As is often the case in the early months of a new year, I end up thinking about board game criticism. But not about individual reviews or critiques. Instead I think about the genre itself and how it’s practiced. What shape does game criticism come in, and which approach fits with critically engaging games?

I think that at its most trivial form, board game criticism is about consumer advocacy. To be clear, I am not calling this trivial, because it doesn’t matter. Far from it. I call it trivial, because it requires no further explanation. There is little room for reflection, if you define game criticism as a way to advise people which games to buy and which to avoid. If you have a sufficient understanding of the subject or the talent to express your feelings with words, you only need to state if playing a game was fun or not. The purpose of this kind of game criticism is clear. Its differences in structure is predominantly a question of aesthetics. Its entertainment value is tied to how eloquent the critic is. There are no unanswered questions in this aspect of board game criticism. This is in part evidenced by the number of new voices each year on various platforms, who’re just now starting to publish game reviews themselves. In this context the distinction between influencer and game critic seems mostly academic. “It was fun” and “It’s fun because…” is a negligible difference to an audience. A game recommendation that comes with its own reasoning primarily helps people rationalise their purchasing decision. But it’s the verdict itself, that has the biggest impact here. It isn’t the type or length of the concluding (or sometimes preceding) explanation, that matters. It’s no coincidence that so many players look for point scores or at least a clear-cut judgment in their game reviews.

Consumer advocacy is an important and almost irremovable part of game criticism. But it’s not the part that makes board game criticism interesting.

A few years ago I was on vacation and ended up sharing a room with a passionate metalhead. In the evening we would talk about our respective passions. Games, for me. Heavy Metal, for him. He would very carefully distinguish between an unexpectedly large number of metal sub-genres. This led me to two realisations. One: metal is a music genre that I knew far less about than I had been led to believe. But more importantly, that genuine passion for something will bring about careful and deliberate differentiation. In other words, if something is meaningful and important to you, you will reach for the language and mental models to fully grasp it. And if you can’t find those things, you create them yourself. It’s this mindset and energy that should drive game criticism.

Outside of the unified structures of game reviews that conform to the demands of some algorithm; and outside of allegedly “core questions every review has to address”, a valuable critique is predominantly driven be an authentic interest for play itself. It relies on personal enthusiasm for play and games, that expresses itself through critically engaging with both. It was true for the sea of sub-genres in metal music I was introduced to, and it’s true for games as well.

But this striving for valuable critique (to read, listen to or watch) can also lead to more emphasis on a critique’s shape, as opposed to what it expresses. There are many good techniques to write a more entertaining text; to present a more engaging podcast or to create a more appealing video. These help create interest, but they can also seem like an end in themselves. The old cliché that a fancy theme can’t hide a clunky set of rules, also works for board game criticism. Engaging content is no guarantee for good criticism. It’s all too often assumed that these “flashy pretenders” will eventually be found out. But here, again, practice routinely fails to adhere to theory. There are a number of successful games that make players excited because of their theme. Even if the rest of design doesn’t quite deliver. Similarly, there are successful reviews, that manage to enthrall their audience, precisely because they are a joy to read, fun to listen to or exceptionally well-presented. Because the inverse of the earlier sentence is also true: a good critique isn’t necessary to create successful content. A piece of content can be great, even if the critique expressed therein is only middling.

This invariably leads to the question: does board game criticism have to change at all? If the goal is clout and clicks, then a great piece of criticism is simply one tool of many. Nice pictures, a sympathetic voice or simply pithy quotes, can be just as helpful. If the goal is to build and maintain an online community, then criticism or reviews are often more of a historic tradition carried on out of obligation. It’s just a familiar format through which personality, approachability and a connection to the community is established and kept alive. If it is about creative self-expression, critique only has to measure up to whether the critic is satisfied with it. Criticism is merely an artefact of one’s own creative ability, for others to witness or – depending on one’s disposition – to be awed by.

When it comes down to it, there is only one reason for game criticism to change, to improve: because it is driven by people’s passion to critically engage with games and play. Because enthusiasm for games and play isn’t solely expressed by fighting over victory and defeat, or by seeking out the social interaction with other players. Board game criticism has to change for those people, who see games not only as products and play as a way to pass the time. It has to change for those people who can see the fuzzy outlines of culture underneath it all. Game criticism has to change to grasp and name the art form and the culture within games. Criticism isn’t only about evaluating the thing, it’s also about uncovering and articulating the ideas and values that this thing is build on. Criticism is always driven by the question of why. The answers we find and give, mirror the value and importance we give to board games. Criticism has to change, so that the way we talk about board games matches the value we put on them, and the importance they have for us.