Survey Tackles College Gaming Stereotypes

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to an AP/Yahoo story discussing a survey on college gaming, whose results seem to challenge stereotypes about videogames interfering with college studies. According to a researcher for the project, which surveyed college gamers throughout the US, "It's not taking the place of studying; nor is it taking away from other activities. What.. [college students] seem to have done is incorporated gaming into a very multitask-oriented lifestyle." In fact, playing games can even save you time, quips college gamer David McNulty, "It takes less time to play a few games than to go downtown or see a movie with your friends. It's easier to meet them online and shoot at them."

Comments

Games don't eat time?

[0x0d0a]

Games don't eat time? This guy hasn't played Zangband...

Re:Games don't eat time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Morrowind.

Not completely true

[ZenBased]

Although i have to agree with the fact that not every college gamer is nerdy or anti-social, they cant be serious when they say it doesnt impact someone studies.. if you play 6 hours a day, and you go out regulary and do stuff, there isnt much room for studies anymore, or is there? It also eats into your sleeping time, not good for concentrating. Maybe they just polled some people who play 1 hour a day or so?

Re:Not completely true

[DjReagan]

If you think that most people play 6 hours of computer games each day, then you have a very odd view of the world.

Re:Not completely true

[Babbster]

Or maybe they simply polled people who play games. There are a lot of people who don't consider videogaming their primary hobby but still enjoy playing. These people are usually referred to as "casual gamers." This term I've found is most often used by the "hardcore gamers" who use it derisively because they feel that the existence of casual gamers means that they get fewer 70-hour RPGs and insanely difficult shooters. I suspect that the "casual" gamers outnumber the "hardcore" gamers if only because games like The Sims and Madden dominate the sales charts year after year.

Me, I like the idea of more and more people playing video games casually. More of them buying video games pumps more money into the industry as a whole, which causes more games to be released. This means that software developers can keep people like me (who play as many as 8-10 hours a day) occupied...not to mention more high-tech employment so that Slashdot participants can keep up their workday posting habits. :)

Re:Not completely true

[Guppy06]

"if you play 6 hours a day, and you go out regulary and do stuff, there isnt much room for studies anymore, or is there?"

You're assuming that those six hours would have otherwise been spent studying.

Re:Not completely true

[PainKilleR-CE]

The study surveyed college students in general, finding that 2/3rds of them play games, and then gave additional data on the ones that do play games. If you play 6 hours a day, you definitely are not in the majority anyway (though averaging in some of my weekends I could easily be in the 6+ hours a day group). My experience in college was that it was perfectly possible to balance even an average of 6+ hours of gaming a day and still get all of my work done, but it was much harder to do so when I started working full time. Many times gaming is just a 10-30 minute break from studying, while other times it was more like 10 of us drinking and playing tournament-mode KI on the SNES on a Saturday evening.

In answer to your question, they polled people who play 6+ hours a day, people who play 1 hour a day, people who play 1 hour a week, and people who don't play at all. The article states that while half of gamers (people that play games at all) felt that it detracted from their study time (this sounds about right, most of the people I know in college think that gaming cuts into their studies), the reality (as opposed to their perception) was that their study habits really didn't vary from the habits of those that didn't play games. In other words, the people that don't play games have plenty of distractions from their studies as well, or those that play games probably are the types that would study a lot more than they really need to ;)

As someone else said, casual gaming is good for the industry. Not only does it pump money into it, but it also breeds more acceptance of it. Also, with the number of people that grew up with the Atari 2600 and now the NES, it's likely that we'll see more and more casual and hardcore gamers coming up, because more and more people started gaming at an early age and learned to balance gaming in their schedule as they saw fit.

Re:Not completely true

[pascalb3]

I'm not sure what the age demographic is here for Slashdot posters, but when I read news articles about this (as well as posts) I can definitely see a huge generation gap. This study was completely suprised about all of the conclusions it came to, yet I was not suprised at all. As a recent college graduate, this atmosphere is what I've been experiencing for four years; people playing games in class, studying, getting work done, IMing, emailing, sports, all of these activities coexist in a contemporary college environment. This comes as no suprise to those between 16 and 26. Not as though older people are ignorant of this fact, they just consistently misunderstand current culture.

My generation is one of multitaskers and speed-demons. Everyone I knew at college did not just sitdown and write a paper, most would also have the TV on, play MP3s, actively IM, and perhaps have a game of Freecell going. It's not that these students magically have more time in their days to play games, sleep, and study, it's that most of the time they do activities simultaneously.

Re:Not completely true

[PainKilleR-CE]

This comes as no suprise to those between 16 and 26. Not as though older people are ignorant of this fact, they just consistently misunderstand current culture.

I agree here (and no surprise as I'm 25). What I'm finding, though, as I work in an environment where I am definitely the youngest person working in-house (we have a few my age or younger working mostly on the road), is that older people are slowly getting more into gaming, although they typically stay in the sports games and only occasionally go into other areas (Tomb Raider, Splinter Cell, etc). A lot of people here have an XBox, and a couple have PS2s (though most of those for their kids, or nieces and nephews, at least that's what they say). (The reason for the high percentage of XBox users here has to do with HDTV support and online gaming, from what I've heard). Some of them played the occasional computer game, and a few of them had an Atari or an NES before, but most didn't bother really keeping up with what was recent in console or computer gaming, and for a few the XBox was the first console they've owned since the Atari or NES. I definitely think most of them would be surprised at this study, even though they have no problem putting in some game time with their work schedules.

My generation is one of multitaskers and speed-demons.

My biggest problem with college was the pace, especially when it came to computer courses, which seemed almost glacial. In one course in particular the assignments were handed out ahead of time, and I found myself well over half way through the work within 2 weeks, despite not really spending much time outside of class working on it (in fact, for the first week I didn't even have the compiler at home or any way to import outside work without typing it in during class, so I did no work outside of class). On the other hand, some courses definitely needed the semester schedule, although maybe people more oriented to those fields would not agree.

Everyone I knew at college did not just sitdown and write a paper, most would also have the TV on, play MP3s, actively IM, and perhaps have a game of Freecell going. It's not that these students magically have more time in their days to play games, sleep, and study, it's that most of the time they do activities simultaneously.

Exactly. Then again, some of us do survive on less sleep ;) With the multitasking capabilities of modern computers, though, it's much easier to handle typing a paper, doing some research, and getting in a simple game (and some IM, MP3s, etc). I may not need to go to the library at all to do some research, and if I do, I can often have a fairly thick book list to look up when I get there, rather than trying to make that book list from the library's resources. Music has been a constant companion in my life since I was about 12 years old, and there's little time in my day when I'm not listening to it. Games are just another part, what I do with friends, or when I have nothing else to fill the time, or when I need a break from whatever I may be working on at home (can't play games at work, though I may catch a quick cell phone game on my smoke breaks if no one else is outside). I also tend to keep a fairly thick library of games at home. The point is not that I have time to play all of those games now, it's simply that I enjoy (or know that I will enjoy) those games, and may play each in short bursts, and would prefer to spend my entertainment money supporting developers that put out games I'd like to play, but may not have time to play now (but will eventually, as long as I can keep my consoles and computers working long enough).

Re:Not completely true

[ajrobison]

Absolutely. This is accurate, I'd say. So this poses an interesting question: why doesn't school challenge students as much as gaming does?

Re:Not completely true

[PainKilleR-CE]

why doesn't school challenge students as much as gaming does?

I think it's a simple matter of having to cater to a certain percentage of students. There's a combination of the students that must get those top grades, needs extra attention, and asks all of those explicitly detailed questions (and then the students that just aren't going to do well no matter how hard they work) that extends the amount of time that is required to get as many students as possible to get a decent education.

Personally, I can get through most classes with only passable attendance and very little attention, it comes mostly to being good at math and extremely good at multiple-guess tests (especially standardized tests). However, most of the classes that I've had to sit through tend to follow a slow pace, mostly required for those people that don't get things the first time they're explained to them (and good teachers will explain the same thing a different way, and about 50+% of the students that didn't get it the first time will get it the second time, but maybe 10% of the students that got it the first time will be confused after the second explanation; bad teachers will go over the same explanation again, but slower, much like tourists in countries where a different language is dominant). Some students take advantage of the extra time to get some work done (in the cases where the teachers give them the work ahead of time, if there's any work at all). I tend to be one of the people that loses focus when teachers start doing this, and then has to teach himself whatever material the teacher goes over later in the class session (and again, I'm fortunate in that, as long as the book is decent, I can do this).

Games, on the other hand, come in many flavours for many types of gamers. Some games come in the 60+ hours of gameplay (which may or may not be mind-numbing gameplay, but some of us will keep at it hoping that it will get better until we finish it and realize it didn't, hence MMORPGs gather large numbers of players), some are insanely difficult and require intense memorization of each level and the patterns of moves required to get through them, and so on. Then there's the basic card games and other games which offer fairly simple gameplay, but which almost anyone will admit to having gotten into the 'just one more time' loop over (ie Freecell, Checkers, etc). There are games that appeal to all kinds of different players, and games that appeal to nearly every skill level. No one game is normally built to appeal to all levels (and any game that says it is usually either aims for becoming more accessable and misses, or does so and becomes less appealing to 'hardcore' gamers).

On the other hand, Calculus is still Calculus, whether you have to take it or not, and whether you get it the first time or not. For some of us, it's only going to get challenging if you try to teach the first semester of it in a week of 1 hour sessions. For others, it's challenging enough in the full semester format.

Re:Not completely true

[DaLukester]

The point about 'casual gamers' and reference to Madden is very accurate. There are only a certain number of games in a season or other finite accomplishments in many games. The Sims however reopens an old can of worms. The MUD, MOO, MUCK , MUSH phenomenon has certainly not died but ASCII really doesn't cut it for many people nowadays. The Sims has many of the same 'hooks' that the MUD's did... some interaction, character development and virtually endless scope for gameplay (No pun intended).

From my experience MUDding's open ended nature caused many people a few trips to Summer School and worse! In my opinion these open ended pastimes are the real distinction between the casual and hardcore gamer.

Re:Not completely true

[Anonymous Coward]

>You're assuming that those six hours would have otherwise been spent studying.
I discoverd that even when i don't spend time directly studing, when i don't do something intelectualy absorbing i can think about something like eg.: the implications of a theorem or a complex problem i wasn't able to solve. So gaming does interfere with studies.

Re:Not completely true

[Babbster]

You'd be right except that The Sims is a non-competitive single-player game that can be stopped and saved at any time to be resumed in exactly the same state as it was left later. It's the very definition of casual gaming in that there are no goals besides the ones you set for yourself and the setting is one that's similar to the real world (house, furnishings, neighbors, job, etc.). Your Sims are never going to be killed (unless you work at it), the game never ends and, perhaps most importantly, it requires no specialized knowledge/skills since the game mechanics are based on actual activities (going to the bathroom, maintaining hygiene, interacting with people, etc.)...imagine trying to sit grandma down to teach her how to play Doom/Quake/Half-Life - the keys alone would intimidate and the settings/activities would probably not appeal anyway.

In essence, the casual gamer is going to gravitate toward video game activities with which s/he is already familiar. This is why Madden sells well every year (football has become the US national pasttime), it's why card games do well (Sierra wouldn't release a new Hoyle Casino every year if it weren't doing good business) and it's why Star Wars games sell great even when they're bad.

obligatory "in soviet russia"

[smg_mrBlonde]

...they shoot you first, its the lag that saves you.
-my karma cant get any worse :x

saving time

[redune45]

Although I'm sure that gaming has helped me relax many times, there have been far too many times when I should have been studying, but just got stuck in the "just...one...more...level" endless loop.

Further info

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pewinternet.org/
You can see their research fellows and what-not. As I am a college kid - I can tell you that every woman I know hates computer games save for solitare, and LAN parties are synonymous with sausage festivals.
Since I was skeptical - I noticed that the head researcher was a Steve Jones - doing internetworking since 1979 etc - maybe weighting some views in an attempt to make himself not look like so much of a tool?

/rant
socializing is talking/chatting/phoning real people - NOT masquerading as GHoSTFacEdKilLler93
end rant

Re:Further info

[drizzt_o_durden]

Hey, Gamer girls (or grrls, if you prefer) are certainly a rarety, but are hardly unheard of. I meet them all the time, and it's well worth it to strike up a friendship with them when you are lucky enough to meet one. They tend to be just as interesting as the rest of my friends, with the decided bonus that they are female.

Re:Further info

[FrEaK7782]

You ever consider that maybe you just don't know the right women?

I was at a LAN party this weekend. There were about 18 guys and 6 girls. Admittedly it's not an even ratio, but there were still females there.

Gaming and LANing is extremely social and many women know that. The females at the LAN party didn't game much. They were there to socialize.

Re:Further info

[Zeriel]

Agree with other respondents--it's who you know. The gamer guy-to-gamer girl ratio in my close circle of friends is 1:1, because we're all married or engaged to geek girls. =) Our LAN parties tend to be 6 guys, 6 girls, for NWN, MOO2, and the FPS flavor-of-the-month.

Re:Further info

[Anonymous Coward]

"and LAN parties are synonymous with sausage festivals." man i completely lost it when i read that. i haven't laughed so hard in a long time. i took it to mean that it was a euphamism... man if i had my way i would put that on the front page in bold. bravo!

hmm

[miruku]

i would have thought thah trying to defeat the more prevelant and damaging stereotypes which lie behind sexism, racism, homophobia, ablism, agism, etc, would be a more worthy task. do gamers really feel that prosecuted?

Re:hmm

[miruku]

s/thah/that

Me, Myself & I

[beders]

Personal experience alert!

At university I was known as "computer boy" by a group of girls, as they could all see me playing Championship Manager for hours in my room. One of them married me eventually, so its not the problem it could be :)

My point is... Excessive drinking and partying made me fail my first year, not gameplaying.

nice to see

[ionyka]

Its nice to see that finally researchers are proving that games arent really as bad as everyone thinks. Sure they can take up time, but they also help relieve lots of stress. And myself being a girl, its nice to see the percent of girl gamers rising. I even read in that article about a girl game-character developer whose trying to make some game characters more geared towards women, which i thought was a nice idea. Hopefully this shows the masses that think all video/computer games are bad, that they really are just human nature to our generation, and we need them terribly :)

Seven years of college down the drain....

[engineerdude]

Sure. Why go interact with people (girls especially) in PERSON when you can just stay in your room and interact through electrical wires and cables??? Maybe someday after you graduate you can have a REAL LIFE and meet a virtual girl in SimsOnline, have virtual sex, make virtual babies, make lots of virtual money, and be virtually happy forever after (virtually)...or, at least, until you log off.

I believe the dictionary defines "virtual" as "almost true". If something's "almost true" isn't it still....false?

I did that one to many times, also

[hswerdfe]

I nearly Failed 4th Year of university because of Games.
for 2 months straight I didn't go to class, all I did was play video games.
then one day I showed up to EM-4 and some body asked how I had done on the midterm.
the thing was I didn't even know there had been a midterm.
sigh....
I managed to squeek by with 50's in most of my classes, but still.
the study is full of shit games suck, and will lower your grades, trust me!

Ye olde days

[Anonymous Coward]

For whatever reason people assume that having ResNet or whatever is going to kill your average geek's life in college.

In my time, it was the arcade that did it. My first degree was from Street Fighter II University-- majored in Ryu/Ken with a minor in Chun Li.

I swear I didn't do anything else in first year. The arcade has since gone the way of the dodo. Heck at least in yer room all your books are there looking at you.

skewed survey.

[ColonBlow]

They should resample after Half-Life 2 comes out!

That ought to blow the bell curve.

20 hour marthons?

[Anonymous Coward]

this article obviouslly forgets to mention the marathon gaming sessions (some) college students have. i remember playing 6 hours of Face II on Unreal Tournament. Ahhhh freshmen year is so great

Sure, whatever.

[grimani]

Tell that to the six kids I know who failed out of Carnegie Mellon due to EverCrack.

One even skipped his finals...

Re:Sure, whatever.

[bigbigbison]

Sure, if you tell all the kids who flunked out because of drinking, watching tv (I almost failed a class becaue of reruns of the wonder years), their signifigant other breaking up with them, drugs, depression, being in a band, getting pregnant, and any of the hundreds of other reasons why people flunk out of school.
I play more games than any of my friends and I am starting my phd in the fall. None of my firends from high school even made it through their undergrad.

Sure they do, but rarely lives.

[drizzt_o_durden]

Other people run five hours a day, or get a little pleasure reading done, some people game instead of doing those things, is what it's saying. Besides, I love gaming, and do it plenty, but I find I have lots of time for other amusements.

This survey is just confirming what most gamers have known for years, but now perhaps the unwashed masses will believe it.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you need something to do after those dozen bong rips.

Similar story

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

A similar story is on CNN.com too.

get it from the source

[bigbigbison]

the full report can be found here.