Posts by breslin

Rocketman writes: >this should be sticked some how or something like that I guess the fact that it´s a walkthrough means it´s a "spoiler." So if it´s to be stickied, it should probably be stickied in the spoiler forum. I´d be happy to post a sticky message on the spoiler forum (with the walkthrough´s gamegaqs http) at the invitation of a reactor admin.

I took the game off the temporary site, as it´s now available on gamefaqs. Thanks for your interest.

Thanks to all who have responded and contributed. The walkthrough is now available at gamefaqs. http://db.gamefaqs.com/compute…e/freelancer_advanced.txt

Finalday writes: > I doubt MS or DA set out to create a game where a conversion of modern day > political aspects were put directly in a game. Likewise, NukeIt writes: >It just doesn´t make any kind of sense to spend wads and wads of cash and >months upon months, even years on developing a game, just to make a point >about politics. Certainly, the political character of the game was not the project: neither MS nor DA set out to write a politically interesting game; they set out to write a space-sim. The MS director did not go to the DA director, and say "look, we want a really politically involved game, one which challenges post-colonial politics, especially US politics: make this game an allegory featuring these matters." No, of course not. But while the writers were working on it, some political interest emerged. And it´s right there in the text for all to see. Realm writes: >Breslin, you are sugesting they wont make a freelancer 2 because it is politically >incorrect and that it hs an underliing message well hundreds of games, films, tv >programs and books can be critasised for this reason. Freelancer-2 is being censored. I´m not suggesting it; I´m stating it. It is *very* politically-incorrect to make a new Freelancer. For one thing, the hero was a terrorist. For another thing, the game was allegorical of our times, and continuously challenged authorities. These two issues combined, the game can be misread to legitimate real-world terrorism. This is a clear misreading of the game, but it´s a possible reading. Therefore, Microsoft will not touch it. The game isn´t some rampage like Grand Theft Auto. Such games may be "politically incorrect" in the base sense -- but there´s no games/tv/movies that are politically impossible like this one. This one takes a normal dude and provides him a series of insights, such that he chooses to become a terrorist. It´s not some surreal "I´m on a rampage!" -- it´s more real than that. Microsoft will not go there. Anyway, while it´s interesting to discover the politics of the game, what´s more important is this: The game will be understood by CEOs as political. Rightly or wrongly. They will not do a sequel because the game is too politically dangerous. All they need is a NYTimes article "Representations of Terrorism in Video Games" -- and their job is at stake. Edited by - breslin on 8/1/2005 4:12:53 PM

Steel_Fang writes: > the game never states that van Pelt was one of the original researchers stationed > at Bedford. Well, here´s the relevant snip of the dialogue at Binford: ==== Pelt: This station you see around you was part of a -- a grand experiment, to fuel Liberty´s waneing resources. That was before the Gas Mining Guild, of course. Treant: I never heard about that. Pelt: Nor would you. Liberty doesn´t like to publicize its failures. It was abandoned, except for me of course. ==== Here it´s clearly implied that Binford was abandoned, but Van Pelt stayed on. But again, this is precisely the kind of discussion I find moot. Sure, you can try to rationalize anything into a consistent narrative. But it´s really clear, if you look at it from a writing standpoint, that this isn´t to be expected to add up to a wholly consistent narrative. There were many hands in the writing, and it should be expected that there´s inconsistencies here and there. Even with a single writer, making it all add up totally consistently is an impossible task. Sure, the writers spent some trouble tieing loose ends and making the story consistent, but this ultimately fails, and the seams do show. Trying to rationalize all the facets into a absolutely consistent story -- this is not only hopeless, but clearly detracts from an interest in the disparate details of the text. No text is designed for absolute consistency (although good writers do attempt to make some semblance of consistency). The text is to be celebrated for the interesting details and the emergent narrative. Recognizing this is an essential step in the appreciation of any piece, especially a piece by several writers.

Whoa! PLEASE don´t start beating up on Finalday! He´s letting the discussion proceed despite his instincts; he´s to be thanked, not maligned. (By the way, thanks very much and very sincerely, Finalday.) While I cannot and will not speak for Finalday, I can certainly sympathize with the fellow, especially considering his position as a Reactor administrator. This is a problematic thread, for at least two reasons: First, the discussion can fail: it can devolve from a discussion of the "text" to a discussion of modern politics. And such discussions are irrelevant at best (in this venue), and tend towards flame-warfare. Second, the discussion can succeed: it can make clear the politics of the game and the game´s writers, and probably there will be some who don´t like the implicit statements and arguments. And if the underlying politics of the game are indeed as radical as they appear, this discussion is no less politically dangerous than the game itself. As far as the first, it´s my experience that the contributors to this forum have sense enough to stay on topic, and not get into flamewars -- and I´m glad that the discussion has stayed well-on-topic. As far as the second, it´s totally against my interest to cause the Reactor any political trouble, just as it´s against my interest to cause the game itself any trouble. I´d love to ameliorate the problem; my best is simply to illuminate the problem. I acknowledge that Finalday has not provided any argument for his position, and has not responded to any of the numerous counter-arguments. But I disagree that this suggests that he´s hiding something. Sounds to me that he, like many, is not particularly interested in considering the politics of the game. A simple interest in the game as a fantastic game: Amen, brother; we´re all down with that. If Finalday had some insight about the politics of the game or of its writers, I´m sure he would happily share his knowledge. edit - I´m mildly dyslexic I guess. Edited by - breslin on 7/25/2005 4:29:40 AM

It´s going good. I got a couple good steers from Preacher0815. And I made contact with Bosson (the trade route guru). He´s volunteered to test the trade-route stuff in the walkthrough. Please let me know if you´re playing through the walkthrough challenges.

Findalay/Michael write: > breslin and others, this is just a game, nothing more. I recently answered this criticism. Sure, it´s a game, but it clearly makes allusions to current politics, and well-arguably makes statements about current politics. A few of these arguments have already been made, and very clearly. So, if you want to insist that Freelancer has no political content whatsoever, I hope you will please justify this proposition. > Please do not read into it current real world politics. I think it is permissible to consider the question: does Freelancer intentionally analogize modern politics? > The majority of those playing are enjoying the game Again I agree with this obvious point. Of course this discussion is of marginal interest. Of course it has nothing to do with "gameplay" or whatever. However, it does have a lot to do with the aesthetic value of Freelancer, and (as the subject inticates) the impossibility of a sequel. These are relevant points. > not a supposed hidden text. People who simply play the game for the gameish-stufff need not have any interest in the text. But the text is not hidden: it´s there for all to see. I´ve attempted a serious and well-articulated discussion of the text. If you disagree with any point, please make this known; I´d love to hear it. > I love star trek TNG but I do not read any thing into but enjoy the story told. That´s because TNG, like Starlancer, has no political statement to speak of. There´s really another level of interest in Freelancer. If you don´t agree, tell me why you don´t agree. If you read my arguments and find them lacking, tell me where you find them lacking. But don´t just dismiss the discussion out-of-hand. > please leave discussion of real world politics at the door. There are not allowed > on TLR. I appreciate and respect this very much. Several times I´ve said that real-world political arguments do not belong on this thread. And I´m glad to see there aren´t any.

neuromancer writes: > any political undertones in Freelancer (which I will agree are there) really don´t > bother me, and I would hope they wouldn´t bother anyone else looking to enjoy > the Freelancer experience. I agree. And I´d like to reconsider one point I made: if the player discovers a political undertone that´s at strong odds with his personal politics, that player might enjoy the game less, even if the game itself (as far as game-play is concerned) has no relation to the political undertone. That said, I hope that most will enjoy the political undertones of Freelancer, rather than being bothered by them. At bottom, this political message I´m accentuating -- it´s about open-mindedness, and everyone agrees on that, right? > ...most people will want to play Freelancer for the gameplay value, not for the > civics lesson. Sure, right: nobody is approaching Freelancer thinking, "cool, here I´m going to be enlightened about politics." And in any case, whatever statements may be found in the game, they are not cast as lessons, certainly not in a boring "civics" sense. But if it happens that Freelancer has a positive influence on the political sensibilities of the gamer, it´s a far more ethical game than most. Oh, and thanks for the Tootsie-Pop. ds9phoenix writes: > Don´t get me wrong mate,i´m not saying that this is ruining it. I didn´t attribute this statement to you, nor did I mean to imply that you shared the sentiment. > I just felt that maybe u were going a little OTT with ur annalysis of it. > Yeah,i can see what ur getting at..but maybe u could be going a little too in > depth? Ya. From a gaming point of view: I get your point. The basic engine, the game-level stuff -- this is just a game. But the text is specifically and specially interesting, in its detail and sensibility. The details that bring the Freelancer world alive: these were very carefully crafted. I´m paying homage to that. As far as "going a little too in depth" -- quite the contrary: there´s a whole lot of material in the text that I haven´t remarked. I just mentioned the relatively obvious stuff, by way of challenging the proposition that Freelancer has nothing to do with politics. My analysis of the text so-far is superficial, and off-the-cuff. The writing is really rich.

I roughly agree with Cold_Void that there are a number of reasons why Freelancer-2 isn´t in development. My point is only that the script of Freelancer-1, because it can be contorted to imply some legitimization of terrorism, has sort-of doomed the chance of Freelancer-2. It´s just too politically dangerous for a big company like Microsoft to risk. This by itself would explain Microsoft´s refusal to consider a sequel. Simply put, Freelancer-2 is being censored for political reasons. I have heard a number of claims that there´s no political content of the game, and thus I´m over-analyzing the text. For example, neuromancer writes: >Just enjoy Freelancer for what it is: A really fine game. ds9phoenix writes: > it´s a game,quite purely..a game. Of course I agree it´s a game -- a really fine game. But really it´s not purely a game, in the sense that it makes numerous political statements and implications -- not least of which is the critique of the current state of US politics, vis-a-vis the dangers of propaganda and fascism. This, combined with the "terrorist heroes" theme, absolutely destroys any chance of a sequel. So, sure, it´s a game, but these are the political realities. neuromancer also writes: > Thanks for trying to ruin a perfectly good game by trying to politicize it. Well, I don´t see how what we´ve been discussing could *ruin* anything. Recognizing another aspect of the game can make the game more interesting, but I don´t see how it can make the game *less* interesting. Anyway, I´m certainly not "trying to ruin" anything -- please don´t take my points as nasty or depreciating. Also, I´m not "trying to politicize it": I´ve merely pointed out a number of ways in which the work very intentionally politicizes itself. By the way, I just started playing Starlancer. Now *here* is an example of a game where there´s some political element (it echoes the cold war, like a lot of bad movies stretching from the late-60´s into the mid-80´s) -- but no political statement to speak of. It´s just working with the conventional archetypes as dumb matter on which to hang a plot. By contrast, Freelancer is FAR more politically interesting. Edited by - breslin on 7/20/2005 11:18:40 AM

skale 101 writes: > you must have a lot of time on your hands mate ( your not a ´´terrrorist´´ are you?) I´m hesitant to dignify this with a response, but apparently I´ve not been perfectly clear. I´m by no means suggesting that Freelancer implicitly justifies terrorism. I´m saying that in today´s political climate, it could be misread this way. It´s very dangerous for Microsoft to be *accused* of publishing a game where the hero is a terrorist. As far as me having a lot of time on my hands, well, I´d rather respond to TheoParke, who puts the matter a bit more politely: > All very interesting, but at the same time you´re taking this game a litte too > seriously. Well, the game was written and designed very cleverly, and I´m approaching it not only as a game in the simplistic sense, but as a text deserving of some interpretive effort. I teach a University class where my students are called to take apparently innocuous texts, and discover the political underpinnings of the text: the little details that betray the author´s bias; the subtle innuendoes wherein the deeper argument can be read. So this is sort-of my reading habit. While this reading practice is always open to the objection "you´re reading too much into it," this nevertheless makes the text far more interesting, and we can begin to look at the text from the perspective of the writer. In most games, the writing is terrible: it´s just filler and fluff, supposedly entertaining enough, but without any merit itself. With Freelancer, by contrast, the writing is really sophisticated much of the time, and worthy of serious attention. > I consider myself a very politically "aware" person especially in recent years, and I > don´t see anything allegorical about Freelancer vis a vis American politics, sorry. > ... I didn´t buy this game to get some kind of lesson in politics .. I just want to > play a fun space adventure game, and that´s what Freelancer is: a game. Fair enough. You didn´t initially notice that Freelancer has a thoroughgoing political motif; that´s cool, brother. You only want to play it for the fun game it is, that´s great: I also like it a whole lot on that level. Still, I hope I have demonstrated that the claim "freelancer has nothing to do with politics" is not very convincing, upon a close examination of the text. Perhaps when next you encounter a piece of suggestive text, you´ll pause for a moment to figure the writer´s implicit argument. I promise your efforts won´t be disappointed. > Say what you will about the Bush administration but they are not being taken > over by hostile aliens bent on starting wars. Uh, right. Nobody´s arguing that. The Nomads, I argue, represent fascism and cynical propaganda, "evil politics" to put it simply. It´s at least rational (although not necessary) to conclude that the writers of Freelancer were making a subtle point that fascism and cynical propaganda threatening to enter US politics. But this is just one of very many political conceits in the game. > The fact that there are acts of aggression referred to as "terrorist attacks" and a > shadowy group labeled as terrorists in the game doesn´t automatically make them > analagous to any real-world counterpart at all. I haven´t put together such a sloppy argument for the concept that Freelancer is a politically charged game. In fact, I wrote that there´s little reason to believe that The Order is supposed to represent any real-world terrorist organization. > If the Freelancer writers ... took elements of current events and implemented > them in the Freelancer universe, I´d buy that all right. Right, and to a great extent, that´s exactly what they did. Thanks for bringing that up. However, it´s the WAY they translated current politics into their fiction that´s remarkable. The game repeatedly moves Treant from a naieve political perspective to a more faceted and sophisticated perspective. Simply parodying current politics is one thing; doing something substantial with them is quite another. > Can we leave the political commentary out of it? The last thing these boards > needs is a flamewar about current events. I can think of nothing more unfortunate than falling into a flamewar when we have something far more interesting to discuss. I´m not discussing current politics very much (except in my main claim, which is pretty harmless and obvious: Freelancer-2 is a politically dangerous proposition for any company worried about being accused of legitimating terrorism). I´m discussing the political points that the game makes. I´m not interested in talking about politics; I´m interested in talking about what the game says (about politics or whatever else we find in the game´s text). This may seem a subtle distinction, but it is also a BIG distinction. Puke Barwalker writes: > As to "evil politics" entering first into German, I´d suggest reading up on the > Soviet Union and Stalin´s murdering some seven million Ukrainians, as well as > millions of other Soviet citizens for various reasons. And Mussolini was a decade > before Hitler.... Right. Well, two points. First, if we limit our discussion to modern politics, and to the countries allegorically represented in the game, I think we find Germany is the first and principle seat of Fascism. (Weren´t the Russions the evil archetype in the prequel, Starlancer? Anyway, Russia and Italy don´t enter the picture, as they´re not parties available to the game.) Second, it´s commonplace to identify Nazi Germany as the seat of "evil politics," especially in science-fiction. For one example of hundreds, the original commander of the Death Star (in the original Star Wars) was unambiguously German. At times in the past 50 years, Russians were the evil-archetype/stereotype of choice; at times, the German evil-archetype was choice. (For some reason, the evil-Italian never became an archetype, at least in American popular mythology.) So, why German? Maybe the writers wanted to suggest there´s something specifically Nazi-esque that´s haunting politics. This is an interesting question to raise, and worthy of some further thought. Thanks!

I think I have not been clear. So very basically: Similar-level-ships always have similar stats. If one ship is better than similar-level ships, the advantage is always slight. All stats increase gradually as ship-level increases. It wouldn´t make sense for the the Rhino to be better than the Mule, or the Mule better than the Clydesdale. This is the same rule we find in all other games. You gradually get better weapons: you simply don´t get a level-10 sword that´s better than a level-20 sword. It´s the fundamental principle of level-based games: you get better stuff as you increase levels. The Dromedary is a HUGE exception to these rules. Are any of the above points disputable? Yes, I guess it´s a tradeoff between the Dromedary´s cargo-hold and the Humpback´s armor. But there´s not supposed to *be* a tradeoff between a level-20 ship, compared to a level-10 ship. All level-20 ships are *far* superior on all counts. As far as how this error crept into the code, I can only speculate. Most likely would seem that someone in late-production changed the Dromedary´s cargo-space, to run a test or something, and forgot to change it back. Edit: One point I didn´t consider: it´s arguably the Dromedary´s LEVEL that´s the problem. If the Dromedary were level-20, I would have less reason to argue that an error had been made. Still , I think the larger game-design suggests that the Dromedary was intended to be roughly equivalent to the Drone, since it is equivalent to the Drone in all other respects. Edited by - breslin on 7/18/2005 11:41:18 AM

Freelancer may appear at first blush merely a shoot-em-up arcade-style space sim -- and it is that, sure. But along the way it shows itself to be extremely politically savvy. It is simply packed with political commentary, both theoretical and specific. It is an allegory of our own time. It´s somewhat subtle, though, so if you haven´t recognized this, that doesn´t reflect negatively on you; it´s fun to play it just for the game, and not bother with the underlying poltical commentary. But consider the following, if you would: I don´t mean simply that there´s a strong political element in the game´s design. Sure, the game is set-up much like the classic Sid Meyers game, Pirates, where one of the protagonist´s principle goals is to negotiate a dynamic political landscape, shaped by four political factions. Unlike the protagonist of Pirates, Edison Treant does not himself have any political aspirations, but he still must walk a delicate path between warring political factions. These warring factions have the usual motives, from radically ideological to coldly capitalistic. The political landscape of Freelancer remains static throughout the game, so when at one point our protagonist remarks, &quot;the sides keep changing,&quot; what he´s really saying is that his perspective on the political landscape keeps changing. And it keeps changing *in a particular way*. This is where the politics get interesting. His perspective consistently changes from one of naieve acceptance of government propaganda, to a recognization that the propaganda is intentionally misleading and thoroughgoingly cynical. He moves from an authoritarian to a radical -- a &quot;terrorist&quot; in fact. This development is never figured a descent from a law-abiding righteousness to a position of political and ethical irresponsibility. On the contrary. *This development is always framed as a positive development*, specifically as an awakening of a political consciousness and conscience. Take one early example: the Liberty Rogues. Our hero begins his career fighting this group, what he understands to be a self-interested criminal faction. Later he discovers that this conception is a false one, propagated by the political powers of Liberty. To quote from the game: &quot;The Rogues are a product of over two centuries of systematic lower-class cleansing that occurred on the Liberty planets of Manhattan, Denver, and Los Angeles. [... Some say the massive LPI roundups of even minor offenders in Liberty have more to do with staffing these plants cheaply than reducing crime.&quot; So, in truth, the Rogues are the detritus of a slave-class, exploited by the Liberty government and corporations. The Rogues are placed in prison on questionable grounds, so they can provide cheap labor. Upon their release, they have little recourse but turn to crime. The recognition of this is only one of many similar instances of the protagonist´s political enlightenment. The game is set up in this way, to teach us, the players, to open our minds to alternative political perspectives, and not merely remain naieve victims of the current propaganda. But it´s not only this theoretical move that the writers recommend; the specific instances are themselves clearly intended as little allegories of our own time. The Liberty Rogue dilema is a specific commentary on how in today´s world, incarceration is often a cynical instrument used for lower-class suppression (what the game calls &quot;systematic lower-class cleansing&quot<img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>. But this is only one example of many. For another example, the Aegira corporation represents the evils of proprietary technology (and software), specifically the evil of putting up a roadblock in order to make money -- like a bandit putting a toll-booth on what would otherwise be a public road. And in fact there´s a clearly-signaled contemporary correlation for many, if not most, of the factions in Freelancer. The Mollys analogize the Irish Republican Army; the Outcasts figure Central-American (specifically Columbian) drug runners. Similarly, the house militaries are dangerous forces, which, when guided by evil hands, become themselves the threat, rather than the protection from the threat: this happened originally in Germany, before WWII, and not-by-coincidence, originally in Rheinland. (This is why Rheinland was positioned closest to the Nomad quadrant of the game-map.) Follow the argument to its conclusion: as the Nomads (representing fascist politics) entered Germany/Rheinland, so the same force is threatening to enter the US/Liberty. Turning now to the central plot: here we find the most radical political statement imaginable. This is consistent with the game´s motif of a move from naievite to a position of deep political awareness and subtlety: it turns out that the terrorists are the good guys. Now, I think it would be a misreading to see The Order as analogous to any other specific terrorist organization in our time. The Order is whitewashed in the game, in ways that true terrorists really cannot be whitewashed. But you must admit, a game that presents terrorists as good guys has committed political suicide, given the current state of politics. So, is it any wonder that Freelancer-2 is not even being considered for development?

I agree that it´s basically unimaginable that such an error could creep through. Which makes the fact that it clearly did, well, shocking. But look at the numbers. Whoever set them up had a clear plan, and the consistency and logic of that plan is radically broken by this error. It´s easier to get the Dromedary than it is to get the Drone. But they´re about equal. (Thus, they should be about equal, in cargo capacity.) Who ever flies a Humpback, except for the sake of a challenge? Certainly there´s no practical reason. This is totally wrong. It would be like a level 10 fighter which was MORE powerful than a VHF, essentially making the VHF´s obsolete. Sure you can rationalize any error, but this one is pretty easy.

There´s nowhere else a negative correlation between armor and cargo space. Armor and cargo space both gradually improve as you go up in levels. Take a look at this ordered lists of numbers. It´s not hard to find which one very boldly breaks the pattern: 80, 90, 125, 275, 175, 250 These are the cargo sizes of the Freelancer freighters, ordered by level and ease of acquisition. If you divide the Drone´s cargo capacity by its level, you get 12. Exactly the same for the Humpback. For the Dromedary, it´s over double that: 27. In all other instances (gun capacity, armor, nanobots/shield-batteries, weapon class, and gun battery), the ships get better as you progress in levels. (Except for turn rate, which fluctuates somewhat for the other ships; it remains constant for Freighters, except for the Humpback: the Humpback has a terrible turn rate, owing to its large size, i.e., cargo capacity.) The Drone and the Dromedary are roughly equal in all respects: same level, roughly the same stats. Except the Dromedary has, for no reason, a HUGE cargo capacity, making it far better than the Freighter twice its level. It would make much better sense if the cargo capacity of the Dromedary were identical to the Drone´s. Whoever ordered this stuff made a typo: 275 where 175 was clearly intended. It´s really unfortunate, since it makes it essentially pointless to fly the best freighter in the game.

Findalay writes: &gt; No politics my friend. I strongly agree, my friend. I do not want to see hogwash arguments about modern politics. This thread is not towards political trash talk. Quite the contrary: I want to discuss the game. I think there´s three areas of possible discussion: 1) Freelancer´s political commentary, as it relates to the world of Freelancer; 2) the political commentary, as is allegorical to our own political situation; and 3) the politically radical (and therefore problematic) situation of the game, with respect to modern politics. Of these, I was discussing the third. It´s clear, right, that the writers for the game intended to write a particularly politically evocative piece. There´s a lot in the game, especially in the details, about the evils of class warfare, and a critique of ideologically-evil propaganda. The story is very intentionally an allegory and commentary on our current political situation. That´s the spirit of the writing. The guys who wrote this game call your attention to current &quot;real-world&quot; problems. In a deep sense, it´s what the game is about. To re-state my point: the political bent of Freelancer unfortunatly excludes the possibility of Freelancer-2, given the current &quot;real world&quot; political polarization. &gt; And we have several Fl 2 threads, please post your ideas ect in one of them &gt; reather than creating another FL2 thread please. Please do me this favor: maybe let this one go for a few days. If the discussion gets ridiculously off-topic, towards stupid political discussion, do kill it.

Thanks, Preacher0815, for the correct strategy on avenging Brandon Rowlett. I´ve updated the walkthrough. This is really a great improvement; thanks! Please let me know if I´m missing anything else.

The Starflier Campaign Walkthrough is only an appendix to the Sideplay Walkthrough, and I expect the latter might more intriguing to a wider audience. Personally, I had much more fun exploring all the possibilities and limits of the SP campaign, than I had in beating the game in a Starflier. (But ya, it was cool.) Also please note that I´m not the first to beat the game in a Starflier. I´m certain there´s at least two others, and probably many more. The Find A Job &quot;badge&quot; (my sig) was a fellow Starflier´s idea. (Recall that &quot;Find A Job&quot; is the final objective in the SP campaign.) There are two main challenges with the Starflier Campaign: figuring out the correct strategy (and loadout), and flying the ship. I try to address both these problems in the walkthrough, although of course the latter is your ballgame. Please take a look at the walkthrough, and let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. Oh, and as far as how many tries it took: it´s hard to say, as I didn´t keep track of how many times I died. But let me describe my experience with the most difficult Starflier mission. The first time I attempted the Starflier Campaign, I incorrectly concluded that it was impossible due to the time constraints on Mission 12. Once I learned that someone else did it, I went back and figured out the correct strategy, which took more experimenting. But even with the correct strategy, it´s the most difficult mission, and I expect I died about 30 times in that mission alone, if not more. Edited by - breslin on 7/15/2005 10:45:13 PM