I disagree with this framing. If some narration is valid because of it's entertainment value only, it doesn't follow that avoiding narration only for entertainment value means eliminating narration. If, instead, I value only narration that makes actionable changes to the fiction, then I'm not abandoning narration nor am I just playing a boardgame. Narration can have different purposes, and not using one doesn't discard all others.
My question was to identify if the poster felt that narration only for entertainment (ie, a fun description of damage that doesn't do any other work than being fun) was sufficient to be "meaningful." I think that's a valid thing to say, and it can be useful to examine play with that in place versus looking at play that doesn't consider that "meaningful" narration.