Space, the final frontier... or is it? No it’s not, according to Lightbox Interactive’s follow-up to Warhawk, a multi-player only TPS released in 2007 on PS3. The new frontier involves some kind of space gold rush, in which the very substance you’re fighting for can mutate you into some kind of boney, glowing tribal warrior. The space-western theme is very reminiscent of cult fave TV show Firefly, who’s cancellation was a tragedy equalled only by Warhawk’s unappreciative public reception. Warhawk was never the best looking game, nor the most innovative but its gameplay was both deep and incredibly well-balanced. As a gamer who prefers the single player experience to competitive online it was surprising for me to find such satisfaction in a game designed entirely to play online. Still, when Lightbox revealed that Starhawk would have a single player campaign I couldn’t help but be overjoyed. At the Eurogamer Expo in London I recently got to play the entire demo through to the end, twice, here are my thoughts.
The games intro follows Sony’s first party trend (see Resistance and infamous) of animated comic book style, it’s a very artistic and efficient way to tell a story but it’s starting to seem overused. It melds seamlessly back into gameplay, in which you are shot onto a planet’s surface in a pod to secure a source of rift energy. I found the controls familiar but there was a definite sense of ‘weightiness’ that wasn’t present in Warhawk; although it could just be that it’s been a while since my last Warhawk escapade. Within the first 30 seconds I found myself in a fire fight; shooting felt solid and enemies explode satisfyingly into a flurry of glowing rift energy balls. I believe this energy is then used to purchase the ‘build in battle’ structures, which became available after capturing my first rift source.
The build in battle system is the feature that has raised my title question. At first it feels like a gimmick, just dropping turrets into the battlefield to support you isn’t exactly innovative. However, when you start collecting new buildings it becomes clear that Lightbox is onto something and has thrown a lot of weight behind it. In fact it seems to have completely transformed the game to the point that, at times, it borders on real time strategy. Enemy drop locations are announced in advance with timers and symbols, so you can prepare strategically. The tide of battle can shift with just one construction, where enemy types are countered with various turrets or NPC vehicles/mechs/warhawks. The whole concept allows for a depth of choice rarely seen in shooter games without taking away any of the fun derived from using a giant robot to hunt down and shoot a solitary enemy soldier with a salvo of overkill.
It’s this combination of genres that has solidified Starhawk as one of my most anticipated games of 2012 and could be exactly what the somewhat crowded and stale shooter market needs to get it out of its rut. Unless you believe MW3 will bring some kind of surprising innovation, in which case I commend your optimism.
UPDATE: Added a very nice video with Dylan Jobe, President of Lightbox Interactive, describing the build in battle system. It also contains some footage of it working in MP as well as the upgrade system for structures.
FromSoftware's upcoming Nintendo exclusive The Duskbloods looks decidedly Bloodborne-like, proving the iconic PS4 game doesn't need a sequel.
No, what it needs is 3D Dot Game Heroes, or Tenchu... Anything other than yet another Souls style game. They're a one-trick pony now. As much as I love Souls games and Elden Ring. It's sad to see them fall into a one-game studio when they have other IP's they're just sitting on.
Not it isn't. It's a multiplayer spin-off, not a Bloodborne sequel. There's definitely demand for a proper Bloodborne sequel.
Ghost of Yotei is rated "19+" in Korea due to sexual content, gambling, and strong violence. The game is set to launch in October for PS5.
Budgets Cuts developer Neat Corp has unveiled Crossings, a VR roguelite coming to Meta Quest and PCVR headsets.
I really think that it's a novel idea.
They must implement it right though. From the sound of it, it is like in-game currency via kills/objectives. This makes a lot of sense, but I wonder how it works as a team dynamic and if there could be other ways to build. For example, going out and collecting minerals as a side-mission to bring in more resources/energy in addition to getting kills. This could also be a good way to create points of interests for teams to fight for.
Perhaps it should be calculated via squads/teams instead of individually? What is the extent of the freedom to build what and where? What kind of buildings were there btw?
With buildings falling out of the sky it will be dangerous to venture into enemy territory. They could be waiting for the exact moment for you to enter with your mech or squad to drop a bunker on your heads. I wonder how fast they drop and if you will be able to dodge them. I can't wait to do that though. Watch my Rift generator sqush a whole group of opponents
Anyone ever play Command and Conquer: Renegade? Multiplayer was very similar to this but that game didn't do too well though that wasn't because of the multiplayer as it had quite a few issues and wasn't all that well received.
Yeah, I remember that, I liked how they used the same sounds from C&C. What was it, like ten years ago?
There is really no comparison to Starhawk here though, other than they're both shooters. One is a FPS/TPS based on an RTS universe and the other is a new gameplay hybrid of both genres.
Think this game is missing something by not having an honest "bug" hunt. Actual monsters instead of the mutant punk zombies that are really nothing more a skin/design option that use the same exact weapons and vehicles as the "normal" units.