Temeculan3000
Member
TL
R
R
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Playing shooters causes damage to the brain
- Thread starter Chanser
- Start date
Cymbal Head
Banned
iunderstoodthatreference.gif
grfunkulus
Banned
Good think you specified here. If the reason you have a 1 kd is because you actually don't have the motor skills to perform better than the average person, then so be it. But if you're above average or average in the skills department and play the game with any kind of forethought, you should easily be in the 1.5-2 kd range (or higher like me if you've had years of experience).
Just because Cod is the most popular doesn't mean it's inherently the least stimulating. Having the most responsive controls on console for a decade might have something to do with it but what do I know?
grfunkulus
Banned
TL
Part of the problem. Keep perpetuating the myth that high level skill in FPS doesn't translate (and that there aren't thousands of kiddies playing CSGO chasing skins)
Funny how COD was a hardcore shooter darling before the 360 'broified' it and made it exponentially more popular.
Someone photoshop Mario's face onto Agent Smith's body with the caption "We... are the cure."
Temeculan3000
Member
I think the skins are the worst thing about CS:GO, I hate that part of the game, but it seems necessary to keep an active playerbase and stuff like skins and stickers helps fund tournaments and pro teams. I thought hats ruined TF2 but most people didn't agree.
The first COD was great, but it never touched the popularity of CS 1.5/1.6 back then as far as competitive play went
I honestly thought COD could replace CS as the next big thing in the competitive scene when COD4 first came out, but then all subsequent COD games ruined that with numerous poor decisions. However, it was clear they just wanted to sell a bunch of copies year after year, not build a competitively viable game with some longevity.
IIRC the correlation is that
> people with dementia have more activity in the part of the brain that deals with spatial awareness - other parts are weakened or disused
> while playing videogames these spatial awareness centers take most of the processing power and other parts of the brain aren't activated so much (like in people with dementia)
Yes, in CS:GO you'll be doing problem solving, decision making, communication, etc, but your brain is contextualising ALL of those decisions within the realm of 'spatial awareness' - where targets are, where you should move, where your teammates are, how to angle and throw that grenade, etc. So the spatial awareness part is taking most of the brunt.
Still early days for the study and idea, though.
grfunkulus
Banned
ALL of the subsequent cod games? I think that's a stretch...if you actually analyze cod4 from a competitive standpoint and compare to either BO2 or 3, I think it's apparent the later entries are more well balanced games (not to mention both are proving to have LEGS--BO2 broke Amazon top 10 after being reintroduced on backwards compatibility, and BO3 is still one of, if not the most, streamed titles on PS4 nearly 2 full years after the game's release...that kind of retention in cod is unheard of)
Voidwolf
Member
I don't recall ever liking one of these sign offs but damn this one was good.
Temeculan3000
Member
Ok I haven't played them ALL. COD MW2 / MW3 / BO they release so many it is hard to keep up. I gave up after I saw the direction the series was going in.
1. Did they re-introduce dedicated servers?
2. Did they get rid of unbalanced kill streak rewards?
3. Did they do away with paid map packs splitting the community?
Those were my primary issues.
LordBaztion
Member
brain or titanfall ....
grfunkulus
Banned
Dedies have been in the pc iteration of cod in WaW and og BO (so, treyarch stuff). Ghosts was rumored to use a hybrid system and BO3 actually does.
I don't know what qualifies as unbalanced but the killstreak rewards since MW2 haven't been OP imo (at least the last 4-5 iterations for sure haven't had them--crap in infinite warfare, good but not op in BO3, crap in Advanced warfare, crap in Ghosts, good but not op in BO2 and same in MW3)
Paid map packs don't split the community in the way you think they do. Everyone in the lobby has to have them in order to play a dlc map and the games prioritize connection over everything else (advanced warfare excluded) so I still get plenty of lobbies with just BO3 vanilla owners
shoryukens
Member
Any link to the actual research page and not the report? Wanna read more on the other 3d challenge games they played.
zenspider
Member
Hahahaha.
Reducing recoil to cater to console players, removing mod support on PC, adding more clutter to make you feel good despite losing... all those things tend to achieve that.
The two main authors both have their doctorates.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
If you did this, my son, then you are my gaming god!
Battletoads: Battlemaniacs bitchslapped me throughout my childhood, drumming into me that I was not worthy to rise above the challenge.
Peroroncino
Member
Ehh, 99% of first person games suck anyway so no skin off my nose.
Raptomex
Member
99%? Wow. Even more amazing is how the genre just keeps going considering how bad it is.
grfunkulus
Banned
Reduced recoil? Compared to what? Cod has never had much in terms of recoil but BO3 and infinite warfare have longer ttk guns compared to earlier entries that had stopping power and laser beam weapons. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
Raptomex
Member
I think there was this whole thing about Destiny 2 having little or no recoil on consoles a while ago. Although, I thought that was proven false or not entirely accurate.
YankeeDonB
Member
This is a nice recent review article dealing w/ the inter-relation between caudate and hippocampus in learning, and the relevance of different sorts of video game experiences to both.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721416687342
Senior author, V. Bohbot is a real-deal memory/hippocampus researcher, too.
Short story, there is a LOT of evidence in behavioral neuroscience that simple goal-directed learning privileges striatal reward networks at the expense of hippocampal networks, and that 3D allocentric navigation in learning tasks privileges hippocampal networks over striatal reward networks.
This isn't a new idea, and it's very well supported. It would almost be surprising if these sorts of different video game experiences did NOT produce this sort of differential effect.
This is something everyone in modern life should think about -- how they've structured their lives/habits around reward and goal-based activities. Basically, have you contrived to live in a Skinner box? Or do you get out and have complex, unpredictable, real world experiences? Video games are just one small piece of this, and probably much less important in the grand scheme for societal trends in brain connectivity than things like social media habits of teenagers. Orientation toward immediate reward isn't always bad. It supports lots of prosocial behavior and lots of societal and technological innovation. But it's clearly a double-edged sword.
And, again, the "small sample size" dodge isn't that relevant to a case where subjects were assigned to different groups. 100 subjects is bigger than most experimental behavioral studies where you actually have to find people to participate and get them to do so (and 90 hours of participation is almost unheard of!). Reasonable power for a simple comparison w/ assigned control group. This doesn't appear to have been a correlational study. Of course more data are needed for increased confidence, but, again, this finding follows a long history of reward learning data (much of it w/out video games, true) all pointing in the similar direction.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721416687342
Senior author, V. Bohbot is a real-deal memory/hippocampus researcher, too.
Short story, there is a LOT of evidence in behavioral neuroscience that simple goal-directed learning privileges striatal reward networks at the expense of hippocampal networks, and that 3D allocentric navigation in learning tasks privileges hippocampal networks over striatal reward networks.
This isn't a new idea, and it's very well supported. It would almost be surprising if these sorts of different video game experiences did NOT produce this sort of differential effect.
This is something everyone in modern life should think about -- how they've structured their lives/habits around reward and goal-based activities. Basically, have you contrived to live in a Skinner box? Or do you get out and have complex, unpredictable, real world experiences? Video games are just one small piece of this, and probably much less important in the grand scheme for societal trends in brain connectivity than things like social media habits of teenagers. Orientation toward immediate reward isn't always bad. It supports lots of prosocial behavior and lots of societal and technological innovation. But it's clearly a double-edged sword.
And, again, the "small sample size" dodge isn't that relevant to a case where subjects were assigned to different groups. 100 subjects is bigger than most experimental behavioral studies where you actually have to find people to participate and get them to do so (and 90 hours of participation is almost unheard of!). Reasonable power for a simple comparison w/ assigned control group. This doesn't appear to have been a correlational study. Of course more data are needed for increased confidence, but, again, this finding follows a long history of reward learning data (much of it w/out video games, true) all pointing in the similar direction.
I agree. 90 subjects is a decent size. But the harder questions revolve around how much atrophy was observed, what effect the atrophy has, and the details around the subjects' playing conditions (90 hours over what period?)
Iva Demilcol
Member
There should be a warning in every FPS OT:
"Warning: playing this game will make you stupid"
"Warning: playing this game will make you stupid"
keraj37
Member
That's the question!
You brought smile to my face, thanks!
BTW if I just knew it in 90s (wolf3d.exe, doom.exe, Dark Forces etc) - I would save like 50% of my brain. I could use it now in my professional life.
Well, life goes on. I hope brain is like liver so it grows with time.
My brain hurts, you know!
Wrong head.
They should know better about putting information like this out there then with their sample size alongside the way these things are sensationalized and read for headlines only.
CrunchyFrog
Member
Something something correlation something causation something something
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Drain no bamage? U sillee. Shutez gud!
Lord of Castamere
Member
Oh, so games that challenge you improve brain activity, while games that don't don't.
I'm having a hard time understanding how they could possibly try to verify that the correlation = causation.
Seems like a very unscientific experiment if you ask me.
This was ever the case.
Also, I'm assuming Splatoon is some form of magic that stimulates both parts of the brain at the same time.
YankeeDonB
Member
Fortunately, memory is composed of multiple orthogonal components. Your experiential and allocentric spatial memory might be weaker if you've shrunk your hippocampus. But your procedural/motoric/egocentric spatial memory could all be stronger if you've grown your caudate.
Weltall Zero
Member
It's very unlikely any of the study participants were high-level CS players, let alone a majority that could impact the results. In fact if the study wants to analyze the effects of those 90 hours, the logical choice would be to pick complete newbies to the game.
And I just realized that if you give a newbie a game and tell him "play 90 hours of this", they're probably going to play in the most rote and automatic way possible, which explains the results and is also pretty useless as a base to analyze normal play.
I myself would be interested in seeing the results of the same study applied to Go or Chess. Pick complete newbies, explain the rules to them, pit them against each other and measure the results. It would be interesting to compare them with the results of this study.
In any case, a better study for videogames would be to pick relatively frequent players, and have some of them stop playing and others keep playing. For best results I would pick players that aren't super dedicated or pros, as seriously breaking their daily routine would cause false negative results in itself.
bonesmccoy
Banned
& this is why 3PP PUBG > FPP PUBG
Those games requires some hella important spatial awareness and reflexes.
Descent especially, that shit had you flying on the ceiling while navigating the most insane labyrinthine levels
Wait, is this true? I thought it was the opposite.
There was a big change in recoil going from MW1 to 2. A few years ago I was looking up why TTK was so much lower in the sequel, but it wasn't actually due to higher damage, it was just because they had decreased recoil.
Can't speak for the newer games, but there is no reason to believe they went back on this.
They detected growth, but it wasn't on the brain.
Cymbal Head
Banned
Neuroskeptic covered this in a nice succinct writeup:
More at the link, including a critique of the statistical methods.
More at the link, including a critique of the statistical methods.
Similar threads
- Locked