Talk:Fury (video game)

Serious advertising...

Quite bad, it tries to make you dump a couple bucks on pre-orders, and the information is ripped from advert-like sites. If you want to write the article, make it say something other than, "It revolutionizes MMORPGs! This isn't anything that you've ever seen before!" I almost marked it as spam, but it isn't that bad... Fishdert 18:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Advert

Definately needs an advertizement template.

Outdated icon art

The icon art associated with this article is out of date. Auran has changed all of the logos for Fury, with the new logos in use at the official site and other Auran-affiliated locations (such as Fury's GuildCafe page, here: http://www.guildcafe.com/GuildHome.php?guildid=1228) AlexWeekes 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for External Links

FuryWiki now has the status of "inactive" because it is about to have most of its content merged into Fury Sanctuary, since both wikis are running on Wikia servers. My proposal is to remove FuryWiki from the External Links section for the stated reason. If there are no objections within 48 hours of this post, then the proposed edit will be made. 76.107.177.236 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

System Reqs Comments misleading

To avoid conflict of interest I'm just leaving this as a comment:

System Requirements: While we do recognise that some hardware combinations are experiencing poor performance, the statement made here is exaggerated and at best misleading on two counts. DirectX 10 is not required for Fury and does not have an impact on being able to play the game. Users with DirectX 10 cards should use one of the DirectX 9 renderers while the DirectX 10 renderer is being worked on. Further the "limited video card" support comment is also misleading as we support both major brands of gaming cards (GeForce and Radeon) and support much older models than most other UE3 Engine games, through our Low End Renderer (down to Ti 4 series or equivalent). AlexWeekes (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Auran Closing it's Doors - Fury as a reason?

Auran recently closed it's doors. It's being widely attributed to the poor reception afforded to Fury. Perhaps this is something to include? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.160.56 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this news? I checked Auran's main page but have not seen anything pertaining to this.--210.132.74.129 (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the OP is wrong, that was a rumour circling around, however, Tom Hilliam, CEO of Auran Games, divulged that they are NOT shutting down, however, there will be layoffs in the company. Here is the link: http://forums.auran.com/fury/forum/showthread.php?t=7902 Not to say he couldn't be covering something up, but even if he is, this isn't the place to put it until it is 100% verified earle117 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Auran Developments has gone into voluntary liquidation, but Auran is still in existance (see the Auran article. Good Game (ABC TV) indicated that the failure of Fury was the reason for this. --Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

issues per Nov 07

I removed the template, as I made minimal fixes to the issues indicated:

I removed the unreferenced facts (two items). As for the expansion request, well, since this game has died, I don't think it will ever be expanded, and I reasoned the request was pointless. Feel free to reinsert it if you like; but realize that if you don't expand it yourself, probably no one will...

Finally I made smaller edits to the introduction. CapnZapp (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaporware

Vaporware isn't limited too software that was not released. It may also include software that was released that did not meet expectations. Auran made claims that Fury was to be an new generous, they even called it an E-sport. The actual game and what auran claimed was two different animals. Hence, is why Fury should be dub Vaporware.

Arukas (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to check your definitions, as vaporware does indeed only refer to software that failed to materialize. Dereliict (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of vaporware. Auran did realease software, but the software was no where what they claimed. The so called "Real Deal" never materialised. Arukas (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my definition dude. Check any 'software terms' glossary. Dereliict (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently the standard has changed. I even supplied the reasoning, but might as well agree to disagree then. Arukas (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the description of the game as 'vaporware', as it was actually released. If you want to re-add it, please provide a reference where the game is described as 'vaporware' by a reliable source. Terraxos (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

There seems to be some discussion on the subjective/objectivity of this article. Apparently it has been previously argued that the article reads like an advertisement whose content was not critical enough of the game's shortcomings. Currently it reads like the half-argued rant of a disgruntled fan. It is highly editorialized. For instance, the article discusses lack of responsiveness by the developers without offering rigorous citations. An opposing viewpoint could be that all MMORPGs are subject to this to some extent. It appears difficult to please everyone out of a large group. This is why there needs to be some amount of reliance on tangible sources. In its current state this article could equally be the musings of a single fan.

I have tagged it as lacking citations and flagged it for a review of neutrality as such. I'm not quite sure how to approach the issue of finding reasonable sources to affirm or contradict the factors playing into this game's decline that are listed in this article. So discussion with respect to that is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.135.191 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The article overall and the paragraphs about the troubled development and attempts to rescue the games certainly lack citations. They were added in the only edit of 74.110.122.57 on 2 September 2011. Being without any citation, it would certainly be justified to remove them. On the other hand, staying unchallenged for that long suggests that the facts are probably true. I know that there was a lot of disgruntlement, to use a polite term, at the time in gamer's forums, a lot of it on Auran's own – which are of course no longer available. These days, Fury is not mentioned at all at n3vgames.com and the game has to be considered orphaned and dead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As a player who was there from the game's release until shutdown, I can verify the game underwent a change from regular to freemium with the immortal status granted to players who started before the big patch to do that. The game suffered a lot of downtime and game queues were often broken, there were severe stability issues. The game did indeed radically change from pre-release to release and a lot of players who enjoyed the game in beta scorned it after the big patches hit. One of Auran's developers sold a scuffed and dented fury box he found in the back and kicked around in anger, this should give a general sense of the atmosphere surrounding the game in the last month or so when layoffs occurred.

They tried to find someone to buy/invest in the game after the big first round of layoffs, but were unable to secure funding, so it died and the servers were taken offline. I don't know about a ton of sources for this information, but having lived through it, I can verify that though the tone of the article is pretty immature, the contents are pretty accurate. M2tM (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I paid for pre-release and when that install failed I bought the Fury retail box to try to resolve the problems but could never get the game to run. Spent about a month in the technical support system to no avail. I still have the emails but can't see how any of this would assist the question of article neutrality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdp11.caps11 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)