![]() ![]() The rest of the review ought to be pretty easy. So I'm going to stick with the middle of the range, I think, and let you make up your own minds. ![]() If I go lower, someone's going to point out that since I can't find much wrong with it I should be scoring it higher. If I give it a big score because I can't find too much wrong with it, someone's going to take issue with spending that much money for what this is. It's relaxing to watch the pros on the TV occasionally, and it can be top fun to play pool or snooker with the aid of a few jars of ale every now and then, but is it something that you'd spend £30 to actually play yourself on your television?Īny answer I offer is going to be shot down by somebody with half a cue in their hand and my head in their sights. The problem isn't the quality of the game - World Snooker Championship 2005 is easily the most comprehensive and well worked clack-'em-up I've played, and makes a number of significant gains over its forerunner, of which more in a bit - but rather the question of what sort of value to place on a snooker game in the first place. This score's going to be a bit of a fudge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |