Sorry to resurrect a long-dead thread, but I finally got around to reading a bunch of the reviews that I've missed.
Now, Jason, you know I love you. In a manly way. But I have to take exception to the review. Not necessarily about the content - I haven't played the game - but in the way the review is presented.
Notably, the Andrew Lloyd Webber metaphor doesn't seem right to me for a few reasons. First, I don't think referring to Andrew Lloyd Webber means precisely what you think it means. I always have heard that name used for something pedestrian, average, with a few small successes that try to make up the entirety of a whole with questionable success. Secondly, the whole metaphor just felt kind of forced.
I understand that there are certain stylistic guidelines that GC adheres to - that's part of the reason that the site's reviews are as good as they generally are. But it can be a double-edged sword in some cases.
The meat of the review seems quite sound, and explains the game wonderfully. Sounds like a decent rental, but the extra surrounding material felt like fulfilling an obligation rather than part of the flesh.
Please don't hate me!
