Right to Reply - When Reviews are "Wrong"

Just the words you used imply gatekeeping: "You can't XXX if you don't XXX."

Do you see the difference between "You can't be an effective reviewer if you haven't played Magic" and "An effective reviewer has a broad knowledge of games"?

The game universe is so wide and disparate that its ludicrous to state "if you haven't played MAGIC you're not qualified". There are dozens of genres ; SOME may benefit immensely from an understanding of MAGIC. But explain how it would help a review of say a DOAM game ? Or a hex and counter wargame ? I think a more appropriate statement is that a reviewer should be able to place a review subject within the context of other games in that particular genre and/or subject matter. If you're gonna review an 18XX game, you damn well better know that genre. If you're gonna review a game on the Battle of Waterloo, you better know both the history as well as other seminal games on the subject at that particular scale.

Msample wrote: I think a more appropriate statement is that a reviewer should be able to place a review subject within the context of other games in that particular genre and/or subject matter.

I think this last quoted sentence is key and what is being argued over is how seminal Magic and D&D are to the genre and subfields.

Criticism in the art world yields us the field of art history. A throughline can be drawn from paintings in caves to modern art because experts study this rigorously and build that history. The influence of artistic movements on future movements can be mapped out because we treat the criticism of art seriously and not as product reviews.

We can have an argument as to whether or not that's worth doing in a commercial hobby but the truth is we do it for cinema which has a commercial motivation, and even "true art" is fundamentally commercial when done on a patronage model.

So to answer your questions about how Magic influences DOAM games? I don't know so categorically but I can easily imagine how the concepts of variable, asymmetric powers informed the designs of modern DOAM games. As could the concepts of board control -> area control. Perhaps wargames have a separate, parallel lineage tracing back to abstracts more directly than D&D and Magic but I could imagine the spatial elements of D&D may have influenced modern wargame designs. Or maybe hex and counter games pre-date D&D and informed Gygax in his designs.

I'm not an expert and kind of making the above up but that supports my point - if we believe there is a cultural value in boardgames it'd be great if we had a nice body of work to cite and understand those relationships and that body of work would rely on insightful criticism from people that can at least put modern works into a historical context. I'm not sure if playing the games is strictly necessary but at a minimum, having a deep understanding of the influence of those games should be.

Edit: As an example of someone doing this in another medium and to demonstrate that this doesn't need to be a navel gazing, academic endeavour I'll present this Canadian series called the Ongoing History of New Music: pod.casts.io/podcasts/ongoing-history-of-new-music . The podcast feed has cut-down/edited the music for licensing reasons but it's still a great listen. The host is very knowledgeable about music and its history and can spin stories about the connections between people, places, bands and songs. He's able to put this together because he knows his history.

Greg Aleknevicus wrote:

You can't accurately translate French if you don't know German.

I'm not asking anything akin to learning another language. I'm asking critics to have experience with the most influential works of their field.

To me, Magic and D&D are to board games what Shakespeare is to English literature or The Beatles are to pop music. Even more important, even. They not only have reshaped the whole medium on an artistic level, they have been a massive influence both culturally and economically. For decades, the entire industry was supported by these games. And you can see their influence everywhere.

I think it's important to play games like Settlers of Catan, Risk, Scrabble, Call of Chutlhu or Cosmic Encounter. But Magic and D&D are another whole level, I think they are too vital to the whole art form to be skipped. And that's not gatekeeping or being elitist, that's simply me being respectful of my position as a critic. If I believe games matter, and their history does too, how can I not extend that responsability to myself? If I can tell Elizabeth Hergrave and Eric Lang that some of their games aren't good, I better point some of that edge to myself.

Even then, what I'm getting at is simply that the dominant critics in gaming, be it digital or cardboard, have a weak grasp on the history of their own medium. Standards are very low and that harms everyone involved, from our audience to the critics themselves. And I don't think that's "gatekeeping" or being elitist, or anything of the sort. Something as simple as telling others what an eurogame is or how kickstarter has impacted the hobby will require knowing about this stuff.

I know I'm a little late to the party on TDT/Vasel bit, but he isn't a reviewer, he's an influencer. We just don't see it too easily because we aren't teenagers absorbing influencer content constantly.

One of my employees is a food influencer. He gets free samples and massive discounts to restaurants here in town. Just this Friday I got a free spicy chicken wing from him.

No difference between the two. Vasel was just an early influencer before the market matured into what it is.

Erik Twice wrote:
To me, Magic and D&D are to board games what Shakespeare is to English literature or The Beatles are to pop music. Even more important, even. They not only have reshaped the whole medium on an artistic level, they have been a massive influence both culturally and economically. For decades, the entire industry was supported by these games. And you can see their influence everywhere.

"Oh you like music? Tell me about The Beatles or GTFO, idiot." isn't the strong anti-gatekeeping argument you seem to think it is

I don't even know if I'm against "gatekeeping" as it's being described here (coming from a place of knowledge, making informed comparisons), but also is it even gatekeeping if you're not actually trying to keep the gate? Nobody's out there trying to point out "the bad reviewers", we're just ignoring those in favor of finding good ones. If anything it's more like "personal curation".

A game reviewer should at least be familiar with the type of game that they are reviewing. A reviewer that hadn't played Magic or any other CCG is probably unprepared to write a useful review of Keyforge.

mtagge, that is an excellent distinction between influencer and reviewer. Anybody can express an opinion. An competent influencer expresses a biased and compensated opinion intended to sway consumers to try the product or service. A critic is supposed to approach the subject matter with an informed neutrality, to be able to evaluate a work within the context of past and current trends within the medium, as well as identify the good and bad qualities of the subject. A product reviewer maybe doesn't need that historical context, but needs to at least offer enough information for a given consumer to decide if they might want that product.

For me, the worth of an article/review/analysis is based almost entirely upon the quality of that article. If the points made are valid and true, what difference do the author's credentials make?

"Gee, this review of Napoleon at Waterloo raises some interesting questions regarding Wellington's historical tactics, but the author has never played Dungeons and Dragons so can it really be that insightful?"

It's essentially an ad hominem -- attacking the person rather than the position.

Shellhead wrote: A game reviewer should at least be familiar with the type of game that they are reviewing. A reviewer that hadn't played Magic or any other CCG is probably unprepared to write a useful review of Keyforge.

I think this is where I come down. I don’t think someone should be disqualified from being a jazz critic if they don’t also have familiarity with Indian raga or traditional Austrian polka styles. Sure, it would be better if they did, but music is so broad that it’s not very realistic.

I think games are basically getting to that point, especially over the last 20 years as the hobby has exploded. There’s too much content, too much diversity, and it would take all your time just to play everything in even a narrow niche like minis or legacy games. As long as people know their lane and stay in it, I don’t see much room to complain.

20-30 years ago, I would have agreed with Eric. Back then there was not really enough content; why wouldn’t you play MtG or D&D? And I think it’s an issue if people today portray themselves as an expert on “GAMES” generally. In that case, I’d expect that they’ve played the most popular titles at least a few times.

Greg Aleknevicus wrote: For me, the worth of an article/review/analysis is based almost entirely upon the quality of that article. If the points made are valid and true, what difference do the author's credentials make?

If I give you the correct diagnosis, does it matter if I don't have a medical license?

At the end of the toy, a critic who knows little of his field isn't going to many make "valid and true" points about it. Insight cannot be born out of ignorance. And there's a real cultural cost to that.

Greg Aleknevicus wrote: "Gee, this review of Napoleon at Waterloo raises some interesting questions regarding Wellington's historical tactics, but the author has never played Dungeons and Dragons so can it really be that insightful?"

It's essentially an ad hominem -- attacking the person rather than the position.

I'm not discussing any particular review, much less an fictional one written by a critic that somehow makes a living reviewing Napoleon at Waterloo and not titles like Ruins of Arnak, Gloomhaven and 7 Wonders. Rather, I'm discussing critics as a profession that needs a wide knowledge of the medium.

More importantly, critics rely on the trust of their audience. Reviews aren't perfect islands that make irrefutable arguments. You depend on your audience understanding your thoughts, where you come from and why. They need to know you are trustworthy. And it's much harder to trust someone who has no idea about the medium than someone who does. Expertise gives your voice weight.

dysjunct wrote: I don’t think someone should be disqualified from being a jazz critic if they don’t also have familiarity with Indian raga or traditional Austrian polka styles. Sure, it would be better if they did, but music is so broad that it’s not very realistic.

What about Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington? Should jazz critics know about them or is it also gatekeeping to say they should? Honest question.

It seems to me everyone agrees critics should be knowledgeable about their field until it's time to say it out loud. Then it's "gatekeeping".

Erik, you seem to be conflating my point of view to suggest that I don't believe experts have value, but that's not the case at all.

Erik Twice wrote: If I give you the correct diagnosis, does it matter if I don't have a medical license?

If I'm deciding on a course of action (repairing a car, building a house, or diagnosing an ailment as in your example), then I absolutely want the advise of experts and credentials matter very highly indeed.

But that's not what we're talking about -- we're talking about people expressing their opinion about a game. You've stated that such an opinion is unworthy if the author hasn't played Magic: the Gathering. Even if the review is about Terrible Swift Sword (a detailed American Civil War simulation). And that's hogwash.

Erik Twice wrote: What about Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington? Should jazz critics know about them or is it also gatekeeping to say they should? Honest question.

This brings to mind a discussion that circulated through the jazz world upon the release of Ken Burns' documentary about the creation and development of the music over the past century. Burns, as is his wont as a historian, gave an extensive treatment of the past and pretty short shrift to what has emerged in recent years. He also spent a great deal of time on the Swing era (apparently what he felt was a turning point) to the extent that some people thought he didn't spend enough time on the bebop and cool periods, either. Now, Burns is not a music critic. But he's prominent enough as a filmmaker that many are prone to giving weight to his perspective (witness his documentary on the American Civil War as a prime example.) Burns spent a lot of time on both Armstrong and Ellington, but barely mentioned by name anyone who has appeared on the jazz scene since 1970 (and that's despite having Wynton Marsalis as one of his primary studio narrators.) So, it being 2021, I would volley the question back: Is it more important for current jazz critics to know Ellington's career in detail or be able to give a proper appreciation of someone like Kamasi Washington who may be far more relevant to younger listeners?

Continuing in that music vein, would it be important for those jazz critics, whether they revere Ellington or Esperanza Spalding, to have done an extensive study of Creole jug bands or even the baroque Classical style, theorized to be at the root of some of jazz' other influences? I think the point that Greg is making is that you, Erik, think that games like D&D and MTG are the essential pillars of modern gaming and must be experienced by anyone who seeks to have their opinion taken seriously. But he doesn't. And, in truth, a lot of people don't. Just because something is first doesn't mean that it's essential to the understanding of something that has grown and developed over decades (or centuries) since then. As noted, you won't find too many jazz critics who've put in real time in experiencing Telemann, whether they're devotees of Louis Armstrong, Herbie Hancock, or Miles Mosley. Similarly, someone writing about Command and Conquer would be much better served having spent some time with Avalon Hill classics like Panzerblitz, rather than playing any number of German classics like Catan.

You can call yourself a "game critic" and think that the diversity, depth, and breadth of your experience is what validates your opinion. But Greg is just as entitled to call himself a game critic based on his own personal experience which may not match yours at all. One reason for that is because there isn't a professional degree that declares one to be experienced in game criticism (many film and music critics go to film and music school for one reason or another; some do not.) Another reason is because, at the moment, unless they're self-created influencers like Vasel, few people are getting paid for their game criticism (which kind of limits one's ability to term it a profession or aspire to an official declaration of one's CV) and even fewer are getting called on the carpet to declare their bona fides of their personal history in gaming. As with all of these things, it's based on personal preferences of their audience and whether they choose to assign any weight to the opinions expressed by the critic.

You think experience with what you consider to be the founding pillars of the modern scene is essential. But that's you. People going to someone like Greg for a review of Yinsh may not care one bit that he's never tapped a land for mana, but instead care that he can give them some insight into Yinsh and how it compares with other abstracts that have absolutely nothing to do with any color of mana. There are a lot of games out there; some of which draw from Gary Gygax's, Richard Garfield's, and Reiner Knizia's inspiration and many that don't. A few weeks back in another thread, we were talking about the production of games from cultures other than the Euro-Western one. If someone is a fan of Japanese games and begins writing critical assessments of them, is it a failing of theirs that they haven't played Magic? I don't think anyone is in a position to dictate that x, y, and z are the prerequisites to having an opinion about the modern scene, given how large and varied it has become.

Greg Aleknevicus wrote: But that's not what we're talking about -- we're talking about people expressing their opinion about a game.

Not anyone, though. Professional critics. And not ones that review wargames from the 70s but those that are talk about Gloomhaven, The Ruins of Arnak or Marvel Champions. Which, truth to be told, is everyone who is making a living out of it or hopes to be.

Even then, if you think I'm a gatekeeper for asking normal critics to play Magic, I doubt you would think differently if I said wargame critics should play For the People and Advanced Squad Leader.

Jackwraith wrote: I would volley the question back: Is it more important for current jazz critics to know Ellington's career in detail or be able to give a proper appreciation of someone like Kamasi Washington who may be far more relevant to younger listeners?

But you haven't answered the question. Should Jazz critics give Ellington a listen? I think they should and I think game critics should play D&D and Magic. Not know the full history of Gary Gigax or the mana cost of Chimney Imp, but simply play them. Is that gatekeeping?

Keep in mind that, unlike Ellington, Magic and D&D are not dead. They are still around and are more popular than they have ever been. I'm not asking anyone to dust off Die Macher and Traveller. If you care about younger gamers, I think you would do well in playing them.

At the end of the day, I think critics have a responsability to their audience, the games they review and the art form itself. If you disagree with the importance of Magic and D&D, ok, that's fine even if I don't like it. But I believe every critic should spend some time regularly learning about the field and its history. And that's not gatekeeping, even if we disagre on how that should be done.