Makes a one-man war against the armies of hell quite depressingly dull. [Christmas 2009, p.116]

Impossible to recommend in its present (v1.07) condition. [Sept 2010, p.94]

Smug, poorly made, and incredibly frustrating to play, they managed the fearfully but not the wonderfully made. [Apr 2007, p.86]

It's a shooter for people who don't shoot and have the initiative of a house elf. [Feb 2011, p.97]

Rarely exciting, mostly disappointing. An unfinished tactical shooter let down by technical issues and terrible AI.

Why am I empty, then? Perhaps because this crass, banal, unchallenging belch of a first person shooter has left me that way, groaning and giggling like a mental patient. [Nov 2007, p.72]

Looking for a fulfilling lane defence game? Get Plants vs. Zombies. [June 2014, p.91]

Honestly, I thought the era of 100% cash-in gaming crap was over. I was wrong. [Sept 2008, p.88]

Don't shell out for ol' shellhead. The action-figure is more fun. [Aug 2008, p.79]

What the f..k were they thinking? [Sept 2009, p.79]

Avoid. Run screaming. The funniest - and smartest - part of this game is the fact that the developers told you exactly what to expect when they named it. [Oct 2012, p.109]

Great style but absolutely no substance. [Christmas 2006, p.70]

The Mark approaches dreadfulness like a collector, cataloguing every scuttling horror in the digital world. The sound is terrible, echoing cheaply into dead environments. The voice acting is terrible, with lost children's presenters in place of military tough guys. The cutscenes are terrible, except for when they're rubbish slideshows.

Revoltingly poor insult to a wonderful book. Just don't. [Mar 2008, p.81]

It's a shame what lies behind the giggles is so weak. [July 2009, p.76]

If you're going to be offensive, you need a point. This has none, either as satire, commentary, videogame or comedy. [Mar 2012, p.118]

Perhaps the dev team just asked the pizza delivery boy to do the job to save some pennies for the sequel. [Aug 2006, p.95]

Tremendously ambitious but agonisingly incomplete. Its battlefield is buggy and crude, and its RTS credibility is MIA. [June 2012, p.96]

If this was a budget release, it would merely be a rubbish game. At full price, it's unforgivable. [Mar 2012, p.113]

Boring, buggy, profoundly meaningless, and utterly dreadful in every imaginable way. Not just bad - this is novelty bad. [June 2009, p.92]

Despite a respectable turn-out by the film's cast for new voices, none of Pixar's magic remains. [Apr 2006, p.95]

Decent fun, easy to pick up, but a little too old to pass into legend. [Sept 2008, p.66]

A hopeless, pathetic rip-off of everything that's gone before it, devoid of inspiration or entertainment of any kind. [Jan 2007, p.82]

Funnier still is the influence meter. [Dec 2006, p.101]

For the avid DAoC veterans, it's a must-buy. [July 2007, p.78]

Unless you're already wrung every last drop of fun out of the outstanding "Combat Mission" trilogy (unlikely), I wouldn't bother braving this Winter Storm. [Oct 2006, p.87]

The worst is dressage, which plays like a Simon-says rhythm-action game designed by people without rhythm. [Sept 2007, p.89]

This is one of the biggest expansions that EVE has seen, with some far-reaching changes. However, I can't help feeling that it was delivered now for the sake of bringing in some new content, when really it could have waited a few months for something more comprehensive. [Feb 2007, p.82]