What is this piece of CRAP.....!

[Instar]

Originally posted by DeadZone:
Hell Im still finding games made in 1998 better than most of todays games, sure graphics are nowhere near as good as the modern games, but they still play a hell of a lot better and are far more enjoyable

I am still playing Doom 1, 2, Evilution, and Final Doom. With an emulator, no modern setup can run the game properly.

[Mehrunes]

Originally posted by NutButter:
There seems to be a lot of truth to DeadZone's comment about devs being pushed to production. Out of the box games today arrive loaded with bugs and desperately need patches to even be playable. I don't dislike Starfury because it is buggy, I just don't like it because it lacks the discipline of mastering either the gameplay and/or graphics, like I have come to expect from their previous effort. It would have been incredibley awesome if it had evolved into a serious SE5 instead of a mutated half-attempt at graphic appeal. All that energy wasted!

I can't depend on MOO anymore. Gal Civ was cool, but somewhat shallow. Pax Imperia came close, but still was a bit short. SE4 absolutely ruled! I guess I'll have to wait another couple of years (hope)!

What gave you the idea that this was supposed to be a 4X game? Some elements (the 3D engine in particular) may make into the next Version of Space Empires, but this isn't Space Empires (despite what the name says, just like Descent: Freespace was most certainly not Descent; it's all in the branding ). It's an entirely different game and if you look at it with expectations based on a different kind of game then you're the only one who's at fault if you're disappointed.

Those of you who are capable of looking at Starfury for what it is and are enjoying it (like me) might also want to check out some of the other excellent games that use the same style of gameplay. Such as Star Control II and Escape Velocity: Nova. I'd be happy to see Starfury refined over time into a classic like those two.

[Phoenix-D]

Right, the complaining makes a LOT more sense if you assumed SF was supposed to be SE:V. (as it was listed in some spots)

As anyone who has played even the demo knows..its not.

[dbt1949]

So far I've just finished the 1st campaign. I'm afraid at this rate this just isn't going to be my cup of tea.
It's my own fault however for buying before trying.
I'd give it a 50% rating.
I'll finish the other campaigns and I'll get my money's worth but still feel the game is a little disappointing.

[Fyron]

Personally I dont have a problem with the graphics, I think I may actually be the only 19 yr old who doesnt care about graphics when its comes to games

Think again buddy.

[Fyron]

Keep in mind that SF was made primarily to test a theoretical combat model for SEV (though in SEV one would hope it would be much less complicated, so you can still get 100s of ships flying around per side)... well, that is how it started, anyways.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Keep in mind that SF was made primarily to test a theoretical combat model for SEV...

I don't think this is true. The only statement that I recall is that the graphic engine would be used. I reckon combat in SE5 will be carried out differently than in SF.