FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS CAUSE BRAIN DAMAGE ACCORDING TO NEW STUDY

[DarkBlade2117]

14 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Excuse me which games are you buying? The average $60 has about 40-50 hours of content  The only notable recent exception for me is PUBG which cost  £25 and im already over 200 hours playing most days. although its not really content its just addictive AF

Factorio, Rocket League, Fallout series, Terraria, Civ V, Black Desert Online.

[DarkBlade2117]

24 minutes ago, themctipers said:

i used to, then it got boring, then i got shadow and it was fun, and now im bored again

no witcher 3 is not my game

I understand lol, only 2 AAA games I have enjoyed are GTA V and Shadow of Mordor though from watching Fallout 3/4 gameplay I'd heavily enjoy that. I like micro management/building games like Citites: Skyline, Factorio, Rim World, modded MC ect

[themctipers]

1 minute ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

I understand lol, only 2 AAA games I have enjoyed are GTA V and Shadow of Mordor though from watching Fallout 3/4 gameplay I'd heavily enjoy that. I like micro management/building games like Citites: Skyline, Factorio, Rim World, modded MC ect

cities skylines is boring after 10 hours, modded minecraft is a huge time waster if you have friends, gta v was fun for 400 hours but that was because i wanted to finish story mode and my HDD keeps dying, fallout 4 is somewhat fun yet boring for me so i stopped last year, shadow is fun because to me its mindless button mashing, and it is.

[Cruorzy]

These papers come out every 3 days, this isnt really "news". And most gamers dont even play FPS all the time, ofcourse some more than others but there are also games like Minecraft/Portal. And i believe those actually develop some other skills and help.

 

Aslong people keep smoking those "cancer sticks", then I wont feel bad about starting up some good FPS to set my brain apparently on autopilot.

[DarkBlade2117]

Just now, themctipers said:

modded minecraft is a huge time waster if you have friends

PSSH I totally haven't probably put over 1000 hours into singleplayer modded alone

[themctipers]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

PSSH I totally haven't probably put over 1000 hours into singleplayer modded alone

i probably have put 100 hours in singeplayer modded and thats about it, because i have no motivation 

1 minute ago, Cruorzy said:

These papers come out every 3 days, this isnt really "news". And most gamers dont even play FPS all the time, ofcourse some more than others but there are also games like Minecraft/Portal. And i believe those actually develop some other skills and help.

 

Aslong people keep smoking those "cancer sticks", then I wont feel bad about starting up some good FPS to set my brain apparently on autopilot.

how do you think you'll get people to stop smoking when they advertise the sweet release of death on the packages?

/s

[DarkBlade2117]

Just now, themctipers said:

i probably have put 100 hours in singeplayer modded and thats about it, because i have no motivation 

how do you think you'll get people to stop smoking when they advertise the sweet release of death on the packages?

/s

Now that I think of it... it is probably a lot more than a 1000... My modded worlds usually last me 100 hours for usual packs and about 200-300 hours for hard packs like Project Ozone 2 Kappa Mode... can assure you I've played through a modded world more than 10 times...

[Cruorzy]

2 minutes ago, themctipers said:

how do you think you'll get people to stop smoking when they advertise the sweet release of death on the packages?

Well i hope not everyone wants too die yet

[themctipers]

Just now, DarkBlade2117 said:

Now that I think of it... it is probably a lot more than a 1000... My modded worlds usually last me 100 hours for usual packs and about 200-300 hours for hard packs like Project Ozone 2 Kappa Mode... can assure you I've played through a modded world more than 10 times...

infitech hard mode.  

 

^{play with me i got one more month of summer and we can finish infitech! get that square checked}

[themctipers]

Just now, Cruorzy said:

Well i hope not everyone wants too die yet

absolutelynotmeirl

 

giant meteor 2016, just end it all  

[Cruorzy]

1 minute ago, themctipers said:

giant meteor 2016, just end it all 

Slowly injecting youself with stuff that could be really hurtfull overtime, that i find stupid.

A giant meteor sounds alot more exciting

[themctipers]

Just now, Cruorzy said:

Slowly injecting youself with stuff that could be really hurtfull overtime, that i find stupid.

A giant meteor sounds alot more exciting

https://www.wikihow.com/tie-a-noose/ more exciting than slowly injecting yourself with that stuff 

[Cruorzy]

8 minutes ago, themctipers said:

https://www.wikihow.com/tie-a-noose/ more exciting than slowly injecting yourself with that stuff 

[Urishima]

50 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think people should read the article (not the sensationalistic one) before jumping in to defend their hobby.

The study does not say video games (or FPS games) causes brain damage. It is a lot more complicated than that. Also, 100 people is not an insignificant sample group assuming the test was done correctly.

The study does not even say video games are bad.

Exactly. Blame media for BS, sensationalist reporting. Sample of 100 people seems small, but the paper itself seems good.

 

Quote

At this point, it is unclear whether an increase or decrease in grey matter of the hippocampus of VGPs could have an impact on cognition associated with the hippocampus, such as spatial, relational and episodic memory

There we have it.

 

Would love it if TL;DR or Aydin Paladin threw in their 2 cents on this study.

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Classic Canada. Peer review? NO! Using common sense and consulting prior works? NO! Trying to rewrite previously settled science based on anecdotal evidence and lofty claims just to get attention? YES PLEASE!

Something tells me you did not read the paper.

 

1) This study might have been peer reviewed since it is published in nature research (it was submitted in January this year, then revised and finally published a few days ago).

2) This study is in and of itself based on a previous study made in 2015 (can be found on NCBI's website). This study (the one published a few days ago) wanted to test the findings of the 2015 study to see if they were valid or not. By the way, that study was published by the Royal Society which is UK based.

3) I am not sure if "common sense" should be applied when talking about the effects certain stimuli can have on our brains. How the brain functions and develops is not exactly common sense.

4) Previously settled science actually agrees with this study. Like I said before, this study set out to prove or disprove previously made tests and conclusions.

5) Where did you see anecdotal evidence and lofty claims in the paper?

 

 

 

Edit:

Something I have noticed appear more and more these days as an argument for dismissing tests is that "the sample size is too small".

Not all studies needs thousands of individuals to be tested to meet statistical significance. Often times a larger sample size just means your margin of error will become smaller. That's why this study made t-tests to determine what would be classified as a statistical significance based on their sample size.

[Urishima]

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This study is in and of itself based on a previous study made in 2015 (can be found on NCBI's website). This study (the one published a few days ago) wanted to test the findings of the 2015 study to see if they were valid or not. By the way, that study was published by the Royal Society which is UK based.

If I read the abstract correctly, they are not claiming that certain video games lead to a higher risk of developing psychiatric disorders.

Quote

We found that actionVGPs had a significantly higher likelihood of using a response learning strategy (80.76%) compared to nonVGPs (42.42%). Consistent with previous evidence, actionVGPs and nonVGPs differed in the way they deployed visual attention to central and peripheral targets as observed in the elicited N2pc component during an ERP visual attention task. Increased use of the response strategy in actionVGPs is consistent with previously observed increases in striatal volume in video game players (VGPs). Using response strategies is associated with decreased grey matter in the hippocampus. Previous studies have shown that decreased volume in the hippocampus precedes the onset of many neurological and psychiatric disorders. If actionVGPs have lower grey matter in the hippocampus, as response learners normally do, then these individuals could be at increased risk of developing neurological and psychiatric disorders during their lifetime.

So basically all this says is that people who play a lot of action-games tend to be people who are response learners, and response learners are more at risk at developing neurological and psychiatric disorders in general.

 

Quote

It is possible that our current results could reflect a self-selection effect, where actionVGPs in our sample were predisposed to action video game playing owing to higher pre-existing levels of grey matter in striatum. In fact, Erickson et al. [57] found that grey matter in the striatum at baseline predicted the level of video game skill acquired by their participants. As a result, people with higher pre-existing striatal functioning might find video games to be more rewarding and continue playing during their lifetime. It is therefore plausible that people who use response strategies find action video games more pleasurable than spatial learners. While this may be true, time spent playing certain action video games is associated with entorhinal cortex atrophy [40] and this kind of effect during childhood could possibly alter medial temporal lobe development [70]. If this is the case, children exposed to action video games during development could adopt response learning strategies even if they were not response learners to begin with. In other words, engaging with action video games may promote the striatum during development and thus lead to increased use of response strategies. Further research investigating the direct impact of different genres of video games (e.g. first-person shooters; action-role playing games; three-dimensional platform games) on the striatum and hippocampus must be conducted to better understand how and when video games could encourage response learning.

 

In summary, our current results suggest that while actionVGPs show more efficient visual attention abilities, they are also much more likely to rely on response strategies that are associated with increased grey matter and activity of the caudate nucleus. Future research using neuroimaging is necessary to further qualify these initial findings and should investigate the direct effects of action video games on hippocampal integrity.

Here they suggest that it might have a negative effect when consumed during childhood, based on a previous study that apparently found that it leads to an increase in grey matter in the striatum and a decrease in the hippocampus.

[Guest]

Dont people get brain damage from playing multiplayer games in general?

 

Gosh, the comments on each match... its like they have a grudge towards your whole family lol.

[Urishima]

1 minute ago, Goku-sama said:

Dont people get brain damage from playing multiplayer games in general?

 

Gosh, the comments on each match... its like they have a grudge towards your whole family lol.

Naw, that just gives you cancer. And sometimes AIDS. And sometimes cancer-AIDS.

[Trik'Stari]

1. This is probably bullshit

2. Games like CoD and CS:GO require very little thought and are usually just reaction time tests.

3. Play Battlefield and see how much thought it requires to win. You can't just "autopilot" your way through all that chaos.

[Urishima]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

2. Games like CoD and CS:GO require very little thought and are usually just reaction time tests.

CoD I will agree, but not CS:GO.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Urishima said:

CoD I will agree, but not CS:GO.

CS:GO is the king of reaction time tests. That's why people snort ADHD meds to get an edge in it.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

1) This study might have been peer reviewed since it is published in nature research (it was submitted in January this year, then revised and finally published a few days ago).

 

 

That's enough right there.  It is very very very hard to get published in Nature.  That is the pinnacle of peer review.     (not that many people understand what peer review exactly is and like to dismiss it because cognitive dissonance).

[JAKEBAB]

16 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

1. This is probably bullshit

2. Games like CoD and CS:GO require very little thought and are usually just reaction time tests.

3. Play Battlefield and see how much thought it requires to win. You can't just "autopilot" your way through all that chaos.

Id have to disagree, id say battlefield is just as much of a reaction test as the others. Something like Squad and possibly Arma require far more planning and strategic thinking imo.

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

Excuse me which games are you buying? The average $60 has about 40-50 hours of content  The only notable recent exception for me is PUBG which cost  £25 and im already over 200 hours playing most days. although its not really content its just addictive AF

Paladins, free and I have now clocked almost 700h in it csgo I have 850h and TF2 I think 270h Minecraft probably like 1000h and Mulle Meck bygger bilar well over 1000h

[Bananasplit_00]

35 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

1. This is probably bullshit

2. Games like CoD and CS:GO require very little thought and are usually just reaction time tests.

3. Play Battlefield and see how much thought it requires to win. You can't just "autopilot" your way through all that chaos.

High level competitive CS:GO requires quite a bit of thought but the casual stuff is just reaction testing. Paladins is another game that can require a lot of thought and strategy if you want to win in the competitive scene(I had a top 10 team for a while, spent lots of time in it) but if you don't try to win and just play it becomes auto pilot. Basically if you don't try, don't communicate and so on most FPS games are brain dead, but they don't have to be, and won't be, when you get higher up in the rankings.