Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Exactly Keef - although to be fair the latest versions I played last week show just enough progress (mostly around 360 degree movement instead of normal 8 direction pad - but anyway)


I never trust them either - if I play against the computer and leave my pad untouched, the opposition should just walk the ball into the net - but no, they all act like 11 Franny Jeffers and kick the ball every which way for 10 minutes

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I got bored of FIFA games, because basically you

> pay for the same game year in year out, with just

> a few minimal improvements IMO.


Isn?t that the ultimate in realism though? It?s exactly like the premiership.

As a little stocking filler you could give yourself this tower defence game.

It's very well balanced, good looking and rather addictive. Not bad for about 7 quid.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/defensegridtheawakening

  • 4 weeks later...

Borderlands - just brilliant.


The bastard son of Left for Dead, Fallout 3, Doom, Serious Sam and Diablo - oh and some Phantasy Star Online too - it's a loot-whoring game extraodinaire, with a beautiful graphic style. The critics and the public seem to have split on this one but Lady Mac hasn't seen me this addicted to a single game in a long time

Or do I just wair for Diablo II?


I'm currently ploughing into Forza Motorsport 3. Yes it's basically a very pretty FM2, with better physics and leaderboards but all the little touches like dirty laps, quick upgrades are well thought out, plus it's te nly game where the in car view is actually the best one as opposed to an unplayable but pretty distraction.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
    • Amazing work from Leon, doing out electrical survey and replacing our consumer board. Great communications, tidy work, reliable friendly and reasonably priced. A pleasure to have around and highly recommended. 
    • Counterpoint: there was zero misrepresentation of truth    never mind the bbc or the uk (for now)-  his own country and government impeached him for trying to overturn an election.  What happened was unforgivable. Trump adding a few “non violent”’ legally wise words absolves him of nothing  but back to bbc and uk.  They were correct and now we have Trump threatening to sue for a billion have English people lost all self-respect (that question was answers 9 years ago and is repeated almost daily) 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...