indie fan
I think this is a forgotten gem. I rewatched it recently and forgot how funny it is, not to mention so many great cameos. Launched so many careers. The characters are perfectly written and perfectly cast. I first thought it should have carried on for more series' but actually it would have become boring and repetitive. The fact that they recast Matt didn't seem to have any detriment whatsoever. Both are equally funny in their own way. The whole show hasn't aged at all and the jokes and situations are all relevant nowadays. Soon, I'm sure someone will remake it which would be great but for the time being I love it. If you haven't seen it I would strongly suggest you check it out.
ccorrigan-1
Watched 'game-on' on the BBC in the mid-90s, but since lost the VHS recording. Just after getting all 3 series on DVD, and my suspicions confirmed: Series One featuring Ben Chaplin, the only one worth watching. The man is awesome, what a pity Hollywood came calling just before the recording of the 2nd series. Neil Stuke, with the greatest respect, is not in the same league as Chaplin, and in my opinion, the character of Matt Malone is devalued in series 2 and 3 with Stuke playing the lead-role. Series One is up-there with the best of English comedy, in the 90s or any era. Just a great shame Ben Chaplin didn't feature in all-18 episodes.. He's the King!!
Bill_Bones
"Game On" stands the test of time and really feels like a little turning point into the twentysomething sitcoms that pretty much dominate these days. I must confess to basing the vast majority of my opinion on Series One alone. Ben Chaplin, I feel, gave the show a bit more of an edge in that he was actually a very convincing bully and there was darkness in his issues that made the show really buzz. Equal credit should go to Matt Cottle and Samantha Janus. All of them nail the lines perfectly. The comedy from just the audio delivery of words like "shag" is fantastic on a simple level but the character depth boils on a consistent level as well. Game On was dark stuff and rarely resolved cheerfully, but in terms of biting character stuff it's as good as the format got.My knowledge of the later series is a bit sketchy but I seem to remember it feeling slightly less relevant and slightly more daft. However the show was always visually convincing despite being studio audience based (everything was in 1994). I think that the show has aged really well, I have fond memories of watching it at the age of 14 and it being brilliant and it still is.
Mmyers2003
The show was brilliant. its not very often i like the friends sharing a flat kind of shows but this is a rare exception (along with young ones). Can everyone just get over the fact that Neil Stoke played matt in 2 and 3. Neither of them are any worse than that other. Its no good saying "I found ben funnier than matt" because they both would have read the same scripts and if neil had been matt all along you'd never have noticed at all.Janhus, Britain doesn't use laugh-track/canned laughter in its comedy shows, the laughter is only occasionally adjusted according to the "The Stage" website. America are famous for using laugh track not Britain.