Viewing Thread:
"Whoohoo, 4 player Frontline on Xbox!"

After I got Halo, my friend got Frontline for his PS2. I didn't think it was as good as Halo by quite a strech, but I did think it was worth owning and its deffinitaly the PS2s best shooter.

Anyway, Frontline is comming to Xbox and GC with a few fiddles here and there, but best of all there will now be 4 player deathmatches. Nice. :P

See

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/369/369385p1.html

for more.

Its going on my Christmas "mabye" list.

All you nints might be getting excited over Timesplitters 2, as the developers (who are in my town of Nottingham :)) are former members of the people who made Goldeneye.

Timesplitters 1 was a bit of a dissapointment, but i'll have a look in on the new one.

I gotta rush, microwavable curry is nearly ready.

I must admit this game isn't high on my priority list and although I am a big FPS fan I will wait to see how much it imrpoves on the first before I jump into any desicion making. I never played the first on PS2 nd I remember having the dilema of choosing between that and Tekken Tag Tournament, on this occasion I decided to give Timespliters a miss. After reading a few positive reviews then I may consider getting the game, but with so many great titles out on the Xbox I can't see this one changing the way we game. Until then I will just have to read some previews and see that way, but to be honest I aren't excited about this game at all, even with the possibility of Xbox Live :(

It'll probably do better on the PS2 and GC than it will on X-Box because X-Box owners have a larger choice when it comes to FPS over the coming months, so Timesplitters 2 probably won't get muxch of a look in.

The sequal probably will be very good.

I'm just not that excited.

Ok Mantis - we should be professional reviewers. ;-))

"Can you sum this game up in 500 words ?"

"I can do it in two - It Stinks !"

Strafex wrote:
>Well the second one is meant to be muched improved.

Yes but the original was meant to be a Goldeneye beater, and it was pure cack on a disk.

I've played the multiplayer aswell, guess what its cack too.

Timespliter=Cack.

From what I've seen of the sequel, I can see the improvements, but it still doesn't really look like my type of game. I dunno what it is exactly, it just doesn't really appeal to me. :-)

Well the second one is meant to be muched improved.

Besides, you've only slated the single player.
It's meant to be a multiplayer based game, so perhaps you've not seen it's better side yet?

But then going by what the PS2 had at launch, earning the title of "must have" wasn't too hard.
The only title I enjoyed at all at the PS2's launch was Dynasty Warriors 2 for god sake. ;-))

The original Timespliters stinks so much I'd rather poke myself in the eye that play it.

It's sooo bad. In every respect.

Admitidly, I played it for the first time after playing Halo but still, $hit smells. My friend and I completed the entrie game within 45 minutes. Every level was the same, run through, shoot some crummy looking zombies, find a breifcase then leg it back to the start of the level. THATS IT. No opening doors, no finding keys, no variation. The gameplay sucks the big one.

The graphips, sound, levels are soo poor. I am astounded that this piece of crap was considered "must have" at the PS2s launch.

To put it simply, I ain't holding my breath over Timespliters 2.