Submitted by fathoms 709d ago | review

PSX Extreme Review: Starhawk

The multiplayer is a "triumph" but the single-player campaign is definitely lacking. If you can focus only on the online fun, it's worth a look. (PS3, Starhawk) 7.6/10

MrDead  +   709d ago
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?
#1 (Edited 709d ago ) | Agree(25) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
soundslike  +   709d ago
The game is obviously not for everyone. Thats a blessing for those who do play it.
Pintheshadows  +   709d ago
That's one of the reasons the Warhawk community is still so good.
Sizzon  +   709d ago
I dunno, I kinda wonder that too =/
vividi  +   709d ago
its clearly double standards, the single player in starhawk is a bonus, this game is all about multiplayer like mw3 and battlefield 3 but they get a free pass for the single player
BushLitter  +   709d ago
Excellent observation there chap. What's stranger is that this review is from a PS3-focused website.

What I'm more worried about is Sony's complete lack of interest in advertising this game.
LOGICWINS  +   709d ago
Because they know it doesn't have a chance to grab the COD/Halo audience regardless of how hard they advertise. Best to just save money and allow word of mouth sell the game...just like Warhawk.
LOGICWINS  +   709d ago
I'd like an answer to that question as well. This site just lost its cred.

EDIT: LOL, dude on the site bashes the game for an average single player...but gave MGS4 a perfect score, even though the online in that game was abysmal. Why forgive MGS4 for having a crap MP suite, but not forgive Starhawk for its average single player?
#1.5 (Edited 709d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
cpayne93  +   709d ago
I think the multiplayer in starhawk just isn't going to sit well with some people, it isn't mainstream. It is incredibly unique and fresh, but I think some people aren't going to "get it" if you know what I mean.

Of course, I think the multiplayer in mw3 isn't so great. It's only redeeming quality in my eyes is the local multiplayer (spec ops, surival, and competitive). Bf3 had a really boring single player, but the multiplayer was good.

Personally, I would give mw3 a 7.5, bf3 an 8.5, and starhawk a 9.0 just based on the beta alone.
LOGICWINS  +   709d ago
Agreed. You HAVE to work as a team to be successful at Starhawk and you have to understand how/when to use ur tools to victory. It's for sure not a mainstream game. But the planes are much easier to fly this time around IMO.
european_cannon  +   709d ago
Your average gamer is just too use to the fast paced "team deathmatch" in every game for something like this to ever be mainstream. Sony knows that so they're not advertising it at all, which sucks.

I really want to give it a try but don't want to spend 60 bucks on, basically, a MP only game. Same goes for BF3 and I MW3 as well, I would never pay 60 for either. If this was 39.99 I bet it would get all 9's.
testerg35  +   709d ago
yeah.. psxextreme is biased! /s
MrDead  +   709d ago

grow up


That’s why I asked the question as it seems very inconsistent. To knock 10% off the other two games for having an average single player you would expect the same for this game as the reviewer loved the multiplayer, he calls it a "triumph".
#2.1 (Edited 709d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
LOGICWINS  +   709d ago
yeah.. psxextreme is biased...against PS3 games! LMAO

But honestly, I don't think they are biased...just inconsistent. Being inconsistent doesn't necessarily mean that the reviewer is biased. Maybe his tastes have changed overtime. Or for some reason he had high expectations for the single player...when most of us knew it was just going to be a way to practice for the MP.
Janitor  +   709d ago
Will buy when it is FORTY US DOLLARS!
Dread  +   709d ago
this magazine is clealry biased. This is a sony exclusive, thus they have to give it better marks than all those multi plat games arghhhhhhhh!!!!!! they hate sony, everyone hates sony, sony is a victim arghhhhhhh!!!

We will never accept a mediocre score if it is a sony exclusive NEVER!

this site is looking for hits..bla bla bla

were have i heard this before?

givemeshelter  +   709d ago
Welcome to N4G.COM...
fathoms  +   709d ago
I would like address a few of the questions/concerns shown here:

Firstly, I will never understand the sheer hatred people have for the campaigns in CoD and Battlefield 3. Those got 9s from me because the multiplayer AND the campaigns were very good. Plus, the campaigns were CAMPAIGNS, and not mere warm-ups for the multiplayer.

Secondly, I did not review MGS4; one of my colleagues did. And it's entirely irrelevant, anyway, as MGS4 is almost entirely campaign-oriented. By the way, that campaign goes down as one of the finest experiences in gaming, in our estimation. I don't necessarily agree with the 10, but it's certainly worthy of a high 9.

Thirdly, and I say this in the review- If the game did NOT have a campaign option at all, it would've scored well into the 8s. If you're going to promise something and you don't deliver, the product review score must reflect that. The campaign in Starhawk is less than mediocre; the same cannot be said for BF3 or MW3. The latter campaigns could be BETTER, I grant you, but they're still actual stories that are well put-together and generally entertaining.

Lastly, I'd like to add that if people actually read the text of the review, I make it plain that if you only care about the multiplayer aspect, then definitely give it a try.
PirateThom  +   709d ago
I respect you defending your score. I only take issue with one thing - "If you're going to promise something and you don't deliver, the product review score must reflect that" - to me the product review should be a review of the product, not promises that were made before release.
cpayne93  +   709d ago
But wait, you're saying that if the game had the same online but no multiplayer you would score it higher? It would be the same game only less, but worthy of a higher score.

I thought the campaigns in both mw3 and bf3 were poor, but thats another topic.
fathoms  +   709d ago
PirateThom: It IS a review of the product. The final product boasts a single-player campaign they promised, when in fact, it's not a campaign but a multiplayer teaser.

cpayne93: Yes. The single-player drags the score down, as well it should in my eyes.
#5.3 (Edited 709d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
fathoms  +   709d ago
By the way, if you have a contrasting view, feel free to take part in our user review contest.


Got stuff to give away, and you could get it published as a real review (as a guest).
VonBraunschweigg  +   709d ago
Warhawk's only flaw was that new players had nowhere to go & learn but online, immediately. After time that problem became bigger as players got more experienced. With Starhawk that's fixed. Up untill a few months ago we didn't knew about a campaign, and when we did, we thought tutorial, probably not more. And that's what it is, you get something extra, and for some that's just something more to complain about.

A good reviewer should be able to recognise a game made to play online. You can warn people (gamebox does a poor job indeed), no proper story to play here, the meat is in the multiplayer, so our judgement is based on...the multiplayer. And it's awesome:) The way it's presented, servers run very smooth, the gameplay options, fresh new mechanics. Finally something new, who cares if the tutorial lacks a good story?
fathoms  +   709d ago
That really isn't true, my friend. We've known it would have a campaign since the game was announced.

If it has a campaign, and it's called a campaign, it needs to act like a campaign. If it's nothing more than a multiplayer tutorial, that will disappoint anyone interested in the single-player option.

That cannot be overlooked.
ginsunuva  +   709d ago
Why do reviewers bash Starhawk and Twisted Metal for campaign, as if campaign should have been the main attraction?

They say "Oh the twisted metal story is disappointing and the singleplayer is underwhelming!" How good do you expect an arena driving-shooter's story mode to be?
And for Starhawk all the reviewers go, "The singe player story is shallow and it is too short and underwhelming. The MP is pretty cool. But the single player! It is not as mind-blowing as we expected it to be! Offline-only players will be so disappointed!"

But CoD and BF get free pass for having crap SP because "Oh these games are MP-focused so it's all k!"
VictoriousB13  +   709d ago
Campaign is part of the package, ergo it's quality, or lack thereof, should impact the overall score. CoD campaigns have always been fairly well made despite the lack of innovation, while review scores for BF3 were in fact affected by it's sub par campaign, so I don't know what you're saying there.
NeoTribe  +   709d ago
Well twisted metal should of did its single player better. All character stories and no gay racing.
BitbyDeath  +   709d ago
"endlessly entertaining multiplayer"

Replay Value: 8.0
Online Gameplay: 8.5

The scores do not match the comments...
DigitalAnalog  +   709d ago
After reading the review, I think it's quite clear where the reviewer is going with this. The fact that the single-player was pretty much a tutorial for the multi-player devalues the entire package of the multiplayer.

This is an example why I hate review scores that cater to the individual nature of the product as opposed to the collective archives depending on the platform which is set upon. For instance if COD4 get's a 9, any game (in that specific platform) that simply cannot match up to the standard should be lower UNTIL that bar raised higher. This draws a fine line between a good and mediocre game quite clearly. Otherwise, you have issues like this where - although valid, would only be susceptible to semantics and even worse - "the opinion".

In other words, review system is broken and nothing more declare the hype of the product. As a consumer, I tend to look for reviews because I want to spend my money knowing what I get into and so far many reviews spend more time justifying their score forgetting why reviews are there in the first place.
#8 (Edited 709d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Take a look at the very bloody War of the Vikings on PC

22m ago - MiddleEasy's Dave Walsh takes a look at the recently-released War of the Vikings, giving an overv... | PC

Disney Infinity 2.0 - A Possibility?

22m ago - Are Disney and Marvel teaming up for Disney Infinity 2.0? | PC

How to Set an Appropriate Atmosphere for Your Game

28m ago - A blog post about a philosophical concept known as 'embodied cognition' and how this applies to g... | Dev

Deadrock Divide Hands-on Impressions From PAX East | Entertainment Buddha

35m ago - Entertainment Buddha's Matt Heywood, "Fans of tactical turn-based games have a new indie title to... | PC

Enter to Win a PS4 and More!

Now - We are buying one lucky N4Ger a PS4 just for commenting on any N4G story! | Promoted post

BMW licence secured for World of Speed

35m ago - VVV: "World of Speed developer Slightly Mad Studios has confirmed BMW as the latest car manufactu... | PC
Related content from friends