As the director of the cognitive science lab (http://cslab.psyc.sfu.ca/) and a professor at Simon Fraser University (http://www.psyc.sfu.ca/people/), I lead the team of researchers behind the SkillCraft project, the first large-scale research on StarCraft 2 expertise. There are currently eight members of the research team from the Cognitive Science Lab working on the SkillCraft project, a mix of graduate students and undergrads from Computing, Psychology and Cognitive Science and we have put in well over a 1,000 hours on the project. Our goal is to make SkillCraft the largest expertise study ever conducted. In this article I’ll give an overview of the project, provide some description of the methods we are using, and talk about what I see in the future for the scientific study of StarCraft2.
Expertise
Scientists have been studying expertise for decades, and we now know a great deal. We know that expertise in a complex skill that requires about 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. We know that deliberate practice, in which effort is made to improve, typically by doing tasks that are targeting specific sub-skills (for example playing scales on the piano), is far better than simply playing a lot. We know that the difference between the top experts in a field is correlated most strongly with hours of deliberate practice, and that there is very little empirical support for the idea that some experts are more 'talented' than others. Talent may have something to do with who gets involved in particular skill or who progresses past the novice stage - after all, no one likes to do things they’re bad at - but at the highest levels of achievement, practice is the most important factor by far. We also know that extensive practice at a skill changes the nature of your cognitive and perceptual processing in ways that improve your performance. Sometimes this generalizes to other tasks, such as improved visual processing in FPS gamers, and sometimes it doesn’t, as with case of a chess expert’s improved memory for chess positions.
Annoying Limitations
There are some limitations to typical studies of expertise, however. For example, it’s not uncommon to see a study with only 20 participants. When doing experimental work, more is definitely better, and small studies often need to be replicated before firm conclusions can be drawn. Another problem is that studies tend to have only a few levels of expertise, such as novice, intermediate, and expert. Nevertheless, these limitations make it difficult to see how the various components of a complex skill develop, and in particular, how they might interact with each other. The problem results because it is expensive to gather data from experts in real world tasks. Take, for example, tennis. Measuring the speed of a tennis serve is complicated, requires special equipment, and requires a lot of setup time. Measuring the speed of two hundred tennis serves from players across a wide range of skills is beyond the resources of most university research labs. And serve speed is only one of many interesting variables you’d want to look at. What about foot speed, reaction time and any of a dozen other interesting components to tennis skill? That is not even mentioning the difficulty in finding enough participants of different skill levels; even in a major city there are only a handful of tennis pros.
Starcraft Saves the Day
As it turns out, the way to solve all these research problems is sitting on your computer with the extension ‘.SC2replay’. The replay file overcomes the data collection problem because it automatically, instantly, and effortlessly collects a wealth of data about your play. SC2 records every command you and your opponent make: every time you select a probe, every time you build a tank, and every time you fungal a mineral line. The replay file, then, is a timestamped list of every action you perform during the entire game. This list is fed back into the game engine to produce the replay that you actually watch when you review your games.
A replay contains tons of interesting information. It includes selections and deselections, attack commands, build commands, hotkey definitions and hotkey use. From this data, we can look at a great many things. Multitasking, APM, Map Awareness, Scouting, etc., can all be tracked from the information in a replay file. One of the big changes from SC:BW replays is that they now includes camera movements. Players can now see a first person view , and we can now study how you move the main screen to gather information from around the map. For us, a lab focusing on information access and use, this is very interesting data. The speed at which a player can switch to a new view, do some action and switch views again constitutes what we would call a perception-action cycle, and reveals a great deal about the cognitive capacities of the player. We can use such information to learn about how cognitive processing changes as a function expertise, and what the limits of real-time information processing are in the context of a complex cognitive-motor task.
Processing replay information is far from easy, however. Calculating a meaningful APM, for example, involves filtering out spamming, which is most common early game, but can happen any time. Making a bunch of zerglings can look like spamming to a computer program that is looking to strip out repeated actions, so there is a lot of testing that has to happen before we can be sure where capturing what we want to capture. There are also frustrating omissions. For instance, pathing is dealt with by the game engine, so we cannot tell for sure where units actually go, only where they are supposed to end up. We don’t know for sure when units die, because dying is isn’t a command. Are you late on your chronoboost timing or did your nexus get sniped? It is tricky to tell. Despite the complexity of the analysis, there are a large number of factors that are reliably captured, and we will be focusing on those at first.
A Ground Breaking Study
Because data collection is already done by the game, and because data analysis can be automated, it becomes feasible to collect and analyze expertise data on a scale never seen before in this field of research; not just from 20 people, or even 200 people, but from 2,000 or even 20,000 people. Having a data set this large solves all the limitations one normally sees in expertise research. We can have very reliable estimates because we have so many data points. We can get a finer grained picture of the development of expertise because we have replays from seven different leagues, as well as professional players. The combination of these two factors allows us to get a better understanding of the rate of development of various skills with respect to each other. This is not a trivial question. It’s often assumed that all subcomponents of expertise get better at the same rate, for example that your ability to scout for expansions improves as your APM goes up. But it may turn out that scouting ability really only improves once your APM reaches a certain threshold. It also may be that the biggest APM improvements happen somewhere in the middle of the skill continuum, or it may be that large APM improvements occur only after players master hotkeys. Perhaps the internalization of specific timings (e.g., Chronoboost) occur only late in the skill curve. These examples present a picture of interdependent sub-skills. Our study has the potential to discover such interdependencies, something that a study with 3 levels of expertise and 20 people could never do.
The Real World
SC2 is interesting to study because it is complex, has a nice slow learning curve, involves memory, decision-making and perceptual processes, and involves interacting with information of varying relevance in an rich GUI. As a result, findings from our study can be useful for understanding real world tasks in which these processes are essential. A good example is emergency management. The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.). Understanding the cognitive processes underlying resource management in Starcraft 2 could help us understand how experts and novices make analogous decisions in emergencies and, one day, may eventually lead to insights into how disaster response can be improved. Studies like ours can also help system designers. Specialized software systems do not have large user bases, and seldom do users have thousands of hours of practice. Studying SC2 can give designers some sense of what expert use of such a system would look like. Finally, understanding which cognitive/motor/perceptual skills change at which times over training can also be very beneficial for optimizing training regimes for a variety of real world tasks.
Future Investigations
Since beginning our project we have been contacted by several other scientists, and we are now discussing collaborations with researchers at Temple (on multitasking), and Brown Universities (on eye-tracking). I know of some reply analysis of harvested SC:BW games by a researcher at UC San Diego, and work done on SC2 players’ enhanced cognitive abilities by colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin. This suggests to me that there is both tremendous interest, and tremendous potential in SC2 research.
As for future projects from the Cognitive Science Lab, we are planning to pursue more replay analysis studies: joint attention and coordination studies of team games, and longitudinal studies which track individual players progress over many months (Bronze players save your replays, we’ll want them all!). We are also looking at doing work with eye-tracking. We have been in contact with MLG and may bring our eye-trackers to a tournament sometime next year. We also have an interest in investigating different training methods, for example, discovering what’s the best way to train someone to look at the minimap.
How Science Can Help Starcraft
There are definitely players who don’t care about science at all. They aren’t interested in eSports, or the SC2 community or in anything else beyond just having fun; and, of course, that’s totally OK. But when I see 10,000 players tune in live for the Day[9] daily; when I see that Husky’s casts get 70,000 views in one day; when I get PM’d with an offer to help analyze data from a fellow gamer with a PhD in particle physics; when I hear Star Girl’s casts, and watch my own kids’ enthusiasm for playing; and when I see people organizing BarCraft events all across North America that are so popular that they are covered by the Wall Street Journal; well, it’s just so obvious that there is a huge, vibrant, intelligent community of dedicated gamers who care about gaming and its future.
But we need to realize that our vision clashes with most people’s understanding of gaming. If you walk around my neighborhood at 4pm you can hear cacophony of poorly tuned pianos making their way, in fits and starts, through the Harry Potter theme. Parents pay $1000 a year per child for piano lessons, and will encourage, cajole, badger and berate their kids into practicing for an hour a day, or more. Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game? Diligently mastering StarCraft 2 develops fine motor skills and strategic thinking, it trains both planning and time critical decision-making, it helps develop mental toughness, it encourages reflection and analysis, and it offers the myriad benefits of any serious pursuit; yet these rational, caring parents diligently limit their kids “screen time” to an hour a week.
Beyond the scientific benefits, the marriage of Science and StarCraft can help change people’s misconceptions about gaming. The SkillCraft expertise project adopts, as its fundamental assumption, that StarCraft experts are TRUE experts who, because of their dedication, hard work and amazing skill, are worth studying. Whenever I publish a paper, present work at a conference, chat with colleagues, talk to a reporter, write a grant, make a presentation to industry, or recruit a student, I’ll have to convince someone that StarCraft is interesting and worth studying. I’ll have to describe the game, the community, and the professional scene. I’ll have to talk about the dexterity required, the strategy, the split-second decisions, and the resource management. In other words, I’ll be educating people about what playing StarCraft is really like. And I’ll be doing it, not as a gamer, but as a Cognitive Science professor at a respected university with a PhD and a nationally funded research program. I won’t be alone, either; as interest in researching SC2 blossoms, every scientist on every research project will be doing exactly the same thing.
why hasnt this done before? cause we developed the image of gaming as "waste of time" when in fact you can gain a lot from these studies
well done and i hope this will continue to develop. perhaps more of this study will make parents realize what they need to do in order to effectively give their children the best education, and yes gaming has become part of everyone's education by allowing them to exploited the perspective and cognitive part of the brain
This study definitely has some scientific merit.... if you are a scientist. If you are a gamer, this will definitely be the most awesome study that one can ever find. Really awesome that an actual intellect from a university is performing such a study and I'm looking forward for the results.
I'm somewhat concerned about the number of replays collected. The chart on this page seems to indicate that there isn't as many bronze or silver players out there that are submitting compared to the other 4 main skill level. Then again, if you got 100+ replays to start with, that is a huge amount of replays in terms of crunching up the statistics.
Grandmaster, I can understand why there is so little replays... there isn't that many of them out there.
Love it! I remember learning about the limitations of studying expertise in memory classes. Amazing work and keep it up! Makes me proud to support Starcraft!
I had never thought of Starcraft replays as such a wealth of data until now. The potential for analysis is so exciting!
However, I'm concerned about systematic bias in the replays. The only replays I save from a day-to-day basis are replays of games that excited me for some specific reason, such as me doing especially well, or me having an especially close game, or me witnessing an amusing tactic, or me playing with friends. Heh, now that I think of it, none of that would probably make any difference.* However, the statistician in me would still prefer it if the replays uploaded were randomly sampled...
Have you guys approached Blizzard with any of this, in case they have relevant data to share or any way to aid you?
*EDIT: you're not as likely to see games where people fumble up or make huge (even if not uncommon) mistakes
EDIT2: I didn't realize every individual only uploads one replay. Huh.
Blizzard, and the new gaming paradigm in general (with MOBA, RTS and other genres offering ELO ratings in PVP systems), have inadvertently created the most impressive and previously-impossible collection of data.
Something like this was impossible before because of physical limitations and budget limitations. But now the barrier is broken and so much new ideas can be uncovered from gaming, just waiting to be explored.
Its almost as if someone discovered a new force, a new element, or a new particle.
Mass data, a gigantic sample, convenient data, convenient organization of data, real people, real motivation, completely double-blind (unless someone deliberately screws with it), a wide variance in skill, a huge amount of different cultures and people and other perks. Screams science to me.
Hey simon fraser university thats the school my sister goes too ^^, didnt realise they were doing a study on starcraft thats pretty cool.
Vancouver has a huggge starcraft following though, even if you just look at the grandmasters players close to 20 of them are fromm vancouver(or at the very least BC, like drewbie ^^) (at least last season) that like close to 10% of grandmasters in the BC area
This is the second (third?) time your team's posted about the study, and each post has essentially served the same purpose. I keep getting excited and think that the results are finally here..when they aren't.
Still interested in reading the actual analysis, though. Hopefully you release it soon.
Good stuff! I remember reading The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance for the first time and being fascinated by the whole topic. I hope your study gets the support it deserves.
I love the concept. however, I would be tentative attaching he 'expert' label to any current sc2 pro, especially non-korean pros. although players are starting to get very comfortable with the game, we still routinely see blunders of the highest caliber in even tip top professional play.
that said; there is obviously a wealth of information to be studied and benefited from that does not concern itself with total expertise. personally, the conception of 'game sense'-- as it is sometimes called--fascinates me. the point at which players are able to make decisions seemingly beyond conscious calculations, as though a sixth sense has entered their being. obviously very difficult to qualtify, but I have my hopes.
On September 12 2011 15:39 cheesemaster wrote: Hey simon fraser university thats the school my sister goes too ^^, didnt realise they were doing a study on starcraft thats pretty cool.
Vancouver has a huggge starcraft following though, even if you just look at the grandmasters players close to 20 of them are fromm vancouver(or at the very least BC, like drewbie ^^) (at least last season) that like close to 10% of grandmasters in the BC area
i bet you double that number at least are in california.
On September 12 2011 15:25 DtorR wrote: Love your dedication and professional article. I just wish Australia was on the same path where the US is atm with sc2.
Very fascinating! I've always believed since I was a kid that gaming can help develop certain brain functions in general! Dexterity is a big one of course, then there is the strategical thinking as well.
I hope this at the very least will convince parents all over the world that while yes playing basketball is good and I'd say just as important, but you can't shun out video games from your children either.
Physical activity is always great in almost any circumstance, but let them play their games too at night ya know?
On September 12 2011 15:28 TheRealPaciFist wrote: This is amazing.
I had never thought of Starcraft replays as such a wealth of data until now. The potential for analysis is so exciting!
However, I'm concerned about systematic bias in the replays. The only replays I save from a day-to-day basis are replays of games that excited me for some specific reason, such as me doing especially well, or me having an especially close game, or me witnessing an amusing tactic, or me playing with friends. Heh, now that I think of it, none of that would probably make any difference.* However, the statistician in me would still prefer it if the replays uploaded were randomly sampled...
Have you guys approached Blizzard with any of this, in case they have relevant data to share or any way to aid you?
*EDIT: you're not as likely to see games where people fumble up or make huge (even if not uncommon) mistakes
EDIT2: I didn't realize every individual only uploads one replay. Huh.
I'm the opposite, I have sc2 save all my replays. That way I can go back randomly to see how my play looks without bias that you have right after the game. Kinda like how musicians record themselves to listen.
So yes, all my replays are random samples and I don't mind uploading all of them.
I had not realized the scale of the study, I thought it was a lonely graduate student or post-doc who was doing that, but in fact it's a real scientific team . Good luck with the project, should be interesting, and congrats on starting this project, it takes balls to convince people that video games are worth studying.
Diligently mastering StarCraft 2 develops fine motor skills and strategic thinking, it trains both planning and time critical decision-making, it helps develop mental toughness, it encourages reflection and analysis, and it offers the myriad benefits of any serious pursuit
Let's help them, go look for Bronze people and give them link to this article, get them to post =]
I just participated and I have a huge batch of replays but I could only upload one of them. If you want to analyse so many replays why dont you have a mass upload function or is one replay per player really enough?
Have you considered that people will probably upload their best replay? It's just a thought, there's nothing you can really do about it. I completed the survey before it was cool, just sayin'.
Interested in this. Make sure you give us some feedback on results!
EDIT: Just a note on the study, though I'm sure you've already thought of this. You are asked about mouse sensitivity, but this is also dependent on the mouse you have, the windows sensitivity setting, and in many gaming mice also the driver settings I think. Though you may be measuring if they use a quicker/slower speed than their standard windows speed, just thought I'd point that out.
Awesome project, amazing that you were able to get this up and running, you must be very dedicated to your work!
I've saved most of my replays that track my journey from bronze to high masters, hopefully they'll be of use some day.
Can't wait to see the results, and how they will impact e-sports, I'm pretty sure that the koreans would be very interested in how to best train a student to look at the minimap.
From a psychological and statistical standpoint; how have you made sure that the replays submitted represent the average play and not the rare peak of skill by a given gamer? I could imagine that a player would have an interest (even if subconscious) to only submit videos they consider "good".
Have you considered creating an automated replay-uploader (like SC2Gears?) that uploads any 1v1 played by the participating users? This would also enable you to run a general analysis on the rate at which single players improve in various aspects in comparison to say, their league.
Wao, very nice article. I will participate. I love the fact that older people are into a video game. I'm 36 now. I told myself when I was growing up that I will never stop playing video games. I never thought it would come this far however. LoL.
On September 12 2011 17:32 AnxiousHippo wrote: Have you considered that people will probably upload their best replay? It's just a thought, there's nothing you can really do about it. I completed the survey before it was cool, just sayin'.
Well, there are probably more people like me that just upload the latest replay quickly, and get back to work. I wouldn't worry about it much. But yeah, it might be best if people just upload the most recent replay (which is roughly what they were asking for).
On September 12 2011 18:24 bech wrote: From a psychological and statistical standpoint; how have you made sure that the replays submitted represent the average play and not the rare peak of skill by a given gamer? I could imagine that a player would have an interest (even if subconscious) to only submit videos they consider "good".
I would guess this is correct, I myself rank my games from 1-5 on a scale (5 is best) and I uploaded a four. Since i just began gaming again and is currently in gold (meh) when I used to be diamond, i guess that kind of proves the point; We enjoy showing something good becouse it makes us feel better. One way, simpler than actually getting the process automatized, would be to get players to upload both one loss and one win. Maybe it wouldn't help very much though, another option would of course be to upload the 5 latest games and then some computer would later randomize which one to use.
Anyway, interesting research! I look forward to reading your paper in Science =)
On September 12 2011 17:32 AnxiousHippo wrote: Have you considered that people will probably upload their best replay? It's just a thought, there's nothing you can really do about it. I completed the survey before it was cool, just sayin'.
I don't think this a problem at all. As I understood is this study is about how skills develop with practice (very short summary, I know ), so nothing wrong if you have bronze players uploading the best they are capable of, silver players uploading their best games, etc...
Likewise if you measure the serve speed of a tennisplayer you won't ask him to just serve at a random speed, you will ask him to serve at the maximum speed he can achieve at his skill.
Remember to consider that people in upper leagues (especially people who put in the dedication for masters ++) are probably more serious about RTS/gaming in general, and more likely to own a "gaming" mouse. What this means it that the mean DPI of someone in masters++ should exceed the mean DPI of someone in lower leagues.
So even if the average "sensitivity" in the survey for GM = 60% and the average "sensitivity" for gold = 70%, GM could still have a way faster ACTUAL sensitivity because they all own gaming mice that have 1800+++ DPI instead of gold leaguers that are more likely to own crappy generic mice with ~400 DPI.
I've already done the survey and sent my replay and as much as I am interested in a study like this I am somewhat skeptical. I don't really feel that SC2 is that beneficial to your skills or decision making or whatever you may call it outside of the game. Will your study show how people have developed skills for outside of the game? I am someone who frequently forgets what he is talking about/doing as soon as he is slightly distracted and I also have great difficulty making decisions most of the time. After almost 1000 hours of playing SC2 as well as about another 800 playing DotA, not including time spent on SCBW and War3 I don't really feel like either of these things have improved, perhaps you could say that they became even worse.
However I am glad that this is now in the community headlines and hopefully you will receive more input for your research.
Oh! I almost forgot! I love the image of Beaker in the title page :D
*Bronze League Signal* Oh gawd, this a first. I'm actually needed? *Looks through replay list* Hmmm... not a single 1v1 replay in my list that dates back to August 22nd ._.
I'll play a few a 1v1s tonight and submit you guys one. I watch more than I play, but I'll be glad to go out of my way for the sake of science!
I fully support this amazing effort. Everyone, please do the 5 minute survey and upload one replay. Seriously, you can help eSports at no cost to yourself (save 10 minutes of your time).
Is there a way to submit multiple replays over a period of time here? I could only upload one replay when I did the survey and I wish to contribute more than that! =)
I'm currently training to become an air traffic controller and I feel that because I have played real-time fast paced games most of my life I had an edge in training to be an air traffic controller. Some of the same skills comes in the play in both such as short term memory, multitasking, sitiational awareness, decision making and planning.
That i played C&C as a child and spend my youth on WoW might have trained some of the skills i need as an air traffic controller. (that said most from my class aren't gamers so they have the skills from other places or just naturally)
What I would love to see is a FMRI study with SC2 players. I want to see which parts of the brain light up when playing a game. It would also be cool to compare players like MVP & NesTea to some of the lesser players. Maybe they're using different parts of the brain or have better blood flow to some areas. It would also be interesting in the case of someone like MVP because he's playing with constant wrist pains. Seeing how that affects him, and comparing the results to someone who is pain-free would be very cool.
Wow science and SC2! Two of my favourite things combined!
I especially love the idea that science can help to promote more positively the benefits that SC2 can have on developing a lot of real world skills. Can't wait to hear more about how this project develops!
On September 12 2011 15:43 pique wrote: I love the concept. however, I would be tentative attaching he 'expert' label to any current sc2 pro, especially non-korean pros. although players are starting to get very comfortable with the game, we still routinely see blunders of the highest caliber in even tip top professional play.
that said; there is obviously a wealth of information to be studied and benefited from that does not concern itself with total expertise. personally, the conception of 'game sense'-- as it is sometimes called--fascinates me. the point at which players are able to make decisions seemingly beyond conscious calculations, as though a sixth sense has entered their being. obviously very difficult to qualtify, but I have my hopes.
I think your idea of what it means to be an expert is incorrect.
Experts are always capable of blunders. The best people at anything (sport or otherwise) make mistakes and fumble at times, especially when they are facing off with people who are their equal.
There is a big difference in skill level between Huk and InControl... (going off tournament results)
I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
People "play" real world experience simulators for practice in these kinds of fields, they dont take sc2 seriously. You will never see a sc2 simulator class at a police academy or a military training facility lol.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
On September 12 2011 15:43 pique wrote: I love the concept. however, I would be tentative attaching he 'expert' label to any current sc2 pro, especially non-korean pros. although players are starting to get very comfortable with the game, we still routinely see blunders of the highest caliber in even tip top professional play.
that said; there is obviously a wealth of information to be studied and benefited from that does not concern itself with total expertise. personally, the conception of 'game sense'-- as it is sometimes called--fascinates me. the point at which players are able to make decisions seemingly beyond conscious calculations, as though a sixth sense has entered their being. obviously very difficult to qualtify, but I have my hopes.
I think your idea of what it means to be an expert is incorrect.
Experts are always capable of blunders. The best people at anything (sport or otherwise) make mistakes and fumble at times, especially when they are facing off with people who are their equal.
There is a big difference in skill level between Huk and InControl... (going off tournament results)
He has a good point though, not all the professionals may be an expert in scientific terms, and the scene has not developed enough to an extent (e.g., some progamers barely practice, some progamers do not even have this as a job).
One of the reasons chess is described as the fruitfly of expertise studies, is that the rules for chess remain the same, and anyone at the top has more than 10 years of domain specific experience (a prerequisite on being labeled an expert, as science has shown that 10 year of dedicated practice is needed to reach expert level). And chess players only excel within their domain Chess and checkers are different domains despite superficially similar, and no player can truly excell at both. With gaming, this procedure becomes more problematic. . Most of the current professionals switched from starcraft and have plenty of years of experience. It is arguable though if SC1 and SC2 can be labeled as the same domain, as the games are still quite different. In addition, there are players that have switched to SC2 from totally different games, and thus at least in part different domains, (e.g., Naniwa, Select, Thorzain, Moon) but can still dominate as hard as long-time SC1 players.
Starcraft however is the perfect game to study, as if we combine Starcraft and Brood war and Starcraft 2, it has existed for 13 years. The game (if seen as one) has a large professional scene with players that are quite approachable, allowing for much larger scale studies in comparison to chess. Despite the awesome potential, the points described are still limitations, albeit not that big of a deal in this study. And of course the researchers are aware of this, as they are experts on expertise ^_^!
In addition, awesome to see this study getting recognized within the community and I hope this continues. Starcraft 2 has a lot to offer to science, but in return, these developments have a lot to offer to Starcraft 2 and gaming in general, as described. We will be seeing a lot more researchers on this subject (T_T I wanted to be the first one!!) :D
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
I would love for you to read the research by De Groot and Chase and Simon as an example on what such research exactly entails and what implications and consequences there can be. For example, research on chess expertise has provided unique insights into our the way our memory functions and on expertise acquisition and development. People benefit from such research on a daily basis, and you are likely one of the people benefiting from it (be it in your school system, or during your sports activities). From the moment we are born we are acquiring expertise, it is an ever present factor.. gaining insight on the specifics of expertise in Starcraft on such a scale could very well be generalized to all sorts of fields outside of gaming, just like research on chess has been generalized to what you do on a daily basis.
On September 13 2011 01:27 ishyishy wrote: People "play" real world experience simulators for practice in these kinds of fields, they dont take sc2 seriously. You will never see a sc2 simulator class at a police academy or a military training facility lol.
Yet where do you think the design of these simulators come from (e.g., air traffic controll, flight simulators)? They in partcome from studies such as this one; they are in part designed by experts on research in the field of expertise acquisition. The design of the simulation at your police academy or at the military training facility could very well be based on research done in different domains (e.g., chess, but now also SC2). Its the way it works
Every aspect of this project is simply amazing. You're doing amazing work here man. Keep us updated on how its going. After participating in the study I signed up for the newsletter, but thus far havent gotten anything! This post is encouraging though. If you need volunteers for anything. Whether it be interfacing with the community, or mundane things, i'd love to help. Is there anywhere someone could find an opportunity like that with your study?
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
The idea is that sc2 is a series of problems that one has to find solutions to or lose. "Experts" in sc2, or pros, are better at this than others and total newbs are just bad at it, with varying degrees in between.
This holds true for every other field on the planet. For example, if I were to just jump into a managing situation having no prior experience, I'd flounder like a bronze player unless I had help. As opposed to if I've been a manager for 10+ years where I'd walk in, assess the situation, and get to work. And, of course, there are varying degrees between.
Furthermore, sc2 undoubtedly takes a level of discipline to become good at. Is it ridiculous to think that kids could learn discipline, the advantage of having a plan, learning to pick certain battles and leave others, among other things from this game, all while NOT sacrificing their grades? Personally, I think not. It's not uncommon to think of life in terms of a game one plays extensively.
For example, a kid has homework, he knows there's going to be more the next time he goes to class, he could procrastinate (and play sc2), inevitably allowing hw to accumulate, his grades slip, etc, or just do the hw, then, if he has time, play sc2. Now I play zerg, so my racial analogue, if you will, is that I can make drones or make an army to defend your push. Answer is pretty obvious: make an army ('cause losing is dumb).
Using sc2 as a teaching tool isn't really that much of a stretch. As many know, brood war was used at Berkely as a teaching tool. Many were open to it then, even more are open to it now.
Think creatively. Games have the potential to be an amazing learning tool, at the very least. Give them their chance. There's no reason not to.
It's not about what the average player can gain from this. It's about what mankind can gain from this.
Playing starcraft is more important than anything you learn in school except reading & math. School is mainly a tool used to turn you into a fool who can sit still, take orders & memorize. There is a reason powerfull people keep their kids out of it or were there many billionaire kids in your school? Starcraft teaches you to think for yourself, act independantly & take the consequences of that.
Starcraft has real world significance. Maybe you have you heard about war, resource management & planing?
Lastly isn't starcraft/life all about wasting time ;-)
Take your bronze league skill in understanding life and try not to propagate it. Atleast until you've been to the end and know how the world really works.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
If the study goes as Dr. Blair intends, they hope to gain insight into the ways that people gain skill and improve in SC2. For the average SC2 player, this could show them ways to improve that they may not have considered. For example, in an interview Dr. Blair did he brought up an interesting chicken/egg problem in SC2. Does you improving your APM improve your multitasking, or does improving your multitasking help your APM? Obviously, it seems clear that it's a combination of both, but with this study it's hopeful that they can come to a more precise conclusion about how these two factor relate.
In a broader sense, multitasking and understanding how people juggle information is relevant to a wide spectrum of jobs. SC2 is itself is not relevant to managing a emergency situation in specific, but the skills involved are. Multitasking between different problems at different locations or juggling information and resources are things that are very important; and while you may not being able to use specific SC2 knowledge in those situations, the general ability in those skills certainly helps. So if we can better understand how people learn and gain ability in these types of skills, we can understand better how to teach people these skills.
Plus, large 'expertise' studies rarely(never?) have sample sizes in the thousands that have a large range of skill levels. Simply being able to do a study of this size with this many different levels of skill will give a better understanding of how 'experts' utilize information and movement compared to a novice.
i've been studying psychology for the last 4 years being bored and not knowing what precisely to do with it, but try to help ill ppl, do some therapeutic business. good to see how broad possibilities rly are. u just gotta get a bit creative ... and willing to do shit out of the own - lets call it - comfort zone. gl with that project!
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
The research isn't trying to help the average player.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote:Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
No. His analogue was musical instruments.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote:Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
2 strawmen.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote:This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
Its similarity as OP put them has nothing to do with consequences of mistakes. I'm seriously shocked that your grammar isn't horrendous.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote:I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
You have not even read an abstract and seem to be unfamiliar with the study's goals. What the hell are you criticizing.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
I don't mean to be offensive, but I don't think you have a very rounded perspective on what it takes to be successful in StarCraft. Obviously memorizing build orders for StarCraft 2 won't directly make you a better student, as build orders have an extremely limited application; however, the process of learning a strategy and putting it into practice is an extraordinarily valuable skill. The dedication, mental prowess, skill, and decision-making skills involved in StarCraft can all be directly translated into a plethora of other fields and activities. I've heard many professionals, in varying fields, compare the concepts of micro and macro to many real-world situations; one of these examples came from a doctor that reached out to Sheth after he did his streamathon for Docters without Borders.
Your point of 'mistakes don't matter in Starcraft' is valid if you only consider the narrow scope of having fun on ladder. From a professional players point of view, one mistake can mean the difference between 1st place and 2nd place, which is generally a significant sum of money. It can mean the difference of letting yourself down, which is a force that can be quite powerful and detrimental to one's spirit (see's Day9's 100th daily, and you'll more clearly understand what I mean).
All in all, I don't think you should be so eager to shit on someone's goals towards furthering the Starcraft scene in the eyes of the general population.
On September 13 2011 01:22 ishyishy wrote: I'm not sure what this is actually doing. What can be gained from this? What is the average player going to gain from this?
Here is one of my favorite quotes: "Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?"
Obviously this is an exaggeration (or is it?!?!). There are plenty of more important, more useful things people do to improve things about themself. For example, physical exercise. This will help you in more ways than sc2 will ever help you.
Getting people to believe that endless sc2 practice will help improve their life or health or whathaveyou is just going to hurt the next generation. You honestly think that some highschool kid can benefit from playing 40 games of sc2 a day while their grades slip? People with full time jobs dont have time to play sc2 for more than 1-2 hours a day, if that.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
None of your examples make any sense whatsoever. He's comparing a kid practicing piano 1 to 2 hours a day to playing starcraft in that time instead, not forcing your child to play video games all day.You wouldn't even think of bring up the idea of exercise if it weren't for the thought that gaming causes you to not exercise which is ridiculous. In high school i played 5x more video games than any of my friends and was in far better physical shape then any of them.
The significance in the software design is obvious in that you have previous training doing similar exercises. They are able to repeat these exercises to obtain the skill needed in order to save peoples lives. You think those people go into a situation where someones life is on the line before they have had training? Your mindset is the exact problem with how people perceive gaming.
I remember a really good quote from Jeremy Wolfe (is/was a psych professor at MIT) who said (huge paraphrasing) "Pavlov was pretty much just a normal guy, what made him different is that when the rest of us saw something and thought to ourselves "That's interesting!" he thought "That's interesting! I wonder why?"" which is pretty much how I feel now. I look at Starcraft and I'm like "Cool!" while you guys think "holy shit, look at this potential."
Love it. Wish I could submit more than one replay to help things!
On September 13 2011 01:54 oZe wrote: Playing starcraft is more important than anything you learn in school except reading & math. School is mainly a tool used to turn you into a fool who can sit still, take orders & memorize. There is a reason powerfull people keep their kids out of it or were there many billionaire kids in your school? Starcraft teaches you to think for yourself, act independantly & take the consequences of that.
As if school doesn't teach you how to think for yourself, act independently, and accept the consequences of your own actions. If it doesn't, then you're not taking advantage of your schooling. And yes, this applies to terrible inner-city schools as well. There are things you can blame your school on -- opportunities missed, the terribly bureaucracy that might end up ruining your entire life several years down the road -- but if you think that school is only "a tool used to turn you into a fool who can sit still, take orders & memorize," then maybe you should take a look at yourself in the mirror and ask whether or not that was your own fault.
Will Blizzard let you publish their league-division algorithm, or will the journals let you get away with not having the mechanism for skill levels?
Are there any plans for a follow-up longitudinal study on improvement in a smaller cohort of participants over time?
Is there a bias in the replays being submitted being more likely to include wins than losses? Or is it possible to extract the league of the opponent in each game and look at both players? Is there any reason to expect that a game that results in a win might impact the variables you study differently from a game that results in a loss?
On September 12 2011 14:42 CrushDog5 wrote: Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game? Diligently mastering StarCraft 2 develops fine motor skills and strategic thinking, it trains both planning and time critical decision-making, it helps develop mental toughness, it encourages reflection and analysis, and it offers the myriad benefits of any serious pursuit; yet these rational, caring parents diligently limit their kids “screen time” to an hour a week.
This has to be a joke: "The SC2 interface is surprisingly similar to software designed for command and control centers in emergency management, where the goal is to deploy emergency personnel (fireman, paramedics and police) to crisis areas, while protecting strategic locations (bridges, reservoirs, etc.)."
You are honestly trying to relate a video game that has no real world significance to something that saves peoples lives? In sc2 you can make endless mistakes and it doesnt matter. A fireman or a police officer makes 1 mistake and it can mean the death of a person. Mistakes in sc2 can be forgiven and fixed, mistakes in these other areas are unforgivable.
For people as talented and intelligent as you are, I'm sure you can fabricate this study into something believable, but I am not going to believe it for a second. I'm not some guy that doesnt support gaming or thinks that video games are ruining society, but this is going a bit too far. I really hope you guys prove me wrong, but I see nothing but a huge waste of money and time coming out of this.
I take it that you do not work in a field of applied science or mathematics, although I'm sure you benefit from those things. The idea here is to use SC2 to refine existing models of learning and memory which can then be applied to any area that involves training people. Just because 2 things are not the same (SC2, emergency management) does not mean they do not have SIMILARITIES.
The concept that two things can have similarities but not be the same is fundamental to science, which relies heavily on using models to refine things in the real world.
but my question is do you honestly think talent has nothing to do with it ? do you really think that if two people both played for 10k hours, they would still be equal? I believe that after all that time of practice, they could be equal, but more likely it will Become clear who is more talented, and that person will be better. (not including any weird 1v1 meta games between the players themselves)
Maybe one of the players could catch up by playing more , but i believe talent is a real thing, does the OP disagree with that?
On September 13 2011 03:21 TheNessman wrote: This is REALLY Cool , and good luck and stuff
but my question is do you honestly think talent has nothing to do with it ? do you really think that if two people both played for 10k hours, they would still be equal? I believe that after all that time of practice, they could be equal, but more likely it will Become clear who is more talented, and that person will be better. (not including any weird 1v1 meta games between the players themselves)
Maybe one of the players could catch up by playing more , but i believe talent is a real thing, does the OP disagree with that?
I think that's part of what they want to discover with this study.
this is really interesting. I find the concept of mastering and learning to be so fascinating, but I never understood why there was so little information on "expertise". Hopefully replays will be able to help with data collection : )
On September 13 2011 03:50 Darth Caedus wrote: This is super sexy. Color me excited.
Nothing is sexier than academics.
My experience with people who are highly successfully is that don't appear to have any superhuman abilities, and are in fact, normal human beings. Of course my experience is anecdotal, but I've never met an individual whose talent cannot be explained by hardwork.
But we need to realize that our vision clashes with most people’s understanding of gaming. If you walk around my neighborhood at 4pm you can hear cacophony of poorly tuned pianos making their way, in fits and starts, through the Harry Potter theme. Parents pay $1000 a year per child for piano lessons, and will encourage, cajole, badger and berate their kids into practicing for an hour a day, or more. Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game? Diligently mastering StarCraft 2 develops fine motor skills and strategic thinking, it trains both planning and time critical decision-making, it helps develop mental toughness, it encourages reflection and analysis, and it offers the myriad benefits of any serious pursuit; yet these rational, caring parents diligently limit their kids “screen time” to an hour a week.
Thank you for this. This is a well developed paragraph that can help me and others explain to others why Starcraft is so valuable.
This is great! I have completely overlooked the TREMENDOUS potential of digital sports for science! Holy cow, this is actually going to be important for a lot of other research areas. Imagine piano teachers taking concepts from Starcraft. There is only one possible end for that line of thought: a world of geeks. Scary!
Your description seems a bit APM focused at a first glance, but it is an interesting measurement after all. Please Liquidians participate, as such a data set is going to be very valuable for a lot of researchers out there!
On September 13 2011 03:21 TheNessman wrote: This is REALLY Cool , and good luck and stuff
but my question is do you honestly think talent has nothing to do with it ? do you really think that if two people both played for 10k hours, they would still be equal? I believe that after all that time of practice, they could be equal, but more likely it will Become clear who is more talented, and that person will be better. (not including any weird 1v1 meta games between the players themselves)
Maybe one of the players could catch up by playing more , but i believe talent is a real thing, does the OP disagree with that?
It is surprising that deliberate practice accounts for so much of the results (at the highest level of expertise), but those are the facts as we know them. As I said in the OP, talent may be a real thing, and just be less influential over time.
It's also interesting to think that perhaps you could call the ability to practice your ass off a talent, the talent for hard work. Even that talent, though, would be subject to change with experience. There are obvious cultural differences influences as well. I think there was a thread I saw a few days back that was arguing the best SC2 players come from countries were hard work, and the cultural belief that hard work will be rewarded with progress. That mirrors the interesting (non-academic) speculation from Malcom Gladwell that hard work ethic is in part based on agricultural differences in various parts of the world.
Excellently written piece :D It had a great flow to it and I had no problem just reading through the whole thing. I honestly would contribute but I really don't play enough ATM Can't wait to see the finished project though.
On September 12 2011 17:05 Thorzain wrote: Completed the survey. Excited about the results!
Hey Thorzain, it would be a big help if you could encourage other progamers you know to participate. An expertise study is only as good as its experts.
awesome. I've always bragged being big into gaming has helped me in RL to some extent (esp my reaction time/hand-eye coordination from mucho FPS gaming and strategy has helped my multitasking) +1 for science! (and sc2 )
I have to say, the reason that parents limit the amount of time kids can play video games is because if they didn't, video games would supplant a lot of other extremely useful activity, like reading (which would be an unlikely thing to happen with piano). I know that was the case for me, and I am so glad that my parents limited my gaming time when I was a kid, because I would have played during all that time that I actually spent reading, and all that reading made me smart and educated.
i hope you have a good way to filter out people who are in a certain league and probably should not be. perhaps controlling for game number gets rid of a lot of the noise there i guess if you use some sort of HMM (hidden markov modeling), you could probably predict these players by their significantly different replay style or even give a better rubric for determining MMR.
Yet where do you think the design of these simulators come from (e.g., air traffic controll, flight simulators)? They in partcome from studies such as this one; they are in part designed by experts on research in the field of expertise acquisition. The design of the simulation at your police academy or at the military training facility could very well be based on research done in different domains (e.g., chess, but now also SC2). Its the way it works
Simulators are first person.
I would love for you to read the research by De Groot and Chase and Simon as an example on what such research exactly entails and what implications and consequences there can be. For example, research on chess expertise has provided unique insights into our the way our memory functions and on expertise acquisition and development.
Ok so people have already done this research then? Using chess or w/e other game? Why does it need to be done again if they are going to come up with the same results? Waste of time and money.
Again, there is no arguement for using sc2 over a real-time simulation. It's a joke. Anyone that isnt a sc2 super fanboy can clearly see this.
On September 13 2011 06:20 infinitum wrote: I have to say, the reason that parents limit the amount of time kids can play video games is because if they didn't, video games would supplant a lot of other extremely useful activity, like reading (which would be an unlikely thing to happen with piano). I know that was the case for me, and I am so glad that my parents limited my gaming time when I was a kid, because I would have played during all that time that I actually spent reading, and all that reading made me smart and educated.
For some kids, that's probably true, and I certainly agree that parents need to take responsibility to making sure their kids are properly educated. I am a university professor who specializes in learning, after all.
But, I would argue that playing good games (games that exercise a variety of cognitive capacities) are excellent ways for a someone to spend time, and I see no reason that we should prefer a child to read Harry Potter six times, charming though it was, to making Silver as Random.
A healthy dose of games could have taught you something, too.
On September 13 2011 06:20 infinitum wrote: I have to say, the reason that parents limit the amount of time kids can play video games is because if they didn't, video games would supplant a lot of other extremely useful activity, like reading (which would be an unlikely thing to happen with piano). I know that was the case for me, and I am so glad that my parents limited my gaming time when I was a kid, because I would have played during all that time that I actually spent reading, and all that reading made me smart and educated.
For some kids, that's probably true, and I certainly agree that parents need to take responsibility to making sure their kids are properly educated. I am a university professor who specializes in learning, after all.
But, I would argue that playing good games (games that exercise a variety of cognitive capacities) are excellent ways for a someone to spend time, and I see no reason that we should prefer a child to read Harry Potter six times, charming though it was, to making Silver as Random.
A healthy dose of games could have taught you something, too.
It's hard to say what's better or worse IMO. I think its obvious that, say, reading, playing sports and playing SC2 are all good for kids, but it's hard to know the right amounts. For example, maybe playing SC2 is better than the sixth reading of Harry Potter, but what about the first, or second reading? Will someone get more out of being competitive at an SC2 tournament, or a tennis tournament?
In my opinion SC2 isn't outright better than any of those things, but it would be a cool way to spend your free time as a kid.
It's hard to say what's better or worse IMO. I think its obvious that, say, reading, playing sports and playing SC2 are all good for kids, but it's hard to know the right amounts. For example, maybe playing SC2 is better than the sixth reading of Harry Potter, but what about the first, or second reading? Will someone get more out of being competitive at an SC2 tournament, or a tennis tournament?
In my opinion SC2 isn't outright better than any of those things, but it would be a cool way to spend your free time as a kid.
edit: kids have a lot of free time though, haha
It's the mix that matters, as you say.
My point is that every parent I know would have no problem forcing their kids to go run around outside, or practice piano, or read a book, but none of them would insist that their children play a video game.
This sounds great, really interesting. My kids will be playing Starcraft instead of piano I'll participate, for science (and starcraft)! I'll do my best to spread the word.
It's hard to say what's better or worse IMO. I think its obvious that, say, reading, playing sports and playing SC2 are all good for kids, but it's hard to know the right amounts. For example, maybe playing SC2 is better than the sixth reading of Harry Potter, but what about the first, or second reading? Will someone get more out of being competitive at an SC2 tournament, or a tennis tournament?
In my opinion SC2 isn't outright better than any of those things, but it would be a cool way to spend your free time as a kid.
edit: kids have a lot of free time though, haha
It's the mix that matters, as you say.
My point is that every parent I know would have no problem forcing their kids to go run around outside, or practice piano, or read a book, but none of them would insist that their children play a video game.
While the forum seems to have your attention Dr., would you mind explaining a bit what you think separates the very top players from one another? My uneducated view is that 'talent' plays a role mostly in the very lowest and very highest extremes of the skill range. I'm sure you've heard this before, so I won't go into detail, but do you think 'talent' separates the very top, or do they maybe practice more/better?
It's hard to say what's better or worse IMO. I think its obvious that, say, reading, playing sports and playing SC2 are all good for kids, but it's hard to know the right amounts. For example, maybe playing SC2 is better than the sixth reading of Harry Potter, but what about the first, or second reading? Will someone get more out of being competitive at an SC2 tournament, or a tennis tournament?
In my opinion SC2 isn't outright better than any of those things, but it would be a cool way to spend your free time as a kid.
edit: kids have a lot of free time though, haha
It's the mix that matters, as you say.
My point is that every parent I know would have no problem forcing their kids to go run around outside, or practice piano, or read a book, but none of them would insist that their children play a video game.
While the forum seems to have your attention Dr., would you mind explaining a bit what you think separates the very top players from one another? My uneducated view is that 'talent' plays a role mostly in the very lowest and very highest extremes of the skill range. I'm sure you've heard this before, so I won't go into detail, but do you think 'talent' separates the very top, or do they maybe practice more/better?
oh btw my parents encourage me to play more sc2 at the age of 20 T.T because they know i dont study well .. and i am in a city college T.T so i m trying to become pro
A very interesting study indeed! I'll be eagerly awaiting your results, and I hope that the study will be published someplace I can find it.
I'm interested in how you define expertise, and I'm a bit skeptical about all of the benefits you claim Starcraft has, enough so that I won't be actively encouraging my kids to skip violin practice to analyze IdrA's latest replays.
That said, I would be a liar if I said I didn't love SC2 (and SC:BW, my original love) and if it turns out to be truly beneficial, then who am I to gainsay it?
One comment I'd like to make is that many people watch professionals play sc2 not just for entertainment but for the educational experience too. Perhaps it couldn't hurt to document how much time people spend watching sc2 also.
On September 12 2011 14:42 CrushDog5 wrote: Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game?
Because not every parent is Day[9] :
And to the OP as well: I live in Burnaby, BC and I plan on attending SFU next year... I would love to participate if I could!
Excellent, I'm glad to hear it will be accessible. I'm a psychology student at my college, so naturally this research fascinates me and I'd love to read the full report. When it's done, of course. We can't hurry science, after all.
If I had a replay to upload, I would, but all of mine were lost during the transition to a new computer and I haven't played much since. I'm thinking I'll snatch some time from my studies and play a game so that I can upload it. All in the interest of research, mind you!
Smart thinking applying sc2 with the lack of available data in your particular field. I answered the survey and submitted a replay. Hope it all works out, let us know
On September 13 2011 12:52 FYRE wrote: If a kid was made to write an essay on Starcraft 2, I think the parent should go into psychiatric care.
I don't understand.
Is there something about writing an essays which is harmful? I can't believe you mean that.
What about the classic "What did you do on your summer vacation?"; couldn't that be about StarCraft? That would be OK, right? If so, if you accept that someone might write a sensible, useful, even educational essay about StarCraft, then you must accept that the act writing about StarCraft itself isn't horribly damaging to someone.
Yet you suggest that having children write about StarCraft, perhaps as a way of aiding analysis, encouraging improvement, or reflecting on successes, is quite literally insane.
I think you have nicely demonstrated why eSports faces serious obstacles to widespread acceptance. Even someone writing on an SC2 community website thinks it's not an important or useful activity!
But, I note, you have provided no argument, no cause for believing that SC2 is a base, low and demeaning activity that we would do well to avoid. If you want to convince me to take your position, you must sway me with ideas and reasons. Give me something to sink my teeth into, please.
Maybe if you wrote 500 words on why assigning an essay on StarCraft 2 requires medical treatment we could have something to discuss, some way of learning from each other; but with only a one meager, embarrassingly small line, I feel like I've been flashed.
Perhaps it's not essays on StarCraft, but tiny, undeveloped, and thoughtless minority opinion posts that are the base, low and demeaning activity that we'd all do well to avoid.
I'm wondering for quite some time about the RTS game skill and age relation. Since you're doing this research, is it possible for you to give us the graph that showing that? I read this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=265101, and I believe that that kind of information will interest some people, at least some old guy like me, lol.
I think it will hard to draw a conclusion since most likely the older we are, the less time we have. But at least we can see some picture. If we can compare the similar play time will be much better.
This is so cool, I wish the group the best and loved reading the article. Please update more or with links to anything published from this, I would be fascinated to read anything that comes from this project!
On September 13 2011 15:07 antas wrote: Hi CrushDog5,
I'm wondering for quite some time about the RTS game skill and age relation. Since you're doing this research, is it possible for you to give us the graph that showing that? I read this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=265101, and I believe that that kind of information will interest some people, at least some old guy like me, lol.
I think it will hard to draw a conclusion since most likely the older we are, the less time we have. But at least we can see some picture. If we can compare the similar play time will be much better.
Cheers
Something along those lines would be easy to do. We could do an analysis that holds factors play time out of the equation, to see if Age influences League independent of play time.
On September 13 2011 15:48 Setev wrote: Hey guys, on the subject of expertise and getting better at Starcraft, check out this book: "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle, who is also the author of bestseller "Lance Armstrong's War".
On September 13 2011 14:06 CrushDog5 wrote: I don't understand.
don't even try. Clearly a troll
Yeah, I know. Sigh.
The unsubstantiated assumption that most things are better use of time than gaming is the key problem, though.
All the recent press about eSports is promising, but it all has the flavor of Novelty News:, " Oh look, there are some people who think that video games are something to watch and cheer, isn't that funny!"
That's one of the reasons I think SkillCraft can be helpful.
It's hard to say what's better or worse IMO. I think its obvious that, say, reading, playing sports and playing SC2 are all good for kids, but it's hard to know the right amounts. For example, maybe playing SC2 is better than the sixth reading of Harry Potter, but what about the first, or second reading? Will someone get more out of being competitive at an SC2 tournament, or a tennis tournament?
In my opinion SC2 isn't outright better than any of those things, but it would be a cool way to spend your free time as a kid.
edit: kids have a lot of free time though, haha
It's the mix that matters, as you say.
My point is that every parent I know would have no problem forcing their kids to go run around outside, or practice piano, or read a book, but none of them would insist that their children play a video game.
I insist that my parent play video games. Actually, aren't the elderly encouraged to socialize and play games to keep their minds sharp? Checkers and card games not uncommon in senior centers. Or the Wii.
I insist that my parent play video games. Actually, aren't the elderly encouraged to socialize and play games to keep their minds sharp? Checkers and card games not uncommon in senior centers. Or the Wii.
They are, and you make a good point. Coincidentally, I was recently contacted by someone interested in Aging and Cognition. We may collaborate on project that assesses benefits of SC2 on aging.
Yay for science! I wish it was interdisciplinary enough of a topic to collaborate with. However, my doctoral research is based on cellulosic bioenergy. If you think of a way to combine cognition research with mine, I'll gladly try to help! Hah! Good luck on your academic journey with this! I love it.
"But we need to realize that our vision clashes with most people’s understanding of gaming. If you walk around my neighborhood at 4pm you can hear cacophony of poorly tuned pianos making their way, in fits and starts, through the Harry Potter theme. Parents pay $1000 a year per child for piano lessons, and will encourage, cajole, badger and berate their kids into practicing for an hour a day, or more. Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game? Diligently mastering StarCraft 2 develops fine motor skills and strategic thinking, it trains both planning and time critical decision-making, it helps develop mental toughness, it encourages reflection and analysis, and it offers the myriad benefits of any serious pursuit; yet these rational, caring parents diligently limit their kids “screen time” to an hour a week."
i thought this paragraph was particularly intriguing. as someone with ADHD i can safely say that playing starcraft has improved my ability to concentrate on multiple things without distraction. hyperfocus is still an issue (that im working out) but overall, i'd be totally interested in hearing what this study has to say about developing minds and not a mind thats already been through the developmental phase.
i would like to help, but i think my actual skill is higher than my league. On 'paper' i am mid gold with only 4 wins this season because i rarely play 1v1, but rather watch tournaments and play team games with my bronze/silver reallife friends who really don't care about buildorders and things like this. This kind of replay would rather hurt than help, wouln't it?
Cool study, gaming in general needs a lot more of this. If you compare any game to a pure theory based game such as poker, you will notice that pretty much every e-sport is way behind. I Am not the worlds biggest day 9 fan, but I love the fact that he's actually trying to make gamers understand how important game theory is.
I've answered the survey, and I'm hope you'll be able to provide nice results from your research in the future!
On September 14 2011 04:49 stevorino wrote: i would like to help, but i think my actual skill is higher than my league. This kind of replay would rather hurt than help, wouln't it?
It would be helpful if you could submit your replay. I expect there will be some variability based on 1v1 not being everyone's thing, so it won't hurt the study at all.
Please be sure to encourage your friends to submit, we really could use more lower level players.
Should maybe also check out research data (if publicly available) Korea has done on BW professional gamers. There has definitely been research and publications, just not sure if its made public.
I'll participate once I get out of class. Also, I'd say it's a sure bet that learning to play Starcraft well helps in other areas. Anything that requires you to focus on something trains your executive attention. Learning to play a musical instrument is good for you because you have to focus on creating the sound at a tempo. Starcraft requires you to pay attention in this exact same way with the idea of macro. Not only that, but in the process of learning to play Starcraft well, you also learn to prioritize well.
There's also a big difference, however, between actually learning to play Starcraft well and playing Starcraft like you play any other video game. Some people play Starcraft and portrait farm, or just do custom games or whatever. I think there might be some self improvement that happens as a result of playing video games in general, but there are ways to play Starcraft that just absorb time more than they do anything else.
I think though, if you wanted to influence your kid to grow up intellectually, it would benefit him much more to encourage him to learn to play Starcraft well than it would to teach him to spend his free time doing something like watching TV. If Starcraft were also something that taught you social skills it would be the perfect game for learning to be successful. Unfortunately it does not ): Lol
"But we need to realize that our vision clashes with most people’s understanding of gaming. If you walk around my neighborhood at 4pm you can hear cacophony of poorly tuned pianos making their way, in fits and starts, through the Harry Potter theme. Parents pay $1000 a year per child for piano lessons, and will encourage, cajole, badger and berate their kids into practicing for an hour a day, or more. Why aren’t parents bugging their kids to memorize TvT builds, or practice their 4-gate, or watch replays from their mandatory daily laddering session, or write an essay about how they can improve their game? Diligently mastering StarCraft 2 develops fine motor skills and strategic thinking, it trains both planning and time critical decision-making, it helps develop mental toughness, it encourages reflection and analysis, and it offers the myriad benefits of any serious pursuit; yet these rational, caring parents diligently limit their kids “screen time” to an hour a week."
i thought this paragraph was particularly intriguing. as someone with ADHD i can safely say that playing starcraft has improved my ability to concentrate on multiple things without distraction. hyperfocus is still an issue (that im working out) but overall, i'd be totally interested in hearing what this study has to say about developing minds and not a mind thats already been through the developmental phase.
This is interesting to me because I too suffer from ADHD. I am curious how you managed to overcome the initial "shock" (not really the right word but) of trying to multitask in a game like SC2. Basically, I can get myself to focus really well for the first 5-7 minutes of the game, I can get a build order down like clockwork. But as soon as multiple things happen at once, I start to feel overwhelmed by it, and then normal macro starts to slip (pretty common for players in general, but I am having a particularly hard time overcoming the multitasking of the mid-late game).
Anyways, this thread is pretty awesome, and I hope we get some interesting findings going forward.
For those interested in StarCraft related research:
There is a substantial work currently being done all around the world with respect to game AI using BW as a proving ground. A key hot area in current study is the challenges in applying machine learning/data mining algorithms to brood war AIs which often involves analysis of large replay data sets. What we learn from these studies is often sufficiently general that we can apply our findings to writing computer controlled opponents to other games, or even different problems altogether.
Submitted my most recent ladder game and filled out survey, was quite interesting trying to estimate number of hours spent. I think I estimated pretty accurately for sc2 at least, sc1 was much harder!
Now I have enough support for my argument that playing Starcraft helps science. I am definitely looking forward to the results. How will they be published? In a journal, online, etc.?
In case people are interested, we are doing a data analysis contest on Reddit, here is part of the announcement.
THE SC2 DATA ANALYSIS CONTEST Post your data analysis suggestions in (http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/kfjbk/skillcraft_replay_analysis_contest_thank_you/), and we will do the three analyses with the most upvotes!
Not all the analyses we do for the scientific report will be interesting to the average SC2 Player. Similarly, not all analyses that will interest players will be considered for our journal article. You are encouraged to submit analysis suggestions that will interest the typical gamer, that is, analyses that we might not do otherwise, but which the community might enjoy.
REPLAYS HAVE COMMANDS, AND ONLY COMMANDS Remember, we are analyzing replays. Replay files hold all, and only, the commands that the players issue during the game. Replays show where people move units to, but don't show actual pathing. Replays show attack commands, but not unit deaths. Not even the death shriek of a ghost makes it into the replay. Analyses that are map specific are fine (and the kind of thing that wouldn't be in the journal article). Please, no questions regarding which races are IMBA (ie. 'Terran') or OP strats (like the 1-1-1).
NOTE: There will likely be analyses suggested that are not technically feasible, and obviously we won't be doing them, even if they are popular. I'll try to comment on those as I see them so people will know not to bother upvoting them.
My mind is blown... I love the Scientific aproach to things like starcraft, and I honestly think your results will be really intersting not only to the SC comunity but to everyone, it's not only a way to study skill development, but it can be a way to study and spread a way of life that exists since the first video game was created..
I did it a while back, can't wait to see the results of the study. I wonder what conclusions are going to come out of it. Who knows, we could find the more subtle differences between the top 5% and the top 1% of players.
Hope people can keep pitching in their replays, I'll ask my gold friend to submit before Friday comes.
Long story short, I'm doing some graduate work at the London School of Economics at their School of Management. Largely my work focuses around leadership and decision making and I think SC2 has a lot of value in proxy, or practice, decision making for young leaders.
Too often people are promoted into positions of authority without having the opportunity to develop their decision making skills sufficiently. This creates managers who are ineffective at finding solutions to problems outside their experience, often characterized as the "Peter's Principle" where people are promoted to the level of the incompetence.
SC2 is helpful in that it gives you the opportunity to practice crisis and non-imminent decision making, something Day[9] characterizes as in game and between game decision making. I suspect this works, anecdotally at least, because of my experiences.
I picked up SC2 last year after some time in the Canadian Forces as an infantry officer. Admittedly I played a bit of SC BW back in highschool, but I hadn't touched it in years. I placed in platinum, though, NA platinum. Arguably far higher than a relatively new player should. Certainly my macro/micro skills were not that strong. I suspect that my military skills played a role in the meta game, relating to timing and unit composition. Terran in particular has a number of overlaps with military tactics. Further, over the last year I was a policy analyst for the Canadian federal government and repeatedly found that SC2 planning and analysis has parallels to my real job.
Being the high-school football captain doesn't actually help you lead a boardroom meeting, or soldiers into combat, but it provides a baseline experience where you have practiced making decisions and leading people in safe, controlled environments. SC2 is the same for analytical skills.
I am looking to build a catalog of professionals who feel that their SC2, or related experience, has relevant, real world applications. Please, PM me if you are interested and have stories to share.
Interesting study, I hope it goes well! I remember when I was working on my dissertation, a doctoral learner was pushing a topic related to WoW or gaming (I can't recall). Unfortunately, he was shut down several times with the "so what?" wall that you must climb and show what your study will contribute to the field. It seems this approach is much more sound. It also helps not having a committee to convince (possibly only those funding the project). Again, best of luck!
On September 16 2011 03:47 DrSeRRoD wrote: It also helps not having a committee to convince (possibly only those funding the project). Again, best of luck!
It can be tough when a dissertation committee just doesn't get it. I'm glad I have Tenure.
On September 16 2011 04:42 MattyClutch wrote: Any chance of updated stats or will we have to wait till the project is complete?
We'll put out stats on on Monday. I checked yesterday at we're at 4100ish with that same basic proportions. Terran is still way behind. What's up with that? No community spirit!
On September 16 2011 04:42 MattyClutch wrote: Any chance of updated stats or will we have to wait till the project is complete?
We'll put out stats on on Monday. I checked yesterday at we're at 4100ish with that same basic proportions. Terran is still way behind. What's up with that? No community spirit!
im so high my mum is either spanking me or beating the fuck out of me for peeing on her custom edition dildo collection. none tge less thus urination is so worth it. aaaah go it feels os satisfyining releasing my liquids upon another persons faace
On September 16 2011 21:35 stanik wrote: @hamsterdam you'd probably get more attention by reviving super old threads and posting that garbage at the same time.
I wonder if it was a good idea to tell him what to do to get more attention.
The data collection period for the SkillCraft survey has been completed and we are now analyzing our results. If you would like to be informed of our research findings and future plans, please sign up for the newsletter below.
If you have any further questions, please contact us at cognitive-science-lab@sfu.ca, or follow up on our research through our lab site.
Sign Up for The SkillCraft Participants Newsletter! You can keep up to date with our ongoing research findings by clicking this link, or by sending an email to skillcraft-newsletter-request@sfu.ca with “subscribe” in the subject line. You will be sent a confirmation email. To complete the subscription process, click Reply in your email client and send the reply. Do not edit the subject line. If the confirmation was successful, you will get a welcome message from the SkillCraft.ca mail list.
In a new study meant to examine the neurological processes behind human multitasking, researchers are examining replay data from Blizzard's StarCraft II to learn how the human brain responds to complex, and often simultaneous demands.
The "SkillCraft" project, led by cognitive scientist Mark Blair of Simon Fraser University, gathered more than 4,500 StarCraft II replay files from players of all skill levels, and will use 3,500 of these files to pick apart the myriad cognitive abilities involved in playing the game.
"I can’t think of a cognitive process that’s not involved in StarCraft," Blair told Scientific American. "It’s working memory. It’s decision making. It involves very precise motor skills. Everything is important and everything needs to work together."
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fUxud.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2010/12/1293494669290.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/stand_back_square_0.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uHHpP.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/science.jpg)
)
Actually, aren't the elderly encouraged to socialize and play games to keep their minds sharp? Checkers and card games not uncommon in senior centers. Or the Wii. 
![[image loading]](http://skillcraft.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SkillCraft-2011-09-19.png)
