews anymore. Points just get docked by whatever the reviewers opinion is. Thats not good journalism. A review should be objective and have a set criteria.
hey chris its CryPtiC_BullDog love the review and i agree with the whole having to switch how u play its quite jarring
Yeah, I remember learning how to play Capture the Flag multiplayer while playing the single player of every other online game too........................................................................................bum reviewer if you ask me lol! Dude needs a more feminine job.......................................and more time to learn how to game.