The topic of wargame reviews, and whether folks actually enjoy them, has been making the rounds online lately. Kev from Big Board Gaming has been talking about it, so I figured I would shamelessly steal his idea and share a few thoughts of my own.

There are plenty of channels and websites doing excellent reviews. Zilla Blitz, The Players’ Aid, and many others consistently put out informative and entertaining content. I watch and read many of them, but if I am being completely honest, a YouTube review or blog post has never been the main reason I purchased a game. Reviews may help move me in the right direction, but they have never been the main reason I purchase a game. Let me explain why.

Reviews Are Personal After-Action Reports

I enjoy hearing what other people think about certain games, but wargame reviews are incredibly personal. A feature one reviewer loves might be something I have absolutely no interest in, while a mechanic they dislike could be exactly what I want in a game.

I appreciate reviews that help me understand how a game plays, how complex it is, and what makes it different. However, when someone declares that a game is great and that everyone should buy it, things become a little more subjective. We all have different tastes, preferred mechanics, and tolerance levels for spending three hours trying to decipher a rulebook. What makes a game an instant classic for one player might leave another player staring at the map and wondering why they did not play something else.

What Actually Pushes Me Toward a Purchase

Personally, I enjoy unboxing videos even more than traditional reviews. I get to see the components, examine the map, check out the counters, and get a better sense of what is actually inside that intimidatingly heavy box. Those videos help me narrow down which games might eventually find their way onto my already overcrowded shelves.

The content most likely to nudge me toward buying a game, however, is a playthrough or example-of-play video. I can see how the game flows, understand the sequence of play, and get a better feel for how the mechanics work together. A reviewer can tell me that a game is fantastic, but watching it in action helps me decide whether it is fantastic for me.

A Little Transparency Goes a Long Way

I respect most content creators, and I genuinely enjoy seeing the content they produce. However, it is worth remembering that we do not always know what may be influencing or motivating a particular review. Whenever I receive a complimentary review copy, I make sure my audience knows about it. I believe in being completely transparent and allowing viewers or readers to decide whether that matters to them.

Many channels and blogs disclose when a game was provided by a publisher, but I assume some may not. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of being dishonest or suggesting that receiving a free game automatically results in a favorable review. I simply believe transparency is important. After all, when a box of free cardboard lands on your doorstep, even the most objective gamer might feel their excitement receive a favorable die-roll modifier.

What Do You Look for in a Wargame Review?

Now I want to hear from you. Have you ever purchased a game because of a creator’s review? What information are you looking for before deciding whether a game deserves a place on your table, or in that ever-growing stack of unplayed games?

Who are some of your favorite content creators, and whose reviews do you always look forward to watching or reading? More importantly, what are your overall thoughts on wargame reviews? Do you consider reviews valuable battlefield intelligence, entertaining background noise, or just one more piece of information when deciding whether to buy a game?

7 responses to “Game Reviews: Helpful Intel or Just More Tabletop Noise?”

  1. I find a combination of commentary about the play mechanics and a short walk thru of gameplay to be the best way for me to get a good sense of the game. The long playthrough videos of an hour or more are sometimes too much when I’m considering a purchase, but those have their place too. I have bought a couple games when I wasn’t really sure of how the game would mesh with my tastes, but pressed BUY just because the content creator said they liked it after the briefest of show and tell. When I got it on the table, I couldn’t understand why they spoke highly of it, and got frustrated over the time invested vs fun experienced for me personally. However those are few and far between. If anything I’ve been taking more chances on games this year to see if I might like them. I’ve been broadening my palate a bit that way, and finding there are a lot of good products out there, both new designs and classics. In closing, show me the map and counters, tell me about and SHOW ME the movement and combat mechanics and TELL ME why you think they work well, and don’t leave out why u think some of it doesn’t work well. In that spirit, I find the BGG ratings and comments of the seven and six scores to be most telling about the games true good parts and warts. Those reviewers want to like it but they will talk about why the game couldn’t score higher for them. And that is often good enough Intelligence for me to waive off a potential purchase. TPA does a good job but they spend more time debating the design sometimes. Wayne and Zilla and Stuka and “Hexd and Counterd” all do yeomans work in this arena as well. Harsh Rules and Roughswordsman are great resources too.

    Like

  2. Like this approach. Though I would say my reviews when I do them, written or vid, are not AARs. I have a structured format, because otherwise – Squirrel!!! 🙂 .Disclosure is key and I am right there with ya. It is legally required to do so, though no 1 is gunna chase down some bro with few thousand subs. I did not know you had a blog!! – How have I missed that. This is great. -Kev

    Like

    1. How did you miss that? haha! Thank you for the inspiration.

      Like

  3. Ryszard Tokarczuk Avatar
    Ryszard Tokarczuk

    Usually, I look for negatives (what is not so great about the game) in the review. Most of the reviewers do not provide those or gloss over them – but for me, those are the most interesting.

    The decision to buy usually does not come from the review(s). There are titles/ designers/ topics that I am interested in and I obtain such titles. Still, any negatives found in the review online can steer me away from the game.

    As much as I like the visual aspect of a game, I don’t care for unboxing videos and I have seen enough of the playthrough videos rife with rule errors to disregard those, as well. Just the visual aspect of components will not sway me to buy the game. Player aids, charts, one can even make those oneself, if that will be important. Many users on BGG even provide such user-made aids online.

    What I enjoy the most is the analysis of the game, sprinkled with some historical knowledge of the subject and reasonable critique of the game. This includes talking/ writing about things that are not so stellar in the design… Such a reviewer, however, is hard to find.

    Many choose to concentrate on what they like about the game. Fine, but I expect more from a review.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ll jump in here with I’ve absolutely bought games based on content (content being unboxings, reviews and playthroughs) that I’ve seen on YouTube, blogs, etc. What I really want to see in the content is the topic of the game, quality of the components and mechanics to include rules. I think ZillaBlitz and The Player’s Aid do great work with their content on new games. I also appreciate the honest opinions given, but that is less important than the other information. At this point, I pretty much assume that most of the popular content creators are getting review copies. Since I posted here, you know I trust the Cardboard Commander to provide accurate and trustworthy information that I can use to vector in on the games that I really need.

    Like

  5. Unboxing videos are fairly worthless to me, unless they are for a game that is produced by a company that I am not familiar with. The reality is that game production quality now is excellent, so I am not worried about what is in the box.

    As for reviews, if a channel is significantly monetizing itself (especially with a Patreon), I find the reviews to be overly enthusiastic. Reviewers that make a decent amount of money off of their channel need to keep the gravy train going, which includes getting free games in the mail from publishers. I was a Patreon of one very well known channel, and the things they said in their private Patreon forum were not at all what they said publicly. I canceled my Patreon subscription for that reason alone.

    The best reviewer, hands down, is Wayne Hansen. He will accept a review copy, but he does not have a Patreon. I find his “pros and cons” segment to be extremely honest. And he is not afraid to tell you if he does not like a game, even if it was a review copy. Wayne seems to be in it for the love of the hobby, not for a side gig.

    Like

    1. Wow, that is a bit duplicitious. Why would a dude say 1 thing in public then another in semi private about a game or publisher. Ass kissing only goes so far. Talk about a wolf in sheeps clothing….

      Like

Leave a comment

Trending