Slashdot Mirror
Correlations Between Video Games And Academic Achievement?
mozzer asks: "I'm doing an independent study course in university, and I'm writing an article on video games and academics - basically seeing if there's a correlation between the two. My prof suggested I take a sample of upper year, business strategy students, and see how well they fair at a strategy game (like Starcraft) and then compare how well they do in the game, to how well they did in the class. The question I'd like to ask is: What game do you think would be good to use? I'm afraid people might already know how to play Starcraft, which will skew the results (considering it has a fairly steep learning curve for new players). Or if there are any other ways we could test this sort of thing?"
Might want to try something with a faster learning curve, and maybe something a little bit more general. Simcity maybe? Tetris would be a great example I think, but you might have problems finding people who've never played it before.
--
i'm sure a ot of guy's are familiar w/ the idea of the cunter-strike gameplay and that it does deserve some attention, but still it can't level out with "real" war games and the panache of , let's say, paintball.
still, the team-idea-of-play/strategy is worth the discussing.
{a sigh} abd i ain't that good on stracraft, i hate killing marines! '-)
Now, Make Your WISE Move...
If my second year at university is anything to go by, there will be a strong negative correlation. The longer we all spent on networked computer games, the less time we were working, and the worse grades we got.
"moo" - cow 3, 1906
-Crypthanatopsis
-Crypthanatopsis
Similarly games in which you can learn patterns (remember there's a storm-trooper round the corner) isn't a good measure. Starcraft is a good strategic game, although not random enough if you know where the enemy is. You should definately make a map.
Unreal, or Quake - same thing. Find an obscure map. Avoid beat-em-ups like street fighter or mortal kombat as people can learn those off by heart.
If I were to do it though I would test them with: Head over Heels, Tetris, which ever the game was in which you sectioned off area by drawing boxes to avoid the spinning lines, generic Pinball, and.. hell, Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge 1.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
STALIN LOOKS WORRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
won't you jump on my finger like georgewashington
THE GATES IS BETTER THAN THE LINUS
SUX0RB0ToZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
What would business students playing strategy games prove? Hey, their first company IPO will be a complete bust, but they'll be able to defeat the Orcs in Warcraft? I don't think there's any similarities between the two. Maybe you'd be better off seeing if there's a stronger correlation between video game players and military personnel. I'd sleep much better knowing that all U.S. servicemen (and -women) can finish Quake 2 in under 15 minutes using nothing but a blaster.
On the other hand, you may be able to find games more suited towards those students. Unfortunately, the only viable game I can think of would be Lemonade Stand, but that was only available for my Apple II about 15 years ago...
UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
games, by definition are a chopped-down version of real-life situation and decision-making processes, so in a way, we DO need the game concept, one way or another
wel, that doesn't mean spending 5-6hrs on Q3 dismembering the dean
Now, Make Your WISE Move...
I highly recommend freeciv for this one. It's got all the strategic elements of starcraft (and then some) and it will allow more actual planning rather than quick reflexes as starcraft requires. There are more dimensions to measure too, such as what successful academics spend their time researching, building, or planning in the game(i.e. what they value in the mock civilization could reflect what they value in the real civilizaion.) Plus, as the name says, the game's free :-)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
there are ,indeed, a few economic simulators, quite apt for introducing the big corporate world to the freshman and the high school guys:
WallStreet Trader 2000 and Startup! (the latter i'm uncertain for).
the site was:
http://www.montecristo-multi.com/
and it is a bit more on the analytical software edge, so think twice.
Now, Make Your WISE Move...
A) do those who do well at the game have good grades?
B) Do those who do well at the game have poor grades?
C) Does doing poorly at the game indiacte a lack of interest in the game versus the course?
D) Do those who do well in class do poorly at the game?
E) Does the game become so addicting that the students stop going to class and justifiy it as 'research time' (gaming time) consequently trashing thier grades altogether?
I am not sure what this guy is really asking. I think mixing games into class is a double edged sword. The games themselves may have pertinent value to the syllabus of the course but it is not hard to get really addicted to one of these games and end up consequently destroying a full schedule of classes.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
...but the best CS/EE students definitely correlate with SimCity, Civilization/Alpha Centauri, and the Monkey Island series, at least in my experience.
-- Colin
I'm working on a games review site - Meltdown Gaming - (yes, that was a plug), and of the games we've been reviewing, I'd think something more along the lines of Airport Tycoon or maybe Stardock's The Corporate Machine excellent business sim would be more along the lines to judge dollars and sense.
:)
Or, just put them out on the streets, with a copy of Dope Wars. (for Win95, now! whoo!)
For even more fun, pit the CS students against the business majors - have one semester's class project be to write a business sim the next semester's class has to successfully complette in order to pass... *evil grin*
Or even better - have them attempt to start thier own successful dotcom...or is that already an accepted practice?
Yert
Truck driver, plumber, Linux systems engineer.
Also, how are you going to get serious students to waste time learning a difficult game (you can't eliminate them without skewing the data)? I'm not familiar with the game but a "fairly steep learning curve" doesn't sound promising, and if they just spend a small amount of time learning the basics, it doesn't necessarily indicate how well they would do as experienced players.
Finally, they may have little interest in the game to begin with, which can seriously impact how well they do, regardless of their inherent ability to do well at it.
Overall, you have a tough job ahead, if you want results that have any real meaning.
A more interesting correlation, I think, would be between a student's current and past involvement with video games and his or her academic rank. You could get at that via a survey:
And so forth. Then you could draw some interesting and potentially helpful correlations between the profiles of students as game-players and their profiles as academic achievers.
Against that background, a measure of their ability to learn game-playing skills at a game they've never played before could, in fact, become interesting.
Richard
Everything possible to be believ'd is an Image of Truth - Wm. Blake
You want to prove your point fast? Make them play ever-quest. They will. 1. Spend all their time online. 2. Fail. 3. Drop out and start selling EQ items on ebay, and end up making themselves a career worth more than their business degree ever will get them :)
bleh.
Will make you a great thesis huh?
==sam== free nessus scan - www.vulnerabilities.org
===sam=== free nessus vulnerability scan = www.vulnerabilities.org
Forgot, The Incredible Machine might be a decent test of intellectual abilities. Plus it's not as well-known as Tetris so you might have a large pool of people who've never played it.
Of course, for pure problem-solving, there's always Infocom...
--
No, no, have them play Starcraft. Have them play it every day for two straight days, with only a four-hour break for sleep. Then, on the day of their final, have them play Starcraft instead of showing up.
That's what I did, and it had a *very* definite corellative effect on my grades.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
My best guess is that video games do not significantly improve most college students' grades. Let's take a sample question from a hypothetical test:
(20 points) Cite evidence that ancient Egyptian society was composed of Africans rather than Caucasians, and explain the impact of this anthropological theory.
Now, let's do a sample experiment. Play Starcraft for three hours. Then, write an essay on the aforementioned question. See how you do.
Perhaps, though, you want to know whether studying for school improves one's ability to play video games.
Let's do another sample experiment. Play ten games of Pac Man. Then, spend three hours studying ancient Egyptian culture. When you're finished, play another game of Pac Man and see if your score is any higher.
I haven't done these experiments, but my hypothesis is that the two are probably so closely linked that every second you spend thinking about whether the Sphinx is a black man will raise your score at least 20,000 points.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
It's all about interactions with fellow human beings. The hardest bit about business.
Ok, this is a true story and its kind of hard to believe.
;-)
I am an expert Super Smash Brothers player and I'm friends with people who all take the game VERY seriously. Anyway, we play every friday at one of the dorms at the university I attend.
I found that the more I attended these sessions which could last up to 5-6 hours at a time the better I did in my classes. I don't try at school normally...I enjoy school just grades aren't my thing I guess; but when I would play this game more I would do really well. My Bs and Cs would become As and A-s with no real additional effort involved. Weird, huh?
I would tell people about this and no one would believe me save one who offered me some advice: if your grades are better the more you play that game, you should just play it constantly...like 16 hours a day
I'm not sure if its really related to this whole thing but I think its a cute story anyway.
Best wishes,
Jon
Someone who would more or less be more likely to get better grades in school, probably wouldn't be playing many video games. Har har.
that's besides the point. I found a good game of strategy to play is Q2: CTF. Not only does it test your reflexes, but there are people that are good. There is strategy with railing people at just the right moment. You are constantly thinking as quick as possible, paying absolute attention to everything going on around you. and you are killing people at the same time. Stupid people don't excel in this game. I found quite a few worthy challengers. I am glad there's at least one older game still kept alive.
Oh yeah, I play Q2 constantly, and i'm making about a 3.8 GPA.
Don't forget Heroes of Might and Magic 2, 3 or 4
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Some info. I'm a senior business administration student at Carnegie Mellon University. Our final huge strategy class is called "Management Game". Essentially this class consists of a simulated market in which student run companies compete. In other words, it's a game. In order to do well in the class you have to do well at the game.
Of course, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than Starcraft. And requires a lot more work, teamwork, analysis, and intelligence.
I've only been in the class for two weeks, and already it has forced me to use knowledge and skills from almost every other class I've taken in the business school.
i suggest the game Earth 2150 .. Its a great game that not a lot ofpeople have played and its not totally typical so there is a learning curve involved.. Look into it.. =)
http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm? prodID=7863
it is called "Puzzles-in-Motion", and fits on your Palm Pilot - so you can play it anywhere :))
Your students will really have something to chew on there. The presentation and interface is really simple, but the economic, diplomatic, strategic and even religious models are extremely complex. A knowledge of economics is necessary, and so is a grasp of history. Computer Games Online gave it 4.5 stars and had this to say: "Europa Universalis plays simultaneously at many different levels and constantly demands a great deal of situational awareness. It's more Imperialism than Civilization, though more complex than either. The economic system is the heart of the game. It's robust enough to accurately model development from the late Renaissance all the way through Mercantilism to early Colonialism. The game nimbly keeps track of a staggering amount of minutiae such as the inflationary effects of excess liquid cash, intergovernmental loans, trade policies, and a comprehensive list of commodities. While this sort of micormanagerial detail will usually fall below your radar in terms of management, it can have a serious impact on your foreign policy and statecraft. You will not feel bogged by these details, however-they are simply available for consideration whenever needed. "
Strategy Gaming said: "So what we are left with is a massively complicated game interweaving elements of religions, politics, colonialism, conquest, technology, and militarism taking place on a multifaceted map with layers of trade relationships, alliances and political relationships, while the map is constantly being expanded through exploration - in short, there's literally something for everyone. Wars, as is the historical fact, should typically be the last resort as their cost and consequence make the gains rarely equal the expenditure. A good player will be able to keep in mind the different venues of competition, and a weather-eye on their predicted opponents in each of these areas. Keeping ahead in this game is an extraordinary challenge, and I found myself constantly pausing the game to issue orders. The only thing I haven't been able to test in this beta is the multiplayer, but the developers have made it clear that it's been kept in mind. They are clearly aware that no matter how good the AI is - and it is, believe me (I confess I've actually asked one of the programmers if anyone has won the darn thing...and this is in beta) - this game will shine most brightly with humans running each of the player states."
And pc.ign.com: "I'm glad to see that the religious aspects of the game are equally important. Each nation has a particular religious identity (various types of Christians, Muslims, Sunni, Shia, etc.) and that identity influences the way other nations treat you. During the game, a few historical events will shift the religious balance to one side or the other. After the Reformation, for instance, Catholic countries can convert to Counter Reformation Catholicism. If a Counter Reformed Catholic nation defeats either a Protestant or Reformist nation, the Counter Reformation Catholic country can force the defeated nation to adopt Counter Reformation Catholicism as part of the peace settlement. And this is just one small example of the depth of the religious model in the game."
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
okay, the main question in this article seems to be asking for suggestions on what game, or even sort of game, to use. So a bit of analysis first...
:)
What we seem to want to find out is whether an aptitude at academia equates to skill at gaming, or if the inverse is true.
The game required will need to be quick to pick up, but also quite challenging early on. For non-(regular) game players, I'd imagine this translates to something not too esoteric, with a simple interface.
What sort of game you choose depends really on what aptitude you're looking for. Puzzle/problem solving? Hand-eye coordination and reflexes? Adaptability to a new environment?
If you want to go for something puzzle-like, which would supposedly show an aptitude for problem solving, organisation, and forward-thinking, i'd recommend something tetris-y. try to choose one they probably haven't played before, what about Bejeweled?
For something more action-packed, it's got to be a first person shooter. This is both immersive and fast-paced. So Quake, or something similar - don't make it too complex with tons of weapons, environmental issues etc (eg, Unreal). If you're looking primarily for results on how people adapt to this sort of game quickly, i'd suggest just throwing everyone in a deathmatch and see how they perform. You could then correlate academic proficiency with their kill rate.
Hey, if only i'd been ble to use a "frags per minute" score instead of something like a GPA...
Games like simcity, starcraft, etc, have more complicated interfaces and more things to learn before you can properly play - to non-gamers this may be daunting and frustrating, so unless you're looking at how well they can *understand* games, as opposed to how well they can *play* them, i'd recommend steering clear of them. They also have a much longer learning curve, and can be influenced more by previous experience.
Best of luck, this sounds like a great project, and please let us know what the results are!
/Fross
I personally love this game, Great strategy, and really not too many people have played it to the extent they have starcraft.
Or for the Classic approach, try Go-Moku.
that game is good enough, that you can learn it quick, but take a lifetime to master it.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
The best game I have ever played and it is only about human interaction would be the board game diplomacy. The rules are childish but the game play is unique. I havent played for eight years and there are still some people who dont talk to me over it!!!
Qix came out as an arcade in, err, 1982? Something like that. It got ported to practically every system in the 80s and several in the 90s as well. Most of the followups just added extra features, but didn't add much to the gameplay.
:>
It is of course available on MAME, so that may be an option. And yes, it is a very good choice for this sort of thing - quick and easy to understand, but tests many areas of gaming, with a long skill curve
/Fross
Well, I didn't see anyone else use it, and I think it might apply . . . but it could be too related to their major. Pretty much straight-ahead business simulation game: Capitalism Plus, from Enlight Software (http://enlight.com)
i se alot of psots about the corlletation of plaeing a lot of videyo gamze and doing poorly in youer studies.
as an englash major, i play alot of videyo gamze and i donot theenk they have hurt my studees one bit. as a mattar of fact, i theenk i have a signigifant advantege ovar my peers, beeng that i haev larned how to commnucitate in the infarmashun age (i no computars are the next big thing).
har har all of yuo hoo skoff at me. i will shooot yuo wiht a rale gun.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Well, what one often sees in games like starcraft it usually comes down to dumb mass offensives. The trick lies in making fairly good defences, pumping up production of armies (don't just build one factory, build 10) and then attacking.
I think the correlation would be higher where the player gets more time to think. Risk, simcity, civ, etc are good examples.
I personally like Quake 3, simply because while playing it, it keeps my mind off of other things. It's more a reflex/anticipation game than strategy IMO.
Moz.
see a Text Widget
It seems there is no english translation, hence I would recommend all german speaking slashdot readers to get it; its written for a more general audience, not only psychologists, and it can help you to identify personal problem solving and project managment difficulties.
Obviousman is obviously not obvious enough
The game is stratigic, fast learning curve and is is there can be easily judged. While a game like StarCraft judges strategic abiltiy it, its ability on who won and why could be very subjective. Playing tetris in single player mode causes a very easy environment to judge.
No good deed goes unpunished.
It seems to me the business majors would have a field day with other fields geeks. It would prove if they knew their stuff! Then again, if you want to test raw skill at learning, a first person scroller ain't it. Mebbe Starcraft isn't such a bad choice....
This mind intentionally left blank.
The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
It wasn't clear to me whether this independent study is in the realm of psych, sociology, anthro (ack) or otherwhat -- But if you're trying to get really specific data on the correlation of academic aptitude to gameplaying aptitude, you'll be running into the intelligence / performance / motivation problem, which could really obfuscate your data. That is, namely, the some people are good at things either because they're intelligent or they're motivated (or both). There are competitive people who will try to win everything the walk into, whether they're smart or not, and other people who are not motivated, at leats in every competitive environment, smart or not. Let's not even start on the definition of intelligence! I think you might run into the problem that the people who are motivated to win at starcraft or freeciv may not be the people who are motivated to do well in school. Or rather, that this correlation may not match up at all with aptitude. I apologize for the pessimistic-ness of my message. I guess that if this is in psychology, I'd try to set it up so that you can weed motivation from aptitude somewhat, like asking the testees to perform both academic and vidgame excercises for similar rewards. If you're in more of the anthro/soc rut, you might want to consider just interviewing people: equal numbers of B-school (wait -- oh, btw, B-school students aren't actually paradigms of academic excellence. I'd go law or med school, pre-med... somesuch)... um, equal numbers of students who play games and don't (get hours they spend on games, schoolwork, etc, and grade-averages) and just compare them. That's also much simpler. For anyone who's interested -- this is just one of the reasons why IQ scores don't mean feces. I wish I had the bibliography in front of me -- you'd be astounded at how exactly utterly nil the value of IQ scores are. (Sorry MENSA.) ~B
While a steep learning curve can be a bad thing, I think that in this case you could use it to your advantage.
You could use a complex game, like StarCraft, but less well known. I believe FreeCiv was mentioned, but I don't know enough about it to be able to assess its suitability. Anyway, the main requirements of the game are that it should be complex, not too well known, and customisable Deep strategy would be desirable, but not essential. Anyway, the test would involve introducing the test subjects to the game, and giving them a week (or so) to familiarise themselves with the controls.
At the end of that week, you then throw them all in at the deep end (if it's a multiplayer game, then ideally against each other) on a new, custom map (or equivalent, if the game isn't map-based) that you can guarantee that none of the test subjects will have seen before.
How well each person does will be a measure of several things:
As far as I know, a game like StarCraft could fulfill this, as the week's learning time would even out the disparity between those familiar with the game, and those totally new to it. Maybe a week wouldn't be long enough, but that's the general idea.
HTH
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
i'd be cautious about just comparing mean scores on the games for the two groups because you don't randomize at all. you might consider using case-control methodology. Define a case based on outcome (high performance in class), then try to define controls who are as closely matched as they can be to the cases except in their score on the game and see what the odds ratio of high performance on the game is. otherwise your data will be worse than useless and misleading. You may want to do it for a couple sections of the class. this is such a charged topic that you may as well use some decent methodology to attempt to answer it.
What about Stars! from Empire Interactive?
Why only one game?
You could choose a selection of different genres of game, then you could check for correlation between genres of game. I suggest you try a selection of the following:
This would make it easy to bulk out your essay if you found you didn't have much to say. You could also, for instance, have them play Counterstrike. You could have a team of non-academics versus a team of academics. Better still, you could have two groups, one where all the academics' computers were in the same room (so they can communicate easily) and the non-academics are divided up, and the other group doing this in reverse, so you can see if academics communicate more effectively and other such things.
Or maybe I have no idea what you want.
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
One of my college roomates who wasn't really a computer guy discovered Duke3d his senior year. He got so addicted to the game that he ended up dropping out of a very prestigious school with 1 semester left to go. I've seen a lot of people pulling all nighters just to play 'one more turn' or just to get 'one more level'. I think it would be great to have games that actually teach you things along the way. Sort of like Capitalism Plus crossed with The Sims. The best way to learn is when it doesn't feel like a chore.
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
and I have a 4.2 GPA and play my DC a lot. I don't see how or why people want to lump all gamers into the same category. It's just the same attitude that made racism so prevalent in this country in the 60s and earlier
one way or the other, what will it really mean? Having majored in finance and having played a few of these types of games it's pretty clear that there is little in the curriculum in most business courses that would apply to these computer strategy games. For one, a large part of running a business comes down to operational skills (i.e., the day to day elements of making a product and/or providing a service with the zillion problems that ALWAYS pop up), which is well outside of the scope of most of what is taught. I also don't think games really test these kinds of skills. For one, they're largely tactical, in my opinion, despite their title. Secondly, most of the rules behind these games can be reduced to simple algorithms. Once you figure out the algorithms approximately, you're set. So much of the game is wrapped up in figuring those out. The only way I can see a business degree possibly helping much is in knowing some of the fundamental concepts behind those algorithms. However, those are so fundamental in my opinion as to be taught in introductory level courses, many of which many people already know.
Pedro
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
As numerous people have pointed out, You have not posted the basic thesis of your paper up, Mozzer. That's a bad thing. Without it, we can only guess as to what you really want.
:-))
Saying "I want to see if there is a correlation between video game abilities and academics" is really, really vague. And a bad thesis. What determines video game performance is different for each game, and the performance in one game is not indicative of ability in other games.
So, do you want a game that tests logical reasoning? Hand-eye coordination? Ability to manipulate others? Goal setting? General geekyness? Figure out what you want to test, and then pick a game that focuses on that, and is a measure of very little else (such as hand-eye coordination).
As for worrying that experience in gaming will skew your results, there are ways around it. Check out Repeated measures ANOVA's for one....
By the way, I am in CS 412 at Cornell University, and we are looking for one more to complete our compilers team. E-mail iamanairwhale@yahoo.com if you are interested. (The last paragraph was an experiment of my own
Ultimately this will probably be influenced by the type of computer game one is playing. Personal experience: I've learned a lot from certain games. When I was a freshman, I had only very vague notions of economic principles. The original Railroad Tycoon and SimCity on my rusty 486 made me familiar with some basic concepts, like bonds etc. I can't say playing Doom did anything for me (except give me motion sickness). Similarly, the original Civilization was very informative in terms of history. (BTW, thank you to the person who posted the FreeCiv link!) Apart from knowledge gathering, I'm sure games also help with things like abstract thinking, reactive speed, visual imagination, strategy in general, ... It can be a work-out for your brain. Everyone who plays chess will know how your sharpness deteriorates if you don't play for a while, much like your body condition disappears when you stop working out. It's a platitude, but the brain is a muscle.
I did a somewhat similar study in college. I worked with a mixed group of 3-6 grade kids in an inner city school teaching them about computers and the Internet.
:) So there goes that conclusion.
To make a long story short, I was able to conclusively show that computers have a very positive affect on classroom learning when properly worked into the curriculum. We even had a few special needs students who did better than the regular ed students -- The computers helped to focus their attention more than their classroom teachers ever could without them!
This is just an educated guess, but I would think that college students have already learned to focus (when they want to).
Your study is certainly valid, but you may need to get a very large sample population to help offset the different groups which may prove to be problematic to your study (creating outliers in your statistical analysis):
- Students (educationally talented or not) who just play games all the time and do not take their education seriously. (My ex-roommate was unbelievably smart in electrical engineering, but he spent all day on MUDs and dropped out)
- Students who just aren't that good at the type of game you decide to use in your study. I drive circles around lots of people in driving simulations, and I can frag pretty well in Quake and Delta Force LW. But, for some reason my friends kick my ass up, down, and sideways in Starcraft.
My only other suggestion is: Before you start, make sure you have a well-documented plan of exactly what you plan to prove (or disprove) and explain how you will test your subjects to truly show (in an unbiased way) the correlation between score in the game and grade in the class.
Good luck! Make sure you post and let us know how it goes!
Hummm... I like to think we made me what I am (an engineer and a geek) is my abuse of legos when I was a kid. After a while, building and improving stuff became necessary to my psychic balance :)
I would say Stars!, an excellent strategy game from 96 or so. There's a shareware version available with should be quite big enough for your needs. Actually I could recommend Stars! to everyone, the only shareware I've ever registered. Got an 8 player game running right now and it rocks :). "Kill your neighbourraces, exploit planets, be all you can be."
I've never played a game that awarded points for violence and gore alone.
There's always a goal that requires some strategy (and if not, you're playing a really shit game)
To me, the mechanics of a game are the most important. The graphics -- wether they are cute pink puppies, or blood and guts -- are just a GUI real-world metaphor.
'course puzzles are my favorite. I'm still trying to get through Lolo 3. So irritating.
lol
I remember that game. It was great fun until I took it to school when I was in fifth grade and another student figured out the optimal strategy...
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
There are so many other variables to consider in this experiment it is not even funny! how the students do in the class will also depend on the professor, their lifestyle, their study environment... and a zillion more, if anything a better place to start would be at a base level, where taking grade school students and seeing if they do better at real life tasks that incorporate certain aspects of games after playing the games. (ie: brain teasers after playing LOLO, mazes after gauntlet, etc...)
good luck!
(20 points) Cite evidence that ancient Egyptian society was composed of Africans rather than Caucasians, and explain the impact of this anthropological theory.
If you look at the famous egyptian toy soldiers you can see half the army looks African and the other half quite Caucasian.
The only rule is that if you're caught, you have to pay whatever you took back, and put an equivalent amount of money into the free parking. As you can imagine, it makes for a riveting game, and should be quite applicable to a large-scale business model. :)
Oh, and speaking of games and marks, I really should be studying for the exam that I have in, oh, 50 mintues. Oy me.
are you trying to find out whether good academic skills would show up in strategy games as well, or whether gaming too much affects academic performance? (i'm assuming the former)
this could go anywhere; it seems more like an education or psychology study, comparing ability in strategy games and ability to strategize in the business world.
of course, imho, the best way to implement a hostile takeover is with a zergling rush. ^_^
...Entrepreneur from Stardock.
For business strategy students, you might want to try out a game more like what course they're in, instead of a general RTS like StarCraft.
StarDock also has a demo of their sequel for Entrepreneur called The Corporate Machine.
Your choice of games should depend on what exactly you're trying to test. RTS games like StarCraft do test strategy skills, but they also require good reflexes and fast mouse movement. If that's OK, try Myth or Myth II. The system works a bit like StarCraft, but plays much differently. They weren't as popular as Warcraft II or StarCraft, so it's less likely (though certainly not impossible) that your sample will have played them.
If you JUST want to test strategy, especially for business school students, try the old Super Nintendo game Aerobiz. The basic idea is to run a profitable airline company against either human or computer competitors. Aerobiz is commonly found online if you're unable to procure cartridges (legal stupidies prevent me from offering links, and the same stupidities force me to say that I advise against and disclaim all responsibility for any illegal action which you may be considering as a result of this post).
inigima
...some old 8bit nes action. i suggest you fire up your old nintender and break out nobunaga's ambition, a bad ass strategy game, but not much eye candy. ps. case #1 I am master of Nobunaga's Ambtition and Academic loser.
i am convinced that "/.ers" are homosexuals and imma make that my "sig"
Bob
Go Geek. Rule the world.
------------------------
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
That's my vote. Part economic, part diplomatic, part military. Of course, the problem with using a well known game is that they'd get cheat ideas from the net. :)
Maybe NetHack?
No, wait, stop laughing. I'd bet the the majority of college seniors now don't have nay experience with roguelike gaming; the closest "popular" game is Diablo (shiny nethack! with animation!), which differs from the average "real" roguelike in that it is more real-timeish and generally less convoluted.
Nethack has a nice blend of thinking and hack-and-slash violence. If you play it enough, you really have to start thinking and applying knowledge (do you know what amethyst means, and how amethyst stones interact with various potions? Hm? Do ya?).
Also, it's my favorite game. 8)
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Come on people, the best game to choose for strategy would have to be the orignal Myth. It was a great game, because you could not build hordes of guys to just simply overrun the other players. It was all about planning your attack and not wasting any of your men, becuase you only had a set number to begin with. Now if you want a game where you need to build an army to accomplish your task, then I would have to say Homeworld. It is is one of the only games where you could be attacked from any possible angle, it is one of the best games for a completly 3-D environment. You could be attacked from above, below, left, right or any other angle. Anyways, thats my two cents... **A no smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool**
You seem to want to test if people who do well/badly in one field where strategic thinking is needed, will do similarly well/badly in another field where strategic thinking is needed? Sorry if this ruins the fun, but yes, somewhat depending on motivation, you'll find a correlation.
I would recommend one of the *general games, like Panzer General or Star General. These military strategy games are run on a turn basis, so "quick fingers" are not necessary. (Move all of your select(grunts,tanks,fighters,bombers,transports,bo ats,starships,etc)into position, select what to attack, then let the next player go!
If you want to stick to strat. games, try Homeworld or Homeworld: Cataclysm (though being newer, might not be as good for your study). Not only is it RTS, but the gamer has to think in 3, not 2, dimmensions.
I think that might take quite a bit of business student personhours to do well.
In order for the results to be somewhat meaningful you will probably want to have plenty of business students. I would think at least 80.
The students need to play multiple games too so that one fuckup doesn't doesn't infludence.
Also, it might be better to have two different video games, if you can use the business students that long. That will help cut down on the quirks that people may have and the strategy defiencies of a single video game.
For the selection of the game, if students are unaware that they are going to be playing a video game you could ask them first to write down all the strategy video games they have played and eliminate the ones that people have played. If someone has already played the particular video game it will really throw off the results so obcsure games may be better. If the business students are not international in background foreign games may be a source.
This sounds like an interesting project for an independent study. I would suggest talking with a couple professors in sociology for some tips on running this experiment and also designing questionares if necessary.
May not be the most politically incorrect, but it's got both a military and economy aspect that are strong, it's kind of like a 'Civilization Lite' so to speak.
Without a doubt, this has to be one of the best "buiness strategy" games I've ever played. Oh, and it's fun too. :)
RFC2119
i have noticed that i did do a lot better freshmen year, and that was when i played the most video games (quake2, unreal, halflife, starcraft, and more)
I think one of the points of using a video is to measure their strategy AND quick reflexes/clicking abilities. Otherwise you should just play chess...
As a gamer I realize that skill comes with time and time is the deciding factor, the test should be based on how long people spend playing, not trying to rank their current ability. Maybe you could take into account what genre of game the person plays most, also. Do it by time spent playing video games vs. academics. The results would really be interesting if it turned out that the more time spent playing, meant the better grades.
What exactly constitutes academic achievement? A high GPA? Because I would guess that it depends a lot on the subject matter. For example, a creative writing major could probably be terrible at strategy video games but easily excel at writing. I would think that it would be interesting to see the correlation between video game skills and the GPA of science, math, and perhaps business majors, but I don't think that the strategic thought needed for video games is a type of thinking needed in all fields. Also, I know plenty of smart people that never played video games as a child and are terrible at all games. So in your sample, you should probably check to see how long the individual has been playing games, even if it's a different game than the one used in the test. People who have played Starcraft or other RTS games have little trouble picking up a new RTS games. At least, they'll pick it up faster than someone who has never played an RTS before.
X-Com is a good turn-based strategy game, it wasn't too popular when it came out (c. 1994?) but it was _very good_. You had to direct the actions of a team of scientists, police, firemen, and military personell to contain and cover up an alien invasion...
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
The problem with Starcraft, Red Alert and others is the learning curve issue. There is no substitute for experience with these games.
Since you've got the attention of Slashdot now, I might suggest you request a late beta version of an RTS (real time strategy) game and use that.
Hired Insight
www.hiredinsight.com
It's kind of a simple game, but if you'll remember the mot from a while back, there is an online game called Intergalactics that is really pretty good for what yer thinking. It doesn't get too involved, just pure strategy. Check it out. www.intergalactics.net
there's plenty of strategical thinking in that game
Only for newbies. Once you're good at it (> 20 hours of play), Tetris does not involve all that much strategy. Eventually, placing the next tetramino becomes almost a reflex action. Some newer versions of Tetris try to break this up by adding bonuses for forming 4x4 squares (The New Tetris), chain reactions (Tetanus, Quadra, The Next Tetris), "magic" items (TetriNET; DuelTris for Apple IIGS; Tetris Jr.), or distracting display effects (TOD; Tetripz).
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Companies are in three regions of the US and a South America country called 'Sereno' that was demographically somewhere between Mexico and Brazil. That way players only had to make one currency exchange and two GDP factors into account. Players have to mainly make production, advertising, pricing, and shipping decisions.
This made the learning curve was really light (compared to the Management Game by Center for Interactive Simulations) and only really took one class period with the prof clearing up detail questions from time to time. The game lasts for up to 6 game years with a decision/turn every quarter for a total of 24 turns.
We only played for 4 game years (two turns were due per week for the second half of the semester), and our grades depended on how well we did... my company came in third of eight; got a 'B'.
From an IT/game management point of view, it was pretty easy to set up. Students entered decisions at lab workstations to the server where the master console was installed and the profs sauntered by twice a week to run the master. Students then logged back on and got their own reports on what happened the last turn.
To sum up: the Business Policy Game was easy to learn, easy to play, and most students had fun with it.
http://games.swirve.com/utopia
It's a long-term strategy game. You control a "province", balancing military, economics, build (what kind of buildings do you want?).
It's probably a pretty good test. I'm guessing that because I was around 250 out of everyone as a 14 year-old. That must mean it's a pretty good test of general intellect.
Also, because you're testing business students this would be a good game because it's possible to work out the best possible combination of buildings, troops, etc. You could do it all with math or just wing it, which can work just as well.
Good luck with your testing.
No sig for you.
If you're looking for strategy games, why not focus on the *strategy* aspect?
(In which case, _Diplomacy_ and _Empires in Arms_ seem appropriate. Both involve alliances, treachery, and strategy; the latter is VERY complex, involves resource management, and rather detailed planning...).
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
This is a great idea, I've been trying to convice teachers, parents, etc. That playing video games develop alot of other skills, it would be nice to have studies to actually back that up.
I think that more than one game needs to be played. As I child, I didn't play just one game, but I played a whole bunch. However in each game I learned another skill that could be applied to the next one.
How about this for a study? Have subjects perform a bunch of tasks that they have not done before and rate their progress. Then have subjects play a series of games for an hour or more each day, for a week. At the end of their game playing, have them perform more tasks that they have not done before, that involves some of the skills learned in video games.
I suggest using children as the subjects, as the things learned from games probably are more prominent in them as they haven't learned the skills from another source.
Why test these folks on games they might know. Fire up your MAME program and test them on the classics from the 80's. Chances are most college students don't have a clue about these great games. Yeah, give em a test on Time Pilot, Zaxxon, or Ms. Pacman and use those results.
Way too many people know Starcraft, as the asker points out. There are thousands of almost completely unknown games out these. For every hit game, at least 10 flops are released. Use some of those to at least get the previous experience bias out.
If you want to run an experiment, you don't want something with *more* dimensions! You want something with one, or two, at most!
Maybe something like Tetris, which has two dimensions; critical thinking, and reflexes.
Or something like Solitaire, which involves planning and resource management.
Try simple games, like Pacman, etc.
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Rocket Arena demonstrates the student's skill in gladiatorial, mano-a-mano combat to the death with heavy weaponry :)
Plus, this way you can see if violence affects academic skill too... wow, a 2 - in - 1 deal :)
Capitalism is a superrealistic model of a big-buisiness environment in a rather fun game. It is probably more directly related than any of the above. They're making a new version now, Capitalism MBA, for use in an instructional environment, but it will still probably be a fun game.
IMO, for a study such as this, you'd want to pick several games, so as to even out inconsistencies due to skewing. Starcraft would be a good choice, if you go by the assumption that the users are computer savvy enough to keep track of all the units. Some of the best people at strategy aren't necessarily good at the reactionary nature of RTS games these days. Granted, on-the-fly adapability is important, but it sounds like you're looking for a more cerebral interaction.
Seeing as how you're using business students, I'm going to guess that they've had some study in economic/game theory, and as such, would probably do quite well in a turn-based strategy game.
One thing that might affect the results is if the students can make that leap between academics and games. Supposing that they've studied game theory, you could present the game to them as a n-person zero sum situation.
In thinking more about it, the important thing is to see if THEY can make the leap between the two. After all, knowledge unapplied is worthless.
As for game suggestions, for the multiplayer side, I'd say something by Sid Meier. Civ3, Antietam or Alpha Centauri.
One thing to make note of is interest level relating to ability. If the students aren't interested, they won't be motivated to excel at the game, no matter how brilliant they are.
That is all.
That is to say, none. Unless of course you use the power of statistics.
--
Even with smilies, this is my problem with the entire idea. Life is not a zero sum game, but almost all "strategy" games are. You want to be the last one standing. beat all opponents. Drive everyone out of a living, or possibly out of existance. These are not (IMHO) useful attitudes to take into the real world in almost any career. A "prisoner's dillema" type structure I think would be better correlated with useful management skills.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Each board is randomly generated at the beginning of each game, so each game is different; in one game, resource A might be very hard to find, and in the next everyone will want to trade it away. Refined strategies involve such things as cornering markets, specializing and trading, etc. Much more appropriate for a business major than a war game, don't you think?
In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan
where is your university? could you take a sports sim that won't be known to your students because your country doesn't play that sport- in america, somthing like championship manager. it does have a steep learning curve, and it does take a long time to play, but it is an excellent game. it does, as with a lot of strategy games, have an element of luck which could throw your results... so if that doesn't work, try writing to companys asking if you can beta test for them
I think you should have them play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Most people have never even heard of the game, its a bit on the complicated side, but there is tons of stratrgy involved.
From the mind of a mad man
I think Half-Life has certainly improved my english skills.
"You camper bastard fucker!"
"Fuk u lamer"
"U r gay!"
"no u r gay!"
I've seen people who are incredible at FPS's unable to do anything in a space combat game. (It's often a problem between thinking in 2D and 3D movement terms.)
Below are my comments and suggestions on why you may or may not want to use certain styles of games in your study. Keep in mind, however, that I am in no way a professional psychologist - these are just my observations on what types of games get different reactions from different people, and why some games may not be right for your study.
RTS games such as Starcraft, Age of Empires, and the like will cause a problem with people who have problems with managing large groups of units/objects.
My suggestion for RTS games to use would be Starcraft or Red Alert.
First person shooters have two major problems for your study - first off is that some people have a hard time dealing with both the movement of their character and the aiming of their weapon in the games. I've seen some people take several days to get the hang of it, while others were doing well after only an hour or so.
The second problem is that many, many people get motion sickness from playing FPS games. Some people I know will even take motion sickness pills 30 minutes before they plan to play a game. Some cannot play more than half an hour even WITH the pills.
My suggestion for an FPS game would be single-player Half-Life, followed by multiplayer Starseige Tribes or Team Fortress Classic.
Turn-based strategy games may be one of your better options, as the turn-based nature of the game easily evens out the playing field between those with quick reflexes and those with slow ones.
My suggestion for a game to use from this genre would be any Sid Meier game (Civilization 2, Alpha Centauri, etc.), or Axis and Allies.
Role Playing Games are another decent possibility for good games to use. These games often deal with more than just combat strategy, but also with interaction with other characters in the game, which could appeal to the business students.
One concern in these types of games is the depth of the story and the ease-of-use of the combat interface. Make sure you check reviews to screen for both. Also, keep in mind that the combat interface in these games are often either turn-based (which often annoys people due to how slow the combat is), or real-time (which is often too fast for many players to keep up with).
My suggestion for what RPG's to use would be Black Isle's AD&D based games (Planescape:Torment, Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate 2), as they have fairly in-depth stories and branching storylines, and solve the combat system problem by allowing you the flexibility of having turn-based combat, real-time combat, or something inbetween. Additionally, AI's can be assigned to characters to help take some of the micro-management pressures off you.
--The Rizz
"God doesn't play dice." --Albert Einstein
I always felt Starcraft was one of those games where you get in and learn it quickly. I thought of Total Annihilation as one of those games where it takes awhile to develop strategies. I suppose you are worried about a learning curve..but if you weren't, you could lock them all up in a room and make them play Total Annihilation for hours on end. Keep track of how fast they learn the basics, start using more advanced features, and then basically how badly they can beat the other guys. Maybe have the best student play 1 vs 2 games? :)
For something like this, you really can't be spending all your time teaching your test subjects how to play the game. The game should be easy to learn, have a reasonable amount of stratgey and planning involved, and should take no more than an hour or two to actually play. The best game EVER made for just this sort of thing is M.U.L.E. M.U.L.E. is easy to learn, can be played numerous ways with 1 to 4 players, and only takes about an hour or so to play a full length game.
I must say, I am pretty good at both of those games on my playstation 2, and I don't even like hockey or shootin people, but I think I'm pretty good at recognizing things on the screen and figuring out something to do about it in a split second.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
If part of your class invovles doing scientific studies then your professor (if he knwos) sahould be teachign you how to do scientific studies.
This apriori poll has no scientific controls. Its results are thus meaningless.
That said, if it gets you a grade, then go for it.
From a business strategy point of view, I'm not sure if it has an edge over other games, but Homeworld has a lot going for it as an intro to RTS for a user who hasn't played this genre before:
- fantastic suspension of disbelief
- no cut scenes used for cinematic sequences (helps above point)
- deeply designed visuals and audio (consistent aesthetic also helps above point)
- good tutorials to hold your hand thru initial single-player missions before you venture out onto the net
Strategically, it's fantastic (but so are other RTS games, to be honest). Many games shoot for those goals above, but I believe Homeworld was conceived and implemented by a team that gave a shit, without a spin-off-a-sequel-or-copy-an-existing-formula mindset. Support it!
You can find a lot of Homeworld sites out there, but here's an official site and a user forum on strategy to browse.
Disclosure: Yes, I was a Homeworld coder. No, I won't make any money if you buy it now.
So here is a suggestion for a scientific way to do your study.
(1) Recruit a significantly large body of students with an equal exposure to both video games and the business strategies you want to test comprehension of. The simplest solution is no exposure to either.
(2) Give them all a quiz on the business strategies in question.
(3) Devide them into two groups with abotu the same average original scroes. Have one group play StarCraft for, say, 2 horus a day for a week.
(4) Give a new test to all of them. Look for a significant improvement in the relative score of the group that played vs. the group that didnt.
Whatever you do PLEASE don't do a *bad* study and write an article about it. The world doesn't need one more bad, boiased peice of psuedo-science.
Look at the differenes, in any,
You got to figure out how to kill people silently and quickly, drag bodies, change clothes, sneak around, etc. Mucho strategy!
Everybody knows that ancient Egyptians were Caucasians, in fact I remember quite distinctively from my history lessons that Cleopatra had blue eyes and was married to Richard Burton.
Ok, that's my lesson in the scientific experiementation method. However, I say you're proposed method/test can't show anything, even if you used a game that no one has played, it just will not prove anything. What you would have to do to reach any statistics (no deductions, mind you, just statistics) is have them fill out survey on whether or not they've played Strategy/Whatever Genre before, Computer skills, and I think you even need to do research on what questions need to be on the survey, because I'm sure there are factors and variables that I'm not thinking of. And if you do go through the test, I recommend trying different games, timed/team play, multiple foucs groups, etc. (No one said this would be easy)
All in all, this sounds like an interesting research subject. I mostly play strategy games, and I wonder how I would fair in this experiment data. Anyways, Good Luck!!
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually make my website for other people to look at.
A good choice would be warcraft. The differnt races have a 1-1 comparison. So for each unit with X abilties on the Humans Side as an exact conterpart Y for the orcs. Since stratgey is what your testing, mindles shooters wont work, there will be a learning curve with any RTS. I think picking one where stuff like your choice of race doesnt change would be a good thing.
Try MULE.
It's unlikely they'll have played it before, and it has all sorts of useful, business-relevant characteristics.
Don't know where the heck you'll scare up all those atari 800's, though. Maybe you can just run it under an emulator.
zeke
Why not find out something really worthwhile like the correlation between skill at Starcraft and (lack of) success with the opposite sex?
One of the oldest, still active, games on the internet is empire. The advantages to using empire in a study like this? Open source, free, clients available on several platforms, complex, steep but rewarding learning curve.
A good game, that not many people have played is Chu Chu Rocket, for the Sega DreamCast. It's part strategy, part puzzle, multiplayer (four players), and part reflexes. There is a online version here. It's in Japanese, but you can play it. It's quite a good game, and not many people have even heard of it.
--------------------------------
This space reserved for valid arguements, not pointless ramblings.
Business strategy won't rely as heavily upon quick decision making in situations where time is of the essence quite the same way that military strategy would. Business appropriate strategy relies much more heavily on patience, foreward planning, situation assessment, and resource conservation.
In "real world" situations, prudent business decisions aren't made in the heat of the moment. The issues are carefully contemplated and examined from all angles because the benefits of careful planning and evaluation greatly outweigh the risks of spending time on them.
In real time games, stopping to contemplate the situation or to plan a complicated strategy can be fatal if done while the game is in progress. Creative and briliant strategies in such games can only be properly composed outside of the game itself, or while practicing in game sessions that "don't count." This could make it difficult to design a testing structure based on such a real-time game as Starcraft or Quake. You would be obligated to give your participants a period of practice time where they could plan their strategies outside of the gameplay that "counts." I'm sure you can see the hassle this could create. Placing time limitations for practice would upset the planning of any participants who may still be experimenting when time is called. It also presents situations that could spoil the scientificity of the results.
This is why I suggest that you opt for a turn-based strategy game for conducting your tests. A turn based game such as Civilization would be optimal for your testing purposes for the following reasons:
That about wraps it up. If you think my points are well grounded, I also have some ideas about implementation.
Kids with lots of video games have richer parent(s), which means they have access to better schools and less keeping them from their education (except, perhaps, for the video games). Therefore, they achieve more academically than their poor schoolmates. How in the hell would video games make people smart; that's a geek fantasy. If you mean, someone playing video games vs someone with absolutely no mental stimulation whatsoever, maybe.. But video games can hardly be congratulated for that.
As a number of posts have indicated, there are issues to be resolved in this study.
The best way to resolve them, though, is *empirically*:
(1) IQ or motivation? Just give items to assess both! Just ask them "on a scale of 1 to 7, how motivated were you to succeed in this game?" Ask this a couple of times different ways to increase reliability. Then you can statistically control for motivation in calculating performance/achievement correlation. Do the same for experience with a given game, etc... Just watch out for ceiling effects--many students probably play games on some basis.
(2) Which game? Try a couple and find out which works best! Different IQ tests load on g to different degrees, and load on different subtests to different degrees; it would be interesting to know which test loads on which aspect of intelligence. It would be interesting to know that performance on certain games was correlated with performance on certain other games--you might be able to empirically identify game proficiency "factors". Game developers would probably be very interested in such info, actually.
(3) Don't use multiplayer games. This only complicates the interpretation of results, as the opponent changes from individual to individual. With AI/computer, opponent/difficulty is constant for everyone. Then you can just partial out experience with a game statistically (see 1 above).
(4) Don't worry too much about sampling--participants in these psych students tend to be from all over the place. Bright, motivated students tend to participate in studies out of a sense of conscientiousness, doing the right thing, etc., and struggling students tend to particpate to get some sort of reward for something. Once your sample is reduced to college undergrads, anything else is sort of a secondary concern.
Have fun!
Your proposal (not an experiment, BTW, because ther is no random assignment to groups) instead investigates whether people that are *good at* one thing (video games) are also good at another thing (school). Clearly the game you pick matters a LOT: the more the two things are alike, the better correlation you'll find between them. So, let's say you pick a game that requires the same sorts of skills that school requires. You then find that performance at this game positively predicts academic performance. What have you shown? Two similar things are similar. Alternately, you could pick a game that has nothing to do with school and show that two different things are different.
Here's a crazy suggestion: go to the library. All kinds of research has already been done on video games, with experiments and correlations galore. You might get an idea for a really interesting project by reading about the stuff that have already been done instead of approaching this like the first time someone thought of the question was January 27th at 6:04 am (your post date).
I typed "video game*" into the PsycInfo psychology journal index (courtesy my university library) and I found 157 results, including: "The effect of video games on spatial skills", "The effect of video games on aggression", "Gender differences in video game performance", "A review of research on video games", "Video game playing and delinquency", and yes, "Video game playing and academic performance."
This kind of ask slashdot question makes me grumpy!
If you are looking for something dissimilar to anything they will have played before, try the game Sacrifice. It is an RTS/FPS hybrid with a fantasy theme, very cool, and very different from any other games.
Their FPS Strafing and aiming skills won't help them since your creatures, not you, do most of the actual fighting, and their RTS "Built a lot of peon" skills won't help them either, as there isn't any traditional resource gathering.
Learning curve isn't too bad, just make sure they are all given a good 3 button/wheel mouse, it is essential for controlling the camera.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
Xevil, located at XEvil.com, is a good one, because not many people have played it, and it is very intense. :)
----------------------------------
A good RTS that's often overlooked is Total Annhilation. Huge selection of units that can be employed in various tactical roles as well as some interesting resource management systems that are slightly nonstandard. And it was just recently re-released in a big box with the expansion for cheap! ;)
Sig: "Examine the road over which the fault has passed"
20 points) Cite evidence that ancient Egyptian society was composed of Africans rather than Caucasians, and explain the impact of this anthropological theory.
Not sure if this is a great example. Ancient Egyptians lived in Egypt. Egypt is in Africa. Hence, if you were an Egyptian you were an African. It's simple logical deduction, something which computer games might help in...
--
X-com: Ufo Defense.
You have to manage resources, conduct reseach, hire and trin people, outfit your squads to maximum effect and have a good grasp of tactics.
The combat portion of the game is turn based so 'twitch' gamers won't have an edge and the time spent out of combat can be slowed down to give yourself time to think.
I read somewhere that the USAF used this game as a test also.
Later,
ErikZ
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
First: I have found that few people have even heard of it.
Second: It is "turn-based" which allows strategic characteristics to show, not have fast you react to: "Units under attack!"
Third: You must specialize yourself at the very beginning, hence, you must make a plan even before you start to command your ships. This element is the result of the fact that you design your own race.
Fourth: If you in the game manage to follow your plan successfully you will probably win, if you fail, you lose. In-game, there is components of both micro- and macro-management involved.
Fifth: It is very easy to understand and start to play and you can continue to get better all of the time.
Sixth: Every plan, or strategy, has a counter-strategy. (Let's play scissor, paper and stone)
Seventh: It is highly customable, which should fit you.
I believe there should be a demo available at http://crisium.com (the makers of Stars! and Stars! 2, Supernova Genesis), to be precise at http://crisium.com/stars/stars/demo.htm.
Enjoy, it is a good game!
"The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
This post is a very late and since this is slashdot, it probably won't be read, but...
What about chess? Or, if you're looking for something that fewer people will understand, some variant? Check out chessvariants.
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
--Ambrose Bierce
If it has to be multiplayer. I suggest one of the various multi-user dungeons MUD. The learning curve for the beginner is fairly steep and you can access the game anywhere for free. If not, I'd recommend a strategy game like KOEI's Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Definitely a steep learning curve for one who has never played one of KOEI's historic simulations.
"Only Real Men Have FABs." -W. J. Sanders III
the correlation to be found is not between computer game play and it's effects on educational pursuits.
They are trying to find a correlation between 'skill' in computer games AND 'skill' in academic things.
so while we all know that playing games does nothing to help your studies, Can we say that people who are compotent at video games are usually successful in those same studies (so long as they don't play games to often)
it's not that hard is it
"I split coffee all over my wife's nightie
Instead of finding students and then seeing if they play games well, what about finding gamers, and seeing what their grades are? Wouldn't that be easier, than trying to introduce people to a game they may not have played before in their life?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I think you are going about it the wrong way. Interest has to play a part. For example, I played a pre-release version of Doom and didn't like it. Since then, I have not played any of the knock-offs because I don't like the engine. I still play lots of strategy games though.
Perhaps what might be better is finding out what kind of games the individual likes to play, and how good they are at those games. Are they more into Doom-like (ie: quick action-packed) or strategy (ie: long-term investment) or pinball games (ie: simple physical challenge)... Then, you can compare the type of game they like (perhaps divide the games into Categories), how they do at the game, and how their grades are.
However, that will still only tell you part of the story. I have went through periods of not even attending classes, and periods of acing them. You might have to compare their gameplay to their average grades, do a long term analysis, or determine if they are playing the games more or less than normal.
You could have a Psychology Statistics teacher help you formulate your tests.....
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
.. and admittedly it will be skewed if anyone has played it before. However, you can surely weed these people out by simply watching each subject for even 30 seconds. Nobody new to the game will know to use attack-move, a "reaver drop" or a "muta rush". Also, few females that I know have even heard of this game (don't bias the study by putting too many females in, but > 50% should help provided you're not using gender as a control). I'm actually quite interested, and I'm sure all of Slashdot would appreciate a link to an html or pdf document of your finished work. Good luck
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
Perhaps, at least to get a useful statistical picture of things, you could poll a wide range of students (wide range in terms of their academic excellence) as to their degree of gameplaying.
Perhaps you could make some useful correlations in this way, such as high-GPA students having a tendency to play a lot of Counter Strike.