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