Man, the title says it.
If we don't honestly and earnestly criticize each other's games than we are going to find ourselves knee-deep in weak-ass games. That is just it.
Jeff and I decided to keep our show very positive and at times I kind of regret that. A voice of criticism is an important thing. Without it, shit is going to fall flat.
Jay Walton has a good point, though. I wouldn't want a small group of vocal folks speaking for everyone or acting as gate-keepers or some shit. That is crap.
But there has got to be something. The fact that Ron said that Shock: needed a once-over and Alexander played it and had trouble with the text and was vocal about it led to Joshua releasing the new version and the new version has been at the helm of more hours of fun gaming than any other game this year. That is a big YAY for Joshua for cowboying up and re-writing things but also a big YAY to Ron and Alexander for being active and aggressive players who not only high-five when things are awesome but scratch their heads IN PUBLIC and give solid critique.
As usual, I think this kind of criticism has to come out of play. It shouldn't be some blog where reviews happen, unless those reviews are AP reviews.
Publish -> Play -> Dialogue -> Refine
But I'm open to other solutions to this riddle. How do you think we should criticize each other's babies?