I love quality criticism. I started watching reviews of games to learn about games I don't have the time or money to play, but I follow a number of reviewers simply because I enjoy the quality of their criticism. Good playtesters give me the same feeling as good reviewers with one exception: now the high quality critique means I have work to do making my game better. When playtesting for specific feedback, one playtester who understands the core of your game and wants to see the gameplay match the potential of the design is worth more than a hundred playtesters who think your game is fun. I don't always love receiving criticism, but I do love a good critique.
In my Design Practicum series, I have looked at each game a little differently. The purpose of that series is to illustrate how the design principles I write about in my other posts can be deployed when analyzing published games. In other words, I want a record in this blog of how I think about actual games and not only about game design principles. In my most recent practicum, a look at Monopoly, I made a list of criteria in order to organize my thoughts about the game. In this post, I wanted to look at that list of criteria and why I think good criticism incorporates all the categories on the list.
Here's the list: quality, quantity, composition, dynamics, meta, and innovation. I didn't discuss innovation in my Monopoly post because what was innovative about the game now falls under history and not innovation. This list contains what I think should be covered by in-depth reviews of published games. Obviously, prototypes should not be judged by their art or components in the same fashion. But I do think that playtesters who understand the purpose of quality criticism become better playtesters.
Games are a form of entertainment that cost money. I think it is perfectly reasonable to begin a critique with the quality of a game. Quality should encompass components, but also writing, editing, art, graphics, and even packaging. Each part impacts the experience of the game. And on the whole, I think the hobby- reviewers, designers, and consumers- are aware that all of these elements matter.
Quantity comes after quality because quantity includes price point, and you cannot talk about pricing until you've established whether the game's quality should command a high or low price. Quantity also includes size of components and packaging, game length, number of players, number of components. Basically, anything with a number attached to it. These numbers matter in comparison to the price point but also in comparison to the average size of a dining room table or a Kallax shelf. In other words, is the physical existence of the game an impediment to its playability?
Composition is where we intersect most with the principles of design: unity, emphasis, scale, balance, rhythm, and mood. All of these principles are elements of composition. In addition, composition looks at how components, rules, mechanics, and theme interact and align, how their quality and quantity affect the experience of play, and whether any simple changes could have reduced friction between these elements for players. I don't expect reviewers to use the same language I do, but good critiques should cover the totality of game composition, not just if the mechanics work.
I include players' reaction to gameplay in dynamics as well as emergent strategies and players' interactions with each other. Also in this category is whether a game feels competitive throughout, whether it fits the weight it's marketed as (family, gateway, strategy, etc), and whether the game will continue to be interesting over multiple plays. Composition is about a game's relationship with itself; dynamics is about a game's relationship with the players.
Meta-critique is the most underrepresented criteria in reviews that I see. Meta looks at how the game relates to the world outside of the game. This category looks at trends in game design and publishing, initiatives to grow the hobby, and the ethics around what sort of stories we tell in games. This category includes discussion of colonialism, diverse representation, and appropriation, as well as overused themes or mechanics, accessibility, and distribution models. My favorite reviewers are those that sprinkle in a healthy dose of meta to their reviews. This is the category that elevates a book review to literary criticism or a movie review to a masterclass in film studies. Games need this level of criticism to help legitimize the art form. I fully admit that not every review needs to look this deeply at a game. Most reviews are about helping consumers choose how to spend their money. But we need this level of critique as well. Higher level critique serves to educate the most engaged consumers and also holds designers and publishers accountable for the cultural impacts of their games. As a designer, I both want and need high quality critique from playtesters, publishers, and reviewers in order to become aware of my blind spots to my own designs. Currently, the games that get this level of critique are games that are complex, expensive, popular, or some combination of the three. There has been a recent push to review smaller, cheaper games this year in as much depth as the heavier games, which I hope continues. I believe that broadening and deepening critique of games will require a shift in how publishers and consumers think of games, not just reviewers. The number one thing I would like to see is designer's notes in every (or most every) game. By putting forward the idea that all hobby games are worthy of considering on a deeper level, publishers would effectively invite reviewers and consumers to consider their games as the art form that they are.
I list innovation last because the hook of a game should always appear in the conclusion. Innovation covers whatever feels fresh or new about a game. Innovation is always a hook and most hooks feel innovative (whether they historically are or not). This category includes themes, mechanics, components, etc, but also dynamics, story-telling, and overall experience. Perfecting any aspect of a game can be considered innovative, even if you aren't inventing something whole cloth. Put another way, doing something for the first time and doing something well for the first time are both innovative. Let's stop pretending popular games aren't innovative because they didn't invent their mechanics. The first game to make a mechanic fun (or thematic) is just as innovative as the game that debuted the mechanic. Both are difficult design challenges and should be celebrated.
Game design is art and criticism of art is necessary in order to one day write an accurate history of a particular art form. Good criticism educates consumers and holds designers and publishers accountable for their design choices. Good criticism leads to better games, a healthy hobby, and a future where board games (and other game genres) are accepted as the art they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment