Відео

Keep speaking truth brother. It was great meeting you a couple years at pax unplugged Philadelphia.

I have to say, this is an absolutely amazing series of videos. I hope it provides useful information and food for thought for anyone who wants to think critically about how they engage with their hobbies.

It is hard to impossible to find negative board game reviews. Most of the content creators in board games will tell you they don't do negative reviews. It brings a lot more nuance to the conversation when you think about these "reviews" as paid advertisements. I realize that my meta watching reviews assumes the reviewer is going to be positive and i am looking for which things they like most.

Love this response. I know this is very late, but it is important to have these conversations as different generations change their views on racism and its acceptability.

Hi, a new tcg is coming out, Altered, I would love to have you cover it. It's a non-violent inclusive take on tcg's !

Hmm. I’m going to have to interject on the idea of creatives seeking collaboration because there are many forms of art that are often created within a vacuum. Writers, poets, painters, sculptors, photographers… Games are ultimately a form of artistic expression, and art is a personally expressive practice. From personal experience, some artists lose their initial vision- their overall intention, when allowing their work to be commented upon before it’s ready to be released to the world. Collaboration simply isn’t easy for everyone. But at the same time, I do agree with the idea that there would be a benefit to having more cultural collaboration within game design.

Such a good topic to explore. I think once companies (all types, not just speaking of the gaming world) realized the value in sending out review copies, things changed- because a lot of people refused to be critical of things they received for free- especially if there was ever a possibility of it leading to more free stuff. I often think too many reviewers are trying to be all things to all people to get more followers/likes/subscribers- which to me, makes it hard to trust them. I also don’t have time to watch an hour long review where people are burying critical thoughts under a mountain of fluff. Lastly, I hate watching a reviewer dialing it in- doing a review you can tell they’d rather not be doing. Do they not like the game? Or did they not get enough sleep last night? Enthusiast reviewers are great. But content creation is a lot of work and it seems common to see them eventually start pitching a patreon or the like to offset the effort- because who wants to work for free, right? I’m enjoying your channel. I’m sorry it took me so long to get here.

Waiting impatiently for a historically accurate game about slaughtering Indians designed by an ancestor of a Mayflower crew member 😁

Somehow tragic events in Middle East reminded me why I do not like Spirit Island. I think logic of colonialism/ anti colonialism discourse is so defective : white plastic conquistadors are not invaders, I cannot see them that way. If it was bunch of raiding Vikings maybe but those white folks from SI already built big cities implying that there are people who were born in that island and it is they home . Therefore destruction as goal is very genocidal

Thank you again, Jason, for putting together a good discussion! I loved the contributions from both Daniel and Chris! I am still concerned with the point of what I believe lies in between the two types of art that Daniel mentioned of gallery art and commercial art, which is an important distinction, even though as he said, of course, there is an overlap. I really wish we valued more in the discussions of this topic the human emotional process in creating art, which is not only still valuable in commercial art, but it is a crucial element in everything that is called art, even if faint or even if a software can immitate it. I have the impression that that is also significantly missed in the discussions about human vs. machine learning. Is it maybe that in our efforts to be objective we overlook the romanticism of art as superfluous or ephemeral, ignoring its contributions to the end products? What do you think? Also, this gap between non-artists defining what is art vs. artists is very old, this impression that others don't get what it is to grow as an artist, to then equal it to machine learning in this case, is unsettling but also very old and this is flourishing in that gap, with a "little" incentive of dollar signs.

It's fun to see Daniel Solis on the channel! He won't remember this, but I met him at a gaming event at a museum in Durham, North Carolina, where he was demoing "Belle of the Ball," and also had copies of "Kiji" and "Koi Pond." I didn't have any clue about UA-cam or the gaming industry at the time, but I remember thinking what he was doing was so cool. My assessment has not changed. Nice discussion. :)

Like so many artisans before us...carpenters, potterers, seamstresses, and countless others...who have faded into the past, this will prove a very difficult time. While there's no chance of putting the djinni back in the bottle, it will require a serious conversation on how we proceed. As always, it's a great discussion.

When a human is inspired, the similar work can be intentional homage and have weight behind the output. There is meaning conveyed in the act of homage. A computer isn't doing any of that. It's just brute force using. It's the difference between asking to borrow a hammer and stealing it. Both acts look very similar - but humans know why one is wrong.

Great discussion, as always, Jason! 💯 Salient Points 🎲

Thank you so much for this.

Thank you all. Very interesting.

Not criticizing but there is an odd synergy between "what's the line with media ethics?" and "what's the line with cultural consultancy?".

This whole playlist has been so informative and useful, thank you for taking the time and effort to make it. I've been struggling to understand the violent reactions from people over something as simple as pointing out discrepancies between depiction of men and women on a box cover (beyond basic misogyny). This has helped me understand (although I still find it difficult to fathom!)

Thank you Jason and guests for bringing this discussion to the table! There is a lot of nuance for sure, and as a content creator myself, definitely something to be aware of. I truly appreciate these videos to help create a better understanding for everyone involved.

"Boricua Morena, Boricua Morena"

I must say I loved hearing media folks put content creators "in their place" in that filming and chatting about a boardgame you just played it just not "media."

@Keithlaw - You have a broken link for boardgame reviews "via this index page" on your blog's about page. Didn't know how to properly contact you. REALLY loved this topic, thanks to Jason, Luke, and Keith for such a thoughtful conversation!

Really appreciate this video. Really good thoughts and discussions. It mentions but unfortunately doesn’t brainstorm IDEAS on how to fix the revenue stream while keeping journalistic integrity. THATs the crux of the problem.

This is a really wonderful video. Thank you Jason, Luke, and Keith for having such a deep and meaningful discussion. It's a nuanced topic with a lot of angles to consider, for sure! I find it frustrating that channels like the one mentioned early in the video continue to get lots of viewers and support despite their repeated bad behavior, while more ethical, diverse, and talented creators slip under the radar. I don't know what the solution is, I think we all just need to continue speaking out against the companies and media outlets who repeat bad behaviors, and support the ones who are doing it right (or as right as they can, given a variety of circumstances that you all discussed at length).

Great conversation. It's way overdue to have some real pushback against this cozy relationship with publishers that board game youtubers have convinced themselves is normal and uncontroversial. It's important for boardgame youtubers to get out of this bubble of thinking that there aren't real ethical concerns with the current model. Luke is speaking my love language. "You have a systemic problem in your coverage" -- amen. Credit to Jason for being willing to have these difficult conversations. -jesse

I really enjoyed this. It definitely puts light on the fact that enthusiasts are doing things that companies find useful as advertising, and so when companies step over the line to co-opt enthusiasts into the advertising department of their company it's primarily the companies that are more likely to have the resources to understand the limits of what they need to be asking and of whom, and the enthusiasts do still make the decision to accept gifts or payment or connections. Similarly, the negative consequences of living in the gray zone are going to occur regardless of diversity or lack thereof. It's a systemic issue where journalistic standards may not be intentionally exclusionary, so in some future optimistic world where we have less systemic oppression, then more diverse groups of people can access and adhere to those valuable trust-retaining standards.

Great great video, thank you everyone for joining for the conversation. While I understand everything Luke and Keith were saying about the sort of binary approach to using the word journalistic integrity and it only really belonging to mainstream level educated, experienced and credentialed journalists, I think this becomes a 'you must prove your coverage is sincere or pure to have value to your audience' position for creators. And my spidey-sense inner cynic is poking me going "Well shouldn't I as the audience also be able to force the publicly-held mainstream company you receive your living from prove that they DON'T operate and adhere to the philosophy of 'The only thing that matters is shareholder value'? Because if they do, I would say no matter what 'journalist standards' some department at that company works under, at the end of the day, what really matters is what shareholders say. And most aren't gonna care about any standard. (That's not even to say how compromised private companies with private equity capital are.) I'm not really criticizing the position, maybe just pointing out that even though we're all operating under late-stage capitalism, gaining what any creator or evangelist/pseudo-reviewer does for boardgames, still provides overall value, even if that value isn't codified by rigorous professional standard. Thanks again everyone for a fascinating conversation! Bravo Jason for another banger of cultural examination.