I really enjoyed the case Juul made for "gameplay and the social." It seems like almost all video games of America are individualistic. With Randian appeal, they focus more on the individual vs. the masses.

I absolutely abhor at that dualistic fallacy. (Hence, my disgust at Rand's school of objectivism). I loved his analysis of CounterStrike, yet he was fair with other the other examples. I respect that degree of scholarship. I think his voice really came through in this chapter without making direct value statements.

But my favorite part of this chapter was his astute and fair critiques of other scholar's theories of rules. Rather than outright say that Salen and Zimmerman were wrong he showed where their theory lacked and offered his solution to make it better. That was an example of good scholarship.

He could have introduced the book with "games are worth studying because..." But instead, he posed the question and evaluated each argument without being disrespectful or condescending.

I feel he makes a case worth listening to because he demonstrates his ability to argue without making outright attacks on the weaknesses of another scholar's argument.