Reviews for Star Trek (NA)


Mediocre at best

Xiphora | July 1, 2013 | See all Xiphora's reviews »

There's really nothing great about Star Trek. The campaign is lacking, and the graphics are old. The whole game feels like it was poorly put together. The co-op is poor, and the bugs are outrageous. Star Trek may be a great movie and tv franchise, but this game is nothing to write home about.


Good for a weekend.

OneCoolGeezer | May 26, 2013 | See all OneCoolGeezer's reviews »

This game is pretty okay, the graphics are not that good, but it still manages to make you go, "Wow, that actually looks pretty cool." The gameplay is just like any other Co-op games, and with a solo player, the partner AI is sometimes retarded and goes in the other way or just sits there. Most of the time, he's pretty good at shooting at people behind cover or killing a few goons. The voice acting is okay, and the story is pretty cliche. I'm not going to shout out any spoilers, but the story can be found out pretty easily. Most of the game is fun though, so I'd buy it if it was like, 15 dollars or 10 dollars. No more than 15 dollars I'd say, and that's pushing it. In all: 65/100.


The game is dragged down by clunky execution

Infiltrator | May 20, 2013 | See all Infiltrator's reviews »

Pros: The voice acting. Pine and Quinto do a good job. Some of the minor characters feel like they're phoning it in, but the two leads are most important and they did a great job. It feels like Trek. The ability to choose non-lethal combat in appropriate scenarios is a great choice. Phasers have a 'stun' settings for a reason! The tricorder is well designed and very useful, though it almost falls into Batman Arkham Asylum territory because you want to keep it on at almost all times to find objects you can interact with, but that means you can't have your weapon out. (Why not tricorder in one hand, phaser in the other?) The story is serviceable. Nothing amazing, but not bad. This could easily be the plot of an episode of a new Trek TV series. The Enterprise looks great. I didn't like the design of the new 1701 at first, but it's growing on me, and it looks as it should in this game. Cons: The shooting controls are awful. Shooting anything at close range is near impossible because you wind up shooting behind the target that's right in front of you. Wonky perspective. The cover mechanics only work when they want to. I keep wishing they had been able to copy the Mass Effect controls and cover mechanic, but this feels like a really cheap imitation of that. The game can devolve into a cluster**** when you're in combat shooting and being shot at (while wrestling with the controls), trying to listen to someone give you critical information while everything is exploding, and there are prompts telling you new interactions all at the same time. Often times, one of those things will be missed and you'll die. One time it got to the point where the best way to advance was to just run head first into danger and get to the other side before I died instead of listening to the hints/prompts. Overall, this game is good at times, but not often enough. It goes from slightly fun to immensely frustrating like a never-ending rollercoaster. Absolutely not worth full retail price.



Lekes | April 28, 2013 | See all Lekes's reviews »

Being a poorly done console port as well as a movie tie-in game isn't the issue which merits the game getting a poor score, it is the complete and total lack of working Online Co-op for the PC version that makes the game pointless and a waste of money. With so much emphasis placed on the Co-op component of the game, you'd think that would be the one feature they'd get right! Unfortunately the lack of working online, lack of polish, massive bugs, and dated visuals make it the total failure package it was sadly always assumed and destine to be.