Read on Twitter
There's a specific type of board game review where the reviewer *encourages* you to skim or skip to the end to where they tell you whether they like the game or not.
It's one of the saddest writing styles I've ever seen
It's one of the saddest writing styles I've ever seen
Imagine writing an article you care so little about that you tell people to not read it in the article itself
Review styles like this are a tipoff that your "review" is 90% rules summary anyone can get anywhere (including from the rules) and 10% "I liked it/I didn't like it"
This type of writeup is not so much a review as it is padded content to hit your word count in advance of a game's Kickstarter launch deadline or street date. It's less actual games criticism and more free press release for the publisher
"I liked this game" isn't automatically a game review, even if you wrote 2000 words explaining to me how to play it
Good games writing has a strong and unique writer's voice. It has personality beyond the words strung together in a particular order. I read a review for the writer's voice and their point of view as much (if not more) than about their thoughts on a game
Think of it like good movie criticism. You don't just read the raves, or only the movies you like. Roger Ebert wrote well regardless of whether I liked the movies he wrote about and especially whether *he* liked them
Good movie reviews aren't just plot summaries. Good game reviews aren't just game summaries.
If it sounds like I'm saying that there are only a handful of people writing meaningful games criticism out there, you are correct! Most people are content with Rotten Tomatoes or BGG style evaluation with no there there past the rating
That's because this deeper game criticism I'm talking about is *hard*. And the "feel free to skip my game summary but read my two-sentence thumbs up/down" Mad Lib style is so easy, literally everyone else does it
That's because finding and cultivating your own distinct writing voice IS hard. What I hear when you write is a distillation of your origin story, passions, experience, interests, ethics, and your unique point of view – how you see the world. That takes time and effort and work
And your voice ISN'T just what you write about. It's the prism through which we read or experience those topics. So your voice when you write about games or podcast about movies or tell a bedtime story or give a presentation at work is always there, regardless of format or genre
The reason we see so much criticism in the 90% padding 10% "I liked it" style is that 1) everyone's copying this template that has little room for more in-depth criticism or analysis, and 2) it's also a template that doesn't require writers to have a strong or interesting voice
If you're filling out a form with objective data such as the game's mechanics and gameplay you don't need to have an actual challenging thought in your head other than "I liked it/I didn't." Easy peasy.
Voice is hard because you have to uncover/discover it. You have to train like a musician. Repetition & practice. Soak up everyone else's work. And while finding it you copy other people's writing style too, taking it apart to find out what works and what doesn't.
Things you like you'll emulate. Other people's writing etc. But you have to keep working and eventually you find your own voice and one day it won't just be copying someone else's
You'll uncover your voice like an archaeologist carefully brushing away the dust for years, and finally finding the edges of the priceless artifact and seeing the entire piece.
Another thing about voice: it's a byproduct of who you are as a person. *All of it.* Life experiences, learning, passions, quirks. AND your ethics. Your morals. Your curiosity for the world and your empathy for other people and places and things outside of yourself
If I don't see that in your writing, then you either haven't uncovered your voice, or are willfully keeping it silenced when you write.
Maybe you want your reviews to be true neutral. But that makes them terrible reviews, because you can't divorce who you are from your work
Maybe you want your reviews to be true neutral. But that makes them terrible reviews, because you can't divorce who you are from your work
Don't make the mistake that game reviews are objective, or that they are journalism, or that there is a true unbiased neutral that exists when you write them.
If you believe these things, your piece of writing isn't a review, it's a free press release for a game publisher
If you believe these things, your piece of writing isn't a review, it's a free press release for a game publisher
By "journalism" I meant "reportage." If you treat your game reviews as if you are supposed to be a reporter herding facts together and not take a side, you're writing is mediocre and there's a reason you're telling your readers to skip to the end of your reviews 
The problem with these Mad Lib game summaries passing as "reviews" with no writer's POV or voice is that when they state an opinion it's not reliable. Because you have no sense whatsoever who they are to make such claims
It then becomes a "my opinion is correct" without any context or more personal reasons why a person likes or didn't like something. They treat their opinions about games, other games, mechanics, what to like or not like as canonical instead of just one person's opinion
But if a writer works to find their voice & exhibit it consistently then readers build trust. They expand their idea of the writer's taste & character based on who they are, not what they like. They become a more reliable source of criticism whether you agree or disagree w/them
Back to movie critics: Roger Ebert had a distinct voice. He wrote so well and so personally and with a consistency of voice that *after* volumes of criticism you could glean more from his "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" evaluations
Ebert wasn't just a rando giving drive-by ratings on BGG. He built such a huge body of work that based on that, if you saw his "thumbs up" you might be able to discern if you'd like it too just based off that capsule review. Because you knew him as a person through his voice.
The trust Ebert earned wasn't just through the sheer volume of films he reviewed. It was because of how he reviewed each one along the way.
Board game reviews largely have this backwards. As if the games dictate the reliability or talent level of the reviewers
Board game reviews largely have this backwards. As if the games dictate the reliability or talent level of the reviewers
