Starhawk Review | GameSpot

Figuring out these tactics and tricks makes Starhawk a lot of fun to play, but it's a shame that the transitions between modes are so rocky. Learning harsh lessons and recalibrating your approach isn't a pleasant process, but it's well worth pushing through. These online battlefields are unlike any others

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
LaChance3334d ago

IGN were the first ones to publish a review, and the only ones to give a 9/10.

I'm always skeptical about the "first review out score" especially from big sites. Its smells money bag/marketing tool all over it for the website AND the game.

3334d ago Replies(6)
3334d ago Replies(5)
Patriots_Pride3334d ago

And now IGN are the heroes and gamespot are the bad guys.

brodychet3333d ago

They weren't the only ones to give them a 9. Other reviewers have given it a 4.5/5 which is a 9. So.. go troll elsewhere.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3333d ago
garos823334d ago

ery interested to pick this up. loved the beta, even though it had many issues mainly getting into a game!
but the core strategy involved in the matches seemed very enjoyable.

M1chl3334d ago

I just went to that site and unfortunatelny took a look into a discussion thread. Those fan girls complaing about 7.5 being low score its just... For me personaly 7.5 it a very good game and I tend to like more of the "very good" games then those which are rated 10/10. I didn't like beta so I won't be getting Starhawk, but thats come down to my personal taste. I really don't think that there is anything wrong with this game.

Kinger89383334d ago

Read the review not the score. May base the score on stuff that doesnt matter to you for example i feel single player is helping this game get lower scores but i didnt want or would not play the single player anyways

SageHonor3334d ago

Even if the game's focus is primarily multiplayer it should still be judged as a whole game.. and that means talking about the singleplayer too.

GribbleGrunger3334d ago

i have to agree. if the developers decided to add singleplayer then it should be judged as a whole.

FlashXIII3334d ago

But there is double standards there.. you don't see sp games get lower scores because the mp is added on. You judge a game by what it sets out to accomplish.. this is a mp game so should be judged as such. Lowering the score for this game because of the SP would be like lowering Skyrim's score because it doesn't have a mp component.

Mikhail3334d ago

Well, reviewers view it as such, BF3 was reviewed as a SP and MP game and we know that SP was just tack on. Thus, it got lower scores.

dark-hollow3334d ago

they judge the whole package!

believe me if it was $20-$40 on launch without the sp mode nobody would complain.

battlefield 3 was criticized for it weak campaign too.

raymantalk13334d ago

if they going to take into account the single player and lower the score for it then all the halo games on my xbox 360 should of gotten allot lower scores than what they did when they were released but at the time nothing was said about single player as far as i can remember that is

arbitor3653334d ago

games should be rated on their overall appeal. So why cant certain "sectioned off" aspects of the game be ignored?

you are basically saying

superb MP(only) = superb game 9/10

superb MP (the same from above) + mediocre SP = average game 7.5/10

does this system really represent the value that one gets out of a game? the second one has everything that the one has, plus more and yet it is inferior? that makes no sense.

This kind of reviewing is a disservice to the readers and it does not give them an accurate portrayal of the value they will get out of a game

Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.