Hmm, that's a very interesting thought! It made me think: do you think judging literary vs. cognitive challenges could depend on the genre of the game? I would be pretty sad if Portal, for example, was judged only as a puzzle game. That was the idea that turned me off originally when someone described it to me. As soon as I got the story, though, I became interested, because I like to analyze.

Could it be possible that some games should be judged primarily by cognitive challenges, and others by both?

Or, could it be possible that we don't need to judge games at all? o_O

Sounds weird, but this is what I mean. I'm actually in the article never once talking about evaluating the merit of a game on an objective level. It's not about judging games so much as judging how we interact with them. I'm talking about on a personal level, how the game interacts with you, and whether you find value out of it. If you find value only through area MT, that's a thing, I guess. But what if we find other ways of connecting our brains to a game--since the game is affecting those other areas already? On some level, who really cares about the "literary" or "cognitive" value of the game? On some level, you and I don't really give a velociraptor's feathers either way what some arbitrary standard says about a game. We care about how the game affects us.

What do you think? I dunno, you're very societally-minded here, and that takes the article beyond what I'd originally intended. Neat! I'm not sure how we should "judge games," I guess! Just interested in how it gets my brain. ^_^