The availability of more esoteric, artistic games also makes them harder to experience (As @colewehrle.bsky.social flagged). So inevitably the fundamental human drive to play gives (board) games their reach but likewise also confines the artistic/critical limits of the hobby.
Those mentioned in the thread and others enrich the hobby, innovating concepts and popularising more obscure ones, so I am thankful to have them personally, but I think the drive for a bit of mental stimulation, escapism and a space for social interactions are the main drivers of board gaming.
Of course I think credit is due for big channels like SUSD and TDT etc who have managed to reach a huge audience with critical content around the hobby more broadly
I've always held that one of the fundamental limitations of board games as political art is that they are experiential media that requires the players to play them in order to interpret them. Depending on how that experience goes will likely impact whether the underlying message is conveyed.
And this doesn't mean games can't overcome this limitations; I'm sure plenty of people would be sharpening their knives to refute me. But the limitation exists, and designers (like Cole) have to find ways to use those limitations to also express their underlying message.
Yeah - with paintings for example, if people want to engage with paintings 🖼️ they will likely accept an artistic dimension as a core aspect of that medium. Not so much with games in general. You might beautiful visuals- but their impact beyond aesthetics will often be minimal.
And with a painting the artist has a lot more control because it's a passive medium. The artist can imbue the message whether I get it or not. Board games are a pile of wood, cardboard, and plastic, and never become a thing until you read the rules and put the components together.