|
On January 03 2012 12:25 PhiliBiRD wrote:
22 so i cant say i have the issue.
realistically tho, i dont see why pros retire in late 20s. that just seems kind of silly. especially n ow since SC2 is alot easier than BW, we know the same amount of APM is not required.
with practice and consistent effort, i dont see any reason why this should be an issue until your mid-late 30s or 40s even. if randy couture fought till his mid 40's i think someone can play SC2 till the same age.
My guess is that they start to realize that playing video games competitively isn't exactly a good, long-lasting career choice if you're not Flash or Jaedong. There comes a time in one's life where one has to make certain choices for the coming twenty years of one's life, and I tdon't think anyone is going to play video games competitively until they're 50. My guess is that most of them retire at that age to persue a more normal and stable career.
|
On January 04 2012 03:15 Sablar wrote:
I checked it up now. There are longitudinal studies that show completely different results from the "Mean T-score / Age". See for example "Stability, growth, and decline in adult life span development of declarative memory: cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a population-based study.". Here and in other studies cognitive decline starts much later and works differently.
I'm not too concerned about the particular at age at which it might onset, be it in the 60s or 30s for the point I was making -- that although cognitive decline occurs with age, it's probably not the key ingredient in our "I suck at games now" predicament. I do appreciate you showing me that this discrepancy, but it doesn't change my point. I agree with the authors that there should be supplemental studies. This paper was published in 2005, so perhaps you could check to see what has followed. The information I received that is depicted in the normalized graphs is from a 2011 lecture, so I'm wondering why the staff didn't address your concerns when they presented the info. Maybe it wasn't significant enough - I'm really not sure. Thanks though
And if you base your OP on scientific data you should be able to interpret the results from said data because there are some mistakes like ".. begins on average at 20-30" or even 30, which you still state and the graphs don't back that up. If the question is supposed to be based on science then limitations need to be addressed as well. There is a lot of research on the subject already and I think the existing research and discussion about it is relevant for the question if SC2 skill is affected by age. It doesn't need to be definitive because all studies have limitations (regardless of where they were published).
I can interpret the results though. That I'm slightly inconsistent in saying when it begins is due to the fact that it's not concretely known. I did some poking, and found "early thirties, late twenties, etc". I'm totally aware of that -- that I've been loose with exactly when it might start. That reflects the ambiguity, though, doesn't it? It's because I'm not totally sure -- no one is, and you actually support this idea of ambiguity (to a much larger degree of course) by saying there are vastly differing results in longitudinal studies. I didn't want to simply say "yeah your synapses start to de-differentiate at precisely 29 years old to precisely Y extent", thereby entailing the statement "the process begins at 29" each time it was to be mentioned. I've been saying "~late 20s/early 30s" in order to roughly relate to the graph(s), which show some discrepancies as you state. I really don't think this is a very important complaint though, this ambiguity between late 20s/early 30s...it's a general time point. Perhaps from the get-go I should've just said 30+/-5? I am basing this off scientific data, though. I agree there should be more studies, of course, due to discrepancies such as that suggested in the paper to which you refer.
I think it's always good to include sources even if it's not a formal citation. Nature isn't really a source that can be looked up and also I would be interested in reading the articles.
I do too, but most of the images in the OP are taken from various lectures, which draw upon multiple sources chosen by the professors, much like a textbook states things that are drawn from many sources. I could cite lectures #s I suppose? Some images are cited with original sources on slides, others not. I suppose I can hunt down the specifics via emailing professors. I will take requests in particular -- for maybe one image you find intriguing is one to which I have the full citation available rather than just the lecture slide, in which case I can just give that to you.
Regarding neuroscience and observable behavior, I think it is always very important to keep in mind that they are basically the same thing. There cannot be a change in behavior/scores etc without there being a change at a neuro level. It's the same thing but measured at different levels, and caustation is also often unclear here. - Not really directed at anyone particular, I just think it is important to repeat in any discussion regarding neuro.
All this said I still like that you took time and made the OP. I think it is an interesting subject.
Of course. Behavior is linked directly to neuro -- I'm glad that you see this, and would like to echo your reminder. I don't know anything at all on a formal level about the subjective/psychological aspects of the story. I only know about the developmental/neuro aspects, whose changes and features directly affect behaviors and phenotypes. If you think of the brain as a big bundle of complex connections, then you can think of behaviors as complex signaling among these networks of connections -- thus changing these networks or connectivity can impact behaviors, and when behaviors change, these changes are reflected by changes at the synpatic/neurological level. That could be worded really poorly, but I agree with you, and if I sound wrong let me know so I can re-think it
|
Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
|
On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote:
Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
hmm.. kasparov didnt win the world title until he was 22 iirc, and his prime years followed after that
also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_Brunson
|
On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote:
Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players?
Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers.
|
I think Nestea is a great example, I mean Boxer and Nada are veterans with a decade of intensive training but Zergong? Lol he was a 2v2 player and probably spent most of his time washing Flash's underwear and coaching KTF Zergs. Yet he still owns in SC2.
I don't know much of the skill of a retired 2v2 progamer+Coach (Zergbong). But I suppose he's between B+ and A- level.
|
On January 04 2012 04:01 wo1fwood wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote:
Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players? Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers.
It's also true that ultra-marathoners tend to be older than their traditional marathon-runner counterparts. Some things really do seem to improve with age, others not. It's all very interesting to me!
|
The main reason why older gamers get worse is because they have less and less time and energy to invest in the game.
|
On January 04 2012 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 04:01 wo1fwood wrote:On January 04 2012 03:45 bluQ wrote:
Did you guys ever notice the age of successful piano players and chess players? Not sure what you're trying to say here...the whole musician thing is a bit skewed though when compared to professional gaming. I'm 29 and I'm a baby still. Some of my friends are just starting to get national recognition as performers, conductors, composers, but they are still considered to be in their very early careers. It's also true that ultra-marathoners tend to be older than their traditional marathon-runner counterparts. Some things really do seem to improve with age, others not. It's all very interesting to me!
According to Baseball Prospectus, most top tier MLB players tend to peak at around 29 years old. The majority of players who aren't in the top tier of MLB clubs peak at different ages and you can't really draw any conclusions. The topic is fascinating. In the sports world, there appears to be a general, continual progression in performance until around 29 - 31, at which point there's a slight drop-off. Does age have anything to do with that? I'm not sure.
|
On January 04 2012 04:23 RogerShah wrote:
The main reason why older gamers get worse is because they have less and less time and energy to invest in the game.
I would agree that motivation to play is a big factor in decreasing skill level as players get older, but younger players are usually faster and more skillful.
|
Looking at other competitive games is pretty interesting though for the old age argument.
In Capcom fighters, some of the world's most noticeable players are actually above the age of 25:
Justin Wong (26), Daigo Umehara (30), Alex Valle (33), Tokido (26)
And these are just a few examples of players who still take top place finishes at events over the age of 25. Although fighters are a different genre, they still require reflexes, execution, and quick thinking.
|
It's ridiculous if people actually believe that you are instantly slower when you reach 25... it's just that you don't put the hearth you used to into video games (even if you are a pro).
To be fast, what you need more than anything is practice, so when you cut your practice in half (or more) then yes you are going to be slower.
|
I'm 22 and I feel much, much worse than when I was 15. I used to be so damn good at CS1.6 and now I can barely compete. I'm still fine in modern FPS but that's because everyone sucks in those. If I still had my CS1.6 skills for BF3, I would have a KD ratio above 5 easily...
Other way around for RTS though, I'm better now than I've ever been - but when I was young I didn't really try so much. The comparison is hard to make though, but I don't think I was smart enough as a kid to really understand RTS...
|
25th birthday few weeks ago and already in another category in some poll. Damn it...
I think i can still keep up with the youngsters 
|
On January 04 2012 04:41 WhiteDog wrote:
It's ridiculous if people actually believe that you are instantly slower when you reach 25... it's just that you don't put the hearth you used to into video games (even if you are a pro).
To be fast, what you need more than anything is practice, so when you cut your practice in half (or more) then yes you are going to be slower.
Well, I don't know about video games, but I've gone back to college recently and I've noticed a huge difference in how quickly I learn things. In the past, I would pick things up almost instantly and I never studied a day in my life. This semester, I've had to study quite a bit because I'm not picking things up automatically. It's real sad 
Then again, I have no idea how much of that is due to age, and how much is due to alcohol consumption 
|
im 24.me and my gamerbuddies always joke around how much we suck beacuse we are getting old :>
i personally feel i lack alot of conecntration while playing which was different back when i was around 16-18. i blame this on the lack of excitement you get out of doing things when getting older and my history of smoking weed and drink way too much in the past (way too much!!)
also after a 9-10 hour workday (everyday) i just dont have the same energy compared to a few hours of school. so i cant really say my brain is rotting because of my age. rather how i live and the shit ive done.
but i like the point of living healthy in the OP. thanks for giving me a even bigger reason to look out for myself so i still can play games at the age of 40 :D
|
Personal anectdote: I'm 31, going on 32 in August, drink socially, never did drugs, married, with baby daughter
I am better than I have ever been and it's because my brain is more agile than it has ever been. I know more, strategies make sense quicker, and I can apply skills that I have in one game to another simply because I can view both in a certain light that exposes similarities. I can think more critically about the game than I ever used to, and have often thought back on how bad I was at video games compared to how good I am now. I had Intellivision, NES, Super NES, etc. and played Starcraft casually in high school before I moved on to other games casually, like Street Fighter, CounterStrike, and Everquest (with a plethora of other games as my "alts.") I don't feel a slowdown, and I think it's because I have always kept athletic and in the gym without overtraining or overusing my hands or arms. In fact, it is my personal belief that right now, the only thing separating me from a grandmasters spot in AM server is the lack of time to practice. I went 8-1 this season after finding a day to practice, and then went on a 1-8 run after jumping on ladder two days later. The things I saw on the ladder, after watching the last replay, were things that I had never experienced before so my reactions were badly done and late at times. However, in all of those games my APM or multitasking was above that of my opponent.
Fun bet incoming: I could jump on SSF4:AE this moment (if I had the game) and beat probably 99% of the players on TL.net. A bold claim, yes, but a true one.
|
Too slow?? It's called not having the luxury of quitting your job/school like a retard to log 15 hours of playing a day in pursuit of some professional career that will never happen because you've got bills to pay and mouths to feed. Ridiculous. When you don't play as much, you aren't as good. Do you think a well entrenched pro plays anywhere nearly as much as a hungry up and comer?
|
If you have cognitive decline at the age of 25 the least of your troubles is performance in a game...
Anyways im turning 25 in 3 months and im probably faster than i was when i was 20. Its about practice and motivation, not age.
|
My hunch is that perhaps at the pro-level, age can make a difference. That seems to be accepted when it comes to chess.
For amateurs, I'd say that the noticeable difference caused by age has much more to do with having jobs/family/kids. Power-gaming just doesn't fit in the schedule anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
