I was simply pointing to the fact that within game design there is a common set of ideas (“good taste in game design”) that values highly emergent games over linear ones.

For me playing means to have fun, to be challenged, to enjoy the time I spend with the game.
If it is making me think about what I do and why I enjoyed it — even better!

One crucial point that sticks out to me is that I like those games the most which can be experienced and played in a lot of different ways which are enjoyable in their own way. These games feel like sandbox games, although they would normally not be classified as this. Think of Chess or M:tG as a start. Recently I returned to Etrian Odyssey (in its heart a dungeon crawl) and found myself playing it more like GTA – strolling around, leveling some new characters, fulfilling a side quest.

On the other hand, even completely linear games with storytelling can be interesting and offer quite a lot of replay value – think the GBA Castlevanias which offer more challenges after completion, where you can play as a different character with different abilities or do a Boss rush.

So from my point of view it can be deceiving to mark one end of the spectrum you describe as good and the other as bad or undesirable. It’s all in the way the elements are combined and offered to the player – and what she can do with this.

Of course its ‘dangerous’ in that yes, you may very well be proven wrong. But without making statements, as you say, we won’t move forward. In all likelihood, at least part of a new statement will be right, which we can hold on to and learn from.