Chindie

I've heard that this 'Mourinho doesn't rate Mata' thing pretty much entirely derives from a shitty paper in Spain making it up. I really don't think he'll sell him.

What will you do if they forget? Throw hastily put together bolognese and bechamel on a plate and hand them the plate whilst saying 'Well, this is your fault'.

Purgatory. Purgatory's kind of like the inbetweeny one. "You weren't really shit, but you weren't all that great, either." Like Tottenham.

We're they though? Or did they just try and create steam for consoles? I know you can say Steam have loads of sales, but we will never know if M$ we're intending on doing so too. (probably wouldn't have, mind) The only thing I view as trying to **** over the customer was the 24 hour internet connection and the need for Kinect to be on. (it doesn't bother me to be honest, but I can see why it would bother other people) All other u-turns they did didn't bother me too much anyway. They pinched ideas from Steam but they weren't trying to make Steam for consoles. They were trying to manufacture a way of killing preowned markets. Even if you accept that that is a good thing (bizarrely, in my view - the need for a download only future is one that benefits only the developer at the cost of the consumer, unlike on PC where there was a genuine issue with piracy and subsequently the preowned market was killed stone dead meaning the consumer today doesn't lose anything, and gains with cheaper purchases in the main) Microsoft have proven that they shouldn't be trusted. Take your XBLA collection on 360. There is no reason these games could not port across, but Microsoft want to push purchasers towards their new offerings, so they screw you on it. Even when they try to do things for the consumers benefit, they cock it up. Live sales have been a joke for years. Games with Gold is a farce. Etc etc. They made a sop to allowing preowned markets with talk of a licence transfer system... which was designed to screw independent stores by implementing a system they only consulted 'retail partners' on, i.e. big businesses, and actively meant you couldn't just sell a game to a mate. Forcing the Kinect on customers (almost certainly collecting shedloads of data to report back on, patent already in to monitor the room for how many people are watching something, in case you've exceeding your viewer allowance...), all the account stuff effectively treated you like a would be avenue for lost sales (or a thief)... Etc etc... Microsoft wanted to **** you. **** their media device (it's barely a console - 3gb focused on it's hybrid 3 OS system, TV crap which will largely be irrelevant outside the US), **** them.

I'd have said play the first one and not bother with two or three. I'd say play the first - it was a little bit of a revelation when released and very admirable. If you like it, skip 2, and give Infinite a go. Infinite is pretty much an evolution of that first game and has a decent story that rewards players that know the first game. If you find the first tedious, which is quite possible (the gunfights get dull through all of these games imo - bullet sponge enemies), finish that and probably leave Infinite alone, at least for a while.

I'm making lasagne tonight and was safe in the knowledge there were some lasagne sheets in the cupboard. I've just checked, and lo and behold there they were. Except I was sure they weren't from Morrisons, because we don't shop there. Checked the box, best before December 2011. I bought them when I was still at uni, which means they're at the very least 3 years old and were originally opened back then too. So I head to the shop across the road, certain in the knowledge that everywhere has pasta and lasagne is popular. They only have pasta shell things. Bollocks. I could go to Asda but that's a helluva a trek for a 50p pack of pasta. And I really didn't want to go out today. Been reduced to asking someone to bring some along with them tonight. I feel dirty.

I loved District 9, and I adore the look of Blomkamp's films (he makes a very believable, lived in dirty future sci fi world very well, saw hints of it in District 9 but everything from Elysium ticks the boxes on that front), but I have been put off a little by just how clunking the allegory in this is. D9 was hardly subtle but this looks like a sledgehammer in comparision. Plus I still don't really like Matt Damon in anything that isn't Bourne series or Dogma... I'm torn. I picked up the 3D version for about £7 and well worth it. One of the few movies I've seen where 3D actually adds something, rather than just being a tac-on gimmick. I bought the bluray at release, watched it far too many times since to be honest. You can only buy the 3d combi disc, and I will say the 3d on that added something - better picture quality. The 2d transfer on that disc is rough, the 3d version by comparison is superb. I don't think the 3d adds much otherwise, as per usual, but it is some of the best 3d I've seen in a film. Same was true of the cinema release in fairness.

Delta Force got in early to stir the pot.

Absolutely. People who like comic movies "not being proper movie fans" what a laughable comment. I'm with you on Dredd, I'd like a sequel where you get to see more of MC1, but I'd be very shocked if it ever happens. How much did Dredd lose exactly? There are snobs in everything. I rather suspect the initial post that caused this conversation was actually made with more than a little mischievous intent, in truth... but anywho.. As said it lost about £10m on it's budget, but the rule of thumb is that you need to take double to really make money so it was still fairly down on being genuinely profitable. However, it has done spectacularly well on home media - the bluray is one of the best sellers of the year, and there is some weight behind it now as a little bit of a cult favourite now. It might, might inspire the studio to try again. I sincerely hope it does, but I'm not holding my breath. If it did happen, like everyone else I guess I'd hope they expanded the scope to show more of Dredd's world in MC1, but I'd also really like to keep the feel of the first movie, that feeling that this was just a day on the job for Dredd and not some massive task for him. I really liked that feeling that Dredd was pretty much unfazed by anything happening in Peach Trees, and I'd like to see it expanded on to him actually having to get out and about in the city. A bit like a full on expansion of that opening scene with the chase and... 'arrest'. Garland has said he wants to investigate some of the nature of the Judge system and also look at Dredd more intently, looking into his nature as a fascist, so if a sequel did happen perhaps I might get my wish. Saying that he has also been on record saying he wants to do the Dark Judges in a film as well... which perhaps wouldn't fit quite so well with that vision. Anyway, fingers crossed. And if you've not bought the bluray, anyone, buy it. Dredd is a brilliant little action film and the bluray costs bugger all. So was dredd meant to be a complete ripoff of the raid??? Given that Dredd began filming in 2010 and The Raid didn't until 2011, I'm going to hazard a guess at 'No'.

Absolutely. People who like comic movies "not being proper movie fans" what a laughable comment. I'm with you on Dredd, I'd like a sequel where you get to see more of MC1, but I'd be very shocked if it ever happens. How much did Dredd lose exactly? There are snobs in everything. I rather suspect the initial post that caused this conversation was actually made with more than a little mischievous intent, in truth... but anywho.. As said it lost about £10m on it's budget, but the rule of thumb is that you need to take double to really make money so it was still fairly down on being genuinely profitable. However, it has done spectacularly well on home media - the bluray is one of the best sellers of the year, and there is some weight behind it now as a little bit of a cult favourite now. It might, might inspire the studio to try again. I sincerely hope it does, but I'm not holding my breath. If it did happen, like everyone else I guess I'd hope they expanded the scope to show more of Dredd's world in MC1, but I'd also really like to keep the feel of the first movie, that feeling that this was just a day on the job for Dredd and not some massive task for him. I really liked that feeling that Dredd was pretty much unfazed by anything happening in Peach Trees, and I'd like to see it expanded on to him actually having to get out and about in the city. A bit like a full on expansion of that opening scene with the chase and... 'arrest'. Garland has said he wants to investigate some of the nature of the Judge system and also look at Dredd more intently, looking into his nature as a fascist, so if a sequel did happen perhaps I might get my wish. Saying that he has also been on record saying he wants to do the Dark Judges in a film as well... which perhaps wouldn't fit quite so well with that vision. Anyway, fingers crossed. And if you've not bought the bluray, anyone, buy it. Dredd is a brilliant little action film and the bluray costs bugger all.

I cant see why it wouldn't run decent on consoles. They already said that most of the footage was captured from PS3. Pc obviously will have better graphics and the ability to mod, but that's the only advantage. A lot of people say this about so many games, and it's almost never true. Like Farcry 3 was meant to have big playability problems on console, it had none. Rockstar have been aiming this game for these consoles for years, why would there biggest release ever run like shit? Frame rate issues have plagued the consoles for a couple of years now, especially with games that have large open worlds. You may not notice frame rate when you're playing but once you do notice it, it's incredibly annoying. I don't think there is anyway that Rockstar have managed to make this run well on consoles. I'm sure it'll be totally fine to play but I'm also sure it's going to chug at times and, to be honest, I don't really want that anymore. Taking the example of Far Cry 3, that game is noticeably worse on console. I've played both the PC and console versions and it's night and day. The console version just isn't as good an experience to play - it's not as pretty, understandably, and the frame rate really struggled, dropping below 20 when things get hairy which will affect gameplay noticeably. Saints Row 4 has the same issue, in that game the frame rate gets so bad it actively makes the game less fun play and harder. Rinse and repeat for Skyrim, etc etc. GTA5 won't run like shit, but it will struggle at times - it's going to push the consoles to a point they will struggle. It's certain to, games have pushed the consoles capability for a couple of years, at least, and particularly big open worlds. The consoles are too old now, and developers are squeezing them to the point the consoles can't do anymore. I've got the option of a decent PC, and I want to enjoy the games I want to play at their best... so I might wait for the PC release. If you don't have that option, I'm sure the game will be a brilliant experience on the consoles.

Unfortunately those notes would simply say 'Make sure your opponent has a really really dodgy defence'.

Torn over waiting for the PC release of this. I'm fairly convinced it'll run pretty rough on consoles, and I'm not sure I can be arsed with that now.

The struggles with selling Dredd to a wider audience, by far 2000ad's biggest name, probably means we'd never see any of them. Mentioning Dredd, apparently a sequel could happen. Urban made a couple of comments a while back to that effect. Fingers crossed.

£55 is rrp, it's very unlikely they'll actually retail at that. COD games have an obscene rrp but never actually sell at that price.

Road to Perdition is also based on a comic (itself inspired by a manga). And is brilliant.

Even with Microsoft's u-turns, the Xbox One should be avoided. Remember, Microsoft wanted to **** you as the consumer. They dearly wanted to and it's only because sales were poisonous and word of mouth toxic (despite them employing people to pretend to be average consumers on forums to try to dictate the message amongst the gaming population, for example) that they've gone back on everything. Don't reward them for trying to **** you.

There's as much pretentious drivel in here as anything else.

I don't believe there is a person alive who seriously believes their story.

I honestly don't think I could take anyone in the games industry seriously who said they would like to see a Kinect version of Street Fighter. It's one of the most brainless gaming comments I've ever seen.

Australia had problems with a few things in the game, particularly drug references that portray narcotics in a vaguely positive light (there's a section where characters take alien drugs and get powers). Not unusual for Oz. This game also runs like a three legged dog on consoles.

Last night/this morning. BT Sport have picked up the UFC rights that ESPN used to have - however if you used to get ESPN free wit your Virgin package, you should now have BT Sport anyway so, for future cards, you shouldn't miss a thing. One of the better cards I've seen recently - apart from the odd fight here and there, I felt like a lot of the recent events were a bit lacklustre.

I can write fairly well and I know my gaming, so if you need a hand I can probably bash some bits and bobs out.

First clip of Guardians of the Galaxy - unlikely to last long and not the greatest quality, but the entire gang is on show... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsCNY_j2fo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yHL9ygaRJ4 It's going to be daft. Perhaps brilliantly so. EDIT - re-upped, unfortunately in 2 bits...

Vlaar cost us £3m and we got what we paid for - a completely average Prem defender. I don't think he's quite as terrible as Risso is making out, though I do think all in all he had a pretty ropey season last season that wasn't helped, in fairness, by the situation he found himself in (he's simply not a good enough defender to hold together a defence struggling as badly as that, in a team struggling that badly, on his tod), but I don't think he's that good either. He never has been. He got a lot of his Dutch caps more or less by default - the Dutch having struggled for top class defenders for a while and he was a decent option... but little more. I'd like to see more from him this season, and I think we will, solidifying him as a solid Prem defender. He's not going to enter the Villa Centre Back Hall of Fame though.