Well, sorry for citing the same part as the original BoingBoing article:

[T]here would be no point today in writing a review of Ultima IV, since it is long out of print. A useful work of criticism, however, is entirely conceivable: discussing, perhaps, its role as one of the first games to consider the moral implications of a player’s acts, and to use tactical combat as a minigame within the context of a larger, more strategic title. Such an article, well-written, ideally with an understanding of the influence of tabletop roleplaying on the development of the early western CRPG, and of the place of this title in the overall shape of Richard Garriot’s ouevre would be of interest to readers today, even if they’d be hard put to find a way to buy the damn game. And it might find a place in anthologies and studies of the 20th century origins of the popular medium of the game, going forward into the indefinite future.

The truth is that, for the most part, we don’t have anything like game criticism, and we need it — to inform gamers, to hold developers to task, and to inform our broader cultural understanding of games and their importance and impact on our culture.

Greg Costikyan about why games need criticism – as opposed to simple reviews.

Part of the problem is, I guess, that games haven’t reached the status of being Art yet, they’re still just cheap entertainment, and as such not worthy of discussion. But then again: how long did it take that photography and cinematography became their own art form?