For me, any game I buy (which is too many), I think about it in terms of the narrative experience. In other words, how it can tell a story, and how I could possibly put that to paper and report it to anyone interested in reading about it.
Any game I buy has to have some kind of narrative potential to it, potential for an AAR and in telling a story. For example, Fortune and Glory. While adventure games certainly fit that bill, it could of course apply to any game, especially historical wargames.
And with the rise of social media over the years, as well as sites like BGG, there's been a big uptick in people writing their gaming experiences. Sometimes they're not nearly as detailed as I'd like, or make them out to be (perhaps overly so), but that's okay. A narrative is a narrative.
This also means for me that most of my games have a LOT of table time...they stay set up for a while so I'm always thinking about what is coming next, how I can frame the story, and so on.
What I'm wondering is if my observation is correct - more people out there doing more AARs/game reports than gamers that simply open the box, set it up, play it, then put it back and don't think about it in terms of how it tells a story. Not sure if I'm making much sense here or not. Probably not.