As a third-person action game, 25 to life is kind of a "Max Payne in the Hood," only without the quality gameplay. [Apr 2006, p.62]

The board game format gives it a bit of randomness, and despite there being almost no challenge, it's still a surprisingly amusing diversion. [May 2003, p.87]

There's little for you to do other than play with staffing percentages and earn some cash to purchase new styles of coffee. [Mar 2007, p.67]

A decent start. The rest is an unmitigated disaster. [Feb 2003, p.82]

It's hard to imagine for whom this game was made. It's certainly not for gamers. And it's even more certainly not for nongamers, who are going to be entirely confounded. [Feb. 2007, p.68]

The mess of a control scheme, stilted animation, and poor transitions obviously shows that Daydream Software must have been daydreaming when it decided to leap into the world of 3D. [Feb 2004, p.85]

A great concept gone horribly wrong... It's too short, too dull, and too poorly executed. [Oct 2002, p.75]

Romping through "Diablo" one more time is both more gothic and more fun. [Apr 2004, p.75]

Anyone shelling out for Land of the Dead is in grave danger of buyer's remorse. [Feb 2006, p.64]

At best, it's a half-baked cell shading demo with a few curt lessons from the master swordfighter Miyamoto Musashi ostentatiously interjected in between mind-numbingly dull "action" and "adventure" stages. [Oct 2002, p.77]

Quotation forthcoming. [Mar 2006]

Enemy AI is shoddy, as is the hit-detection. The graphics are also deficient, with nearly every element in the game looking bland. [Apr 2004, p.9]

You are apt to play the same segments over and over, ad nauseam. Perhaps a more appropriate title might have been Groundhog Day II.

There are very few games that could get away with being re-released, unmodified, three years after they came out. Industry Giant isn't one of them.

Just buy it on DVD and leave it at that. [Apr 2007, p.71]

There is a nice mix of unit types including heroes and the game even gives you spells to cast, but the AI is so poor and the presentation so lazy you'd be much better off buying the boardgame from an import store.

Problems with artificial intelligence cause foes to run in one place, refuse to shoot you at point-blank range, and opt out of taking cover. [July 2003, p.86]

The execution falls flat, and in the end Coliseum plays like a shell of a game. The biggest problem is that there isn't enough to do. [May 2004, p.69]

It doesn't just crush your soul; it zaps your will to live. [Jan 2003, p.79]

A dry exercise in bald number twiddling. What's worse is that it's hardly any different from the first Interstellar Trader. [July 2003, p.81]

It’s an overly straightforward and dull simulation with enough downtime for you to ponder the greater fun you’ll be having playing “Railroads!” in a couple of months. [Dec. 2006, p.78]

Interesting for about 10 minutes. [Feb 2004, p.85]

Whatever you call it, it's guilty of one thing: not being funny. In fact, it's offensively unfunny. [Dec. 2006, p.70]

Completely without substance and fails to match even the primordial games from the DOS era.

The biggest problem is that it's a cop-out. Serpieri's brand of blatant sensuality is absent, his wildly explicit sex scenes having been replaced by momentary clips showing the lead character topless.

Like Veruca Salt, this game should be dumped down the garbage chute. [Nov 2005, p.79]

If you can suffer through to its conclusion, you’re truly a brave person. [Dec. 2006, p.80]

Aiming at enemies is nearly impossible. [Apr 2004, p.7]