The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Video games are a current focus of mass academic research. Scientists want to know how games affect the player. Are players of violent games really transformed into violent people? Are lovers of simplistic platform games really of a lower IQ? Perhaps a major intent of the research is to prove or disprove aspects of media speculation, and perhaps also to ultimately brand video games as good or bad.
Maybe the biggest assumption of all is made by those in the education field. It has many a time been claimed that 'video games are detrimental to academic performance', so it is hardly surprising that scientists have researched such an assumption thoroughly. Perhaps the biggest disbelief of all came when an American scientific journal claimed that the heavy video game players performed poorly at school. However, it was later claimed that overall, a computer game based reading training programme outperformed the teacher method by 130%, quite an increase.
Research or no research, it could have been claimed that quite obviously, video games do affect academic performance. In my view, this is not an intrinsic property of the game itself, but of time management. In the early academic study on education and games, they claimed that players performed worse at school than non-players. My justification of this hypothesis is simple, children who play games have less time for school work. It is in no way linked to games affecting the academic mind. This basis can be backed up the latest paper which claims video games can make more effective teachers than humans, controversial, but undoubtedly true. Again, to me, this makes sense, games are fun, and what better way to teach a child than by incorporating an element of fun into the procedure.
But how does incorporating fun into teaching, as the academics claim, improve learning? This was answered by another series of research which investigated children with learning disabilities. It was proved, statistically, in a number of papers that the key to this is motivation. Children with learning disorders and attention deficit disorders were much more highly motivated and intrigued by video games than human teachers. How obvious a hypothesis, but again undoubtedly true. When integrated into a learning programme, video game based mechanisms gave far higher results than the teacher. Thus it is hardly surprising that video game based teaching is used medically in the rehabilitation of such patients. It should also be noted, that it has also been proved scientifically that video games markedly improve an individuals hand/eye co-ordination during cognitive development. Axiomatic, when you consider the hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes involved with games like Halo.
So far the bulk of the post has been based on games and their affects on children and educational development. In a anterograde manner, scientists have also investigated the affects of video games on the elderly community. The first study that should be noted displayed that games hugely increase an elderly citizens self esteem. In the study elderly citizens were exposed to video games for eight weeks and drastic improvements were seen. It was also shown that video games severely helped the senior citizens motor skills and reflex time. This allowed them to carry out tasks such as driving and housework far more efficiently due to only eight weeks of gameplay.
A common motif to the gamer is the supposition that men are 'better' at games than women. These gender issues have also been subject for mass scientific research. This was shown to be less involved with gender, but more with experience and market trends. One paper claimed that the entire video game industry was built around a male paradigm, thus males appear on the face of it to be better gamers. Experience is also a key concept, and it was shown that overall, in a gaming arcade, 80% of the play was undertaken by males. In a more intrinsic study it was also noted that females preferred using PC based systems than video game based consoles. However, the burning question has so far lacked research in the scientific world. The question is, 'Why do women feel the urge to physically move the pad, instead of simply pressing the controls'. To that extent, I would love to find an answer. Perhaps such a reflex activity is due to lack of experience of gaming, and relating games with the real world, where physical movement is crucial.
A controversial media and general assumption is to blame video games for violent activity. It is in the true nature of science to pick up on such a hypothesis and develop a thesis, which has been done to the very maximum in the academic world. In a very detailed statistical study it was inferred that 'violent video games to contribute to violent tendencies in youth'. This was later backed up by another paper which collaterally analysed the effects of violent and non-violent games on the players. It was noted that players of the violent games exhibited a higher degree of anxiety and tension than players of the non-violent games. It should also be noted that they considered hostility to be the predominant emotion in all games, not excitement or pleasure as we would like to expect.
However, in more recent studies on gaming and violence have shown that all children have violent and hostile tendencies, and that video games offer a socially acceptable outlet for such tendencies. It should also be stated that in a completely contradictory paper scientists claimed that violent games had NO effect on the players heart rate or post-game aggression. As it stands on this front, a lot of research has been conducted, but no real answer has been formulated. Perhaps the question now has to be what groups of people violent games affect adversely. And the answer was stated in a recent paper where they determined that those who enjoyed watching violent films and reading violet literature, enjoyed violent games more, and exhibited more violent tendencies. Maybe the justification for this is such people are simply violent people, and video games have absolutely no effect on personality.
Research has been extensively carried out by those in the medical profession also. This is obviously because with video games now being an integral part of people's lives, the medical implications of gaming needed to be researched. It was shown in one study that playing of video games increased blood pressure and oxygen consumption in a group of researchees. This may spark worry through the NHS when they consider that high blood pressure (hypertension) is a major cause of coronary heart diseases. It was also shown that the flashing lights displayed by many commercial games triggered epileptic attacks in sufferers. However, despite these criticisms, games have shown to be very helpful in the rehabilitation of many patients. Suffers of traumatic head injuries were shown to have increased reflex and motor skills after playing a game than by following standard physiotherapy. However, this is obviously not going to be helpful as a complete propose to physiotherapy! Also, it was shown that cancer patients following chemotherapy exhibited up to three times less nausea and sickness after playing a game than without. It is maybe the engrossing and mind-turning effects of the game that turned the patient's attention from his symptoms to the game. This is truly beneficial to the medical profession if nothing else.
In a more general theme, it was shown overall that video games increase a person's motivation and general self-esteem. Video games have been shown to make a person more extrovert, less goal-orientated, more in control of feelings, and more logical thinkers than non-gamers. To me, video games have not been detrimental at all in my development or my attitude to life. Games are now integral to us all in the FOG, and I can speak for most of us when I say that we are all a lively, extrovert, and fun-loving community as whole. Scientific research may have spoken on many issues regarding gaming as an educational tool, as an educational hinderence, as a medical concept, as a personality changer, even as a violence inducer, but how far can we trust statistics? Remember also the paradox that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot!
Maybe the biggest assumption of all is made by those in the education field. It has many a time been claimed that 'video games are detrimental to academic performance', so it is hardly surprising that scientists have researched such an assumption thoroughly. Perhaps the biggest disbelief of all came when an American scientific journal claimed that the heavy video game players performed poorly at school. However, it was later claimed that overall, a computer game based reading training programme outperformed the teacher method by 130%, quite an increase.
Research or no research, it could have been claimed that quite obviously, video games do affect academic performance. In my view, this is not an intrinsic property of the game itself, but of time management. In the early academic study on education and games, they claimed that players performed worse at school than non-players. My justification of this hypothesis is simple, children who play games have less time for school work. It is in no way linked to games affecting the academic mind. This basis can be backed up the latest paper which claims video games can make more effective teachers than humans, controversial, but undoubtedly true. Again, to me, this makes sense, games are fun, and what better way to teach a child than by incorporating an element of fun into the procedure.
But how does incorporating fun into teaching, as the academics claim, improve learning? This was answered by another series of research which investigated children with learning disabilities. It was proved, statistically, in a number of papers that the key to this is motivation. Children with learning disorders and attention deficit disorders were much more highly motivated and intrigued by video games than human teachers. How obvious a hypothesis, but again undoubtedly true. When integrated into a learning programme, video game based mechanisms gave far higher results than the teacher. Thus it is hardly surprising that video game based teaching is used medically in the rehabilitation of such patients. It should also be noted, that it has also been proved scientifically that video games markedly improve an individuals hand/eye co-ordination during cognitive development. Axiomatic, when you consider the hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes involved with games like Halo.
So far the bulk of the post has been based on games and their affects on children and educational development. In a anterograde manner, scientists have also investigated the affects of video games on the elderly community. The first study that should be noted displayed that games hugely increase an elderly citizens self esteem. In the study elderly citizens were exposed to video games for eight weeks and drastic improvements were seen. It was also shown that video games severely helped the senior citizens motor skills and reflex time. This allowed them to carry out tasks such as driving and housework far more efficiently due to only eight weeks of gameplay.
A common motif to the gamer is the supposition that men are 'better' at games than women. These gender issues have also been subject for mass scientific research. This was shown to be less involved with gender, but more with experience and market trends. One paper claimed that the entire video game industry was built around a male paradigm, thus males appear on the face of it to be better gamers. Experience is also a key concept, and it was shown that overall, in a gaming arcade, 80% of the play was undertaken by males. In a more intrinsic study it was also noted that females preferred using PC based systems than video game based consoles. However, the burning question has so far lacked research in the scientific world. The question is, 'Why do women feel the urge to physically move the pad, instead of simply pressing the controls'. To that extent, I would love to find an answer. Perhaps such a reflex activity is due to lack of experience of gaming, and relating games with the real world, where physical movement is crucial.
A controversial media and general assumption is to blame video games for violent activity. It is in the true nature of science to pick up on such a hypothesis and develop a thesis, which has been done to the very maximum in the academic world. In a very detailed statistical study it was inferred that 'violent video games to contribute to violent tendencies in youth'. This was later backed up by another paper which collaterally analysed the effects of violent and non-violent games on the players. It was noted that players of the violent games exhibited a higher degree of anxiety and tension than players of the non-violent games. It should also be noted that they considered hostility to be the predominant emotion in all games, not excitement or pleasure as we would like to expect.
However, in more recent studies on gaming and violence have shown that all children have violent and hostile tendencies, and that video games offer a socially acceptable outlet for such tendencies. It should also be stated that in a completely contradictory paper scientists claimed that violent games had NO effect on the players heart rate or post-game aggression. As it stands on this front, a lot of research has been conducted, but no real answer has been formulated. Perhaps the question now has to be what groups of people violent games affect adversely. And the answer was stated in a recent paper where they determined that those who enjoyed watching violent films and reading violet literature, enjoyed violent games more, and exhibited more violent tendencies. Maybe the justification for this is such people are simply violent people, and video games have absolutely no effect on personality.
Research has been extensively carried out by those in the medical profession also. This is obviously because with video games now being an integral part of people's lives, the medical implications of gaming needed to be researched. It was shown in one study that playing of video games increased blood pressure and oxygen consumption in a group of researchees. This may spark worry through the NHS when they consider that high blood pressure (hypertension) is a major cause of coronary heart diseases. It was also shown that the flashing lights displayed by many commercial games triggered epileptic attacks in sufferers. However, despite these criticisms, games have shown to be very helpful in the rehabilitation of many patients. Suffers of traumatic head injuries were shown to have increased reflex and motor skills after playing a game than by following standard physiotherapy. However, this is obviously not going to be helpful as a complete propose to physiotherapy! Also, it was shown that cancer patients following chemotherapy exhibited up to three times less nausea and sickness after playing a game than without. It is maybe the engrossing and mind-turning effects of the game that turned the patient's attention from his symptoms to the game. This is truly beneficial to the medical profession if nothing else.
In a more general theme, it was shown overall that video games increase a person's motivation and general self-esteem. Video games have been shown to make a person more extrovert, less goal-orientated, more in control of feelings, and more logical thinkers than non-gamers. To me, video games have not been detrimental at all in my development or my attitude to life. Games are now integral to us all in the FOG, and I can speak for most of us when I say that we are all a lively, extrovert, and fun-loving community as whole. Scientific research may have spoken on many issues regarding gaming as an educational tool, as an educational hinderence, as a medical concept, as a personality changer, even as a violence inducer, but how far can we trust statistics? Remember also the paradox that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot!
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Video games are a current focus of mass academic research. Scientists want to know how games affect the player. Are players of violent games really transformed into violent people? Are lovers of simplistic platform games really of a lower IQ? Perhaps a major intent of the research is to prove or disprove aspects of media speculation, and perhaps also to ultimately brand video games as good or bad.
Maybe the biggest assumption of all is made by those in the education field. It has many a time been claimed that 'video games are detrimental to academic performance', so it is hardly surprising that scientists have researched such an assumption thoroughly. Perhaps the biggest disbelief of all came when an American scientific journal claimed that the heavy video game players performed poorly at school. However, it was later claimed that overall, a computer game based reading training programme outperformed the teacher method by 130%, quite an increase.
Research or no research, it could have been claimed that quite obviously, video games do affect academic performance. In my view, this is not an intrinsic property of the game itself, but of time management. In the early academic study on education and games, they claimed that players performed worse at school than non-players. My justification of this hypothesis is simple, children who play games have less time for school work. It is in no way linked to games affecting the academic mind. This basis can be backed up the latest paper which claims video games can make more effective teachers than humans, controversial, but undoubtedly true. Again, to me, this makes sense, games are fun, and what better way to teach a child than by incorporating an element of fun into the procedure.
But how does incorporating fun into teaching, as the academics claim, improve learning? This was answered by another series of research which investigated children with learning disabilities. It was proved, statistically, in a number of papers that the key to this is motivation. Children with learning disorders and attention deficit disorders were much more highly motivated and intrigued by video games than human teachers. How obvious a hypothesis, but again undoubtedly true. When integrated into a learning programme, video game based mechanisms gave far higher results than the teacher. Thus it is hardly surprising that video game based teaching is used medically in the rehabilitation of such patients. It should also be noted, that it has also been proved scientifically that video games markedly improve an individuals hand/eye co-ordination during cognitive development. Axiomatic, when you consider the hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes involved with games like Halo.
So far the bulk of the post has been based on games and their affects on children and educational development. In a anterograde manner, scientists have also investigated the affects of video games on the elderly community. The first study that should be noted displayed that games hugely increase an elderly citizens self esteem. In the study elderly citizens were exposed to video games for eight weeks and drastic improvements were seen. It was also shown that video games severely helped the senior citizens motor skills and reflex time. This allowed them to carry out tasks such as driving and housework far more efficiently due to only eight weeks of gameplay.
A common motif to the gamer is the supposition that men are 'better' at games than women. These gender issues have also been subject for mass scientific research. This was shown to be less involved with gender, but more with experience and market trends. One paper claimed that the entire video game industry was built around a male paradigm, thus males appear on the face of it to be better gamers. Experience is also a key concept, and it was shown that overall, in a gaming arcade, 80% of the play was undertaken by males. In a more intrinsic study it was also noted that females preferred using PC based systems than video game based consoles. However, the burning question has so far lacked research in the scientific world. The question is, 'Why do women feel the urge to physically move the pad, instead of simply pressing the controls'. To that extent, I would love to find an answer. Perhaps such a reflex activity is due to lack of experience of gaming, and relating games with the real world, where physical movement is crucial.
A controversial media and general assumption is to blame video games for violent activity. It is in the true nature of science to pick up on such a hypothesis and develop a thesis, which has been done to the very maximum in the academic world. In a very detailed statistical study it was inferred that 'violent video games to contribute to violent tendencies in youth'. This was later backed up by another paper which collaterally analysed the effects of violent and non-violent games on the players. It was noted that players of the violent games exhibited a higher degree of anxiety and tension than players of the non-violent games. It should also be noted that they considered hostility to be the predominant emotion in all games, not excitement or pleasure as we would like to expect.
However, in more recent studies on gaming and violence have shown that all children have violent and hostile tendencies, and that video games offer a socially acceptable outlet for such tendencies. It should also be stated that in a completely contradictory paper scientists claimed that violent games had NO effect on the players heart rate or post-game aggression. As it stands on this front, a lot of research has been conducted, but no real answer has been formulated. Perhaps the question now has to be what groups of people violent games affect adversely. And the answer was stated in a recent paper where they determined that those who enjoyed watching violent films and reading violet literature, enjoyed violent games more, and exhibited more violent tendencies. Maybe the justification for this is such people are simply violent people, and video games have absolutely no effect on personality.
Research has been extensively carried out by those in the medical profession also. This is obviously because with video games now being an integral part of people's lives, the medical implications of gaming needed to be researched. It was shown in one study that playing of video games increased blood pressure and oxygen consumption in a group of researchees. This may spark worry through the NHS when they consider that high blood pressure (hypertension) is a major cause of coronary heart diseases. It was also shown that the flashing lights displayed by many commercial games triggered epileptic attacks in sufferers. However, despite these criticisms, games have shown to be very helpful in the rehabilitation of many patients. Suffers of traumatic head injuries were shown to have increased reflex and motor skills after playing a game than by following standard physiotherapy. However, this is obviously not going to be helpful as a complete propose to physiotherapy! Also, it was shown that cancer patients following chemotherapy exhibited up to three times less nausea and sickness after playing a game than without. It is maybe the engrossing and mind-turning effects of the game that turned the patient's attention from his symptoms to the game. This is truly beneficial to the medical profession if nothing else.
In a more general theme, it was shown overall that video games increase a person's motivation and general self-esteem. Video games have been shown to make a person more extrovert, less goal-orientated, more in control of feelings, and more logical thinkers than non-gamers. To me, video games have not been detrimental at all in my development or my attitude to life. Games are now integral to us all in the FOG, and I can speak for most of us when I say that we are all a lively, extrovert, and fun-loving community as whole. Scientific research may have spoken on many issues regarding gaming as an educational tool, as an educational hinderence, as a medical concept, as a personality changer, even as a violence inducer, but how far can we trust statistics? Remember also the paradox that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot!
Maybe the biggest assumption of all is made by those in the education field. It has many a time been claimed that 'video games are detrimental to academic performance', so it is hardly surprising that scientists have researched such an assumption thoroughly. Perhaps the biggest disbelief of all came when an American scientific journal claimed that the heavy video game players performed poorly at school. However, it was later claimed that overall, a computer game based reading training programme outperformed the teacher method by 130%, quite an increase.
Research or no research, it could have been claimed that quite obviously, video games do affect academic performance. In my view, this is not an intrinsic property of the game itself, but of time management. In the early academic study on education and games, they claimed that players performed worse at school than non-players. My justification of this hypothesis is simple, children who play games have less time for school work. It is in no way linked to games affecting the academic mind. This basis can be backed up the latest paper which claims video games can make more effective teachers than humans, controversial, but undoubtedly true. Again, to me, this makes sense, games are fun, and what better way to teach a child than by incorporating an element of fun into the procedure.
But how does incorporating fun into teaching, as the academics claim, improve learning? This was answered by another series of research which investigated children with learning disabilities. It was proved, statistically, in a number of papers that the key to this is motivation. Children with learning disorders and attention deficit disorders were much more highly motivated and intrigued by video games than human teachers. How obvious a hypothesis, but again undoubtedly true. When integrated into a learning programme, video game based mechanisms gave far higher results than the teacher. Thus it is hardly surprising that video game based teaching is used medically in the rehabilitation of such patients. It should also be noted, that it has also been proved scientifically that video games markedly improve an individuals hand/eye co-ordination during cognitive development. Axiomatic, when you consider the hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes involved with games like Halo.
So far the bulk of the post has been based on games and their affects on children and educational development. In a anterograde manner, scientists have also investigated the affects of video games on the elderly community. The first study that should be noted displayed that games hugely increase an elderly citizens self esteem. In the study elderly citizens were exposed to video games for eight weeks and drastic improvements were seen. It was also shown that video games severely helped the senior citizens motor skills and reflex time. This allowed them to carry out tasks such as driving and housework far more efficiently due to only eight weeks of gameplay.
A common motif to the gamer is the supposition that men are 'better' at games than women. These gender issues have also been subject for mass scientific research. This was shown to be less involved with gender, but more with experience and market trends. One paper claimed that the entire video game industry was built around a male paradigm, thus males appear on the face of it to be better gamers. Experience is also a key concept, and it was shown that overall, in a gaming arcade, 80% of the play was undertaken by males. In a more intrinsic study it was also noted that females preferred using PC based systems than video game based consoles. However, the burning question has so far lacked research in the scientific world. The question is, 'Why do women feel the urge to physically move the pad, instead of simply pressing the controls'. To that extent, I would love to find an answer. Perhaps such a reflex activity is due to lack of experience of gaming, and relating games with the real world, where physical movement is crucial.
A controversial media and general assumption is to blame video games for violent activity. It is in the true nature of science to pick up on such a hypothesis and develop a thesis, which has been done to the very maximum in the academic world. In a very detailed statistical study it was inferred that 'violent video games to contribute to violent tendencies in youth'. This was later backed up by another paper which collaterally analysed the effects of violent and non-violent games on the players. It was noted that players of the violent games exhibited a higher degree of anxiety and tension than players of the non-violent games. It should also be noted that they considered hostility to be the predominant emotion in all games, not excitement or pleasure as we would like to expect.
However, in more recent studies on gaming and violence have shown that all children have violent and hostile tendencies, and that video games offer a socially acceptable outlet for such tendencies. It should also be stated that in a completely contradictory paper scientists claimed that violent games had NO effect on the players heart rate or post-game aggression. As it stands on this front, a lot of research has been conducted, but no real answer has been formulated. Perhaps the question now has to be what groups of people violent games affect adversely. And the answer was stated in a recent paper where they determined that those who enjoyed watching violent films and reading violet literature, enjoyed violent games more, and exhibited more violent tendencies. Maybe the justification for this is such people are simply violent people, and video games have absolutely no effect on personality.
Research has been extensively carried out by those in the medical profession also. This is obviously because with video games now being an integral part of people's lives, the medical implications of gaming needed to be researched. It was shown in one study that playing of video games increased blood pressure and oxygen consumption in a group of researchees. This may spark worry through the NHS when they consider that high blood pressure (hypertension) is a major cause of coronary heart diseases. It was also shown that the flashing lights displayed by many commercial games triggered epileptic attacks in sufferers. However, despite these criticisms, games have shown to be very helpful in the rehabilitation of many patients. Suffers of traumatic head injuries were shown to have increased reflex and motor skills after playing a game than by following standard physiotherapy. However, this is obviously not going to be helpful as a complete propose to physiotherapy! Also, it was shown that cancer patients following chemotherapy exhibited up to three times less nausea and sickness after playing a game than without. It is maybe the engrossing and mind-turning effects of the game that turned the patient's attention from his symptoms to the game. This is truly beneficial to the medical profession if nothing else.
In a more general theme, it was shown overall that video games increase a person's motivation and general self-esteem. Video games have been shown to make a person more extrovert, less goal-orientated, more in control of feelings, and more logical thinkers than non-gamers. To me, video games have not been detrimental at all in my development or my attitude to life. Games are now integral to us all in the FOG, and I can speak for most of us when I say that we are all a lively, extrovert, and fun-loving community as whole. Scientific research may have spoken on many issues regarding gaming as an educational tool, as an educational hinderence, as a medical concept, as a personality changer, even as a violence inducer, but how far can we trust statistics? Remember also the paradox that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot!