Atlantis Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) Atari must have been desperate from day one, having this game as a release game - one of he two games at release!It's sloppy, kind of bad, Odd-god made everything odd in the game, ha ha, it's a fun game and worth trying to finish.I liked the review: well written without any boiling blood. Edited July 1, 2017 by Atlantis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 Nice review, seems well rounded and covers most of the important points. Nice to see a review for this game that's not someone pissing and moaning about how bad it is One negative people always harp on is "but the enemies are totally random" ( many are the same people that actually praise other games for having random modes) Its not my favorite by far, but I did get enjoyment out of it, then again, I paid 5$ for it instead of whatever it was originally. 70 seems fair, still a passing grade but not at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 One negative people always harp on is "but the enemies are totally random" ( many are the same people that actually praise other games for having random modes) Are you really so dim that you don't understand the difference between pure chaotic randomness and the well-structured randomness that actually makes for good gameplay? Or are you just being deliberately disingenuous? Games that offer random modes generally put a hell of a lot of logic into ensuring the result feels somewhat intelligently designed. Trevor McFur's levels do not feel designed at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sauron Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 Are you really so dim that you don't understand the difference between pure chaotic randomness and the well-structured randomness that actually makes for good gameplay? Or are you just being deliberately disingenuous? Games that offer random modes generally put a hell of a lot of logic into ensuring the result feels somewhat intelligently designed. Trevor McFur's levels do not feel designed at all. Was that insult really necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 It's Video. He's already forgotten it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keatah Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 @video Just put him on ignore. That's what it's there for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isgoed Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Despite the comments that TmcF is difficult, dull, no rapid fire, no layers etc.etc. I will say that I like it The game is not random, as every level has the exact same enemies coming at you in the exact same order. Play the levels in a particular order to gather lots of power-ups, and use them all in the final level! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adriano Arcade Posted July 3, 2017 Author Share Posted July 3, 2017 Hi Guys, thanks all for reading my review and commenting. I didn't mean to open a whole can of worms. I wasn't offended by any comments to be honest, I will accept all comments - critical or in praise. Trevor McFur is a game that clearly divides people. I enjoyed it, but also agree with many of the more critical comments. Thanks again for your feedback. I will release a new Tempest 2000 review soon and will be sure to share on the AA forums. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Nice guys, I think I ran out of my allotted "likes" I can dish out today with that thread derail. I think I might have to resubscribe.. I've got a lot of issues with Trevor McFur. To be real though, it is a completely playable game and that's more than can be said for other "bottom-of-the-barrel" Jaguar releases. The big issue is that it simply manages to be supremely mediocre at about everything else it tries to do. It's something that may have passed in 1986, but by 1993 the genre had evolved considerably. It's definitely not a favorite of mine nor one I recommend, but I don't have a problem if people like it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 I think that's the deal. Its a hard game, and while showing potential, its simply over all lack luster. I play it quiet a bit and enjoy it. However I can see why people wouldn't like it, outside of the typical "not my genre" line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evisu Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 I played Trevor McFur couple of weeks ago and I´m little bit scared ... about myself :/ I remembered the game as absolutely rubbish ... but it wasn´t so absolutely bad anymore? I mean, it´s still a better graphic demonstration than a serious shooter and imo one of the worst Jag games ever ... but anyway ... I felt something like "joy" for a couple of minutes. What´s wrong? Is it because I´m getting old? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagosaurus Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 This game just feels like a SHUMP programmed by people who have never played a SHUMP. Also, Atari was still using extremely small game development teams at this point. In multiple interviews I've read & heard that was an issue. They were stuck in the 2600/7800 mindset that a couple of people (or even 1 programmer) could develop a quality, robust title. Is it possible, yea (see Super Burnout). Is it likely, no. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evisu Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 I guess you´re right. For Atari would have been better to go safer ways ... e.g. with an updated version of known shooters, like R-Type / R-Type II. The Jag should be easily able to handle the number of sprites and the graphics. Video Games magazine in Germany rated the game in 1994 btw with 25% overall. The article says, that Crescent Galaxy was originally planned as pack-in title for the console. Don´t know if this is true, but I´m happy that this didn´t happend https://www.kultboy.com/index.php?site=t&id=9927 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipj Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 On 6/12/2019 at 11:03 AM, Jagosaurus said: This game just feels like a SHUMP programmed by people who have never played a SHUMP. Also, Atari was still using extremely small game development teams at this point. In multiple interviews I've read & heard that was an issue. They were stuck in the 2600/7800 mindset that a couple of people (or even 1 programmer) could develop a quality, robust title. Is it possible, yea (see Super Burnout). Is it likely, no. Well from what I understand when they were making the game at the time, the Jaguar originally supported GPU to main without it being broken, but when Atari released the Jag 64 to the public, the GPU accessing main memory was not available to the released systems so the team had to scramble and take shortcuts in order to finish the game on time thus their reason for the game not being as good as they wanted it to be. I know personally it was one of the first games I got for the Jaguar and the box art looks amazing, but game itself just didn't live up to the box art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.