The gaming community often pans the gaming industry for not taking risks to try new things. There are so many yearly franchises innovating at glacial-like speeds that it makes me sick. When a developer (like Lightbox Interactive) dares to try something new it can be a title remembered for years to come, or something quickly forgotten. Starhawk is definitely an ambitious game that dares to try something new with its mixture of third-person action and RTS elements. However, all the pieces never quite come together to create a cohesive experience.

Starhawk is the spiritual successor to 2007′s PS3 exclusive Warhawk. While there was a hardcore audience that enjoyed the multiplayer, many panned the game for its lack of a single player campaign. Starhawk addresses this concern with the inclusion of a story mode, but it would be more appropriate to refer to it as an extended tutorial. This mode gives context to what’s going on in the world, however I couldn’t help but feel it was tacked on through its entirety.

Our leading man is mercenary Emmett Graves; A man who’s lost just about everything and simply looking to finish a big job. He’s out to harvest a potent resource called Rift Energy and fend off humans mutated by the energy called the Outcasts. The non-combat story sequences play out in stylized cutscenes reminiscent of Mirror’s Edge. Like any bad video game story, these sequences only serve to loosely tie together one mission to the next. You’ll get the sense that Lightbox tried to make you care about Emmett and his dark past, but you simply won’t.

The game never allows the characters enough time to shine. Each story scene has the characters say just enough to move the story along, but never really build up any of the characters. Emmett Graves is so one-dimensional and uninteresting that’ll you’ll just want to skip these scenes to start the next mission. Most missions are broken up into several “defend area X” or “attack area Y” segments. The missions themselves are harmless enough, but the problem lies in the poor checkpoint system. Having to play 5 minute sequences over and over again because the checkpoints aren’t a bit more generous wares on your mind and makes you want to turn your PS3 off. I know that’s how I felt more than once.

After you’ve completed the campaign mode the real meat of the game begins. Starhawk‘s multiplayer suite has fairly standard match types that include capture the flag, team death match, and zones (capture and hold areas). I played well over a dozen matches and not once did I encounter any major connection or lag issues. this is quite impressive considering how big some battles can become. Starhawk can allow up to 32 player matches, which are the most chaotic things you’ll ever see. The main reason for the matches being so out of control is thanks in large part to a mechanic called Build and Battle.

As you accumulate a resource called rift energy throughout matches you can spend them to drop down buildings immediately onto the battlefield. This creates a sense of chaos because you’re essentially creating the map as the match goes on. It might sound interesting, but what inevitably ends up happening is everyone just drops whatever they feel like dropping. Imagine if you were playing a 1 vs 1 Starcraft match, but each team was controlled by 16 people that didn’t communicate with one another. It would be madness and it’d probably drive you crazy.

What makes battles particularly frustrating is that you’ll need balance the third-person fighting while strategically placing buildings mid-fight. While it’s cool to see two vastly different genres blend like this, neither of the two are implemented very well. For starters, there’s no cover mechanic when you’re a soldier on foot. It goes against all your gamer instincts you’ve built up and is simply unacceptable to not have in a shooter-heavy game like this. You also can’t take full advantage of the battles without dropping a building or two either. You’ll die way too fast without a vehicle to ride or building to hide in.

Great multiplayer games are successful in part because of their design. In Starhawk there really isn’t any design employed because players are essentially designing the maps themselves. Most of the time there’s no rhyme or reason to how they’re built and come together as a big mess. That being said, the chaotic mess can be quite fun at times. Having a skirmish over a certain area or escorting the flag back to your base is definitely exhilarating.

It probably sounds like I hated this game, but I didn’t. I just don’t think the game was designed particularly well. It seems more like Lightbox created a playground of chaos for their players to go crazy in. I have to say that I did find the graphics rather appealing. The color scheme can seem odds with itself at times, but the game looks great and runs silky smooth. Aside from occasional texture pop-in, I think most people will find the game’s Space Western aesthetic quite appealing.

Starhawk is an interesting experiment in genre blending. While everything works and all the “boxes are checked off”, it seems like there wasn’t a lot of time put into actual design. Story missions and maps seem slapped together in lieu of having players design the battlefields themselves. Personally, I applaud Lightbox for trying something different, but just didn’t find anything particularly compelling about Starhawk. If you’re into multiplayer games and want something a little different, I’d give Starhawk a try. However, if you’re looking for a well-crafted singleplayer with a multiplayer mode to dabble in from time to time, then I’d let this one pass on by.

A copy of this game was purchased by Blistered Thumbs for review purposes. The game was played for 8 hours, completing the single player mode in 6 hours, and an additional 2 spent in online multiplayer. The game was played on the Playstation 3.