Recently I have been watching GT’s reviews after many months of absence. The reviews, as always are well presented, to the point and highlight the best features of games as well as the pit falls.
I have been watching GT reviews for several years (on and off) and the reviews are consistent and some of the best on the net. The reviewer appears to have a wide knowledge of games and is not afraid to tell the audience if a game is rubbish. However this opinion is not shared by many of the other GT members. And they cannot be dismissed as teenagers who know nothing of games. Even though they (a considerable minority) might lack a depth of experience – they do present their objections with rationale that prompted me to reconsider my opinion of the GT review dude.
I wonder if I am just a jaded git who is too willing to believe that most games are not worth my time because they inevitable will play out to be unimaginative and therefore not entertaining.
Many of the GT members seem to bring an innocence and fresh out look to games, an attitude which I am certain that I do not have and lost in the mid to end of the nineties when I realised that most games were unimaginative and not much fun to play.
I appreciate GT’s sometimes jaundice perspective on games and also Ben “yahtzee” Croshaw’s, peculiar method to reviewing games because I have learned to sieve through the bile and find good points in the games they review.
It is only of late that I have seriously considered whether I am too willing to accept these reviewers’ opinions as yard stick by which to judge what games to play.
Maybe I am an unimaginative curmudgeon that should now consider using my fellow GT members opinions help me consider what games to explore rather than accepting the opinions of professional reviewers.
Log in to comment