Good review. Pretty much summed up how I felt about Fury.

Fury isn't a bad game, but its released was rushed. As a result its going to take about 90 days to get the game where it should have been by the time it hit the shelves.

Overall Fury is a fun game provided you are into arena PVP and build making.

Didnt really grab me either...
the stat abilites are interesting
and the graphix module is pretty significant
but the combat is so saturated with wait times and pacing, along with the fact that it does look like a nerfed version of GW.
What ever happaned to the good ole days when you get to run into things as a warrior and accualy feel impact from a Hammer.

I don't really agree. I've played a crap load of Fury since the release and I find it to be a great game. The article does raise valid points about the necessity of a healer, server lag and queue times, as well as the hundreds of useless abilities and pick-up buffs. But Fury is something different and I appreciate what they've done, starting something new takes time and needs to be allowed to evolve into a new style of gaming. In its own way Fury is a pioneer as well.

Vain: Guild Wars was a pioneer, I agree. But they didn't create a PvP only game, Fury did. I consider this reflection of an online arena shooter to call for the use of the word "pioneer". However, if it didn't capture the right feeling, I suppose its not much of a victory and more of a loss.

Guild Wars was the pioneer. Fury tried to copy Guild Wars but strip out the PvE. Unfortunately, they failed to make a good game. I really couldn't get into Fury, even though it sounded like such a great idea.

Read this last week and wasn't really surprised. The problem with an online PvP only game is that it doesn't break any ground. Counter-Strike is free to play, so trying to get people to pay for essentially the same PvP experience just won't fly.

The pioneers don't always gets it right, right?