The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
it would definitely be formula one, cricket, gold or ping pong!
Page:
AfroJoe wrote:
> Yes it is very tactical, probably too much so for such a simple
> game.
>
> Personally I'd rather see there being some excellent defensive
> stoppage plays and interceptions than just the offense taking the
> ball down the field and scoring every time. The tactics are
> necessary, and are not over-used.
What i meant is that it is difficult to get into the strategic side if you are a newcomer to it, for a simple game, the tactics are very complicated.
> Yes it is very tactical, probably too much so for such a simple
> game.
>
> Personally I'd rather see there being some excellent defensive
> stoppage plays and interceptions than just the offense taking the
> ball down the field and scoring every time. The tactics are
> necessary, and are not over-used.
What i meant is that it is difficult to get into the strategic side if you are a newcomer to it, for a simple game, the tactics are very complicated.
Flockhart wrote:
> It should be called american rugby(for wimps who wear padding)
Wimps who wear padding? You're joking, right? If they didn't wear padding, they'd be in action for about a week or two before having their careers ended. The padding is there for a reason: because having a 300lbs giant running into you at full speed hurts, a lot. American football is a lot tougher than rugby, as it gets rid of all the poncy rules and is just pure violence during play.
> Yes it is very tactical, probably too much so for such a simple
> game.
Personally I'd rather see there being some excellent defensive stoppage plays and interceptions than just the offense taking the ball down the field and scoring every time. The tactics are necessary, and are not over-used.
> This is my major problem with it, it's so bloody stop-start, youre
> lucky if you get more than a couple of seconds of action at a time.
This may be a flaw, but if you're just watching highlights then they cut all the stops out, so it's just constant action. And that's the way I like to watch it.
Except for in the Super Bowl. That has to be viewed in full. Because there really is some excellent coverage.
> It should be called american rugby(for wimps who wear padding)
Wimps who wear padding? You're joking, right? If they didn't wear padding, they'd be in action for about a week or two before having their careers ended. The padding is there for a reason: because having a 300lbs giant running into you at full speed hurts, a lot. American football is a lot tougher than rugby, as it gets rid of all the poncy rules and is just pure violence during play.
> Yes it is very tactical, probably too much so for such a simple
> game.
Personally I'd rather see there being some excellent defensive stoppage plays and interceptions than just the offense taking the ball down the field and scoring every time. The tactics are necessary, and are not over-used.
> This is my major problem with it, it's so bloody stop-start, youre
> lucky if you get more than a couple of seconds of action at a time.
This may be a flaw, but if you're just watching highlights then they cut all the stops out, so it's just constant action. And that's the way I like to watch it.
Except for in the Super Bowl. That has to be viewed in full. Because there really is some excellent coverage.
> 1. It is technically a form of football, seeing a that's its name...
It should be called american rugby(for wimps who wear padding)
> 2. Rather poor play? You can't have seen much then. It's tactical and
> packed with action.
Yes it is very tactical, probably too much so for such a simple game.
> 3. I don't really get what you mean about there being no spectacle.
> But if the Super Bowl isn't a spectacle, I don't know what is.
Yes the americans know how to put on a show.
> 4. Of course there's movement. Fair enough you don't always see a lot
> of it, but when you do, there are some great runs made.
This is my major problem with it, it's so bloody stop-start, youre lucky if you get more than a couple of seconds of action at a time.
It should be called american rugby(for wimps who wear padding)
> 2. Rather poor play? You can't have seen much then. It's tactical and
> packed with action.
Yes it is very tactical, probably too much so for such a simple game.
> 3. I don't really get what you mean about there being no spectacle.
> But if the Super Bowl isn't a spectacle, I don't know what is.
Yes the americans know how to put on a show.
> 4. Of course there's movement. Fair enough you don't always see a lot
> of it, but when you do, there are some great runs made.
This is my major problem with it, it's so bloody stop-start, youre lucky if you get more than a couple of seconds of action at a time.
Der Nazi wrote:
> I would get rid of tennis because it's dull to watch
Aaaaaahahahha
Oh dear oh dear.
> I would get rid of tennis because it's dull to watch
Aaaaaahahahha
Oh dear oh dear.
Der Nazi wrote:
> I would definitely get rid of American football. Why? Because it's not
> technically football (Very little foot use), it involves rather poor
> play from what I've seen, and also becuase there is no spectacle:
> Under the suit of armour, there is hardly any movement so you don't
> see the excellent runs in rugby.
I'm sorry, but...
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.
1. It is technically a form of football, seeing a that's its name...
2. Rather poor play? You can't have seen much then. It's tactical and packed with action.
3. I don't really get what you mean about there being no spectacle. But if the Super Bowl isn't a spectacle, I don't know what is.
4. Of course there's movement. Fair enough you don't always see a lot of it, but when you do, there are some great runs made.
> I would definitely get rid of American football. Why? Because it's not
> technically football (Very little foot use), it involves rather poor
> play from what I've seen, and also becuase there is no spectacle:
> Under the suit of armour, there is hardly any movement so you don't
> see the excellent runs in rugby.
I'm sorry, but...
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.
1. It is technically a form of football, seeing a that's its name...
2. Rather poor play? You can't have seen much then. It's tactical and packed with action.
3. I don't really get what you mean about there being no spectacle. But if the Super Bowl isn't a spectacle, I don't know what is.
4. Of course there's movement. Fair enough you don't always see a lot of it, but when you do, there are some great runs made.
Golf becasue it is so bloody boring.
I love your hair E_B.
Darts, Bowls, showjumping or something.
I hate foxhunting but dont consider it a sport and american football is the most stop-start game i've ever seen but i have to say i'd want formula 1 banned " Let's get 20+ cars to go really fast around a big road 60 FU**ING TIMES !!!" It's tv's cure for insomniacs.
I would definitely get rid of American football. Why? Because it's not technically football (Very little foot use), it involves rather poor play from what I've seen, and also becuase there is no spectacle: Under the suit of armour, there is hardly any movement so you don't see the excellent runs in rugby.
I would get rid of tennis because it's dull to watch, but for me it stays because it's great fun to play.
I would get rid of tennis because it's dull to watch, but for me it stays because it's great fun to play.
Page: