What GAME ARTICLES/REVIEWS are you WRITING?

Thanks for sharing here.

edit: just to follow on as I think on it, I think you make a critical point here. The reason that Old Media could operate both an ad supported model and have editorial content is because it strictly adhered to separation between editorial/criticism and other parts of the business. That remains true at reputable outlets today. So I completely agree with you that this is a huge miss in this discussion; the model that people are pointed to was founded on an institutional separation which simply does not exist in board game media.

Gary Sax wrote: Thanks for sharing here.

Thanks to you for reading it and letting me share it here!

I also think there's another key distiction. Traditional media runs ads. But it does not create the ads and it doesn't believe providing those ads is as valuable as the actual content.

Stegmaier is full of shit. There is no confusion on his part; he knows why there is controversy. He writes to stroke his legions of fans/stans. For him to claim his marketing budget is stretched thin while at the same time stroking a $3600 check for a how to play video ? Please. Too many gamers fail to distinguish between critical review and marketing like unboxing videos. Its all the same - it helps them "decide" whether to buy a game.

Great article.

The weird thing about it is that he says he says he's not looking to pay critics but the only reason he gives for it is not having the money to do so.

I don't think he's naïve, no.

He replied in the comments if you are interested in his answer.

I think the weirdest shit is the non-industry regular who have internalized and now support the new order of people "reviewing" those who pay them without any editorial firewall! Stegmeier has a reason to not support that distance. But a normal consumer? Why?

Like to me it sucks, I know why it exists, but it is never going to be a consumer friendly state of affairs... even if I, too, do read and consume paid advertisor content.

Gary Sax wrote: I think the weirdest shit is the non-industry regular who have internalized and now support the new order of people "reviewering" those who pay them without any editorial firewall! Stegmeier has a reason to not support that distance. But a normal consumer? Why?

Like to me it sucks, I know why it exists, but it is never going to be a consumer friendly state of affairs... even if I, too, do read and consume paid advertisor content.

Because it's all they know.

It seems silly, but it's the main reason. Most people who support this culture don't do it out of conviction. They simply see it's what their favourite creators do and it seems fine by them. Most people haven't really thought much about it and if someone they like does it, well, it can't be that wrong is it? After all, The Dice Tower is the largest and most important review outlet in the boardgame industry so it's very normalized.

Talking with the gamers at my club has been quite the learning experience for me. For example, I've realized that most of them had never used criticism before in their lifes. Some have, because they watch movies, but, for many, gaming is the first time they have put effort and time to inform themselves about the medium. Many don't even know that reviews are opinion articles. In fact, one of the controversial parts of my article was the fact that I talked about journalistic ethics and many people on Reddit did not know that reviews are a form of cultural journalism.

I think this really puts into perspective where we stand. My biggest failure as a writer is that I assume everyone knows as much as I do, that they have played the 1981 classic Wizardry and can name all Francis Tresham games in chronological order. And that's not true. So if I want to reach people I need to meet their at their level and help them from there.

I hope this article at least serves for a couple people to see things differently and not just accept the status quo without questioning a few things.

Yeah, I think you're right.

It reminds me in my classes, I was teaching and talking about a work of fiction (I'm a social scientist so it isn't common in my classes) and I had an assignment where they had the option of doing some criticism/analysis of a piece of fiction from a social science perspective. As I talked with them, I had this realization that they literally did not know that it is widely accepted among educated people that it is inherently valuable to analyze and talk about cultural production. It was such a mindblowing realization. I had to tell them in literal words that culture is valuable, and analyzing culture is inherently worthwhile if done well.

I'm not a big humanities person at all but it really shook me up that certain US political elements had been successful in basically denying the inherent value of an entire part of a well-rounded liberal education and passing those values into young people.

Erik Twice wrote: I think this really puts into perspective where we stand. My biggest failure as a writer is that I assume everyone knows as much as I do, that they have played the 1981 classic Wizardry and can name all Francis Tresham games in chronological order. And that's not true. So if I want to reach people I need to meet their at their level and help them from there.

If I am reading something from a reviewer who is new to me, I find it particularly helpful to know what games that person likes. If they say their favorite game is Agricola, I'll probably stop right there. If they say their favorite game is Wiz-War, I will read further.

Gary Sax wrote: I'm not a big humanities person at all but it really shook me up that certain US political elements had been successful in basically denying the inherent value of an entire part of a well-rounded liberal education and passing those values into young people.

When you promote ignorance, you receive obedience.

Gary Sax wrote: I'm not a big humanities person at all but it really shook me up that certain US political elements had been successful in basically denying the inherent value of an entire part of a well-rounded liberal education and passing those values into young people.

I suspect that more so than a political angle, this is driven by people's expectations around what they're supposed to get out of a university degree. The perception of what university should provide has transformed from a place where you got an education and learned how to learn into one where you're expected to get white collar job training. Anything not applicable to your intended field of employment is seen as a distraction by students and I don't think that cleaves neatly along political fault lines. At least that was my perspective when I was in university, you're closer to students than I am these days!

I'll concede that I hadn't heard the term cultural journalism before reading that Reddit thread but the fact that most people think media criticism isn't a valid exercise doesn't surprise me in the least. Most people don't think anything is worth examining critically. How many people roll their eyes during high school Literature classes and dismiss any deeper reading of a work beyond the superficial as a waste of time? How many struggle to articulate the theme of a novel after reading it and dissecting it for weeks in class? Those people haven't grown out of that attitude and it is actually reinforced by the cynical approach to life that permeates all aspects of our culture.

One of my favourite things to do after experiencing a piece of media (book, play, movie, board game, etc.) is to read the reviews of it, often because they reinforce the things I observed with additional perspective and expose me to the things that I didn't catch. By drawing connections to other pieces of work within and across mediums reviewers provide a lot of utility to me in terms of digesting what I consumed and often point me towards something I should look into next; but not because that thing is being sold to me in the review.

The weird part is that board gamers do enjoy analysing things. If a company leaves a vague hint then fans will be able to tease that apart and construct the next year's product release schedule in minutes. Harnessing that energy and focusing it inwards would be beneficial for the industry and the individuals.

I've become a bit obsessed with the war in Afghanistan lately. It pushed me into finding a copy of A Distant Plain. I played it twice with the same group last weekend.

I've organized some thoughts on the game and the war itself: playerelimination.com/2021/09/28/adp/

Great article, Charlie. I have never tried a COIN game. I think Fire in the Lake sounds cool. Tell me... speaking from just a game perspective, ignoring the historical aspects. Do these games seem like Dune, with a bunch of very asymmetric player powers?

I already have Dune, and it might as well be glued to my shelf.

It feels like Dune in a broad sense, but not particularly when you drill down even slightly.

COIN is first and foremost a historical political area control game. The historical aspect is significantly defined (although not entirely) by the event deck. The way you perform activations in COIN is unique and perhaps very vaguely reminiscent of the decision space of Twilight Struggle in terms of executing action points - sorta - or a specific prescribed event.

There is negotiation but there are no hard alliances outside of what the game provides at the outset.

The area control aspect is also not zero sum as it is in Dune. In Fire in tbe Lake, the US for instance competes for the people's support directly with the Vietcong, but they only care directly about controlling areas in order to facilitate actions to gain that support.

The ARVN faction, allied with the US, cares about actually controlling area for their win condition. As does the North Vietnamese Army.

Faction interplay via victory conditions and action synergies vary COIN to COIN

It's more Euro than Dune as well as combat is not dramatic and area control is via majority.

COIN is very much its own thing.

Am I the only one who didn't know that Erik Twice is completely hot?

As long as the culture of boardgames puts publishers over players, we won’t be free to explore all the medium has to offer. Difficult, but interesting topics such as the role of sex and violence in gaming, the employment conditions of game developers or the social messages sent by different settings and mechanics are out of the question.

This was the epiphany for me personally in what you wrote, and very well stated. There’s a level of taboo subject matter regardless of the title being discussed when money comes into the picture. This can be particularly detrimental to the writer’s cash stream, as it’s more personal.

Years back there was a comment from that guy from Watch It Played. I can never remember his name. It boiled down to (and Jamie touched on this, bringing it back to mind) this - “who is going to pay him if not the publishers?” In short, he deserves to get paid for his hours and his talent. Well, if nobody is willing to pay you for your work, it’s probably not very valuable, and you should consider it a hobby, not a job. Nobody owes you that money because you’ve decided to make a go of critiquing games. And if somebody IS paying you, it’s very likely they want to get value for their money. That’s why they feel they pay you for your work.