Here are 10 working ideas/guidelines:

Ideally a critical position / argument about computer games should be:

1. Falsifiable and verifiable. Not such a common feature in the Humanities, and not always relevant, but in my opinion a good argument should be saying where and when it is contestable, and where and when it can be proven or disproven.
2. Extensible and scalable. We should be able to add to it, extend it, apply it to more research questions and research areas or add it ot current research findings or critical frameworks.
3. Reconfigurable. Components are more useful than take it or leave it positions.
4. Is useful even if proven wrong in terms of data, findings, methods, or argument (possibly this heuristic should be combined with number 3).
5.      Helpful to the current and future design of computer games, and has potential to forecast future changes in design, deployment or acceptance.
6. Not in danger of conflating describing computer games with prescribing how computer games should be. Several of the arguments cited in this book appear to make that mistake.
7. Understands the distinction between methods and methodology, the selection or rejection of methods should always be examined and communicated.
8. Is lucid and honest about the background, context, and motivations as factors driving it.
9. Aiming for validity and soundness of argument.
10. Attempting to provide in a longterm and accessible way for the data, ouptut, and results of any experiment or survey to be examinable by others.