Public Starhawk BETA

[bitbydeath]

I'm trying to pinpoint what the problem is and i think it is that the levels are just too plain/bare.

Every level in Warhawk had its own unique features for example in Badlands you had an excellent racing styled tracks and everywhere around you was covered in mountains which gave many places to run/hide, not to mention the 7 or so stations you captured which you could hide in.

Other levels featured forests, cities etc

Starhawk does not seem to have any standouts in the 2 levels we have been presented with so far, both seem flat and usually require a jetpack if you do want to get to higher ground but even then only has a small few areas to do this in.

I'm aware the levels are currently marked as "small" but even the tiniest levels in Warhawk had more character.

Anyone else think this is a problem?

[Liam511]

---

bitbydeath wrote:

I'm trying to pinpoint what the problem is and i think it is that the levels are just too plain/bare.

Every level in Warhawk had its own unique features for example in Badlands you had an excellent racing styled tracks and everywhere around you was covered in mountains which gave many places to run/hide, not to mention the 7 or so stations you captured which you could hide in.

Other levels featured forests, cities etc

Starhawk does not seem to have any standouts in the 2 levels we have been presented with so far, both seem flat and usually require a jetpack if you do want to get to higher ground but even then only has a small few areas to do this in.

I'm aware the levels are currently marked as "small" but even the tiniest levels in Warhawk had more character.

Anyone else think this is a problem?

---

I think this is intentional, I wouldnt want to be shown the best, most awesome map in the game four months before release.

[Fatal-Aim]

@bitbydeath....I don't think this is the problem. I KNOW it's. I have been complaining about this for quite awhile now, in fact. The fact that we have to build just about every piece of cover in this game is what's making it really really limiting/lacking the depth to warhawk. All of warhawk's stages/map layouts were super addictive, but Operation Broken Mirror was warhawk's master piece stage, IMO. It allowed ground troops to both get on top and even enter the many, many structures scattered around the map. So you had no problem trying to figure out where you wanted to go take cover at. I played that game for thousands of hours and I still find new places to hide every single time. Here, you have a bare map that leaves you exposed to any and everything when you are running around on foot. Your only shelter is to build sommething using the B&B wheel. So when you are having to build every bit of cover for yourself, running around on the ground becomes both pointless and the game loses A LOT of depth, which, in return, causes the fun factor to wear off very fast. I really hope that they fix this and not rest the game's success all in the B&B system. That would be a great idea gone to waste, And it might even perform worse than warhawk.

[shika1983]

I agree with the OP that the levels (thus far) have been quite bland but LBI have confirmed there will be more levels that WH had.

I'll wait to see said levels before making a final judgement. Ironically I think they've done quite well with the backgrounds on the two levels thus far.

Let's not judge a whole game on a beta......... worry about the gameplay/balance ..... which is why we're playing this NOW rather than the release.

[Hogezz]

I know there's gonna be buildings. Take a look at the overall style of the backdrop to the start screen. In the background there are buildings. Kinda wild west looking. Weather they'll just be single player or multilayer or booth remains to be seen. But they have been rendered. They do exist.

[Solid_Snake12345]

I have to agree with the title of your thread. Near the end of the private Beta I had been pleasantly surprised with Starhawk. As somebody who had a very negative opinion when it was announced (I'm sure my post history will show how skeptical I was) and doubted it feeling like Warhawk, I was willing to say that it had the potential to be even better than Warhawk but after going back and playing Warhawk in between the public beta and the private beta Starhawk just feels almost like a shell of Warhawk.

I cannot explain it at all. There is something that feels different, something that feels incorrect about Starhawk when compared to Warhawk and I just can't quite figure out what it is. I would have been more than happy with Warhawk 2, the same game with some refinements and lots of new content. In fact, I would have preferred that I'll admit it. Even though Starhawk is a new game only in the Beta stages, I'm just growing more and more indifferent to it yet I can't figure out why. I'm not sure if it's the Build and Battle mechanic which is working excellent, if it's the animations and fluidity of the controls, if it's the maps, the modes, or something else entirely but as I've said, something just feels off and I cannot figure out what it is.

[TheTreeFrog]

For me the difference is that at the moment Starhawk has no humour.

I remember many funny moments in Warhawk. if it was being knocked down by a jeep/tank, being blown 50ft in the air or having my jeep catapulted across a bridge by a Warhawk , I didn't mind dying sometimes if it was funny.

I think a lot of it has to do with the sound effects that we have at the moment. It's not very dramatic(or funny). I hope that this is something they are working on.

[Stezza]

Warhawk's maps had a believable, 'lived in' quality that Starhawk lacks.

Whether you were negotiating blind corners to grab the landmines in a Badlands back alley or racing past derelict buildings on Eucadia's meandering roads, you felt you were inhabiting a real environment, the world had character.

Walk around the area of Badlands where the flags are located and you'll see a laundry, a greasy spoon and a delicatessen. Look at the church and chocolate box cottages of Olsavik Village or attempt a flag run on the enclosed, clautrophobic Spire Shut In, dodging trees and statues before clambering over rubble on your way to an imposing skyscraper.

You can't help but get the impression that real people lived in these places before chaotic war broke out. Warhawk was a game with no narrative but it still managed to communicate it's story through the attention to detail in the map design.

So far, Starhawk's maps are blank, generic arenas that are crying out for an injection of personality.

[Hogezz]

I understand what you mean. But that could be something we may find in the single player in Starhawk. Most online shooters of the time of Warhawk had a single player story line that gave a sence of story and depth to the game that sometimes overlapped onto the multilayer element of the game. It could be that the context of the online has yet to be aligned to that of the offline experience, before we can grow to appreciate the battlefield of Starhawk.

Or maybe the unknown story of the battlefield of Warhawk was what spurred the imagination on for us.

In any case, I'm keeping a very open mind to what's in store until the final game is released.

[KADAFI316]

that guy so right you know what im talking about the map has no life in them the maps in warhawk was amazing they had life character starhawk the background looks good but maps sucks were are the people who built the warhawk maps did dylan fok them all off or something i just dont get it the graphics was poor but the game play was amazing the best i ever have played than we get amazing graphics but ***** gameplay wat is going on in the minds off this people unbeliavable guys 

i know were this game is going $$$$ real shame guys real shame guys please dont ever close the warhawk servers thats all i ask thank you