[scott_s]

The theory isn't about the brain itself, but about the enjoyment cycle of Diablo 2 and Diablo 3. The hypothesis is clearly stated in his post: it's the graphs he drew for the brain activity of Diablo 2 and 3. He is predicting a very specific reward-frustration cycle for each game.

No one said science had to be useful.

[slurgfest]

This has nothing to do with science. It has to do with complaining about a matter of taste, and dressing it up with scientism.

[scott_s]

A testable hypothesis whose result will either support or falsify a theory is the very definition of science.

Note that this theory has nothing to do with whether or not one likes the experience. Someone very well may like the experience with more frustration more, for whatever reason. The theory is not "This is why Diablo 2 is better than Diablo 3," but an explanation for why many people may feel less satisfaction playing Diablo 2 than Diablo 3.