02-14-2013 04:46 AM
Hi my name is GOW71 and I continue to play this game and post here because I actually like some of the people involved.
thanks bro, I played a ton of sh and enjoyed it for about 200 hours. because of the problems that have all been mentioned: balance, connection issues, flight not being what it should be, and the dwindling community, I've slowly lost interest. I'm not sure I understand chem's argument about not being able to p/u other more popular games. I find it hard to believe $60.00 is any real deterrent to the majority of people here. I personally don't like first person shooters, for multiplayer anyway. I think it's the lack of peripheral vision. I enjoyed starhawk for what it was, a multi vehicle war game where you have a ton of different options, from camping to spawn ravaging and everything in between. the game never caught on and now that there is no support the major issues will never be fixed. starhawk had a lot of potential but it didn't live up to it.
The exact reason why I prefer TPS over FPS.
02-14-2013 06:23 AM
As far as third-person vs first person, I'd like the choice between the two even in Starhawk.
I'd prefer first-person when in flight ALWAYS and most of the time when I'm driving in nearly every game I own.
Giving the player the choice is the best option.
I just think first-person mode when operating a vehicle feels better. But first-person "troop-on-troop" combat like in Starhawk would likely make me motion sick at least in close combat.
02-14-2013 06:42 AM
Muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better. Some thoughtful answers from the group there.
Wrappy, I used to feel that way about FPS -- when I tried FPS games after playing Warhawk, I really struggled with the peripheral vision. I did get used to it, though. In BF, you can toggle between first and third in vehicles, which is very helpful. Would be pretty cool to have a shooter that let you do that as a troop, too.
The 'arcade feel' that somebody mentioned also makes sense to me. I can see how folks might be turned off by the COD, BF style combat and want something that is less 'intense' in a sense (while still be fast-moving). I actually find the pace of SH or WH gameplay to be relatively slow as compared to small-map FPS, but there is no question that SH and WH vehicle play on larger maps tends to be faster (my biggest complaint about MAG was the long haul from spawn to action on some of those large maps, even with a vehicle, and the console verion of BF3 has some maps that are just too large for a 24 player server).
And GOW, like I said, I can relate to the community aspects - if you have a critical mass of folks on your FL playing one game, there is a tendency to play that game even if it might not be "perfect". I will still throw Warhawk on from time to time just for that reason. Nobody on my FL plays SH anymore, though, ever (at least that I see -- during prime time east coast hours). Consequently, I would think that you would have an appetite for a larger community sooner rather than later. Do you ever look at the list of servers and get hungry for more options?
02-14-2013 07:06 AM
Do I look at the list of servers and get hungry for more options?
Sometime yes. But I realize that my gaming hours of availability are not considered "prime-time" and I don't blame that on the game. More that my normal schedule isn't a popular time-frame to game. If I am really hurting for a server that I don't see (which is rare) I'll make it myslef.
02-14-2013 07:20 AM
02-14-2013 07:53 AM - edited 02-15-2013 08:50 PM
@Rub - I have to ask, did you play Warhawk? I ask because it seems that the people who somehow enjoy Starhawk, never heard of Warhawk. Which is about 30% of the people here.
Warhawk was the first console game that really hooked me into multiplayer on a console.
For the first three years after it's release I played it daily and was on the forums regularly. But I never got very good at being a pilot. I'd use the Hawk to get around the map and to soften up defenses around where ever I was hoping to capture next (mine clearing and lone troops).
Most other players went right to becoming ace pilots and I didn't stand a chance against them after awhile so I just focused on playing the saboteur and sneaking out with the flag.
That's what gripes me most about Starhawk is there is just nowhere to move around without being owned by pilots when on foot or in a vehicle. Even most of Starhawk's ground pounder servers leave you too exposed when on foot because of the mostly open map designs.
I enjoyed Warhawk's map designs more (even though Starhawk is prettier) because it fit my play style. Build and Battle's open sandbox just left me wanting. The space maps in Starhawk are the only thing close to most of the maps Warhawk as far as cover.
Starhawk hits many of the same notes as Warhawk, good vehicle and troop combat, but made Hawk domination even worse than Warhawk because now the pilot never has to leave the cockpit to kill you when you are on foot. Nowhere is defendable since it can be destroyed in seconds.
If I had the flag, could make it to a building and you wanted it, you had to get your feet on the ground and take it from me in Warhawk and that gave me a fighting chance.
All other issues, like bugs, crashes and glitches pale to the overall issue that Hawks always win and those that choose to fight on the ground must take their chances that their team has enough pilots in the air to counter. Something that doesn't happen enough in my opinion.
02-14-2013 07:54 AM - edited 02-14-2013 09:12 AM
Starhawk is the only Game I think is fun. Every other game I own your that is coming out does not interest me (except dust). Every single match in starhawk plays out differently, and starhawk is always giving me a variety of ways to play the game. I have tryed many games, but they all get repetitive. Starhawk has a great feel, and makes me feel BA whenever I get a lot of kills. Also the way the points pop up on your screen is satisfying.
I love the gameplay too!