Even if you couldn't care less how efficiently you put hundreds of drug-dealing scumbags to rest, you may well be surprised by how enjoyable a bit of this disposable ultraviolence can be.

Hope for a fresh star when Cars 2 hit theaters in 2011. [Holiday 2009, p.82]

Dumb fistfighting sequences from the original are back. [June 2005, p.74]

The real threat to Warfighter's longevity is how its multiplayer maps feel like patchworks of arbitrary buildings and debris instead of bona fide real-world strongholds. Without a palpable sense of place, these battlegrounds never give you enough reason to choose this particular universe of gunmetal and grit over any other.

Hard Lock relies on these barely interactive sequences to the point of absurdity.

The two-player co-op game makes for mild (offline) fun, but the too-short music loops will drive you crazy and your teeth will hurt from the sugar content. The game’s biggest sin? These Bunnies are boring.

Soundtrack worthy of a Danny Ocean and Tarantino showdown. [Feb 2008, p.80]

Only the most avid Minesweeper fans will find the game entertaining for more than a couple of hours - but for five bucks, that's a pretty fair deal. [Mar 2009, p.83]

The gameplay is one-note repetitive, the environments are stupidly simplistic, and the product placement is overtly in your face. [Holiday 2006, p.78]

This genre still has potential, but Spikeout just doesn't tap it. [June 2005, p.80]

Doesn't last long enough to feel like anything more than a bunch of tasty side dishes lacking a main course. [Sept 2003, p.81]

On the surface, there's not much to Spyglass Board Games. [Aug 2007, p.81]

The gameplay takes its cue mainly from games like "Phantasy Star Online," except simpler, a lot rougher, and yet plenty more convoluted. [Sept 2005, p.80]

Enduring the samey mission types 20 or more times apiece makes the mundane quest feel like a dull grind, and the challenging boss showdowns and resource-gathering minigames don’t stand out enough to offset the tedium.

The seriously limited engine and weird flow between levels make what could have been a great game, just an average one. Too bad. [Feb 2003, p.73]

Movement and combat never really come together in a cohesive matter. When you're overrun by the undead or your weapon suddenly breaks and you need to defend and retreat, it becomes painfully obvious that the game can't handle multitasking or movements made in quick succession, and will perform only one (and sometimes none) of the many actions you need to survive.

If you've played this game before, there really is absolutely no reason to play it again. [July 2002, p.80]

If you played last year's "Avatar: The Last Airbender", you'll know pretty much what to expect from this sequel, although this time around the game looks cleaner, offers new combos, and has a larger list of characters, including Appa, Jet, Toph, Zuko, and Uncle Iroh. [Holiday 2007, p.82]

FaceBreaker delivers fast online brawls, and the constant back-and-forth of counters, stuns, and outrageous signature moves yields a surprising amount of room for strategy and style. As tiresome as solo scuffles become, exciting multiplayer bouts against unpredictable humans save FaceBreaker from a TKO.

On top of frequent loads, lots of quest-to-quest driving, and graphics akin to Sneak King's, it's clear that no one really tried to make the game work. [Jan 2010, p.77]

The entire point of the Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise is to incite adolescent jealousy, gamesmanship and spending, and while fans of the series might find something to appreciate in this title, casual gamers will not. Skip it. [June 2004, p.80]

Despite simple visuals, the game curiously looks much crisper on Xbox One; the other next-gen advantage comes from a biweekly Challenge objective to tackle. But on either platform, Angry Birds Star Wars should have been a $10 download, and paying much more might make you feel like you've been taken for a ride — and we're not talking about the Millennium Falcon.

We honestly wanted to like this game a lot, but really, it's worth liking only a little. [Feb. 2007, p.76]

Dropping collectible fish in a handful of environments feels hopelessly extraneous; luckily, you can disregard the aquatic nonsense and enjoy timeless gameplay in a reasonably attractive wrapper. [Dec 2007, p.65]

The 3 mini-games in this Fable II companion are decidedly mixed. [Nov 2008, p.80]

On Live it's an afternoon's worth of tinsel-tawdry blah; in solo play, you'll clock three hours, start to finish. No reason, then, to bother starting at all. [May 2006, p.77]

Here's the problem with splitting up a game into three distinct parts: if two of them suck, the third doesn't stand a chance, even with a cult hit TV-show license to lend a hand. [Jan. 2007, p.76]

However you play, the button-mashing combat proves crushingly simplistic and repetitive, and moving around the stages is awkward and disorienting, with a dizzying camera that makes Battle of Z a pretty ideal motion-sickness simulator.