Topical leads to seriousness

I’ve been chatting with Daniel — a “student” of mine — while playing some Borderlands (2K Games’ masterwork RPS — role-playing shooter); he’s figured-out, over this year, that his serious interests involve writing. His love of videogames is a natural outlet, and hopefully, writing about games (or for them?) can become a career for him.

As some readers of mine might remember, I’ve wanted to write about games for some time. I dabble in it, from time-to-time, usually at Gamespot. I tried making a dedicated gaming blog, but never could make enough free-time to pick up the necessary momentum to carry the project along.

I might have another chance now… and an opportunity to do things differently.

In discussing videogame reviews, one facet stood apart — particularly interesting to me — the nature of trust. People generally read reviews to accumulate more information, to make a better decision. However, if the reader doesn’t trust the reviewer, the review won’t mean much — that’s if it’s even read!

Why should anyone trust a review? How can we assess whether or not the author shares similar views, has similar tastes?

At the time, I didn’t think of this thought-trajectory as being particularly-profound, but it lead me to new findings, new ideas and concepts. Free-association, mixed with a bit of luck, I suppose. 

I’ve decided on a few fixes; I thought about what makes me trust a review — and the reviewer, what I think when we don’t share the same tastes, and what makes me come back for more. I also thought about Bradloves and Bradtastic.com, and the future. Indeed, 2010 looks like a turn-around year.

Before I get back to work, I thought I’d mention quickly: I’ve been told that I’m hard to shop for, get gifts for. That’s not at all true. At my Links page, I have two wish lists (so far) — each with gifts ranging the gamut. If you don’t have lists of your own, you should think about making one (or five)!