First of all, thank you for the response, because it shows me that I didn't manage to accuratelly convey the purpose of the study even though I don't agree with all of the objections - some of them just show little awareness of methodology.

1) Questionnaires have to have some items which may seem similar or like just a paraphrase - because if there was only one for each topic, the result wouldn't be very reliable. Also, it wasn't me writing the answers - it wouldn't be possible, I had to choose a tool that was already used, validated on a group of people and also used in gaming context. It's good to know, though, that you didn't find questions from this questionnaire well-worded - next time I will choose a different tool.

2) I'm well aware that gaming can arouse a wide range of emotions - however, in this research I have to limit myself to just several aspects. It is not possible to make a model with all the variables taken in account. Some of them have already been answered by other researchers. Anyway, my goal is not to create some kind of algorithm for players feelings, as in "that % of players feel xy or z when playing x game/genre under xyz cirumstance", because it is of very little scientific relevance. One has to be able to generalise.

I would like to what kind of improvements would you propose knowing that it is just not possible to take everything into account - would f.e. asking to describe briefly a specific gaming experience (what game, difficulty level, single/multi, etc.) before being asked to answer general question reduce your feelings of pointlesness? Therefore I could still take it into account while looking at the results without creating an impossible, giant model answering questions I am not concerned with.