What GAME ARTICLES/REVIEWS are you WRITING?

charlest wrote: COIN is very much its own thing.

COIN is like “train game”. It really is its own genre.

charlest wrote: 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/

That's an excellent piece of writing, Charlie.

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

Wait, I am? I knew my round red face was cute but I never thought I would be hot. But thank you, I appreciate it =P

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.

Thank you Sag, I'm glad it resonated with you.

I often feel like boardgames culture is very fearful. I often come across small taboos, like comparing games directly to each other or pointing out balance problems. There's this idea that talking about things is going to ruin the happy world of boardgames or that you are "yucking another's yum" if you do so. On Twitter, I've seen several publishers and designers talk about how you should not say a game is bad but that it's "not for you" and how you should use subjective language because being objective in your writing is more "hurtful".

It's actually a point of contention with my articles. I ocasionally get comments on how I shouldn't think negatively of, say, a lack of interaction or needless miniatures or a broken card because others like it, as if people liking them put all games beyond reproach. My article on memorization got a massive pushback because people felt I was taking away a crucial advantage they had. It's all very narrow-minded and uncritical.

hotseatgames wrote: 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.

I would say they are not like Dune but they were massively influenced by it. If you have played Root, it's not far off from being "eurogame COIN".

A shame you are far or I would invite you to play Dune. Everyone should play more Dune.

I agree with you here Erik. If you aren't making your opinion clear in a review then why are you even a critic? I hate that push for equivocation in certain parts of the critical community. My favourite critics have really strong opinions on their subject of choice. I go to them because of that. I agree and disagree with them. I learn what they like and why they like it.

If I dislike a game I am going to say why. I hopefully have given a reader enough information in the review to decide if they want to get a copy anyway.

Sagrilarus wrote: Well, if nobody is paying 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.

I don't completely agree with this.

I do agree a reviewer/critic should take no money or compensation from publishers. I do agree no one owes any content creator money.

But to say work that is not being payed for is not very valuable is far from truthful in my eyes. I'm a believer in capitalism in a broad sense, but I also think it's naive to think there are no failures of the market.

The monetization of online content is a strong display of a market failure in my opinion. The advertising model has shaped content in a very negative way.

One clear example of why I think your statement is wrong Sag is if you look at YouTube. If someone was creating videos prior to YouTube offering monetization and later was able to make money off that same work, how could you argue the intrinsic value of the content changed.

You can extend these thoughts to things like donations or paid subscribers. Users are conditioned to scoff at paying for content like a podcast or video, some of which could have a great positive effect on their lives if we're talking about stuff outside of games as well, but they will happily pay $4 for a cup of coffee.

charlest wrote: One clear example of why I think your statement is wrong Sag is if you look at YouTube. If someone was creating videos prior to YouTube offering monetization and later was able to make money off that same work, how could you argue the intrinsic value of the content changed.

It didn't. It was valuable originally, just not monetized. It is possible to give valuable things away for free.

charlest wrote: You can extend these thoughts to things like donations or paid subscribers. Users are conditioned to scoff at paying for content like a podcast or video, some of which could have a great positive effect on their lives if we're talking about stuff outside of games as well, but they will happily pay $4 for a cup of coffee.

I can't vouch for the ways people spend their money, because, frankly, I think you're all insane with how much stuff you buy and how much you spend on it. I'm a miserly old man.

That said, people were "conditioned" to not pay for things (a loaded term introduced my the music industry in their draconian lawsuits on piracy) because the original publisher was charging an absurd amount for the product and gray-market copies were available for free. There was no middle ground. When a fair price was charged, even after the conditioning, people purchased. They made relatively rational decisions when options were available. Basic economics -- price to generate the most revenue based on cost per unit and units moved. The music industry was charging five dollars for ring tones. Everyone told them to fuck off for a reason. The gray market appeared for a reason.

Coming back to the subject on hand, what's-his-name from Watch It Played more or less said, "you guys won't pay me, and I deserve to do this for a living. You're all deadbeats, that's why I'm going to the publishers. It's not my fault." Well, gosh, I'd like to get paid for hiking in the woods. Should I start up a subscription service? If you want to do Morris dancing for a living don't expect to get paid well.

In his particular case (and this is in his defense) his core business is doing explanation videos and you can argue that's a service to the publisher because it makes their games more accessible. The proper person is paying. But the minute editorial content comes into the picture, he's neck deep in dirty. Since he's his own brand and doesn't speak to the affiliation, he's muddying his reputation. He'd do better to start his how-to videos with, "hey! this is Tom for Fantasy Flight Games and I'm here to show you how to play Android!" At that point he's in the clear. And frankly, if I was him I would tend to that core business and keep the editorial content out of the picture to maintain his brand. The minute you try to walk down the middle of the street you get hit. Pick a side.

Sagrilarus wrote:

charlest wrote: One clear example of why I think your statement is wrong Sag is if you look at YouTube. If someone was creating videos prior to YouTube offering monetization and later was able to make money off that same work, how could you argue the intrinsic value of the content changed.

It didn't. It was valuable originally, just not monetized.

Yes, that was my main point, and this contradicts the statement that something is not valuable if people aren't paying for it.

I don't disagree with anything else you're saying really.

charlest wrote: Yes, that was my main point, and this contradicts the statement that something is not valuable if people aren't paying for it.

I don't disagree with anything else you're saying really.

That wasn't my intention if I said that. It's about if people are willing to pay for it when a fee is requested.

Edit -- corrected where I misspoke one page back.

I misunderstood. Apologies.

I just reached an incredible milestone. I've now written my 100th article for my blog! And it's a review of The Republic of Rome which I know all the good Ameritrashers love:

The Republic of Rome ★★★★★

I never imagined I would write so much, much less that so many people would read it!

Erik Twice wrote: I just reached an incredible milestone. I've now written my 100th article for my blog! And it's a review of The Republic of Rome which I know all the good Ameritrashers love:

The Republic of Rome ★★★★★

I never imagined I would write so much, much less that so many people would read it!

I'll have to give that a read later. I keep pushing things around and scratching my head over the game.

I haven't posted anything I've reviewed here, as I didn't want to just turn up and start unpacking my luggage. Is there an etiquette, or someone's permission I should get first?

(Although, having seen Barnes list on Twitter the other day, I'm aware of at least one sin in my writing - I do tend to put way too many words down. I've just reviewed Resident Evil 2, and it came in at 6000+ words. And they're not all puns.)

This is exactly where to post what you've been writing, repairmanjack.

repairmanjack wrote: I'll have to give that a read later. I keep pushing things around and scratching my head over the game.

I know you often play games solo so I'm not sure if would help much. The solo variant doesn't resemble the normal game much. I don't recommend it much, though. I've always found it a bit baffling as the game is so unsuited to solo play.

Either way, feel free to post just anything you find interesting here, I would love to check it and discuss it too.

Although, having seen Barnes list on Twitter the other day, I'm aware of at least one sin in my writing - I do tend to put way too many words down. I've just reviewed Resident Evil 2, and it came in at 6000+ words. And they're not all puns.

While he was harsh, I do agree that going over 2000 words is a common sign something went wrong in the writing process. Something that has helped me to realize how much it is is to put it into pages. 2000 words take about 7 full pages of space before pictures come in. That's a lot, you can probably read a whole section of a newspaper in that time.

I also struggled with this so here's what helped me:

1) Cut anything that wouldn't help someone that hasn't played the game: Reviews are meant to introduce people to a game. If they have already played it, they do not need a review.

2) Divide the article into several pieces: For example, you can write a review that explains the game in simpler terms and then pen an in-depth analysis of a mechanic or the themes of a game. It's not necessary to cover everything in a review.

3) Dump anything that is not strictly necessary like components, miniatures, technically precise rule explanations and so on. All that eats valuable space and is almost never necessary. I always think it's going to be important only to realize nobody cares. For example, I saved a whole paragraph by not explaining how death chit pulls work in The Republic of Rome. Nobody actually needs to know that.

4) Agressively cut any line or minor point that doesn't introduce information. This can be hard to spot but actually takes a massive amount of space without giving you anything in return. Any rethorical devices, wordy explanations and redundant introductory text can be eliminated without losing anything at all. "Let's give it a look", repeating similar adjectives like "It's a beautiful, pretty and very well illustrated", and instances of "very", "a lot", "much" are common issues I've had. I actually think my review of The Republic of Rome suffers a bit from this.

For example:

"More importantly, I believe its victory conditions aren’t strong enough to withstand the force of its other mechanics. "

Could be turned into a sentence with seven fewer words:

"Its victory conditions can't withstand the force of the other mechanics"


I'm lucky enough to have an editor with years and years of experience looking at my stuff. Frankly, the main reason my articles are much shorter than average is that she looks over my articles and tells me when I'm dozing off the track. My reviews are about 1000 words long and I've actually gone up intentionally because better writing has allowed me to cover more ground.

--

In other news, Marc from The Thoughtful Gamer thought about replicating the famous Sight & Sound, which lists the best movies as voted by both directors and critics, but for board games. It's still a small project but it was fun and I participated:

Card and Dice Poll

If you've been writing for a year or more, you should all participate. Otherwise, Scythe will appear on the list again. Do you want Scythe to win? No? Then sign up! I think it's a good initiative and it would be cool to see a wider number of voters next year.

Reviews are meant to introduce people to a game. If they have already played it, they do not need a review.

This could be an entire discussion topic.

I'm not sure if you'd make a distinction for different types of media, but I believe studies have shown that the majority of people consuming film reviews have already seen the movie. People tend to use Rotten Tomatoes scores instead of actually reading reviews if they haven't seen the film in order to avoid spoilers.

From my experience, I'd wager it's close to 50/50 when it comes to tabletop games. Although the specific audience that frequents the site/publication you're writing for has a large bearing on this.