Metascore
43

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 18 Critics What's this?

User Score
2.2

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 384 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Gamers have the chance to play as two of the most famous science-fiction heroes ever -- Kirk and Spock – in STAR TREK, an original co-op experience that expands and builds on the Star Trek universe. Set in the 23rd Century world of the Star Trek reboot, this cover-based shooter enmeshes players in an original story and action-packed combat. Collapse
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 18
  2. Negative: 13 out of 18
  1. 77
    No, Star Trek is not the best gaming experience you ever had, but it’s a solid, fun title, that follows the philosophy of the J.J Abrams reboot: fast-paced action, adventurous challenges, generous doses of humor and a casual, but entertaining, experience. [June 2013]
  2. May 6, 2013
    55
    Star Trek does a good job in terms of script and atmosphere, and it's decent on long-distance gunplay. But the overall experience is poor and unpolished.
  3. Apr 25, 2013
    50
    It sounds good, but frankly, it just doesn't seem like developer Digital Extremes were able (or allowed) to put forth the time, money, or ingenuity to make anything but a Starfleet-themed cooperative shooter, complete with extreme use of cover-based gunfights, silly mini-games, or bad AI - all of which are generally considered hallmarks of a mediocre action game.
  4. May 10, 2013
    40
    Rooted in good intentions, but poorly executed.
  5. Sep 10, 2013
    40
    Star Trek is a game with a lot of potential. None of which is being used. The game design is old, incomplete and riddled with bugs. The actors make a decent job and the co-op mode is alright but that is the only good things worth mentioning about this otherwise bland and forgettable tie-in to the movie.
  6. May 2, 2013
    35
    Its numerous bugs and linear missions make it frustrating to play, and the story never grabs you like a good sci-fi adventure should. Even the most devoted of Star Trek fans will be hard pressed to find something to like in Star Trek The Video Game: there are simply too many glaring problems.
  7. May 3, 2013
    20
    More irritating than Neelix: Star Trek is a buggy and broken cover-shooter with cover that doesn't quite work and shooting that's no fun.

See all 18 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 116
  2. Negative: 81 out of 116
  1. Apr 23, 2013
    10
    Surprisingly very enjoyable game! I like the voice acting, the athmosphere, the gameplay. All very good. Except im currently having problems with co-op. I hope it will be fixed soon Expand
  2. Apr 30, 2013
    7
    Initially there was a bug that prevented many of us who bought this game on Steam to play it cooperatively, but after three days, Valve finally released a patch and so now I am updating my review. Generally speaking, "Star Trek the Video Game" was a fun title to play with a friend, but it is far too short (~10 hours) to warrant its $50 price tag.

    I understand the comparisons made to franchises like "Mass Effect" (e.g. cover-based, over-the-shoulder, third-person combat, smartly concealing their loading screens within elevator rides), but I think the game has enough variety to describe it as a compilation of elements from several titles. Most things were derivative in nature, except for the complementary design of the co-op system. During missions, there are instances where each player has their own distinct tasks to perform, and these moments were more akin to co-op titles like "Hunted: The Demon Forge", where the game requires collaboration to complete tasks. I bought this game intending to play it with a friend, so I will limit my comments to the co-op adventure, although my experience with similar games usually includes frustration with the AI partners during solo play.

    Some of the "puzzles" that required players to navigate the environment were inspired, and we really didn't experience the number of bugs being described in other reviews, so perhaps some of these were fixed in a subsequent patch. Placing the events of the game before the second movie would seem to provide more opportunities for creativity, as opposed to merely animating what audiences viewed in theaters, and I felt this was a better way of using a video game to advertise a movie. The overall story arc was fine, but it just needed more fleshing out; a game at this price should be at least 30 hours or more, and it really should be well-polished. Neither of these are true, and so I agree with many of the criticisms that have been levied on this title. If the game had been priced at under $30, and we had been able to play it on release day, I probably would have had more positive things to state.

    More specifically, the lip-syncing was slightly off at times, probably due to fewer muscles being simulated in the face (compared to titles from Bioware). Including the voices of the actual movie cast was certainly a plus, but the voice direction could have been a bit sharper. Some characters were well-rendered, while others (like Chekov) looked acceptable during distant cut scenes, but up-close seemed as if they had contracted some unknown illness. A couple of the checkpoints were set at moments where the characters had a lot of dialogue, so if your team needed to repeat a task, you both had to endure the several minutes of dialogue and movement to retry the event.

    Now that the co-op experience is functional, I don't think it is fair to give this game a score of zero. If you wait for the price to come down below $30, and have someone you enjoy playing co-op games in mind, I think you'll enjoy "Star Trek the Video Game". Again, I'd list it with titles like "Hunted: The Demon Forge", "Lord of the Rings: War in the North", or "Transformers: The War for Cybertron" when trying to rate the fun of the co-op experience. None of these games are perfect, but these days there are few high-quality games that focus on a lengthy co-op campaign, and I wish that would change. The game is notably short, but I suppose the players could switch characters and try different strategies (e.g. stealth), assume alternate roles in hacking puzzles, and vary the choice of weapons and upgrades to make a second play-through almost as interesting.
    Expand
  3. Apr 24, 2013
    5
    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.
    Expand
  4. Apr 25, 2013
    1
    Stay clear away from this game. It is a scam, this is a co-op game but doesn't have co-op capabilities... the devs have been caught on steam forums praising the game. Somehow on release day they have 158hrs played and achievements going back to January. Google for yourself, Kenneth Lindenbaum busted for writing fake reviews on metacritic and steam pretending to be a user. Expand
  5. Apr 27, 2013
    0
    Honestly, I should have know there might be a chance of the game being a disaster considering the last two games that I played that were based off a tv or movie were horrible. This game seriously needs more polishing it just seem rushed with the bugs and glitches. Expand
  6. Apr 25, 2013
    0
    Horrible game and a very shady Business practice
    why make a co-op mode if it doesn't work at launch, I just don't know what they were
    thinking, this is almost a skam Expand
  7. Apr 24, 2013
    0
    This game is a hot mess. The voice acting doesn't make up for the uninspired combat, broken coop, and terrible A.I. controlling the teammate.

    Are devs and PR people really trying to boost metacritic scores?
    Expand

See all 116 User Reviews