Interesting study. But don't you find it coincidental that 22-24 years of age is typically when people enter the workforce fulltime and reduce the amount of time they play games like Sc2. Furthermore, being less rigorous in their playstyle, they might decide to take a more relaxed approach to the game. The benchmark for me was around 23. I appreciate the time invested in the study, but don't you think it would be more beneficial to track the same group of individuals 18-30 years of age over, perhaps, a 3-5 year period to demonstrate a true cognitive motor decline? I know you might not have that luxury. But I think the psychological maturity and stage of life is really at the crux of this observation. I have no empiracal data to prove it, just a hunch. Thanks for the contribution.
You know this point has been repeated a lot and I was thinking about it the other day. In the US, less than half of all adults have a bachelors / 4-year degree. So speaking for America, the majority of people actually enter the workforce much earlier than 22 (and certainly before 24).
I have a hunch that online communities like TL tend to be more educated, but I have no proof. I certainly have no proof (or even a suspicion) that SC2 players in general are more likely to go to college either.
People that have a computer capable of playing SC2 are far more likely to come from a well educated family. That's quite simple.
The less money you have, the less likely you're going to have a graphics card in a computer - definitely a luxury. I'd argue the less wealthy you are, also the more likely you'd be a console gamer, although I don't have anything to support that, just seems intuitive.
Blizzard games are famous for being low-PC requirements. Look at WoW, as of MoP it still supports Windows XP, which came out in 2001(!).
I was even playing D3 on my old laptop that's still running Tiger, so I know for a fact that their games run on really old machines.
So it seems that you're making quite a lot of assumptions there.
Just look at the Korean scene, for a long time most people played games at PC Bangs, you don't need to come from a well educated / off family to play any game you want there.
No, they aren't. Almost none of the games when released were playable on a "standard" PC.
They are known for aging well, not for being low-PC requirements on release. SC2 is extremely CPU demanding, more so than most games still being released today. You also couldn't play it without a GPU when it was released.
My 2007 rig I had that was a prebuilt, $2,500 new could barely play SC2 upon release - it was bad enough I learned how to build a new CPU from scratch. To think the average household had a computer that could play it is nonsense.
South Korea is also an anomaly in which the culture is entirely dominated by electronics, more so than almost any other in the world.
On April 14 2014 17:17 Laserist wrote: It is hilarious to see at least half of the posters are defending themselves with the argument of "I am better then before, blah blah" and completely miss the point of the research.
Your are improving f'ing slower than you should when you get older. You are probably getting better because you are trying to improve. Any near 30's or 30's people can agree that after mid 20's you are missing the old days of being fast and ambitious
Its like arguing against a round world which was known since 2600 years ago, but even though people could verifiably see the earth was round (they noticed ships sinking into the ocean as they sailed away, they noticed that during a lunar eclipse that the shadow of the earth on the moon was rounded) and yet people would still argue against a round earth still 2600 years later Flat Earth Society.
This is especially troubling when arguing against this is like arguing people don't have noses or something.
Interesting study. But don't you find it coincidental that 22-24 years of age is typically when people enter the workforce fulltime and reduce the amount of time they play games like Sc2. Furthermore, being less rigorous in their playstyle, they might decide to take a more relaxed approach to the game. The benchmark for me was around 23. I appreciate the time invested in the study, but don't you think it would be more beneficial to track the same group of individuals 18-30 years of age over, perhaps, a 3-5 year period to demonstrate a true cognitive motor decline? I know you might not have that luxury. But I think the psychological maturity and stage of life is really at the crux of this observation. I have no empiracal data to prove it, just a hunch. Thanks for the contribution.
You know this point has been repeated a lot and I was thinking about it the other day. In the US, less than half of all adults have a bachelors / 4-year degree. So speaking for America, the majority of people actually enter the workforce much earlier than 22 (and certainly before 24).
I have a hunch that online communities like TL tend to be more educated, but I have no proof. I certainly have no proof (or even a suspicion) that SC2 players in general are more likely to go to college either.
People that have a computer capable of playing SC2 are far more likely to come from a well educated family. That's quite simple.
The less money you have, the less likely you're going to have a graphics card in a computer - definitely a luxury. I'd argue the less wealthy you are, also the more likely you'd be a console gamer, although I don't have anything to support that, just seems intuitive.
Blizzard games are famous for being low-PC requirements. Look at WoW, as of MoP it still supports Windows XP, which came out in 2001(!).
I was even playing D3 on my old laptop that's still running Tiger, so I know for a fact that their games run on really old machines.
So it seems that you're making quite a lot of assumptions there.
Just look at the Korean scene, for a long time most people played games at PC Bangs, you don't need to come from a well educated / off family to play any game you want there.
No, they aren't. Almost none of the games when released were playable on a "standard" PC.
They are known for aging well, not for being low-PC requirements on release. SC2 is extremely CPU demanding, more so than most games still being released today. You also couldn't play it without a GPU when it was released.
My 2007 rig I had that was a prebuilt, $2,500 new could barely play SC2 upon release - it was bad enough I learned how to build a new CPU from scratch. To think the average household had a computer that could play it is nonsense.
South Korea is also an anomaly in which the culture is entirely dominated by electronics, more so than almost any other in the world.
Back when WC3 was under development they were quite explicit in addressing criticism that their game engine was outdated, saying it was because they didn't want the game only playable on cutting edge machines. That was a long time before SC2 of course, but I never saw anything that contradicted that stance. I guess your experience and mine are opposite ends of the spectrum, because I never had a problem playing the latest Blizzard games on my old laptop (~2008 and raided Cata and played D3 at lanch). I know I installed SC2 on my work laptop when it came out, but I have no idea the specs / age of that machine since I've gotten a new laptop since then (in 2010, so that one must have been older).
In any case, there are plenty of people who play SC2 on laptops, which come premade and retail about the cost of a console system. They don't get the best resolution / ect of course (wasn't LastShadow or one of those guys playing on a PoS laptop for a while?), but it plays, so I don't think it's so unbelievable that 'poor' gamers are limited to consoles only.
Interesting study. But don't you find it coincidental that 22-24 years of age is typically when people enter the workforce fulltime and reduce the amount of time they play games like Sc2. Furthermore, being less rigorous in their playstyle, they might decide to take a more relaxed approach to the game. The benchmark for me was around 23. I appreciate the time invested in the study, but don't you think it would be more beneficial to track the same group of individuals 18-30 years of age over, perhaps, a 3-5 year period to demonstrate a true cognitive motor decline? I know you might not have that luxury. But I think the psychological maturity and stage of life is really at the crux of this observation. I have no empiracal data to prove it, just a hunch. Thanks for the contribution.
You know this point has been repeated a lot and I was thinking about it the other day. In the US, less than half of all adults have a bachelors / 4-year degree. So speaking for America, the majority of people actually enter the workforce much earlier than 22 (and certainly before 24).
I have a hunch that online communities like TL tend to be more educated, but I have no proof. I certainly have no proof (or even a suspicion) that SC2 players in general are more likely to go to college either.
People that have a computer capable of playing SC2 are far more likely to come from a well educated family. That's quite simple.
The less money you have, the less likely you're going to have a graphics card in a computer - definitely a luxury. I'd argue the less wealthy you are, also the more likely you'd be a console gamer, although I don't have anything to support that, just seems intuitive.
Blizzard games are famous for being low-PC requirements. Look at WoW, as of MoP it still supports Windows XP, which came out in 2001(!).
I was even playing D3 on my old laptop that's still running Tiger, so I know for a fact that their games run on really old machines.
So it seems that you're making quite a lot of assumptions there.
Just look at the Korean scene, for a long time most people played games at PC Bangs, you don't need to come from a well educated / off family to play any game you want there.
No, they aren't. Almost none of the games when released were playable on a "standard" PC.
They are known for aging well, not for being low-PC requirements on release. SC2 is extremely CPU demanding, more so than most games still being released today. You also couldn't play it without a GPU when it was released.
My 2007 rig I had that was a prebuilt, $2,500 new could barely play SC2 upon release - it was bad enough I learned how to build a new CPU from scratch. To think the average household had a computer that could play it is nonsense.
South Korea is also an anomaly in which the culture is entirely dominated by electronics, more so than almost any other in the world.
Back when WC3 was under development they were quite explicit in addressing criticism that their game engine was outdated, saying it was because they didn't want the game only playable on cutting edge machines. That was a long time before SC2 of course, but I never saw anything that contradicted that stance. I guess your experience and mine are opposite ends of the spectrum, because I never had a problem playing the latest Blizzard games on my old laptop (~2008 and raided Cata and played D3 at lanch). I know I installed SC2 on my work laptop when it came out, but I have no idea the specs / age of that machine since I've gotten a new laptop since then (in 2010, so that one must have been older).
In any case, there are plenty of people who play SC2 on laptops, which come premade and retail about the cost of a console system. They don't get the best resolution / ect of course (wasn't LastShadow or one of those guys playing on a PoS laptop for a while?), but it plays, so I don't think it's so unbelievable that 'poor' gamers are limited to consoles only.
They also said it about WoW which had graphics that were not as good as games released well before it. Blizzard's push in the 2000s was definitely to put out games that were playable on old PCs.
Interesting study. But don't you find it coincidental that 22-24 years of age is typically when people enter the workforce fulltime and reduce the amount of time they play games like Sc2. Furthermore, being less rigorous in their playstyle, they might decide to take a more relaxed approach to the game. The benchmark for me was around 23. I appreciate the time invested in the study, but don't you think it would be more beneficial to track the same group of individuals 18-30 years of age over, perhaps, a 3-5 year period to demonstrate a true cognitive motor decline? I know you might not have that luxury. But I think the psychological maturity and stage of life is really at the crux of this observation. I have no empiracal data to prove it, just a hunch. Thanks for the contribution.
You know this point has been repeated a lot and I was thinking about it the other day. In the US, less than half of all adults have a bachelors / 4-year degree. So speaking for America, the majority of people actually enter the workforce much earlier than 22 (and certainly before 24).
I have a hunch that online communities like TL tend to be more educated, but I have no proof. I certainly have no proof (or even a suspicion) that SC2 players in general are more likely to go to college either.
People that have a computer capable of playing SC2 are far more likely to come from a well educated family. That's quite simple.
The less money you have, the less likely you're going to have a graphics card in a computer - definitely a luxury. I'd argue the less wealthy you are, also the more likely you'd be a console gamer, although I don't have anything to support that, just seems intuitive.
Blizzard games are famous for being low-PC requirements. Look at WoW, as of MoP it still supports Windows XP, which came out in 2001(!).
I was even playing D3 on my old laptop that's still running Tiger, so I know for a fact that their games run on really old machines.
So it seems that you're making quite a lot of assumptions there.
Just look at the Korean scene, for a long time most people played games at PC Bangs, you don't need to come from a well educated / off family to play any game you want there.
No, they aren't. Almost none of the games when released were playable on a "standard" PC.
They are known for aging well, not for being low-PC requirements on release. SC2 is extremely CPU demanding, more so than most games still being released today. You also couldn't play it without a GPU when it was released.
My 2007 rig I had that was a prebuilt, $2,500 new could barely play SC2 upon release - it was bad enough I learned how to build a new CPU from scratch. To think the average household had a computer that could play it is nonsense.
South Korea is also an anomaly in which the culture is entirely dominated by electronics, more so than almost any other in the world.
Back when WC3 was under development they were quite explicit in addressing criticism that their game engine was outdated, saying it was because they didn't want the game only playable on cutting edge machines. That was a long time before SC2 of course, but I never saw anything that contradicted that stance. I guess your experience and mine are opposite ends of the spectrum, because I never had a problem playing the latest Blizzard games on my old laptop (~2008 and raided Cata and played D3 at lanch). I know I installed SC2 on my work laptop when it came out, but I have no idea the specs / age of that machine since I've gotten a new laptop since then (in 2010, so that one must have been older).
In any case, there are plenty of people who play SC2 on laptops, which come premade and retail about the cost of a console system. They don't get the best resolution / ect of course (wasn't LastShadow or one of those guys playing on a PoS laptop for a while?), but it plays, so I don't think it's so unbelievable that 'poor' gamers are limited to consoles only.
If you're talking about "now" then that's fine, but computers are like 3 full generations ahead of where they were when SC2 was released. And it's safe to say that a lot of people probably didn't have the current generation when released, such as myself. Who is going to get into a game 3 years late?
A 2008 laptop would have heavily struggled with SC2 if it were not top of the line when released. Resolution is irrelevant to processing power, although you would absolutely have needed a discrete GPU as well, which are NOT standard whatsoever in laptops. Without both a top of the line processor and some sort of discrete GPU, a 2008 laptop could not have a smooth performance in SC2.
I have heard WoW particularly was very low demanding upon release, but I think that was a heavy outlier amongst games (I have never played WoW) and not as relevant to my point specific to SC2.
You can't really say there were "different experiences." Specs are specs - they are what they are.
Interesting study. But don't you find it coincidental that 22-24 years of age is typically when people enter the workforce fulltime and reduce the amount of time they play games like Sc2. Furthermore, being less rigorous in their playstyle, they might decide to take a more relaxed approach to the game. The benchmark for me was around 23. I appreciate the time invested in the study, but don't you think it would be more beneficial to track the same group of individuals 18-30 years of age over, perhaps, a 3-5 year period to demonstrate a true cognitive motor decline? I know you might not have that luxury. But I think the psychological maturity and stage of life is really at the crux of this observation. I have no empiracal data to prove it, just a hunch. Thanks for the contribution.
You know this point has been repeated a lot and I was thinking about it the other day. In the US, less than half of all adults have a bachelors / 4-year degree. So speaking for America, the majority of people actually enter the workforce much earlier than 22 (and certainly before 24).
I have a hunch that online communities like TL tend to be more educated, but I have no proof. I certainly have no proof (or even a suspicion) that SC2 players in general are more likely to go to college either.
People that have a computer capable of playing SC2 are far more likely to come from a well educated family. That's quite simple.
The less money you have, the less likely you're going to have a graphics card in a computer - definitely a luxury. I'd argue the less wealthy you are, also the more likely you'd be a console gamer, although I don't have anything to support that, just seems intuitive.
Blizzard games are famous for being low-PC requirements. Look at WoW, as of MoP it still supports Windows XP, which came out in 2001(!).
I was even playing D3 on my old laptop that's still running Tiger, so I know for a fact that their games run on really old machines.
So it seems that you're making quite a lot of assumptions there.
Just look at the Korean scene, for a long time most people played games at PC Bangs, you don't need to come from a well educated / off family to play any game you want there.
No, they aren't. Almost none of the games when released were playable on a "standard" PC.
They are known for aging well, not for being low-PC requirements on release. SC2 is extremely CPU demanding, more so than most games still being released today. You also couldn't play it without a GPU when it was released.
My 2007 rig I had that was a prebuilt, $2,500 new could barely play SC2 upon release - it was bad enough I learned how to build a new CPU from scratch. To think the average household had a computer that could play it is nonsense.
South Korea is also an anomaly in which the culture is entirely dominated by electronics, more so than almost any other in the world.
Back when WC3 was under development they were quite explicit in addressing criticism that their game engine was outdated, saying it was because they didn't want the game only playable on cutting edge machines. That was a long time before SC2 of course, but I never saw anything that contradicted that stance. I guess your experience and mine are opposite ends of the spectrum, because I never had a problem playing the latest Blizzard games on my old laptop (~2008 and raided Cata and played D3 at lanch). I know I installed SC2 on my work laptop when it came out, but I have no idea the specs / age of that machine since I've gotten a new laptop since then (in 2010, so that one must have been older).
In any case, there are plenty of people who play SC2 on laptops, which come premade and retail about the cost of a console system. They don't get the best resolution / ect of course (wasn't LastShadow or one of those guys playing on a PoS laptop for a while?), but it plays, so I don't think it's so unbelievable that 'poor' gamers are limited to consoles only.
If you're talking about "now" then that's fine, but computers are like 3 full generations ahead of where they were when SC2 was released. And it's safe to say that a lot of people probably didn't have the current generation when released, such as myself. Who is going to get into a game 3 years late?
A 2008 laptop would have heavily struggled with SC2 if it were not top of the line when released. Resolution is irrelevant to processing power, although you would absolutely have needed a discrete GPU as well, which are NOT standard whatsoever in laptops. Without both a top of the line processor and some sort of discrete GPU, a 2008 laptop could not have a smooth performance in SC2.
I have heard WoW particularly was very low demanding upon release, but I think that was a heavy outlier amongst games (I have never played WoW) and not as relevant to my point specific to SC2.
You can't really say there were "different experiences." Specs are specs - they are what they are.
I bet this is a misunderstanding caused by what different people think is unplayable and what's not.
WoW was fine if you ran around outside and did quests and played the 5-man team-play part of the game. It breaks in large raids even today if you want 60+ FPS. So it's basically very similar to SC2. If you are fine with 25 FPS everything is okay and you can judge it as something that has "low PC requirement", but you'll be grinding your teeth if you pay a lot for an expensive PC and it still won't run perfect like similarly old games usually do.
Difference to SC2 is that you probably never really need high FPS in WoW as you can still play fine with things running a bit choppy. I played a lot on a crappy Athlon 64 X2 and the game always still reacted on key input while things were a slide show. The game only requires you to press a new key every second or so, so you'll always get enough feedback for what you are doing even if FPS are very low on your screen.
It would be interesting to see them replicate similar studies with other competitive esports games like Street Fighter, puzzle games, etc. Although, they don't have 3rd party apm type tools to track info as far as I'm aware.
Interesting study. But don't you find it coincidental that 22-24 years of age is typically when people enter the workforce fulltime and reduce the amount of time they play games like Sc2. Furthermore, being less rigorous in their playstyle, they might decide to take a more relaxed approach to the game. The benchmark for me was around 23. I appreciate the time invested in the study, but don't you think it would be more beneficial to track the same group of individuals 18-30 years of age over, perhaps, a 3-5 year period to demonstrate a true cognitive motor decline? I know you might not have that luxury. But I think the psychological maturity and stage of life is really at the crux of this observation. I have no empiracal data to prove it, just a hunch. Thanks for the contribution.
You know this point has been repeated a lot and I was thinking about it the other day. In the US, less than half of all adults have a bachelors / 4-year degree. So speaking for America, the majority of people actually enter the workforce much earlier than 22 (and certainly before 24).
I have a hunch that online communities like TL tend to be more educated, but I have no proof. I certainly have no proof (or even a suspicion) that SC2 players in general are more likely to go to college either.
People that have a computer capable of playing SC2 are far more likely to come from a well educated family. That's quite simple.
The less money you have, the less likely you're going to have a graphics card in a computer - definitely a luxury. I'd argue the less wealthy you are, also the more likely you'd be a console gamer, although I don't have anything to support that, just seems intuitive.
Blizzard games are famous for being low-PC requirements. Look at WoW, as of MoP it still supports Windows XP, which came out in 2001(!).
I was even playing D3 on my old laptop that's still running Tiger, so I know for a fact that their games run on really old machines.
So it seems that you're making quite a lot of assumptions there.
Just look at the Korean scene, for a long time most people played games at PC Bangs, you don't need to come from a well educated / off family to play any game you want there.
No, they aren't. Almost none of the games when released were playable on a "standard" PC.
They are known for aging well, not for being low-PC requirements on release. SC2 is extremely CPU demanding, more so than most games still being released today. You also couldn't play it without a GPU when it was released.
My 2007 rig I had that was a prebuilt, $2,500 new could barely play SC2 upon release - it was bad enough I learned how to build a new CPU from scratch. To think the average household had a computer that could play it is nonsense.
South Korea is also an anomaly in which the culture is entirely dominated by electronics, more so than almost any other in the world.
Back when WC3 was under development they were quite explicit in addressing criticism that their game engine was outdated, saying it was because they didn't want the game only playable on cutting edge machines. That was a long time before SC2 of course, but I never saw anything that contradicted that stance. I guess your experience and mine are opposite ends of the spectrum, because I never had a problem playing the latest Blizzard games on my old laptop (~2008 and raided Cata and played D3 at lanch). I know I installed SC2 on my work laptop when it came out, but I have no idea the specs / age of that machine since I've gotten a new laptop since then (in 2010, so that one must have been older).
In any case, there are plenty of people who play SC2 on laptops, which come premade and retail about the cost of a console system. They don't get the best resolution / ect of course (wasn't LastShadow or one of those guys playing on a PoS laptop for a while?), but it plays, so I don't think it's so unbelievable that 'poor' gamers are limited to consoles only.
If you're talking about "now" then that's fine, but computers are like 3 full generations ahead of where they were when SC2 was released. And it's safe to say that a lot of people probably didn't have the current generation when released, such as myself. Who is going to get into a game 3 years late?
A 2008 laptop would have heavily struggled with SC2 if it were not top of the line when released. Resolution is irrelevant to processing power, although you would absolutely have needed a discrete GPU as well, which are NOT standard whatsoever in laptops. Without both a top of the line processor and some sort of discrete GPU, a 2008 laptop could not have a smooth performance in SC2.
I have heard WoW particularly was very low demanding upon release, but I think that was a heavy outlier amongst games (I have never played WoW) and not as relevant to my point specific to SC2.
You can't really say there were "different experiences." Specs are specs - they are what they are.
I bet this is a misunderstanding caused by what different people think is unplayable and what's not.
WoW was fine if you ran around outside and did quests and played the 5-man team-play part of the game. It breaks in large raids even today if you want 60+ FPS. So it's basically very similar to SC2. If you are fine with 25 FPS everything is okay and you can judge it as something that has "low PC requirement", but you'll be grinding your teeth if you pay a lot for an expensive PC and it still won't run perfect like similarly old games usually do.
Difference to SC2 is that you probably never really need high FPS in WoW as you can still play fine with things running a bit choppy. I played a lot on a crappy Athlon 64 X2 and the game always still reacted on key input while things were a slide show. The game only requires you to press a new key every second or so, so you'll always get enough feedback for what you are doing even if FPS are very low on your screen.
Sure - if you want to be restricted to 1's and not play lategame, an Athlon is OK. But if you want to play custom games, or teams, which is what appealed to a large amount of gamers, it's not going to fly (well battlecraft would have been OK). But then as mentioned, you'd still need a discrete GPU.
Strange thing is that this is really not all that new, at least not regarding general cognitive decline (i.e., fluid intelligence). So no idea why people over the internet are so shocked. For speed, it is interesting for sure!
oh no, I'll be 25 in 2 months. Guess I'm only getting worse from here on out. But on a serious note, I believe it is the lifestyle change that really effects older gamers. Full time job, serious girlfriend, family, etc. Less time for gaming overall. It's just a matter of practice and putting in the hours and that not happening anymore. I always played sports and played D2 college sports as well and I see a definite decline after college from not putting in the time. I won't be in the same shape as I was training on a college team 4hrs a day, 6 days a week. I think it is older that physical abilities slow down, like early 30s, but that's all up to the individual.
EPT
If you are fine with 25 FPS everything is okay and you can judge it as something that has "low PC requirement", but you'll be grinding your teeth if you pay a lot for an expensive PC and it still won't run perfect like similarly old games usually do.
