theabrax

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by theabrax 6y ago

   IMHO it is not as flawed as the way you present it. >>> One, the measurement of novelty is bad: it's basically the measure of whether the game exhibits a novel mashup of mechanics according to the BoardGameGeek ontology of mec
2. 2.▲
   by theabrax 6y ago

   Well, you could, but then you only would have generated something "new," probably without any sense - something bizarre. That's why the authors measure usefulness, too. Only if both - novelty and usefulness - come together, y
3. 3.▲
   by theabrax 6y ago

   Did you actually read the article? ^_^" Nevertheless, it's seems that the more knowledge diversity a team has, the MORE novelty and LESS usefulness. It's all about communication, sharing ideas, interpretation of knowledge (me
4. 4.▲
   by theabrax 6y ago

   Well, to be fair, the article doesn't say anything about that the chosen set of mechanics (novelty) have to provide fun. Actually, this seems to be the usefulness part of creativity, or as they describe it, how "playable and enter
5. 5.▲
   by theabrax 6y ago

   Interesting. Please, elaborate why you think that is and how this - against the background of the paper - would bias the results.