Andy, I do think there's a line between criticism and advocacy (or, on an extreme end of the spectrum, propaganda)... criticism would be primarily interested in the merit of a work; advocacy would use "critique" of that work to further a given ideological agenda. It CAN be a blurry line, I admit; here are some questions one might ask to try and suss out the difference on a case-by-case basis:
Is the criticism in general primarily focused on how the specific work being criticized could be improved, OR is the "criticism" more interested in how that work confirms/supports a larger ideological point? Does the criticism allow for uncertainty or plurality of possible interpretations while asserting a single interpretation as merely preferable (or more firmly supported), OR does it mandate its own interpretation as being self-evident and mutually exclusive with any alternatives? Is the tone exploratory or dogmatic? Is more time spent on the personal effect/impression of the work on the critic, or on the perceived (or worse, guaranteed as being inevitable) effect of the work on an imagined public?
I've highlighted what I view more as criticism in green and what I view as advocacy in red.
You (or Radiowar, if he were still contributing!) might respond that the explicit role of cultural criticism IS to advocate and that the above list makes that impossible, but I would counter that EVEN so-called cultural criticism has an obligation to focus on the work first and foremost, to maintain an exploratory/analytical emphasis, and to avoid too much certitude regarding the inevitability of the work's effect on others.
It's worth asking yourself these questions.
Bottom line: Is the work being informatively analyzed on its merits, or is it being opportunistically used for its (perceived) flaws?
Hopefully my list makes sense to you... it's all free speech, either way, but I respect & reserve the word "criticism" for discourse that meets more of these criteria than not, because I tend to see advocacy as having an ulterior motive that puts the work second (or dead last) and puts the "message" first, which results in highly compromised analyses - the "critic" is obligated to apply an active filter to anything that doesn't fit with the paradigm and to use a persuasive tone at all times. It doesn't matter if I might agree with the message or not, because I respect art enough, and indeed criticism enough, to not admire the former being used as a tool, under the guise & protection of the latter, for what amounts to rhetoric in the service of a third party who is ultimately disinterested in the work - SAVE for how it can strengthen their thesis.
You want more variety for female characters in games? So do I... but we both also want video games to be recognized as art, right?
Advocacy that uses games to articulate an agenda & only pays lip service to the idea of criticism diminishes the idea of games as art, because it doesn't respect them enough to give them the actual analysis that would be afforded films, novels, songs, or most other art forms.
It is a trivialization of the medium, in the transparent & opportunistic service of dogma.
You can't be okay with that JUST because the dogma in question resonates with you, in its distilled & most benign incarnation.
Done.
I feel pretty good about this post, because I was able to express most of my objections with clarity for once. Plus colors are neat & ordered lists are cool.