I agree, orphans should be allowed to participate with their parents same as everyone else.

If the research show that parents and children have different taste, won't that be meaningful research?

As least they won't waste their time creating games for parents and children.

If research shows that there is a 50%-50% that parents and children like the same thing. Won't it be meaningful that they concentrate on these 50%?

How can you claim that irrelevant?
What about their pets?

Why noone mentioned pets? They are rightful members in many families :)
You were faster than me...

Seriously people, stop derailing this thread!

Thanks, I'd recommend you update your first post with the link and possibly some more information about the project, so people don't have to read through the whole thread to find the important bits. :)

Agree. Especially that part about pets.

We also have some flowers in my family... And many people treat flowers almost like pets, as they are also living beings. I think they react differently depending on video game being played nearby. I suppose they bloom when they like the game, and they wither if they don't like it. It could make for wonderful research and very important to advance the "knowledge of gaming"! :D

I bet they'd love "Plants VS. Zombies".

And all of a sudden we vegans and vegetarians get insulted without any reason or connection whatsoever. Thanks.

You mean dtgreene? Women already have more than enough coddling, the question was about encouraging male parental engagement. Arguably asking why sons and not daughters would be far more reasonable than wondering why father's and sons are the focus.

I can't really speak for the OP, but most of the things that men and sons have traditionally done together are either no longer available or have had women horn in on it because feminists don't like men having nice things. No wonder so many men have a hard time transitioning to adulthood when we get to spend so little time with just our fathers.

I suspect that dtgreene's posts in other threads probably are a part of it, although, I don't personally think the post was that bad as to warrant downrepping. A tad tone-deaf, but not really that bad.
I'm a veterinarianitarian. I only eat non-veterinarian people.

♪♫
Who's that riding into the sun?
Who's the man with the itchy gun?
Who's the man who kills for fun?
Gamer Dad, Gamer Dad, Dad.

Quick with the gun
but he loves his son
Killed his wife 'cos she weighed a ton.
Gamer Dad!
♫♪

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GFq6usPg6U

After all this I think that the OP would find studying the mentality of Gamers more interesting than Dads and boys

Hold on, if your insulted then as a meat eater that means I am insulted as well...

Why do these posters not include *every* possible group.

I frankly do not have any opinion regarding that research. I've done a few and overstretching to be too exhaustive often leads to irrelevancy, so I guess its their right to have their own limitations and not be accused of begin "non-inclusive", but at the same time, they do not need the forums people to defend their choices, especially when it devolve into another SJW/GG skirmish.

Total non sequitur. What does moldy soup have to do with anything else that has been said in this thread so far?

At least the pets will continue to have doctors.

The actual experiment is to propose a game, then see how people respond on a gaming forum. Experiment in progress!

This comment is the first reference to GG I've seen in here. Person A mocking Person B's ideas on how society should work does not mean Person A is even aware of GG, much less identifies with it.