Some time ago I had a conversation on Mastodon about whether game critics consider themselves journalists. My stance was (and is) that reviewers, who benefit from press tickets and review copies, do identify, at least formally, as journalists. Which makes it necessary, in my opinion, to treat game reviews as a journalistic practice. So what does it mean to understand game criticism as journalism?

Without any claim to being comprehensive, I see at least three steps in which the process of game criticism aligns with journalism.

1. Research

2. Context and emphasis

3. Documentation

The last point is obviously the easiest to show. Just as journalistic work has to be translated into a specific medium of publication, so does game criticism. Whether it’s a written article, a podcast, a video or even a social media post. I would think that there is ample material that covers the ins and outs of how to better present a review. Which is why I won’t delve into it. Most advice is generally tied to the platform you use, so it’s difficult to generalize those insights.

Starting off with the first step, every game review requires research. This generally means playing the game. The primary goal might not be “having fun”, but to collect impressions and observations about the game in order to form a review. As we play, we look at how the game’s rules, themes, components and other facets of play affect our experience. You can also take the extra step of researching the background of the designer, publishers or the game’s theme itself. This isn’t mandatory, and might not always offer any meaningful benefit to the review. But it can help to get a more rounded understanding of the game. That’s why the question how often a game should be played before critiquing it, is identical to the question of how deeply you should research a topic before writing an article on it. In theory, there is no limit. But in practice you are tied to deadlines. At the end of the day, you spent as much time researching (or playing) as it takes, to have enough material for a good article or review.

The next point in which game criticism mirrors journalistic work, is taking the result of our research (usually some number of plays), reflecting on it, and emphasizing certain aspects of the experience. This is where you need to develop what your critique will focus on. Just as in other forms of journalism, it is this choice of emphasis that shapes the review and is an important aspect of the work. Which is why the attempt to look at a game as comprehensively as possible is rarely a guarantee for a well made review. Doing so is like working your way through a checklist, that evaluates a game in a very mechanical and repetitive manner. It might actually end up keeping you from critically engaging a game.

But within this question of emphasis, there is an even more important point, which deserves more attention in the context of game criticism. Aside from the various facets of the game itself, a reviewer can choose to emphasize their individual experience with the game. It seems to me that we should pay more attention to how those two actually differ. Too often, reviewers slip into talking about themselves as opposed to talking about the game. This is arguably a necessity in the age of social media and community relations. But it doesn’t really add much to the review. Instead of critically engaging the game, the critic is put center stage. This kind of shift should be made on purpose, not out of ignorance or carelessness. Because with it, comes a fundamental shift in perspective, which may undermine the criticism itself.

Which is not to say, that switching to a personal perspective, can’t benefit a critique. If a game’s theme relates to our personal cultural background or field of expertise, inhabiting this perspective can be valuable. It helps us to treat games as cultural objects, as opposed to small engines for shallow entertainment. In contrast, it seems to me that relating our experience with a theme we’re basically ignorant of, is of little value. Whether somebody had fun with a game or not, might influence my decision to buy said game, but it doesn’t tell me a whole lot about the game itself.

Of course, as mentioned above, our individual experience, our numerous plays of a game is the first step towards criticism. It’s the foundation on which we build our critique. But it is quite explicitly, not the whole of our criticism. The experiences we’ve had with a game have to be given context and emphasis by us as critics to become a critique. It’s by taking that extra step of creating an argument out of the experiences we’ve had with the game, that we work as critics.

This is why I consider it justified to treat game criticism as journalistic work. That said, game criticism isn’t a particularly consequential form of work. It’s not investigative journalism that uncovers injustices, and it’s not political journalism that examines important social issues and informs people. At the end of the day it’s “only” writing about an aspect of pop culture. Even then, I hope that every media person in board gaming aims to enrich our conversation about board games with their work. Maybe by treating game criticism as journalistic work and not just content to generate clicks.