The lights are on
Terrible review! Very disappointed gameinformer, and its not just me..... The beta was absolutly amazing, ITS A GREAT GAME!
I want some light shed on this review!
I agree they need someone to re-review this game deserves between 9 and 10!
I think the review is a bit negative honestly and just shows the reviewers dislike of the game. Based on what he wrote you would think he would have given it an even lower score than he did. Surprising the two reviews out there that seem to do the game any justice are on IGN- www.ign.com/.../starhawk-video-review and GameTrailers- www.gametrailers.com/.../729877 .... who would've ever thunk it! This is definitely one of those games where they needed two reviewers on the job. That being said, I am grabbing my copy today and will judge for myself. I loved WarHawk and this should be fine.
Ok....picked up the game yesterday and have played a good bit of the single-player campaign...on the "Search for Logan" mission atm (think I am near the end) and have to say that the review (at least for my tastes) is way off. I am truly enjoying this game and will post my final impressions of the game once I complete the singleplayer and try all of the multiplayer modes. The reviewer here just doesn't care for the game and that is OK...it's his opinion....I feel that GI should have definitely had the "second opinion" review score from someone else though. Maybe someone with a "cup is half full" attitude :) The singleplayer game is really good and a 7.5 score from such a negative view is really a lame approach for a game of this magnitude...tons of WarHawk fans out there that will absolutely love this game. If the multiplayer is like it was in Beta .....maybe a 9 or higher would be in order....
Ok to start I only rated this game an 8. I just got my preorder the other day with the free skins and complete free download of the old school WarHawk game from PS1 which I loved! I think the reviewer didn't like the game I will definetely agree with you on that. Perhaps they chose their shooter reviewer over their strategy and RTS person. Whow knows. However, I thought him incredibly fair. Even if he didnt like he did see the merits in the actual game. He probably wanted to give it a 6 and had to step back and really try to give a non biased view. I have always trusted Gameinformer reviews and they have an almost 100% accuracy rating in my book. I can't really speak of a specific instant where I found them to be way off. I like this game a lot. I find the multiplayer incredibly engaging and addicting. Although, at times it can be incredibly frustrating. Example; having three tanks camping my spawn point and destroying me on drop pod impact simply because my entire team has either left, switched sides or got even numbers too late. The sniper system is a little too borderlands slow for me. The controls for driving the Razorback (which everytime I hear them say it or list I can't help but think *COUGH, WARTHOG, *COUGH *COUGH...and the tank seem counterintuitive. The best part of this game to me is how much room there is to grow it. Not only do I have a blast already flying the Hawk and stomping folks with it but just thinking about the upgrades and expanded gameplay the whole Starhawk universe is going to offer down the road makes me extremely excited. Love the game for now. I hope they continue to improve the Multiplayer and I hope the sequel blows our minds!
I agree that he didn't like the game and like you, I feel that he probably wasn't the best reviewer for this game...maybe Call of Duty is more to his liking, after completing the single-player campaign and now having spent some time with the multiplayer I would definitely say that the game deserves between the 8.5 to 9.5 score range. I disagree with the reviewers take on the singleplayer....from his review I was expecting the worst story ever and not to be engaged at all, granted it's not the most gripping tale, but still it wasn't as terrible as the reviewer would have you believe. To me; The play mechanics are great, control is spot on, and the added strategy element with the building and planning of your defenses is a nice touch. I truly enjoyed the entire playthrough of the single-player and I am also having a blast with the multiplayer.....I have found that when folks are communicating via headset coordinating who builds what and who attacks this or that, the games tend to lean in our favor....when not, chaos LOL. Also, the only negative thing I think I can say about the game thus far is that you can be disconnected from a game if the host quits. There is no "re-queue/switch host" function (like in Call of Duty...hey they did something good there... ) where you can switch to a new host in the current game....you just have to join a new one and it would be nice if that would be addressed.
Is it me or is Gameinformer becoming to picky? they seem to scrape away at games and search relentlessly for problems, unlike the average gamer who is just looking for a good time. Now, I know that being judgmental is a reviewers job, but Gameinformer seems to take the small things and blow them out of proportion, stating things as bigger problems then they are. This reflects badly on smaller game developers, because they can be expected to have some subtle mistakes in their games. Many games that come from these studios (Starhawk) are really innovative and awesome, then Gameinformer ridicules them because they aren't done perfectly, although they posses a game-changing idea, or at least cool deviations from norm (Dishonored). This whole problem is especially seen around Starhawk- which kicks ass, and got a score at least a point to low.
Why would anyone rate such a good game so badly. JeffM probs hates games. (beats me why he works for gameinformer then...)