That said, the comments under the reviews were... like, not all bad. But there were some that adopted this hostile tone. Like, to hell with any examination of this game as something based in these particular political dynamics!
That said, the comments under the reviews were... like, not all bad. But there were some that adopted this hostile tone. Like, to hell with any examination of this game as something based in these particular political dynamics!
Leder are masters of making games with something to say. If you look at John Company or Pax Pamir as just a collection of mechanics, you've missed engaging with it fully. These games mean to teach you something through engagement with the game (or at least express a point of view).
It's why I enjoy your analysis of games and their greater artistic merits and analysis. You and @nopunincluded.com in particular engage with games as a part of a cultural discussion and their impact and intentions art, not just 'game good or game bad'.
What really irks me about this particular kind of "can't you just let games be fun?" commentary is that for some of us thinking about what a game might mean or be trying to say is a huge part of the fun. Thinking about things is fun!
You know... never mind that the game's author had explicitly written about those dynamics. Never mind that his previous work had also been explicitly political, and that as he crafted second editions to his early titles they clarified those stances.
Do you think even that is a necessary defence, though? Like, Death of the Author ought to free us up to view art through lenses that aren't necessarily intentional or ratified by the creator, not because they're 'true' but because those lenses are useful or revelatory.
It's a useful defense, not a necessary one. Barthes' stance on how we interpret authorship was corrective; the default position of literary criticism in his day was to use authorial statements to discern the ultimate meaning of a text. "Death of the Author" isn't some axiom.
Bangarang, Dan. I still distinctly remember my wife pointing out to me that if the other context around a work informs how we think about it, why wouldn’t the author also be a part of that context.
In history, there's this ever-present struggle between originalism and reception, and I always find it useful to remind myself that both theories are valid.
Yes, I know. I'm not wielding it as a self-contained truism in this case, but rather shorthand because this is a shortform medium. I just feel like it's particularly important in a medium where most folk games are literally 'authorless', or rather crowd-authored.
Later, when I wrote about Comancheria, or Eila & Something Shiny, or board games about religion and politics and culture and art and mourning, some readers were supportive and engaged. But there was always a bitter streak, a number of people who saw that brand of critique and spat at it.
This is totally fine. I don't worry much about online spats. I love what I do in and for the hobby. I do think I'm helping board games, in some minor way, to become better.
You are doing an invaluable service and I hope you keep going!
But then, every month or so, somebody comes along and asks, "Why isn't anybody doing this?", and there really isn't anything for it but to roll my eyes a little bit. Because there are people who are trying.
I presume a bit of it is people just not knowing where to look. Especially for someone coming from the rpg world and just finding the most visible boardgame reviewers doing their thing (which I have a lot of respect for, too).
A lot of the discussion also takes place on BGG but filtering the noise even in interesting threads is not for the faint of heart.
Yeah, and I'm undoubtedly at fault there too, since loathing social media, marketing, and the whole SEO game doesn't do me any favors.
Maybe I just need some potassium. Hold on, this banana is calling.