The "SI Curse" or Madden Curse is nothing more than a product of statistical blindness, as follows: You only get on the cover if you're doing phenomenally, beyond what your stats would predict. So when you drop back down to normal levels of play, of course everybody says you're in a slump.
From my own experience, I believe this study to be true, but only for certain games. For instance, I've played and beaten DooM, and walked away. I've beaten D2X, but I still continue to play it. What's the difference? The open-endedness.
A "beatable" game, like DooM, is largely unaddictive. Once you've trashed it on Nightmare Mode, that's it, game over, endostory. Sure, there are timetrial and such, but they're the exceptiont hat proves the rule.
However a game like Diablo II, one that you can't truly beat, is addictive. Sure, you could kill Baal on Hell and call it a day, but who does that? Everybody keeps playing, building their characters up more and more and more, until you have a level 93 Hammerdin with all the trimmings- and like addicts, my brother and I kept playing.
(I should note here that I don't consider gaming with friends that you can see addictive behavior. What makes it less socially acceptible than dropping 10 bucks on a movie?)
I do have one issue with the study. Who's to say that the gamers had less ocular reaction because they were conditioned to having a sudden surprise from gaming itself? I hardly blink anymore when a baddie comes flying out from nowhere.
...will parental control really help?
I'll illustrate with an example. To stop us from watching TV, our parents would lock the TV up with parental control. Naturally, my brother and I began an intensive program of password cracking. Using intelligent brute-forcing, we cracked it on the fourth try.
The number? 4444.
Another example. My school locked its computer (yes, singular- there were onyl 120 students) with an administrator password. It took 2 minutes to crack it- we just rebooted into safe mode and changed the passwords.
As long as kids are more tech-savvy than adults, "parental control" is a joke.
More consistent: it does, start button I press, same way crash. Predictable: A week crash will once it at least. Easy to manage: Extra Windows settings to confuse people it will, arent there?
Slashdot Mirror
Homersexuals
Doh! Doh! Doh baby!
Here's the Prior Art...
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anakin_Skywalker
So...where's my +5 informative?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of...AAGH MY BRAIN!
Nobody plays Counter-Strike anyway.
(No I didn't readd the article)
Would be hard to make, expensive to buy, consume massive amounts of power, and emit unimaginable heat.
So...Intel?
*Ducks*
as useful as a CD snapped in half.
Which is still more useful than Aquaman.
We already answered the questions conclusively years ago!
Welcome to the future.
Robots don't have sex organs.
In Japan they do...
Only in Capitalist America would a device constructed of hazardous materials, fueled by a flammable substance...
You mean like an airplane?
The "SI Curse" or Madden Curse is nothing more than a product of statistical blindness, as follows: You only get on the cover if you're doing phenomenally, beyond what your stats would predict. So when you drop back down to normal levels of play, of course everybody says you're in a slump.
I met a great girl on Match too.
Problem is, she's stuck in Nigeria. Right now I'm busy saving up to pay her emigration fees.
Match.com- I love you!
Will the translation come out in ogg?
From my own experience, I believe this study to be true, but only for certain games. For instance, I've played and beaten DooM, and walked away. I've beaten D2X, but I still continue to play it. What's the difference? The open-endedness.
A "beatable" game, like DooM, is largely unaddictive. Once you've trashed it on Nightmare Mode, that's it, game over, endostory. Sure, there are timetrial and such, but they're the exceptiont hat proves the rule.
However a game like Diablo II, one that you can't truly beat, is addictive. Sure, you could kill Baal on Hell and call it a day, but who does that? Everybody keeps playing, building their characters up more and more and more, until you have a level 93 Hammerdin with all the trimmings- and like addicts, my brother and I kept playing.
(I should note here that I don't consider gaming with friends that you can see addictive behavior. What makes it less socially acceptible than dropping 10 bucks on a movie?)
I do have one issue with the study. Who's to say that the gamers had less ocular reaction because they were conditioned to having a sudden surprise from gaming itself? I hardly blink anymore when a baddie comes flying out from nowhere.
...will parental control really help? I'll illustrate with an example. To stop us from watching TV, our parents would lock the TV up with parental control. Naturally, my brother and I began an intensive program of password cracking. Using intelligent brute-forcing, we cracked it on the fourth try. The number? 4444. Another example. My school locked its computer (yes, singular- there were onyl 120 students) with an administrator password. It took 2 minutes to crack it- we just rebooted into safe mode and changed the passwords. As long as kids are more tech-savvy than adults, "parental control" is a joke.
More consistent: it does, start button I press, same way crash.
Predictable: A week crash will once it at least.
Easy to manage: Extra Windows settings to confuse people it will, arent there?