Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zak S" data-source="post: 6732231" data-attributes="member: 90370">Because NO part of it is worthwhile, though, even if it might've had some therapeutic value for some gamers.It is like phrenology: even if phrenology incidentally had some good impact on some person's life (it taught them to make precise measurements or use a protractor or read a chart), all arguments drawn from these principles are bad as they rest on faulty premises.And most of what we do on game forums is discuss what's true and false. So if the conversation is about what actually works and what actually doesn't, then the person who starts using phrenological ideas is not making a good argument and this should be pointed out and they should stop so that we can move on and real progress can be made.As articulated, in its strong form, GNS is simply wrong. It makes bad predictions that don't match reality.In its weak form (where we ignore what it says and just use the buzzwords) it simply says &quot;Some gamers like different things in games&quot; which is what every other theory of games says.So there's no part of it that's useful. It is all rind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zak S, post: 6732231, member: 90370"] Because NO part of it is worthwhile, though, even if it might've had some therapeutic value for some gamers. It is like phrenology: even if phrenology incidentally had some good impact on some person's life (it taught them to make precise measurements or use a protractor or read a chart), all arguments drawn from these principles are bad as they rest on faulty premises. And most of what we do on game forums is discuss what's true and false. So if the conversation is about what actually works and what actually doesn't, then the person who starts using phrenological ideas is not making a good argument and this should be pointed out and they should stop so that we can move on and real progress can be made. As articulated, in its strong form, GNS is simply wrong. It makes bad predictions that don't match reality. In its weak form (where we ignore what it says and just use the buzzwords) it simply says "Some gamers like different things in games" which is what every other theory of games says. So there's no part of it that's useful. It is all rind. [/QUOTE]

Verification