@thoughtpunks The problem with ludology is a field of study, and I say this as one of the initiated officiants, is that it's largely crap. Which is a problem if you want to say anything meaningful, much less comprehensible.
The proof, unfortunately, is in the pudding. In general, people who study ludology academically make absolutely garbage games, entirely too head-up-their-own-rectum to actually be playable or enjoyable. It's the difference between theoretical science and engineering; you can study the abstraction all day but it won't help you build an internal combustion engine. Most of what you can hope for is to refine one that already exists.
The advantage of working professionals is that they work, which gives their statements more than a veneer of authority – it provides actual authority.
When ludology can provide more than post hoc rationalizations for what already exists and instead can actually start making reasonable predictions about what could, we'll start thinking of it as an authoritative science.
Until then – the rest of us will keep having discussions that things actually happen from.