GamesTM Issue 62

[Junko]

Its so messy and poorly layed out , sure its the same high quality but really the new look is pretty piss poor IMO

[Welrain]

Yeah the new design is really a step back imho. shame.

[DANGEROUS]

Cool so it's out now.
Look forward to reading their take on Halo 3 verse EDGE's approximation.

[icarus0]

IMO they can't seem to get the layout and look of the mag just right - previously it was a bit too messy and cluttered, now its too minimal and sterile.

Having said that, I do prefer the new look. Just.

[Pavey]

Thought it was great, bold, colourful and exciting before. Not it feels like im reading a medicinal journal.

Sterile sums it up perfectly, like the whole thing was a chore to put together, by people not the slightest bit interested in the subject matter.

And i owe the newsagent 50p still!

(less colour = price hike?!!)

[anephric]

Hey, my direct debit's still only £6.00 every three issues. Score!

[DANGEROUS]

You reckon that's good,- I get every issue of GamesTM free.
Light fingered shopper you see.

Hey, if you can't be honest as an anonymous entity in cyberspace, where can you be?

[gaz@manc]

No, I couldnt find it either. Do we both need glasses or is it simply not there and if so why?

It doesn't appear to be there - I'm assuming there'll be a next issue so why not advertise it?

[DANGEROUS]

I was hoping the sex in videogames feature would touch upon some of the graphic scenes one might witness in Second Life.

Unfortunately it did not and was a relatively boring affair, instead chewing over the obstacles the implementation of sexual scenes in games face.