EPTLook at soccer players or guitarists. There's loads of them in their late 20's up to the 40's who are amazing at what they do. Example:
Gaming as an adult: Are you too slow? - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
Look at soccer players or guitarists. There's loads of them in their late 20's up to the 40's who are amazing at what they do. Example: | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On January 03 2012 16:10 FallDownMarigold wrote: The sources are Nature papers and two courses at Harvard- scrb180 and mcb80. I'm just not sure you get the fundamentals of the research method here. It's not the lack of sources that is the main problem. The observed difference between age groups is likely real but that doesn't mean that it is caused by biological age. There are many many factors that could cause different generations to show different result. I am assuming that the studies mentioned are between populations and not longitudinal, and that the studies themselves point out the above. | ||
|
Eviscerador
Spain286 Posts
Of course 12 years of studies and jobs as a mechanical engineer also teach you to do so in other aspects of life so I think is pretty obvious I'm better qualified now to understand SC2 than I was to understand BW. My APM are lower than before, (average 40 in most of my replays) but I can win people with 80 or 90 average APM, just because most of the time I'm not spamming in the first 5 mins so my average before the 5 min mark is 10 or less :D | ||
|
aintz
Canada5624 Posts
still doing better than most in games like hon and sc2. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
MarcoBrei
Brazil66 Posts
 ) because seems unfair to be compared with 20-25 year players. I really don't know if it's my brain, or my priorities in life, but it seems unfair anyway. | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
| ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
| ||
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
1.) The older you get, the more experience you have. The more experience/knowledge you have, the more you worry. The more you worry, the less you can focus on the game itself. 2.) The older you get, the more freedom you have of choosing what you want to do and what you don't. So the older you are, the more you are typically used to being able to do what you feel like doing. The vast majority of older people do in fact dislike learning new things, they lost their curiosity (or as Tasteosis would say: They lost their passion long ago). Young people are still generally more open towards new ideas (as in putting unreasonable amounts of time into a computer game). Also, as an adult, you are used to being able to rely on what you know/what you have learned. I won't go into detail here to not draw this out. 3.) As a child, no one expects you to know what happened for the first 1-6 years of your life. The amount of things you remember is about the exact same as a child and as an adult, but since the things you remember as an adult are divided onto so many more years the gaps appear to be larger. --- So my personal opinion is: You start aging when you lose your interest in learning/exploring new things. Until then you can do whatever you feel like if you really put your heart into it | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 03 2012 21:26 Snowen wrote: I dont buy this argument; you can still be super fast and be over 30. Its just dependant upon the person. Of course you can. That's why I said you can still be super fast at an older age like a bunch of times in the OP  Plenty of people do not experience cognitive decline to the same degree of severity. Some people develop Alzheimer's at ~65 years old -- some remain completely fine with very little decline.The fact of the matter is, both in humans and other animals, there is a "shaving" or "pruning" -- or "de-differentiation" of synaptic complexity in old organisms, and this is different from synaptic rearrangements or plasticity, such as plasticity that occurs during "critical periods" of neural development. So, maybe on average this process begins happening around the 30s (without knowing exactly why aging strongly correlates with decline on average) -- and that's what has been observed. Just because it begins happening though doesn't have any concrete implications. What if I start experiencing decline, but it doesn't actually manifest in any form of noticeable phenotype till I reach about 70 years old? What if the process of decline is exacerbated by my environment, or what if I have genes predisposing me to developing AD? Here's what I mean when I mention "synaptic de-differentiation" -- think of it as a retraction of connections in your brain. We don't know exactly why, or how, but it's a rationally-based concept: + Show Spoiler + Cartoon of what an individual synapse might experience over the course of a lifetime ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gyndl.png) Cartoon depicting the loss of supportive structures/decrease in number of spines/'connecting neuronal limbs' ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rOjHD.png) Mouse model of neuro-muscular junctions (places where, for example, motor neurons innervate tissue; yes it's a mouse model but this is a strong indicator of what to expect in human studies, and there are other observations that support the correlation. More TBA...): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lihSl.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MsFzq.png) On January 03 2012 23:39 Sablar wrote: I'm just not sure you get the fundamentals of the research method here. It's not the lack of sources that is the main problem. The observed difference between age groups is likely real but that doesn't mean that it is caused by biological age. There are many many factors that could cause different generations to show different result. I am assuming that the studies mentioned are between populations and not longitudinal, and that the studies themselves point out the above. But that doesn't mean that decline isn't caused by aging. We don't know yet! What is known is that with age, there is cognitive decline. Why does this correlation exist? Let's find out in the coming years. I think it has do with with genetics AND environment. Allow me to put it like this: Humans have ALWAYS had a lifespan of ~120 years. This does not mean we've always had the same life expectancy though -- we've been increasing that closer to our lifespan for a long time, given all the advances in health we've since made. So given that we've always had this inherent "wall", so to speak, at ~120 years old, obviously there IS some age-related factor in decline, and ultimately death. One manifestation of aging is observed in cognitive decline. Now obviously you're right, just like Musketeer earlier, that there isn't complete & direct linkage between the concepts. But guess what? When that happens, that's gonna be several Nature papers and then some. That's not gonna be a post on Team Liquid. That I'm implored to provide that sort of substance here in order to simply introduce these concepts, right now, is...ludicrous (not directing that at you, but rather at the earlier post) | ||
|
lvent
United States140 Posts
 ) it comes down to that fact that I don't have the time ultimately needed to become a "good" player. When I was younger and playing WC2 the majority of my free time I was able to be competitive and top 5 consistently on Cases Ladder(props to people who remember this lol). For me now I tend to focus on replicating builds I see other players use at high levels and try my best to do the same. As a plat player if I can pull off the build I am aiming for at an 80% level of competence I have a good shot at winning or not looking like a clueless person in my loss lol. For me at the end of the game console fps games are much easier for me to be competitive. I suppose couch gaming is my way to beat on you young punks anymore :p So no, I personally have not seen a cognitive decline, I have just seen a decline in my free time | ||
|
Foxx1
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
Creager
Germany1894 Posts
from a decision-making and strategic point of view i am pretty sure to have improved due to more knowledge and experience gathered over the years. what may be most important, could also be the (at least improved) awareness of your own character and habits and therefore more efficiency when it comes to training. I find it easier to focus on special things. IMO the cognitive decline should not affect older sc players a lot in general, because as the OP states, it's a very slow process which is hardly recognized over decades. physical fitness is a lot more important as you grow older, I guess to keep up with the mechanics! | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
I'm pretty sure any difference in cognitive decline could only be seen at the very, very highest level of gameplay, and maybe not even then. If Flash continues practicing as much as he does now for the next 10 years, I have a hard time believing he will be any worse of a player due to age. Note that in the case of a player like BoxeR, it's probably not old age holding him back, but the evolution of the game and the talent. Plus he's still crushing in Code S through all that. Cognitive decline is overrated. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On January 04 2012 01:23 Cirqueenflex wrote: here is my view on it: 2.) The older you get, the more freedom you have of choosing what you want to do and what you don't. So the older you are, the more you are typically used to being able to do what you feel like doing. The vast majority of older people do in fact dislike learning new things, they lost their curiosity (or as Tasteosis would say: They lost their passion long ago). Young people are still generally more open towards new ideas (as in putting unreasonable amounts of time into a computer game). Also, as an adult, you are used to being able to rely on what you know/what you have learned. I won't go into detail here to not draw this out. Come back when you have a 9 to 5 job and a kid or two to take care of and say this with a straight face. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1056 Posts
Also when i was 9 i easily beat the amiga game "Shufflepuck" with enough training. When i played again a while ago, this feat seemed impossible to achieve! :D | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On January 03 2012 10:40 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdnETWq7rcY Look at that guy, he's showing amazing precision and speed at the age of 70. What you guys are talking about suggests that this is impossible. I think it's more of a scapegoat thing, age is always an easy excuse. Bad at videogames because you're 30? Come on, people climb everest at 70. 70?? Uh, from that video Rubinstein looked more like he was pushing 90. After all, he gave his last public performance when he was 89. But yea, I'm always gonna agree with the sentiment that cognitive decline in older gamers isn't going to be an issue in regards to competitiveness, or edge. As of now the data we have just doesn't support the idea that age is a determining factor, it's just a convenient scapegoat for whatever reason, and pretty ignorant position. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
But that doesn't mean that decline isn't caused by aging. We don't know yet! What is known is that with age, there is cognitive decline. Why does this correlation exist? Let's find out in the coming years. I think it has do with with genetics AND environment. Allow me to put it like this: Humans have ALWAYS had a lifespan of ~120 years. This does not mean we've always had the same life expectancy though -- we've been increasing that closer to our lifespan for a long time, given all the advances in health we've since made. So given that we've always had this inherent "wall", so to speak, at ~120 years old, obviously there IS some age-related factor in decline, and ultimately death. One manifestation of aging is observed in cognitive decline. Now obviously you're right, just like Musketeer earlier, that there isn't complete & direct linkage between the concepts. But guess what? When that happens, that's gonna be several Nature papers and then some. That's not gonna be a post on Team Liquid. That I'm implored to provide that sort of substance here in order to simply introduce these concepts, right now, is...ludicrous (not directing that at you, but rather at the earlier post) 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. 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 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. 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. | ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
My SC2 skill is down, no question about it. Even over the time SC2 has been out, I've noticed my skill slip from first division rank diamond (when the game first came out), to Gold league now. Whether or not this is indicative of dominance over slow-to-adopt gamers, my interest levelling out, or brain degredation; the fact remains that as more time passes, I get worse and worse at SC2 (all RTS games in general, actually). My FPS skills are up, constantly. I don't know why, but I absolutely dominated in old-school console FPS games (Goldeneye for example) to near-competitive levels, in a way that I could not be matched by any of the peers I'd play with. I expected my skill to go down as I aged, but this has not been the case. BF3, CoD, and other modern FPS games are all easy for me to play, due in part to a fast reaction time, which frankly, I expected to drop off with age. But it hasn't. Same with games like Guitar Hero... my reaction time is great. And it's not muscle-memory... these are songs I'm playing on Expert, that I've never heard before in my life, and I'm still getting average scores of 98% on them. So what makes SC2 different? Well, obviously SC2 is more than reaction times... the S in RTS stands for Strategy. One thing I've noticed over my life: my ability to win games of Chess seems to get worse and worse. I act quicker, but in a much less thought out manner. I suspect my brain is slowing down in its ability to generate more useable strategy in a timely manner from the input it gets, rather than just slowing the reaction of my body to certain cues. I also suspect that I would be a better SC2 player if I did more repetitive drills (so that I don't need to think to react to an action). In a nutshell: I don't think age affects reaction speed, so much as it affects your ability to do something USEFUL with your reactions. The thought process gets stalled, not the actual action. | ||
| ||
