Critic & User Reviews
Sort by
Snorehawk
posted by StarRaven (BOYNTON BEACH, FL) Jul 4, 2012
Member since May 2011
First, yes, I've played Warhawk and while I wasn't expecting to like it, Warhawk was a pleasant surprise and I fell in love with it; devoting a great deal of time before and after Trophies and patches and stat resets.
And while I don't like to compare sequels, especially when they're not directly related, and would rather rate them as the standalone game they are... the fact is, Starhawk just ain't that great.
With Warhawk, I truly did wish it had a single player, especially after there was a psuedo single player bit in one of the DLCs that proved the potential was there. But in Starhawk, the tried to make a single player that was just too ambitious. I'm not sure what their overall intention was, but it seemed like they wanted to make a long, in-depth 3rd person shooter story and the fact is, it doesn't work and the game NEVER needed it.
The story just had to be simple and fun. This game has no charm in it's characters the way Warhawk did. It doesn't carry over that same "look" and artstyle that just made it charming and fun.
The game is dark and bland. Warhawk was bright, colorful and uncluttered.
The futuristic weapons don't feel realistic because you can't relate them to anything. It looks and feels this way because they say so, which is not the same 'feeling' you get when games use realistic weapons. So there's a disconnection, even in the air.
Dropping down buildings and stuff actually ended up being kinda neat, but I don't think the 'strategy' aspect of it was fully fleshed out. It doesn't have that RTS intelligence feel to it that it could have had.
Enemies are lame. They're all glowy and dumb.
I was very disappointed.
Is it made well? Yes. Does it work? For the most part. Fun? Not really. Entertaining? No.
Warhawk II please.
And while I don't like to compare sequels, especially when they're not directly related, and would rather rate them as the standalone game they are... the fact is, Starhawk just ain't that great.
With Warhawk, I truly did wish it had a single player, especially after there was a psuedo single player bit in one of the DLCs that proved the potential was there. But in Starhawk, the tried to make a single player that was just too ambitious. I'm not sure what their overall intention was, but it seemed like they wanted to make a long, in-depth 3rd person shooter story and the fact is, it doesn't work and the game NEVER needed it.
The story just had to be simple and fun. This game has no charm in it's characters the way Warhawk did. It doesn't carry over that same "look" and artstyle that just made it charming and fun.
The game is dark and bland. Warhawk was bright, colorful and uncluttered.
The futuristic weapons don't feel realistic because you can't relate them to anything. It looks and feels this way because they say so, which is not the same 'feeling' you get when games use realistic weapons. So there's a disconnection, even in the air.
Dropping down buildings and stuff actually ended up being kinda neat, but I don't think the 'strategy' aspect of it was fully fleshed out. It doesn't have that RTS intelligence feel to it that it could have had.
Enemies are lame. They're all glowy and dumb.
I was very disappointed.
Is it made well? Yes. Does it work? For the most part. Fun? Not really. Entertaining? No.
Warhawk II please.
Decent game
posted by kbodin1 (LYNN, MA) May 21, 2012
Member since Jul 2006
This game was neither great or bad. It was ok at best. The graphics need some work and i found quite a few bugs in the first 2 hours i played it. The reason i gave it a 6 and not a 5 was because it was a TPS. TPS games always get a higher rating from me because i hate FPS games.
On a positive note it was alot better than Game of Thrones. It's worth a rent but definetly not a purchase.
On a positive note it was alot better than Game of Thrones. It's worth a rent but definetly not a purchase.
Sort by