1. Non-elimination of players
A good board game will not eliminate players before the end. On the contrary, all players should have some chance of winning, even if they start poorly. Breaching this rule reduces enjoyment for some of the players, and can be socially undesirable. Monopoly and Risk are examples of games which break this rule. Technically, so does the collaborative Lord of the Rings game, but there the possible "death" of players is a key part of the game, and players in fact remain as interested team-mates, participating in discussion.
2. Termination
A good board game is guaranteed to terminate. Indeed, scheduling around meals (not to mention sleep time) requires that the duration of play should be predictable. This can be achieved by running through a deck of cards only once, as in Pandemic, moving through a fixed-length track on the board, as in Beowulf, or having a limited number of essential tokens, as in Ticket to Ride:
3. Attractiveness
A good board game should be beautiful to look at. For one thing, this makes waiting for one's turn more interesting. The artwork by John Howe in Lord of the Rings and Beowulf makes these games winners on this criterion. Like Tigris and Euphrates and Thurn and Taxis, these games also incorporate an interesting storyline:
4. Morality
Winning the game shouldn't involve undesirable behaviour, which is why I don't like games like Monopoly which simply involve getting rich. I prefer games like Alhambra where money is merely a means to another end (in the case of Alhambra, building beautiful gardens). Collaborative games like Lord of the Rings, Pandemic, and Arkham Horror score best on this criterion. What can be better than defending the world against evil?
