Apparently there is a new study out from researchers at the University of Rochester that shows evidence of action video games can increase visual acuity by up to twenty percent. The researchers saw no anatomical or physiological change to the eye, but actually rewires neurons to allow the mind to recognize what it sees faster. It is believed that this improvement is caused by the way the eye and the brain recognize 3d environments in games. In the experiment, a group of students was asked to play Unreal Tournament (a 3d shooter) and another group, the control, was asked to play Tetris (a game which is "equally demanding in terms of motor control, but visually less complex" according to the school's article). The group whose mind had to imagine another world in 3 dimensions showed a significant increase in vision tests over students who only had to see in two dimensions.
Now, I know this may seem shocking to a lot of people, but the truth is video games have a lot of benefits that people just don't know about. It's been shown that video games can reduce stress, increase motor-skills and neural activity, and help prevent or even reverse memory loss. Some games have actually been used to help Alzheimer's patients to gain back some memory skills.
The biggest miconception about video games by non-gamers is that it requires no thought, because of the typical vacant expressions and lack of communication while playing. However, a complex game like Unreal Tournament requires players to consider their location, their teammates' and enemies' locations, what weapons everyone has, what weapon to get to have an advantage, where to find that weapon, and countless other things all within a split second. That kind of mental activity will obviously cause neural stimulation. I think as more of these studies are published, more people will realize that games aren't just for lazy, unemployed zombies.
I tried to tell my parents there was a reason I played Halo 2 before my SATs. True story.
The University of Rochester article: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2764
USA Today article on games and Alzheimer's: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2006-04-18-brain-age_x.htm
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Laptops Laptops are no fun
Today's post isn't going to be a discussion of anything that's of particular interest to anyone but me, but more of a rant. So...
Today after class I went to the University Center for a drink, and got a bottle of cactus juice. Oh so delicious, and oh so sticky. I get back to my room, put the drink town on the desk, and go to hook up my laptop's ethernet cable. All of a sudden, BOOM! The drink falls and I get agave cactus all over my laptop. So I turn it off, unplug it, take out the hard drive and battery and all, and start to worry that it won't work. After I while I turn it back on and it does work, but the touchpad isn't repsonsive. Great.
Now I decide to take it apart and clean out the sticky juice from the inside. So I take off the monitor, the keyboard, and finally, the touchpad apparatus. I clean out everything I can and let it dry while I go to class again. I get back and reassemble the pieces and boot it up and guess what. Now the touchpad responds, but its also going crazy. An improvement? Not really.
So I took it apart again and unplugged the touchpad since it can't be disabled (stupid DELL), and now I need to use the USB mouse for everything, my keys are gross and sticky, and I'm royally ticked.
The bright side? Today I learned how to disassemble and reassemble a laptop. =) Not bad for a beginner.
Today after class I went to the University Center for a drink, and got a bottle of cactus juice. Oh so delicious, and oh so sticky. I get back to my room, put the drink town on the desk, and go to hook up my laptop's ethernet cable. All of a sudden, BOOM! The drink falls and I get agave cactus all over my laptop. So I turn it off, unplug it, take out the hard drive and battery and all, and start to worry that it won't work. After I while I turn it back on and it does work, but the touchpad isn't repsonsive. Great.
Now I decide to take it apart and clean out the sticky juice from the inside. So I take off the monitor, the keyboard, and finally, the touchpad apparatus. I clean out everything I can and let it dry while I go to class again. I get back and reassemble the pieces and boot it up and guess what. Now the touchpad responds, but its also going crazy. An improvement? Not really.
So I took it apart again and unplugged the touchpad since it can't be disabled (stupid DELL), and now I need to use the USB mouse for everything, my keys are gross and sticky, and I'm royally ticked.
The bright side? Today I learned how to disassemble and reassemble a laptop. =) Not bad for a beginner.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Are games getting easier?
Some people might look at the advances in video games over the years and think that games have gotten harder on average. But does more complexity equal more difficulty? Let's take a look.
In the 1980s and 90s, games began to take on the form resembling those of this next generation, but there are many differences between the NES, SNES, and Genesis games and those of the new millenium. First of all, 20 years ago there was no saving a game. If you wanted to beat Mario you would either do it in a single sitting, or pause it and leave the system on while you took a break. Now we can save our progress and come back to it whenever we want. Another huge difference that arose with games since the rise in saving progress is the death of the "game over". Sure you'll still see those words every once in a while, like after being killed without a fairy while fighting Ganondorf, but big deal.
Because your game was saved 15 minutes before the fight, you barely lose any progress. If you died fighting Dr. Robotnik in the 8th level of Sonic the Hedgehog, that was it. You were starting over at Green Hill Zone. This is a big part of the reason why most of these older games had such a longer life than newer games, often giving 50+ enjoyable hours of single player, where as a game like Fable offered maybe 20 hours if you were slow.
Another huge change in games is the loss of any kind of scoring, and with that, the loss of a high score. How proud were you the first time you got the high score on Pac-mania at the roller rink? With newer games like Halo 2 and Gears of War, and even not so new games like Ocarina of Time, the goal is to complete the game, but how fast or how well you complete it doesn't make a difference. How can one tell the difference between one player's completed file of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and another's. One thing I enjoyed as a kid was comparing my new high score with my friends and relishing the moment when I was the dominant player.
Does mean that games have gotten worse? I certainly don't think so. There are plenty of good things about newer games, such as their enhanced multiplayer capabilites, cinematic quality, and their use as a social tool. Are games easier now than they were? Who knows? But I'll keep playing my NES for years.
In the 1980s and 90s, games began to take on the form resembling those of this next generation, but there are many differences between the NES, SNES, and Genesis games and those of the new millenium. First of all, 20 years ago there was no saving a game. If you wanted to beat Mario you would either do it in a single sitting, or pause it and leave the system on while you took a break. Now we can save our progress and come back to it whenever we want. Another huge difference that arose with games since the rise in saving progress is the death of the "game over". Sure you'll still see those words every once in a while, like after being killed without a fairy while fighting Ganondorf, but big deal.
Because your game was saved 15 minutes before the fight, you barely lose any progress. If you died fighting Dr. Robotnik in the 8th level of Sonic the Hedgehog, that was it. You were starting over at Green Hill Zone. This is a big part of the reason why most of these older games had such a longer life than newer games, often giving 50+ enjoyable hours of single player, where as a game like Fable offered maybe 20 hours if you were slow.
Another huge change in games is the loss of any kind of scoring, and with that, the loss of a high score. How proud were you the first time you got the high score on Pac-mania at the roller rink? With newer games like Halo 2 and Gears of War, and even not so new games like Ocarina of Time, the goal is to complete the game, but how fast or how well you complete it doesn't make a difference. How can one tell the difference between one player's completed file of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and another's. One thing I enjoyed as a kid was comparing my new high score with my friends and relishing the moment when I was the dominant player.
Does mean that games have gotten worse? I certainly don't think so. There are plenty of good things about newer games, such as their enhanced multiplayer capabilites, cinematic quality, and their use as a social tool. Are games easier now than they were? Who knows? But I'll keep playing my NES for years.
Girl Gamers: Breaking Barriers or Isolating Themselves?
For as long as video games have been around, they've mostly been associated with males. Guys have dominated the video game scene for the last 30 years. However, this doesn't mean that there aren't some girls out their who can kick your ass at Halo 2.
Girl gamers have begun to unite, and clans like PMS (Pandora's Mighty Soldiers) and the Frag Dolls have shown the world that girls can rock just as hard as any guys when it comes to gaming. Overall, this is a good thing. There's no reason for girls not to play video games. I'm sure it would lead to easier relationships with their game addicted boyfriends for one thing. And it would give all the same benefits that guys get from gaming; stress reduction, socializing, and just plain fun. These girls are role models to younger female button mashers who want to be recognized by their males counterparts, but are they sending the right message?
Having a team of four girls beat the tar out of some of the best male players in a tournament will certainly get people's attention, and will most definitely make the point that girls are a part of the gaming community, but doesn't it still separate those girls from the rest of the players? If women truly want to fit in in the gaming world, wouldn't it make more sense for them to play with the boys?
This is where it gets difficult. Many of these girls-only groups aren't there to put men down in a feminist manner, but they're there to offer support to other female gamers who feel out of place, and that is definitely something we need. I just think that to make a big splash, the guys and girls should team up more instead of separating themselves. But, maybe it's best for now if the girls work on making a name for themselves and making a statement. Then, once society is more accepting of girl gamers, maybe we'll see more mixed-gender teams.
So ladies, if a guy tells you that you can't do something because your a girl, proceed to whoop his ass and be proud. Just don't be afraid to get your ass whooped right back.
Girl gamers have begun to unite, and clans like PMS (Pandora's Mighty Soldiers) and the Frag Dolls have shown the world that girls can rock just as hard as any guys when it comes to gaming. Overall, this is a good thing. There's no reason for girls not to play video games. I'm sure it would lead to easier relationships with their game addicted boyfriends for one thing. And it would give all the same benefits that guys get from gaming; stress reduction, socializing, and just plain fun. These girls are role models to younger female button mashers who want to be recognized by their males counterparts, but are they sending the right message?
Having a team of four girls beat the tar out of some of the best male players in a tournament will certainly get people's attention, and will most definitely make the point that girls are a part of the gaming community, but doesn't it still separate those girls from the rest of the players? If women truly want to fit in in the gaming world, wouldn't it make more sense for them to play with the boys?
This is where it gets difficult. Many of these girls-only groups aren't there to put men down in a feminist manner, but they're there to offer support to other female gamers who feel out of place, and that is definitely something we need. I just think that to make a big splash, the guys and girls should team up more instead of separating themselves. But, maybe it's best for now if the girls work on making a name for themselves and making a statement. Then, once society is more accepting of girl gamers, maybe we'll see more mixed-gender teams.
So ladies, if a guy tells you that you can't do something because your a girl, proceed to whoop his ass and be proud. Just don't be afraid to get your ass whooped right back.
Jack-O's at it again
No, I'm not talking about Michael Jackson, although I can't deny that he is indeed at it again. I'm talking about Jack Thompson, the intolerant, closed-minded, homophobic, video game hating, Howard Stern fighting attorney from Florida. Now the very state that issued him his legal license is taking him to court for his antics in the court room.
This is the same guy who took Rockstar Games, the creators of Grand Theft Auto and Bully, to court for making violent games available to minors. He claimed violent video games trained kids to kill and desensitized them to brutality. He also tried to get defendants in murder trials to blame their violent crimes on video games like Grand Theft Auto.
Now, some people might not see a problem with this. Fair enough, kids probably shouldn't be playing these games. They are violent and inappropriate for kids. However, these games don't cause people to become murderers, and they certainly don't train kids to kill.
As a person who played Grand Theft Auto III at the young age of 13, I can honestly say that it made me no more prone to violence than when my bricks reached the top in Tetris. I can also say with absolute certainty that it didn't train me to kill. Anyone who has played a game like this knows that shooting a gun in a video game is nothing like shooting a gun in reality. As someone who has done both, I can say that I still had the same level of accuracy with a firearm before and after touching any shooting games.
As for his accusations that violent games desensitize kids to violence, I have played the most brutal games out there. From Grand Theft Auto III, to Condemned, to Resident Evil, I've bashed in more brains and shot off more heads than I can count, and I still can't even bring myself to step on a bug any larger than a centimeter.
Now that I've said my bit about how wrong Jack Thompson is about video games (and pretty much everything else), let's talk about his unacceptable methods in his cases. In 1992, Jack Thompson tried to get the Florida Bar, which he is a member of, deemed unconstitutional. He said this was because they were attacking him personally because of their "pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda." In 2006, he tried to get Bully, a Rockstar game based in the schoolyard, banned from being released. Rockstar sent a representative to show the game to Thompson and the judge, and afterword the judge dismissed the case. Thompson then criticized the judge for not knowing what he was watching, and accusing Rockstar of avoiding the most violent parts of the game.
Following his failed attempt to ban the game because of its violence, he tried to work from a different angle. As the truly closed-minded man he is, he attacked the gay community when he "discovered" that in Bully, it is possible for the main character, a 15 year old boy, to kiss another boy. Thompson wrote a letter to the ESRB saying he had "found gay sexual content in Bully as Jimmy Hopkins makes out with another male student. Good luck with your 'Teen' rating now." The ESRB responded by telling him that they already knew about the content, and that it wasn't any reason to raise the rating to Mature.
How is it possible for someone with so little respect for justice could be one of the people appointed to uphold it. We can only hope that in the coming months, Thompson will do something so unforgiveable that he will have his legal license fully revoked...or be thrown in jail... or killed. Either way, we need to get this psycho out of the courts.
Why do you hate, Jack? Did Mommy not love you?
This is the same guy who took Rockstar Games, the creators of Grand Theft Auto and Bully, to court for making violent games available to minors. He claimed violent video games trained kids to kill and desensitized them to brutality. He also tried to get defendants in murder trials to blame their violent crimes on video games like Grand Theft Auto.
Now, some people might not see a problem with this. Fair enough, kids probably shouldn't be playing these games. They are violent and inappropriate for kids. However, these games don't cause people to become murderers, and they certainly don't train kids to kill.
As a person who played Grand Theft Auto III at the young age of 13, I can honestly say that it made me no more prone to violence than when my bricks reached the top in Tetris. I can also say with absolute certainty that it didn't train me to kill. Anyone who has played a game like this knows that shooting a gun in a video game is nothing like shooting a gun in reality. As someone who has done both, I can say that I still had the same level of accuracy with a firearm before and after touching any shooting games.
As for his accusations that violent games desensitize kids to violence, I have played the most brutal games out there. From Grand Theft Auto III, to Condemned, to Resident Evil, I've bashed in more brains and shot off more heads than I can count, and I still can't even bring myself to step on a bug any larger than a centimeter.
Now that I've said my bit about how wrong Jack Thompson is about video games (and pretty much everything else), let's talk about his unacceptable methods in his cases. In 1992, Jack Thompson tried to get the Florida Bar, which he is a member of, deemed unconstitutional. He said this was because they were attacking him personally because of their "pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda." In 2006, he tried to get Bully, a Rockstar game based in the schoolyard, banned from being released. Rockstar sent a representative to show the game to Thompson and the judge, and afterword the judge dismissed the case. Thompson then criticized the judge for not knowing what he was watching, and accusing Rockstar of avoiding the most violent parts of the game.
Following his failed attempt to ban the game because of its violence, he tried to work from a different angle. As the truly closed-minded man he is, he attacked the gay community when he "discovered" that in Bully, it is possible for the main character, a 15 year old boy, to kiss another boy. Thompson wrote a letter to the ESRB saying he had "found gay sexual content in Bully as Jimmy Hopkins makes out with another male student. Good luck with your 'Teen' rating now." The ESRB responded by telling him that they already knew about the content, and that it wasn't any reason to raise the rating to Mature.
How is it possible for someone with so little respect for justice could be one of the people appointed to uphold it. We can only hope that in the coming months, Thompson will do something so unforgiveable that he will have his legal license fully revoked...or be thrown in jail... or killed. Either way, we need to get this psycho out of the courts.
Why do you hate, Jack? Did Mommy not love you?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Must be the air in Boston...
Boston has been home to many great people in history; Benjamin Franklin, John F. Kennedy, and even Aerosmith. But it seems as though today's Bostonians are of a different breed. The kind of breed that can't take a joke.
Meet Err.
He's from the moon. He's also a character on a late night cartoon called Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Err and his feelow Mooninite Ignignot are known for rocking, drinking, and flippin' the bird. And this exactly what Err did earlier this week in Boston.
As a promotional campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, magnetic light boards similar to Light Brights were hung in multiple cities around the United States. Each on depicted the Mooninite giving the finger to passerbys. Apparently, most of Boston hasn't seen the show.
Upon seeing the light board (remember, this is a toy meant for toddlers) someone decided to call the authorities, who upon inspecting it, couldn't figure out what it was. So the authorities then called higher authorities, who called in a bomb squad to make sure terrorists hadn't infiltrated us with pink, foul mouthed aliens. There was a whole lot of traffic and a bunch of people got pissed, news stations freaked people out, and Turner Broadcasting (the company that owns Cartoon Network) eventually apologized.
Now that all that is out of the way, let's talk about what's really important. The people of Boston. Apparently, there is some confusion about what's a weapon of mass destruction, and what's a child's toy depicting a cartoon character. Anyone else see a problem with that? These light boards were hung in 10 major cities across the United States, and besides the few fans who actually got the joke, no one cared.
So I have to ask you Boston, what do you have against the moon? Just seems kinda unfair is all I'm saying.
Wikiwhat?
There's been a lot of controversy lately about whether or not Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is reliable. From Stephen Colbert challenging his viewers to vandalize Wikipedia articles, to Attack of the Show's Kevin Pereira having his biography altered, there are plenty of examples of the problems with Wikipedia. Those problems can be easily summed up: basically, Wikipedia trusts the public. Major no no.
But in Wikipedia's defense, you do get what you pay for...which is nothing...because it's free...so you don't pay. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You shouldn't be using Wikipedia for any important research or school papers. It's just not reliable enough. Does that mean they should disband the site and throw themselves into a volcano? Of course not. Their venture is a valid and noble one, allowing people to share information on the topics they really care about, and letting them do it for free.
So what did we learn today? If you have to write a paper on the economic downfall of the former Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War, avoid Wikipedia. But let's say you want to know how many hot dog eating championships Takeru Kobayashi has won, then feel free to go to the free, editable encyclopedia.
But in Wikipedia's defense, you do get what you pay for...which is nothing...because it's free...so you don't pay. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You shouldn't be using Wikipedia for any important research or school papers. It's just not reliable enough. Does that mean they should disband the site and throw themselves into a volcano? Of course not. Their venture is a valid and noble one, allowing people to share information on the topics they really care about, and letting them do it for free.
So what did we learn today? If you have to write a paper on the economic downfall of the former Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War, avoid Wikipedia. But let's say you want to know how many hot dog eating championships Takeru Kobayashi has won, then feel free to go to the free, editable encyclopedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)