With the superior "Company of Heroes" looming over the proceedings, JTF's lovely graphics, underused media twist and modern settings mask a solid but perhaps rather uninspired take on the genre. [Dec 2006, p.82]

It's a parody of Lucas and it's a parody of knobbly bits of plastic, sometimes both at the same time. It's just brilliant, and that's where its charm lies. [Nov 2006, p.62]

If you've got the time to master it, there is, as ever, about a year's worth of play to be had. [Dec 2006, p.99]

From the unfriendly, baffling set-up screen, everything is unwieldy and cobbled together. [Oct 2006, p.79]

A farily well done RTS that suffers from a few problems that put you off, like banging your teeth on a sausage gristle. [Aug 2006, p.77]

An unpolished, bland mess of a game that doesn't deserve a single megabyte of your hard disk space...It ends up looking like shit as well as playing like it. [Mar 2007, p.68]

Best advice is to pretend Al Emmo is a lot gem from the '80s that you've just discovered. It'll feel far more precious that way. [May 2007, p.75]

The admirably innovative gameplay still feels like it's from Mars. [Feb 2007, p.80]

If you have a knowledge and love of golf, this might give you a more substantial - if less fun - game than "Tiger Woods."

From now on, every "Stuff" pack you release will be scored one per cent lower than the previous "Stuff" pack, until you stop making them. This isn't even funny any more. [Jan 2007, p.73]

Adds nothing new to the genre and the game world itself isn't very large. [Jan 2007, p.74]

This update isn't monumental. It's merely the bacon topping on an already bulging turducken. That's turkey, duck and chicken. [Dec 2006, p.99]

A proper ship simulator. And within that bracket, it faithfully reproduces long, combatless floating sessions. [Sept 2006, p.75]

In much the same way that "Total War" proved that the war game could be stunning to look at, accessible and fun, SOTS is almost as impressive in its own low-budget way. [Oct 2006, p.76]

The X series' universe is much more dynamic and vibrant. DSO does story better, but very little else. [Oct 2006, p.72]

Still feels like watching Oh Dae-su slog his way through that goon-filled corridor. [Nov 2006, p.62]

Safe and very sorry. [July 2007, p.77]

The larger number of tracks, cars and mini-games feel like only relatively minor improvements over the original and the whole thing ends up feeling like more of an expansion than the next evolution. [Sept 2006, p.62]

Plenty of tactical depth and a wealth of historical information. [Nov 2006, p.73]

Not so much an expansion - more six little intricate waterfalls of complexity that siphon hours of gameplay from the vast Civ reservoir. It's a success, but one that runs far deeper than some might like. [Oct 2006, p.62]

A wonderfully engaging game; striking in its ease of use and rewarding in terms of depth. [Sept 2006, p.64]

At its most unimaginative and ill-executed. The controls are faintly cumbersome, the camera a wild, mindless beast, the visuals dour, the combat tedious. [Dec 2006, p.91]

The multiplayer is what you'd expect: solid, if generic, shooting action around the levels that bored you in single-player. [Nov 2006, p.84]

Imagine "The Sims" sans animated characters, depth, humour and variety. [Dec 2006, p.104]

It's so pregnant with ideas and beautiful movements that you'd be a sad fool to to deprive yourself of the experience. If the sequel is longer, a bit more difficult, and plays slightly more intelligently, then I can't imagine it being anything other than a Classic. [Aug 2006, p.58]

A wonderful idea, and a thoughtful variation on multiplayer gameplay - what intesity you lose from speed, you gain from tension. [Oct 2006, p.66]

Once the armies swell in size, the laborious job of shuffling them around the battlefield is like shovelling coal. [Oct 2006, p.65]

It's perhaps not in the same league as "Children Of The Nile" in terms of depth and complexity, but it certainly has its won sedate charm. [Sept 2006, p.80]