Bernward Thole: Umrisse einer Spielekritik
“Games criticism must rethink its self-understanding,” demanded Bernward Thole in 1992 in his article “Umrisse einer Spielekritik”. Thole’s critique of games criticism is still cited and discussed today. We are documenting the original text.
Dossier Spielejournalismus
This article is part of the Dossier Spielejournalismus. In the dossier, we document selected events, contributions and discussions from the history of games journalism.
Bernward Thole
Bernward Thole was born in 1936. He was a media scholar, games critic and founder and director of the Deutsches Spiele-Archiv. He was a founding member of the Spiel des Jahres jury. From 1978 to 1994, he was the 1st chairman of the association, and from 1994 to 2000, the deputy chairman. He began writing games criticism in 1973 in Die Zeit; afterwards, he wrote games columns for, among others, the Frankfurter Rundschau, the Hessisch-Niedersächsische Allgemeine and the Oberhessische Presse. Thole died in 2023. Our interview with Thole can be found here.
Contents
| 1. The cultural asset of games as a subject of criticism |
|---|
| Games as a historically evolved cultural asset |
| Development in the post-war period |
| 3. The foundations of games criticism |
|---|
| Distinction from the “game test” |
| Insight into the score-like nature of games |
| Distinction from pedagogy |
| Plea for more boundary-crossing |
| 4. The craft of games criticism |
|---|
| Assessment of the game idea |
| Analysis of rule design |
| Assessment of layout and design |
| Conveying the verdict |
Article
Almost thirty years ago, Eugen Oker gave the starting signal in the respected weekly newspaper “Die Zeit”: under the programmatic headline Dem homo ludens eine Gasse, he began in autumn 1964 to review games with commitment and expertise. He did so with complete naturalness, just as other critics, a few pages earlier, discussed books, records and other cultural products with and in the broad public. Eugen Oker thus laid the foundations for the development of a broad games criticism of its own in this century.
After the years of upheaval and the years of establishment, the time has come to attempt a stock-taking and a positioning. Not with the intention of leaning back, satisfied and content with what has been achieved, but to exercise criticism of our own work and in this way gain important impulses for the coming years. It is necessary to reconsider the previous development and the critical tools, and at the same time to clarify the tasks for a genuine games criticism of the future.
1. The cultural asset of games as a subject of criticism
Games in the sense of rule-based, material-dependent board and table games are among the oldest cultural expressions of humanity, older than all ideas and laws recorded in written form and almost as old as the earliest pictorial representations. Over the centuries, every era, every social class and every age has developed specific and often fashion-driven forms and variations. To capture all of them and document them with game boards and rules would certainly fill several bookshelves.
By their origin and nature, however, games are not instruments of education, as some educators today would have us believe. Toys and games: in the commercial structure of the 19th and 20th centuries, they appear mixed together. Historically, however, they probably went their own separate ways before that. Board games for children from earlier times? Is it really a heretical thought that board games for children are only a product of the last 150 years of game development? Family gaming together – when did that start?
Games as a historically evolved cultural asset
From early times onwards, these games were by no means child’s play, but rather a cultural activity for adults, closely linked to other cultural techniques, particularly mathematics, architecture and the art of war, as well as religious and mythological ideas. The finds around the graves of the priest-kings of Ur are a telling testament to this. Tracing this history would certainly be a very appealing task. A cultural and social history of games remains, unfortunately, a desideratum to this day.
Adult humans, as much can be established at first glance, have invented games over the centuries as a challenge to the mind, as a training tool for the little grey cells. Playfully, they explore the laws of chance and those of regularity. In games, they also find relaxation through tension, as well as sociability, interaction and communication.
Every country on Earth has developed its own gaming history over the centuries and millennia. In this respect, games are remarkably ambivalent. On the one hand, they are strongly tied to regions, as can easily be shown with certain card games, such as Binokel and Gaigel. At the same time, games are also a medium that transcends national and continental borders. They are carried from continent to continent via trade routes and military roads. Today, this is even accelerated by internationally linked marketing channels.
Development in the post-war period
⬆️ back to the table of contents
World War II brought a deep rupture to German gaming history, one that cannot be found in this form in other cultural regions. The post-war period marked the start of a radical, almost alarming anti-gaming era. Its deepest roots probably lay in the fascist regime of the Third Reich, when games were ruthlessly pressed into the service of ideology, thereby being distorted and corrupted. In the post-war period, the time of reconstruction, people had other things on their minds than “playing, of all things”. Games were suddenly assigned solely to children and at the same time dismissed as childish and even inferior. Games suddenly gained a negative image. Adults in the 1950s and early 1960s did not play; it was simply considered a waste of time. Only a few classic and above all down-to-earth games held their ground, ones that ordinary people refused to give up: Skat, Nine Men’s Morris, draughts, chess.
Educational science internalised these ideas and also provided the corresponding theoretical framework. According to this, games only have significance for children in their first two developmental stages. With the onset of puberty, the gaming phase is over. The exclusive seriousness of life begins, it is no longer played, now it is time to learn for life. And so, in the educational game phase at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s, things went so far that even children were only allowed to play when it was clearly recognisable that learning intentions and, if possible, controllable and regulatable learning effects were also involved.
But children increasingly refused, rejecting these pedagogically authorised, pedagogically manipulated game offerings. As if they knew what their parents had meanwhile forgotten: that playing is always learning at the same time, but only where it can develop freely. Playing is, after all, a highly spiritual process and cannot be switched on and off like a lamp according to need.
In the mid-1960s, the long-suppressed urge to play finally broke free in a very elemental way and demanded its rights. Men and women slowly began to play again. And as the gaming behaviour of adults relaxed, a more natural attitude towards children’s play also developed.
Well-crafted and reputable games initially made it easier for adults to return to the gaming table. From America came the legendary 3M games, high-calibre tactical and strategic thinking games, as well as fascinatingly presented sports games. In collector circles, they now fetch fantastic prices. German manufacturers joined in. A flood of new releases overwhelmed the market. The media began to speak of the great, astonishing gaming wave sweeping across the country.
Traditional board and table games suddenly became popular again in a way that can only be astonishing. Not even the first wave of electronic games at the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s could stop this. Production increased, more and more games were invented in the country or imported from abroad, and new trends constantly provided fresh gaming material. In the field of pre-school and primary school games, the new cooperative games were making a name for themselves. Fantasy role-playing games, following Tolkien and Michael Ende, swept over from America and, with their above- and underground demon worlds, mostly captivated young people. The wave of crime and spy games. The wave of new economic games. And then there was the still ongoing quiz, guessing and self-discovery game wave following the legendary Trivial Pursuit with its stunning questions ranging from the most trivial to the most nonsensical. The flood of new releases is almost impossible to keep track of.
Anyone asking about the reasons for this enormous renaissance of the ancient form of board and card games in our technological age is quickly given ready-made answers. People talk about increased leisure time, greater financial means. But also about TV fatigue and the desire for sociable entertainment, human interaction and the experience of shared gaming fun. And yet, many remain somewhat puzzled by all this unbridled enthusiasm for playing. But weren’t historically restless times, times of enlightenment, always particularly playful times?
In any case, the long-suppressed enthusiasm for gaming and the enormous flood of new game titles released onto the market every year soon led to calls for critical review and guidance. It was the hour of the birth of game criticism. The fact that it led to an extremely broad review culture in Germany may be precisely connected to the country’s recent gaming history, outlined only briefly here – namely the long-suppressed urge to play and its almost eruptive liberation.
2. Game criticism as a level of reflection
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Game criticism is today a distinct and independent field of engagement with games, where critical interpretation, reflection and analytical evaluation take centre stage. It primarily refers to individual game reviews, i.e. the appropriate public assessment of game productions, with the individual game usually at the heart of the discussion. It mainly focuses on contemporary game production but also draws on past releases for comparison.
At the same time, the term “game criticism” now also refers to an institution within the gaming public that helps shape events in the gaming scene and, beyond that, the gaming conditions of a country in general. In this sense, game criticism can be defined overall as the public communication about games that makes the presentation and evaluation of productions in this area of entertainment culture its concern.
The game critic thus creates a public sphere, laying the foundation for broad publicity for games and a lively scene in the field of gaming. They create a kind of publicity that neither the author nor the publisher themselves can achieve. They spark discussions, even if they may be mistaken in their judgement.
If they take their task seriously, they incorporate criteria from general cultural and art criticism into their work, as well as research from applied sciences such as education, philosophy, cultural and social history, psychology and mathematics, to name just a few examples. Game criticism understood in this way gains its own dimension compared to other institutions that also engage with games and gaming.
Whether games criticism is exclusively a child of the 20th century is a question that warrants investigation. Anyone who reads the rich literary references in Zedler’s ‘Universal-Lexikon’ attentively will already suspect that a history of games criticism could certainly find material here. Critical engagements with chess, with the fashionable game of billiards, which occupied philosophers of rank to an extraordinary degree – all these are starting points that would certainly be worth pursuing.
Blüte der Spielekritik
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Nevertheless, it must be noted that games criticism, in the broad sense we have today, is indeed a child of the new wave of games, which is unprecedented in the history of gaming. It began in the mid-1960s and has experienced remarkable growth in the last ten years.
The opening of a dedicated column for games, particularly games for adults, by Eugen Oker in the autumn of 1964 in the leading German weekly newspaper ‘Die Zeit’ was an entirely new development in the German-speaking press. And the venue, the very newspaper, gave the whole thing a special significance and public impact.
With his reviews in ‘Die Zeit’ and later in the ‘Frankfurter Rundschau’, Oker founded modern games criticism, for there was nothing comparable at that time either in Germany or in other countries. And as a games critic, he sparked a movement in which adult people, equipped with a sharp mind and an exceptionally lively imagination, rediscovered the exciting world of gaming and games for themselves, their families and their circle of friends.
Very soon, other daily newspapers followed this example. Following the model of the weekly newspaper ‘Die Zeit’ and the ‘Frankfurter Rundschau’, more and more games columns were established. There were 18 newspapers last year, and their number continues to grow: games magazines, both professional and enthusiastically produced by amateurs, abound in the newly awakened gaming landscape. A superficial count reveals: at least 15 magazines dedicated to different facets of gaming now find their readers here. The number of radio and television features on the subject is also rising. Here and there, more and more specialist journalists report in a relaxed, entertaining way on new offerings for the homo ludens, to an audience that now numbers in the millions.
This broad basis for games reviews is certainly unparalleled in the world. The German-speaking region has undoubtedly initiated its own development here, which is beginning to radiate outward. In Sweden, for example, two years ago, specialist journalists led by Bengt Wennerberg joined forces and, following the model of the German critics’ award ‘Spiel des Jahres’, launched their own games award to the public. In the USA, too, people are studying the committed German-speaking specialist journalism and seeking their own ways to critically review the country’s games offerings.
Self-understanding of games criticism
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Let’s take a look over the fence at literary criticism. The renowned literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki sets out the following demands for his own profession:
‘The critic should sift and organise, clarify and evaluate, polemicise and postulate. They must engage in an ongoing dialogue. They discuss with the author and converse with the audience. They never stop asking the question: Where do we come from, where are we, where do we want to go? Two goals guide them: better books and better readers. Thus, the critic is always, whether they admit it or deny it, a moralist and an educator.’
Marcel Reich-Ranicki
If we replace ‘books’ with ‘games’ here, then these demands can be seamlessly transferred to games criticism. We will return to the task of sifting and organising later. For now, let’s focus on the positioning: the critic between the author on one side and the audience on the other. If we also include the publishers, who are strangely not mentioned here, the field of tension in which the games critic operates is precisely defined.
When you look at it closely, the place from which they must carry out their task of promoting better games and better (that is, more numerous and more intelligent, more knowledgeable) players is exactly that spot between all the chairs. And anyone who cannot make themselves at home there, who cannot feel truly comfortable there, should look for a different mission – they are certainly not suited to the profession of critic. They will not, as a rule, be loved, neither by the author nor by the publishers. A critic who relies on this, hopes for it, or depends on it for their psychological equilibrium should choose a different career.
Every piece of publicly published games criticism – and the reviewer must constantly remind themselves of this – addresses the author and the producing publisher directly on a professional level. Even when, on the surface, they have only entered into a dialogue with their audience, they are still conveying critical points and feedback to the creators of the games. For many critics, this is where the appeal and the challenge lie: in directly and indirectly communicating their assessment and evaluation. However, genuine communication only occurs when the critic maintains constant contact with both the production and reception sides and reflects on their relationship with these sides.
The relationship with the author
⬆️ back to the table of contents
The naive reviewer initially firmly believes that the author is the ideal ally in the fight for better games, especially the reputable games author, but also the engaged newcomer. After all, they help the author establish themselves with good games, build or improve their image. They bring a wide audience and, often enough, major publishers to the author’s games and to the author themselves.
Over the course of their work, however, they discover that the author is a highly sensitive being, usually even a touchy egocentric. When economic interests come into play as well, cooperation in the interest of the common cause often becomes very difficult.
An example of an author’s sensitivity from the field of literary criticism is worth quoting here. It is all the more interesting because it is directed against the very critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki, just cited. Peter Handke attacks him as follows:
‘Reich-Ranicki has long since stopped asking questions about himself. He, the most unimportant, least stimulating, yet most self-righteous German literary critic for a long time, can of course fend off all attacks with his communiqué: ‘A literary critic worth their salt is always a controversial figure.’ As far as I’m concerned, Reich-Ranicki is uncontroversial.’
Peter Handke
Of course, the author has the right to defend themselves against unjustified criticism and to respond to personal attacks with personal counterattacks. And such a public dispute between critic and author does indeed invigorate the cultural scene enormously. What matters, however, is that the common cause is not lost sight of. Otherwise, such a squabble quickly becomes petty and pointless.
Some game designers wish for the comfortable, the compliant reviewer, a wreath of admirers around their aura. And in straightforward simplicity, they speak of “factually incorrect criticism”, first and foremost discussing the question, “whether it wouldn’t make sense for authors to receive the articles beforehand for proofreading”. And to heighten the curiosity even more, the idea is even floated of “creating a ‘neutral body’ that is supplied by ‘good critics’ and factually flawless reviews. The media could then request their reports from the ‘neutral body’.” (Dealing with Critics, p. 10)
The awkwardness of the discussion documented in the magazine “Spiel & Autor” shows how little the authors have truly engaged with criticism and the important role of critics. In reality, false “praise” harms the author more than any “incorrect” criticism, not least because of its shallow conformity and its toothless mediocrity. Here, it is important to continue holding clarifying discussions and to further develop the common foundation.
Looking back, it is simply clear: Behind us lies a successful, shared journey taken by critics and authors towards higher quality in games. And along this path, the author in this country has gained enormous profile. Not because publishers have always prominently featured their name on the game, but because game criticism has repeatedly mentioned their name and demanded that it be included on the game.
The best example of this is the Critics’ Award “Spiel des Jahres”. Right from the first award ceremony in 1979, the certificates explicitly and first and foremost name the author. In public relations work, direct contact with the authors is established immediately; as early as 1982, press releases were supplemented with a detailed author portrait. The jury’s major game guide, published in 1988 by Hugendubel, finally contains the first comprehensive author ludography ever to appear.
In the face of a clearly visible trend towards mass-market games, which are heavily promoted with advertising and then supposedly don’t need an author, this successful work must be built upon, and the conversation must be resumed, continued and deepened in the interest of the common cause.
In an ideal scenario, game criticism is a mirror for the author, a highly useful corrective for their work. Only game criticism that makes a serious effort with analysis and standards can, in comparison with their other works, make progress or regress visible. Recognising development trends from knowledge of the entire range of games, drawing comparisons with publications by other authors, identifying trends that go beyond the individual game and may be important for future work – recognising, assessing and finally putting such trends into words is the responsible task of the critic, one that no one can take from them.
The relationship with publishers
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Public relations was, for game publishers, a very narrow and sometimes even unknown field a few years ago. While book publishers could already look back on a long tradition of dealing with the press, criticism and reviews, the game industry struggled here. Only Ravensburger Otto Maier Verlag had its own press department relatively early on. Here (as previously with the introduction of editorial work into game production), methods from book marketing were successfully transferred to the games sector. It proved advantageous that the publisher had been producing both books and games for a long time.
As a result, Ravensburger had never had any difficulties dealing with independent game criticism. While other, especially smaller publishers assumed a kind of barter system – review copies in exchange for favourable reviews – they trusted in the quality of their own production and accepted an external perspective on their products, and were also prepared to respond when shortcomings became apparent.
Today, game publishers know that game criticism creates a public for them that they themselves cannot generate. Almost all game publishers now have their own press office. Additionally, PR agencies are hired to directly steer their own advertising investments through a second channel.
Of course, there are also indirect and direct attempts to influence game criticism, attempts to use it, so to speak, as a third channel of their own public relations work. This occurs in all areas of the cultural industry and must simply be recognised and treated as a normal expression of the publishers’ interests.
And here too, the game critic must adhere to the aforementioned principle of being open to discussion and debate – as a means to an end, to achieve better games for their audience, to whom they feel primarily committed. It becomes critical and sometimes even questionable, however, when there is a clear dual role as both game author and critic, or as editor and critic. For good reason, the “Spiel des Jahres” jury sets the strict condition for participation that its members must not be financially dependent on publishers.
The relationship with the audience
⬆️ back to the table of contents
With the increasingly wide range of new releases and the emergence of a dedicated gaming scene, game criticism is gaining in importance. It becomes indispensable as a critical intermediary between the game market and industry on one side and the audience interested in the cultural asset of gaming on the other. The critic is constantly challenged to explore anew what this audience looks like and which social strata lead to which gaming interests.
First, there is the “hard core” of game enthusiasts. They engage with playing and collecting board and tabletop games at a high level and sometimes have astonishing expertise in this area. What they demand is primarily information and analysis. Through catalogues and at consumer fairs, they have informed themselves about which new releases have come out. Mainly through their specialist magazines such as “SpielBox”, “Fairplay” and other larger and smaller trade magazines, they gather further information: background information about publishers and authors, analyses of the most important new releases.
The broader audience, on the other hand, is primarily looking for games for themselves, their family and friends. For them, gaming is a form of cultural entertainment alongside others. This means that the information expectations placed on game criticism, and thus the tasks it faces, are naturally quite different.
Readers of the mass media first need to be encouraged to play, to be convinced that gaming, especially in today’s world, is a very meaningful leisure activity. Gaming takes people out of their isolation, and through shared fun, it greatly promotes communication and interaction. It is one of the few media that still manages to bring young and old together for shared enjoyment. A lot of aggression is released and redirected through gaming. In this way, gaming creates exactly the distance from ourselves and our environment that we need today to solve the problems at hand. On the one hand, it promotes relaxation and recovery, while at the same time stimulating the imagination, freeing us for important moments from the constraints of everyday life, and encouraging creativity by deriving pleasure from the ability to think, from the joy of successfully finding solutions to problems. Ultimately, gaming is about enjoying one’s own skill, both mental and, in the case of dexterity and reaction games, physical.
The specialist journalist wants to bring exactly these values of the game closer to their audience in the public mass media through their game review. Motivation to play must therefore be at the forefront here. At the same time, it must also satisfy the desire for selection and guidance in the face of a flood of new releases, which is now causing increasing difficulties for the industry, particularly for retailers. Here, the general public expects to be informed about games in an entertaining, non-instructive, non-overly analytical way.
Incidentally: Retailers are also starting to take notice of and utilise the competent information provided by specialist journalism, i.e. game reviews. They too are beneficiaries and an audience for game reviews.
Whether game reviews are aimed at an expert enthusiast audience or at the average game enthusiast, the task of game reviews is to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of a game, analyse its causes of effect, and through recommendations and rejections, encourage the audience at different levels to form their own opinions and engage in critical reflection.
Expectations of the game reviewer
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Game reviews, which claim to create and ensure a level of reflection in the field of games and gaming, suddenly find themselves confronted with expectations and demands that they must be clear about if they are not to fail. They can only meet this claim where they acquire and maintain competence, where they simultaneously develop and train their ability for aesthetic communication.
The game reviewer who reflects on their conversational and discussion relationship with authors, publishers and the audience clearly recognises how important it is for them to be acknowledged as a partner to both the author and the reader through craftsmanship, aesthetic sensitivity and moral integrity. Let’s summarise once more the specific tasks attributed to game reviews:
- Game reviews should inform about the relevant range of games.
- Game reviews should present the form and content of important games to enable players to make a selection.
- Game reviews should criticise negative phenomena and highlight positive developments.
- Game reviews should motivate people to play.
- Game reviews should characterise the social and cultural-historical context in which the game is placed.
Performing these tasks requires the game reviewer to have broad gaming experience, as well as constantly updated and reflected historical and theoretical knowledge, and, last but not least, aesthetic standards derived from this basis, recognisable viewpoints that enable engagement. It is precisely in this context that the demand arises to constantly rethink methods that allow games to be described and evaluated.
3. The foundations of game reviews
⬆️ back to the table of contents
When reflecting on the foundations of game reviews, the problem of evaluating games and the question of criteria must be constantly discussed and self-critically reflected upon. The tools for evaluating games must be further developed and refined, while also incorporating the historical and socio-cultural context into the work. In recent years, far too little has been done in this regard. Game reviews thus risk becoming formulaic and superficial. On closer inspection, it is quite astonishing with how little theoretical and historical knowledge many game reviewers seem to believe they can get by. The issue is not the often-discussed ‘analytical separation of theory and criticism’ (Hohendahl, p. 4) in literary criticism, but rather the previously weak willingness to give deeper thought to a theoretical foundation or superstructure.
Under such conditions, the critical discourse quickly loses its significance if, instead of a derived and justified viewpoint, only matters of taste are put up for discussion. The audience may initially seek the reflection of their own opinion, thus granting superficiality a quick success. However, a genuine, meaningfully progressive discussion only truly takes place where developed viewpoints become visible and comprehensible.
Distinction from the ‘game test’
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Despite the naturally varied approaches, at least the serious game reviewers agree that what they do is exclusively about critical evaluation based on a systematically conducted analysis, and has nothing to do with mere ‘testing’ of games.
No one would come up with the absurd idea of proposing a book test or a novel test. What, for example, would a record test reveal? Probably at most a somewhat differentiated account of the quality of the pressing and the materials used. The direct benefit for musical evaluation would certainly be zero.
Equally absurd are the ‘game tests’ that keep popping up everywhere. Games are, after all, cultural products, products of the entertainment culture of our time, just like books, films or records. As intellectual creations with a spiritual character, they are subject to their own laws. They fundamentally elude any test that aims to compare measurable data or to objectify product comparisons, just as intellectual creations in general elude metric and material-technical measurements.
You can test the stability of a box, assess the material quality of the game board and accessories, and objectively determine the clarity of the rules. But right where the actual playing begins, the limits of testing have already been reached; the possibilities of testing can no longer apply.
Play is deeply subject-related, i.e. dependent on the will and readiness to play, but also on the momentary enthusiasm for playing and communicating and the creativity of each individual participant. But which person is in the same mood every day and every hour? And to make it even more complicated: play is not only subject-related but also always situation-dependent, i.e. dependent on the material and emotional spaces it encounters, dependent on the overall societal situation in which it is placed.
Against the backdrop of these considerations and insights into the nature of play as a cultural-intellectual product and its absolute ‘subject- and situation-dependence’, playing through new games naturally has a completely different significance than in a test. It is not the means and focal point of an evaluation process based on any scoring system. It is a necessary supplement to forming a judgement that is essentially based on critically reflected experiences, comprehensive theoretical and practical knowledge about games and playing.
An experienced games critic distrusts and resists any supposedly perfect method of simply adding and multiplying points derived from such heterogeneous details as game concept, rule design and visual design to calculate an apparently verifiable overall assessment, simply because it presents itself as mathematically precise. Oddly enough, the end result is still school grades in the traditional 1 to 6 style. Yet a games critic never wants to be the head tester or even the head teacher of the gaming nation, but rather to pass on their joy of gaming to others, expressing their enthusiasm for new, good game ideas just as much as their annoyance at bad and thus highly unnecessary products.
Einsicht in den Partiturcharakter von Spielen
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Games are rule systems with the character of a score. This is what fundamentally distinguishes them from toys, gives them their specific nature and subjects them to their own problems when it comes to evaluating idea and form.
A game without rules is like a book without letters, a sheet of music without notes. The game can only develop on the board once the rules are known or a rule has been established. Therefore, game evaluation must use a different approach than toy evaluation. It cannot even fall back on the criteria used for evaluating toys.
The seasoned games critic can, of course, read game “scores” and give an initial assessment of their originality in the historical context of gaming and in terms of the game concept. They have their knowledge of game history and their extensive experience from their own, constantly reflected-upon gaming practice. But a final overall evaluation must always also include the aspect of playability, the wit of the game, in other words, its effect. To do this, however, the critic needs the performance.
This is where game reviews fundamentally differ from those of a book or a record. I can read a book alone in the quiet of my room, listen to a record there in perfect playback and with full concentration, and then write my review. But to evaluate games and write a games review, the reviewer additionally needs fellow players, as many and as varied as possible, to arrive at a reasonably rounded judgement. Because the effect of games can only truly be fully grasped when the games are brought to life, to “performance”, to stay with the comparison. And then what everyone knows as the true secret of every gaming session immediately comes into play, what anyone who has ever engaged more deeply with games and enjoys playing them often and gladly knows: every gaming session is in itself a unique and unrepeatable event.
Distinction from pedagogy
⬆️ back to the table of contents
The games critic thus describes performances, whereas the pedagogue talks about applications of games. The critic, of course, also needs game observation. Wolfgang Einsiedler is completely wrong in his criticism that the games critic places no value on game observation. The difference is that the games critic involves themselves in the game, takes part in it. They write from an internal perspective, from their own (shared) experience. And this is precisely where the pedagogue usually has their difficulties.
This is because the pedagogue primarily sees the game as a means to an educational end. They see the object of education and the educational goal first and foremost. Only then do they turn to the game. The pedagogue therefore always views the game from a distance, has difficulty immersing themselves in playing, and usually does not even want to, especially since they primarily regard play as a childish activity. The games critic, on the other hand, sees playing a priori as a cultural expression of humanity that accompanies us throughout life, with a wide range of possible effects at all stages of life. If they take their task seriously, they naturally also engage with aspects of developmental psychology, which are particularly useful for age classification of games. Wolfgang Einsiedler has also levelled unjustified criticism here. At least the game guide by the Spiel des Jahres jury, for example, offers an age-related classification from a developmental psychology perspective, which is currently the most comprehensive one I know of in the field of games.
The games critic is also more interested than the pedagogue in the poetological developments of games, in the poetology of play. Certain new forms break with the traditional understanding of genres. Alongside describing the norm, they describe game designs that signal new developments. Descriptively, they also seek to illuminate an author’s individual style and use it as the basis for analysis.
When it comes to the cultural and social historical aspects of play, the games critic is certainly more closely aligned with the historian, the folklorist and the philosopher than with the pedagogue. Where the games critic tries to identify connections and continue lines of development, the pedagogue sees only unnecessary ornamentation for their goal-oriented work, which obscures the view of the educational task.
A plea for more interdisciplinary exploration
⬆️ back to the table of contents
Anyone who observes that current games criticism suffers from a lack of theoretical foundations and a clear deficit in socio-cultural and historical knowledge must also explain how these gaps can be addressed. For this reason, alongside distinguishing games criticism from educational science, I would like to make a plea for it to engage more intensively with academic research, including educational research.
To illustrate the wealth of untapped ‘auxiliary sciences’ available to games criticism in this field, I will limit myself to the following brief, catalogue-like overview. This list and its short commentary make no claim to completeness or complexity:
- Archaeology: Only those who understand the origins and roots of games can competently and comprehensively assess their development up to the present day and beyond. Reports of discoveries in the royal tombs of Ur in Chaldea and the history of the ancient Egyptian game of Senet are examples of the fascinating facts and insights that can be gained here.
- History: The cultural and social history of games remains a desideratum to this day. The approaches outlined by Dutch historian Johan Huizinga in his ‘Homo Ludens’ indicate the work still to be done. Individual research contributions, such as Arno Borst’s work on the medieval game of numbers or Joachim Petzold’s history of chess, already shed light on important aspects.
- Art history: Art history has so far paid far too little attention to games, the artistic design of games, and depictions of people playing. The research into the history of playing cards by Detlef Hoffmann and Marion Faber’s work on the development of chess pieces show what can be expected. Games critics will find a rich field for their own research.
- Linguistics: Knowing more about language and communication is not only important for games critics when assessing game rules. Linguistics can also provide useful insights into their own writing and expand their ability to communicate with their audience.
- Mathematics: Engaging with mathematical game theory is often a closed book for many games critics. They distrust mathematics, claiming it signals the end of creative, unrestricted play. However, this underestimates the contribution of this science, such as through algorithmic and statistical research.
- Musicology: Even in Johann Georg Krünitz’s encyclopaedia, under the entry ‘Spiel’ (game), there is a subcategory titled ‘Musikalisches Spiel’ (musical game) (Krünitz, 158th part, p. 63). Krünitz mentions a musical society game, ‘by means of which one can compose a large number of different musical pieces oneself’ (ibid.). Terms like ‘Klavierspiel’ (piano playing) still today, in the age of virtuosity, hint at the once fluid boundaries between playing and making music. Richard Strauss and Arnold Schönberg, by the way, both loved card games.
- Natural sciences: F. J. J. Buytendijk’s research on animal play is still well worth reading today. For Göttingen-based Nobel Prize winner in biology Manfred Eigen, play is ‘a natural phenomenon that has guided the course of the world from the beginning: the shaping of matter, its organisation into living structures, as well as human social behaviour’ (Eigen, p. 17). Pedagogy: Knowledge of the pedagogical zeitgeist is just as important for games critics as individual research into the pedagogy of play. Of particular interest from recent times are Spanhel’s studies on the play behaviour of adolescents.
- Philosophy: The philosophy of play in modern times oscillates between utopian appeals and anthropological categories, associated with names like Schiller, Kant, Heidegger, Fink, Marcuse and Adorno. However, it did not begin with Schiller’s much-quoted writings on aesthetic education. Since a history of the philosophy of play or even a detailed overview of its approaches is lacking, there is a vast field for discovery. Kant, incidentally, was apparently a decent billiards player, and Schleiermacher was a passionate card player. Psychology: Of course, one immediately thinks of Roger Caillois’s work on play between ‘mask and intoxication’, Eric Berne’s book on ‘The Games People Play’, or Susanna Millar’s contribution on ‘The Psychology of Play’. Equally fascinating for any serious games critic are the findings of developmental psychology and the experiences of play therapy.
- Sociology: Games critics should always take an interest in the social aspects of games and play. Games are always embedded in a political and societal context. Reflecting on the societal and political dimension of the medium of games is long overdue, whether for the Nazi era or for some productions of our own time. The commodity character of games is not without influence on their societal status.
- Theology: Church and theology have been connected to play in many ways. For example, there were game burnings, but also the incorporation of playful elements into church services. There was Hugo Rahner’s essay ‘Der spielende Mensch’ (The Playing Human), which proves that theology continues to engage with play and playing to this day. Ethnology: Not to be confused with folklore, which has also intensively studied play. Unlike folklore, ethnology deals with play across the entire globe, among all peoples and nations. Of particular interest from recent times are publications on the games of Native Americans and Africans.
The list of disciplines that study games and have made important contributions to game research could certainly be extended further. For a plea for crossing boundaries and engaging more intensively with one facet or another, this enumeration may suffice. Separating criticism from science does not lead anywhere, neither for science nor for criticism. After all, science must also communicate and be put into practice if it is not to suffocate in narcissism and self-gratification. Here, criticism has the chance to significantly broaden its horizons.
4. The Craft of Game Criticism
⬆️ back to the table of contents
At the heart of game criticism lies the engagement with the individual game, its assessment and evaluation. As already explained, the evaluation process in game criticism differs significantly from that of pedagogy, primarily because it incorporates both the form and the development of form and gameplay, as well as the critic’s own gaming experience and the experience within gaming groups, into its judgment. Over the past twenty years, independent methods have emerged that are oriented towards the very specific nature of the subject of games, thereby giving game criticism its own distinct value.
Evaluating the Game Concept
⬆️ back to the table of contents
A game critic can only assess the originality of a game concept if they have acquired a broad knowledge of games and have also analytically engaged with gaming traditions and the history of games. They will then immediately see whether a game, within a genre such as a start-to-finish game, introduces a unique variant that sheds new light or merely “enriches” the Malefiz template with different graphics and a new title.
Under the aspect of “Where do we want to go?”, the question naturally arises as to whether the game represents a development or a step backwards within an author’s body of work. The contribution of a game to the evolution of gaming is thus assessed both in relation to general game history and to the author and their oeuvre. The game concept is the centre, the heart of a game. The term “idea” certainly characterises the spiritual aspect of a gaming process more accurately than the term “game mechanics”, which incorrectly reduces the gaming impulse to an input-output procedure. In today’s age of film and television, a game concept must also be accompanied by a theme or scenario. This connection does not always succeed, which can sometimes result in the game losing its momentum. For example, “Sigma File” by Eric Solomon only became a classic when it was presented as a spy game. Only a harmonious and logical unity of game concept and theme makes for a good game.
- Playability is naturally the basic requirement for any game. A good game is simply one that is fun to play. With a wide variety of gameplay, it has a strong challenge and replay value. The strategies it triggers should always be constructive and motivating. At the same time, the game critic is always aware that there is no game for everyone. On the one hand, each genre has its own appeal: some people hate being at the mercy of dice luck, preferring abstract strategy games, a battle of wits against wits. Others may prefer the tranquillity and calm of a tile-laying game. In addition, games can have different levels of difficulty and complexity, appealing to a narrower or broader audience. This in itself, however, does not make a statement about quality. For game criticism, which places great importance on player experience and observation in its judgments, this means that the critic must play a game in as many different sessions as possible, with groups of varying ages and educational backgrounds, in order to assess its durability and broad appeal.
- Also, the number of players is of considerable importance when evaluating a game concept. Publishers sometimes state the broadest possible player count, under the mistaken belief that this will particularly boost sales. If a game is said to be playable by 2-6 players, for example, there are extremely few games where this is actually true. The task of the game critic is to address this, to play the game with different numbers of participants in order to determine the ideal player count, and in cases of blatant misinformation, to issue a warning.
- Likewise, a brilliant game concept can be harmed by an incorrect age recommendation, missing its target audience and thus failing to provide fun. This is particularly critical in the area of children’s games, i.e., for ages 4 to 12. In cases of doubt, the critic must also play the games with different age groups, taking into account findings from developmental psychology, and evaluate them accordingly.
- Assessing the game value, i.e., the question of whether a game is worth buying, involves two considerations. First, there is the superficial question of value for money. The question of whether a game is truly worth its price is all the more relevant as games are no longer among the cheapest cultural products. Of course, a game is worth its price if it has staying power, i.e., if it can repeatedly captivate players; even more so if it also promotes logical thinking, planned action and, ideally, language skills, encourages communication and interaction, in short, offers a rich gaming experience.
- Then there is also the question of content, of game themes and settings. Here, game criticism all too often tends to cover things up rather than address them critically. For example, with the argument that gaming is a free space where anything that is fun is allowed and nothing should be taken too seriously. Such a stance overlooks the fact that, under this guise, games are often misused for ideological and political purposes.
The content of games should never glorify violence or war. Occasionally, games are released that deliberately or tactlessly address contemporary issues such as racial prejudice, refugee problems, or questions of economics or ecology in a way that takes your breath away. A games criticism that takes its task seriously must not gloss over these things or distractingly point to the ‘so innovative game mechanics’. Here, games criticism must also take a moral stance and show its colours.
Analysis of Rule Design
⬆️ back to the table of contents
The appeal of a game lies in the rules and the creative, playful development within those rules. The rules are thus the central nervous system of a game, from which all meaningful control emanates. Without rules, no board or card game can take place. In an essay that is still well worth reading today, Friedrich Georg Jünger comprehensively addressed the essence and deeper meaning of game rules. We can therefore focus here on the formal requirements that should be applied to good rule design.
The length of a game’s rules is not the central problem it is often made out to be today. Many games from recent times, now considered classics, have extensive rulebooks. Just to name a few, “Hase und Igel” and “Scotland Yard” come to mind. And anyone who has ever looked at the rules for the popular game of Skat will be amazed by their complexity and intricacy. With a game that, due to its playful qualities, invites you to play, even more extensive rulebooks can be mastered playfully. The enjoyment of the game more than compensates for the initial effort. Hasty concessions to the increasingly widespread fast-food mentality are therefore inappropriate.
The logical internal and external structure is of far greater importance to the game. Problems arise here especially when the game’s setup lacks inner coherence and remains just a construct. Good games are characterised by the fact that the rules only need to underline what the player already suspects based on the recognised scenario.
The introduction to the game, which should unfold the scenario in a way that is concise, engaging and encouraging to play, should be written accordingly. The next steps to be taken are explaining the game preparation and the entry into the gameplay. Here, games criticism often registers strange inconsistencies. A forced ‘lyrical’ introduction, for example, suddenly gives way to a dry, factual tone that would be more appropriate for the user manual of a washing machine. In a game, it can be downright fatal.
The clarity in conveying the further rule sequences often suffers because, under the manic compulsion to achieve short rules, the text is frequently condensed in a way that, while perhaps still logically justifiable and comprehensible in itself, overtaxes the reader’s understanding. Here too, games criticism is called upon to act as the player’s advocate and demand clarity.
The clarity of a game’s rules is an essential aid to reading and understanding. Introducing the game and encouraging play, presenting the game idea and conveying the gameplay, as well as clearly structured sections, all make it easier to initially grasp the rule connections, as well as to refer back to them later. If the individual phases of the setup are clearly defined and thus easy to understand, this does not necessarily mean a loss of atmosphere and engagement. In any case, it provides the reader with certainty rather than confusion.
The graphic design of the game rules fulfils a crucial supporting function. This does not just refer to the use of typographical elements that support the text’s structure. Graphic inserts can also reinforce the atmospheric and engaging aspects that ideally run through the rules. More importantly, however, graphics help ease the transition from the reader’s own level to the entirely different level of the gameplay on the board. Simple movement sketches and excerpts from the game board can be used as stylistic devices to aid understanding of details.
In the past, games criticism has done a great deal to improve and perfect rule design by awarding a special prize for good game rules, known as the ‘Essener Feder’. These efforts must be continued and developed further in everyday criticism.
Evaluating Layout and Design
⬆️ back to the table of contents
One of the basic requirements for a good game is the consistent design of the box, board, rules and accessories. This means nothing other than that, in the ideal case, the game idea and scenario are implemented in a coherent and complementary way, from the title design down to the smallest game piece. How difficult it is to achieve this goal can be seen in many new releases. Very often, the graphics and layout create expectations that the game then fails to meet. They address the wrong target or age groups, who then cannot do anything with the game. Or there is a vast gap between a sensational title image in the games criticism and an abstract, dry game board, with the result that the enjoyment of the game fails to materialise.
The layout’s tasks include not only conveying the game’s atmosphere and content but also providing the player with factual information. It is important for them to be able to quickly see at a glance the number of players and age range, the game genre, and possibly the difficulty level and playing time. The player also wants information about the game idea, theme and setup. Given that game boxes are usually sealed, it is helpful for them to be able to see and assess the contents, i.e. details of the game board and accessories, from the outside.
As for the artistic quality of the graphic design, we have seen great progress in recent years, but also enormous setbacks. While games criticism has achieved a lot here through its special prize for ‘Beautiful Game’ as part of the critics’ award ‘Spiel des Jahres’, it must be said that people all too quickly retreat to the non-committal level of taste, which is supposedly not open to discussion. Tastelessness is dismissed as a ‘matter of taste’, when in fact criteria for evaluation should be developed and communicated. Here, games criticism still has enormous ground to cover.
In recent years, the design of game materials, particularly in the German-speaking world, has set standards that have gained worldwide recognition. The task of games criticism is to preserve and expand what has been achieved, not least through its own work. Just a few years ago, you might find small plastic cones of repulsive uniformity in some game boxes. Today, large wooden figures and excellently crafted plastic materials invite you to play in a completely different way, also giving players aesthetic satisfaction through functional design, good grip and colour differentiation.
When it comes to the question of whether and how environmental protection can be incorporated into game design, the games critic must step in as an advocate for both players and the overburdened natural world. New, progressive standards need to be developed here, and retrogressive steps – often introduced solely for greater profit and disguised under a green veneer – must be prevented.
Communicating the verdict
⬆️ back to the table of contents
The most effective forum for games criticism was initially the public media. Above all, in print media – newspapers and magazines – it has managed to reach an ever-wider audience. This positive development is only marred by the fact that games still do not generally receive the appropriate place within cultural and arts sections. Instead, they have primarily found a home in lifestyle, travel or modern living sections.
In addition, smaller specialist magazines with circulations between 300 and 7,500 copies focus on games. The situation here is similar to that in literature: reviewers in daily newspapers aim to introduce a game to as wide an audience as possible. In specialist press, an analytical approach prevails, delving into the details of a game and, over a broad scope, drawing comparisons with similar or identical games that have long since disappeared from the market. Surprisingly, games criticism only sporadically finds its way onto television. The series “Leips”, in which Eugen Oker and Stefan Wilfert critically reviewed games for children and young people for years, has since ceased. On radio, where Jörg Eckrich was one of the co-founders of games criticism in the early 1960s at Radio Bremen, there is now virtually no regular games criticism, only more or less controlled consumer tests. New spaces therefore need to be opened up for games criticism here.
The audience games criticism aims to reach is, unlike in education, not the educator, not primarily the “responsible” adult, but rather people of all genders who are interested in games – and of course those it still hopes to win over to gaming. In the past, games criticism has engaged far too little with the question of who its actual recipients are.
In the field of specialist games magazines, this can be relatively easily determined through reader surveys. However, these are more or less kept under wraps for competitive reasons. When it comes to conveying impressions, effects and verdicts, games criticism here is clearly focused on providing broad information about new releases and the formal analysis of individual games. Some of these magazines thus give the impression of a commented department store catalogue. Their “critics” are, in fact (sometimes even openly admitted), more interested in review copies than in profiled criticism.
The formats in which games criticism is presented to the public journalistically are the same as those that have developed and proven effective in other cultural criticism: the review, the gloss, the polemic, the essay, the report, the story, the interview, the dialogue. While in these areas there is a constant discourse analysis of the relationship between linguistic communication (argumentation strategies and rhetorical devices) and social function, and preferences for certain forms of criticism or entrenched argumentation structures – such as associative methods – are questioned, games criticism has yet to engage in such a discussion about its work and methods.
5. Outlook
⬆️ back to the table of contents
As a result of this assessment, it can be stated that games criticism has established itself in recent years as an independent contribution to the culture of games and gaming. With this, it has also taken on a responsibility of its own, which it must address more clearly in the future. To fulfil the tasks it has now taken on, games criticism must rethink its self-image, reflect on its position between the production side and the audience, and draw consequences for its daily work.
In this context, games criticism must above all strive to expand its specialist knowledge of games and their development, both historically and theoretically. It must open itself up to ideas from the sciences, engage with their research findings and thus broaden its horizons.
Not only in terms of expertise, but also in the craft of evaluating games and communicating its findings and assessments – that is, in journalism – games criticism must constantly review and expand its toolkit. It must find ways and means to carry its “message” into new media and to interest an ever-wider audience in games and games criticism. Only then will games criticism succeed in securing the rightful place for the cultural asset of games within the cultural ensemble.
Literature
⬆️ back to the table of contents
- Berne, Eric: Spiele der Erwachsenen. Psychologie der menschlichen Beziehungen. – Reinbek: Rowohlt 1970 (rororo sachbuch. 6735)
- Borst, Arno: Das mittelalterliche Zahlenkampfspiel. Heidelberg: C. Winter 1986.
- Buytendijk, Frans J. J.: Wesen und Sinn des Spiels. Das Spielen der Menschen und der Tiere als Erscheinungsform der Lebenstriebe. – Berlin 1934.
- Callois, Roger: Die Spiele und die Menschen. Maske und Rausch. Frankfurt/Berlin/Wien: Ulstein 1982 (= Ullstein Materialien, Nr. 35153)
- Eigen, Manfred / Ruthild Winkler: Das Spiel. Naturgesetze steuern den Zufall. München: Piper 1975. Einsiedler, Wolfgang: Das Spiel der Kinder. Zur Pädagogik und Psychologie des Kinderspiels. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt 1991
- Fasber, Marion: Das Schachspiel in der europäischen Malerei und Graphik (1500 bis 1700). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1988.
- Handke, Peter: Marcel Reich-Ranicki und die Natürlichkeit. In: ders., Ich bin ein Bewohner des Elfenbeinturms. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1972, pp. 203–207
- Hofmann, Detlef: Die Welt der Spielkarte. Eine Kulturgeschichte. München: Callwey 1972. Hohendahl, Peter Uwe (ed.): Geschichte der deutschen Literaturkritik (1730–1980). Stuttgart
- Metzler 1985
- Huizinga, Johan: Homo Ludens. Vom Ursprung der Kultur im Spiel. Reinbek: Rowohlt 1987 (rowohlts enzyklopädie, re 435)
- Jünger, Friedrich Georg: Die Spiele. Frankfurt/Main: V. Klostermann 1953.
- Krünitz, Johann Georg: Ökonomisch-technologische Encyklopädie. Berlin: Paulische Buchhandlung 1833.
- Peczold, Joachim: Das königliche Spiel. Die Kulturgeschichte des Schach. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer 1987.
- Rahner, Hugo: Der spielende Mensch. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag 1952.
- Reich-Ranicki, Marcel: Deutsche Literatur in West und Ost. München: Piper 1966.
- Zedler, Johann Heinrich: Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexikon 64 Bde. + 4 Suppl.-Bde. Graz: Akad. Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1961. (== Photomechanical reprint of the Halle and Leipzig 1732–1754 edition.)
- Umgang mit Kritikern. In: Spiel & Autor. H. 8 vom 17. 10. 1991 (Göingen). S. 10