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.
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?
The game is obviously not for everyone. Thats a blessing for those who do play it.
That's one of the reasons the Warhawk community is still so good.
I dunno, I kinda wonder that too =/
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
yeah.. psxextreme is biased! /s
@testerg35 grow up @LOGICWINS 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".
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.
Will buy when it is FORTY US DOLLARS!
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?
Welcome to N4G.COM...
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.
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.
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.
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.
By the way, if you have a contrasting view, feel free to take part in our user review contest. http://www.psxextreme.com/p... Got stuff to give away, and you could get it published as a real review (as a guest).
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?
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.
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!"
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.
Well twisted metal should of did its single player better. All character stories and no gay racing.
"endlessly entertaining multiplayer" Replay Value: 8.0 Online Gameplay: 8.5 The scores do not match the comments...
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.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.