What have games taught you?

[Unimatrix11]

Weapon stats - hehehe - Jagged Alliance II, anyone? Back in the days, when i used to live in the students home with 8 roomies, all knowing that i never went to the military, they were all quite baffled when i spat out details about certain guns in movies, pointing out for example, that it was pretty pointless for James Bond to use his MPK over such a distance and that his 9mm magazine would be empty be now anyways.

I can repeat the testimony given about pardox games and railroad tycoon given by others here - both taught me a lot as well. Same goes for racing and being the coach of a soccer team (which enables me to do smarttalk when watching a match with buddies despite the fact, that i dont even know the names of the players, unlike the rest).

Orbiter: A rather recent example of a teaching game. I was pretty proud when i had established a stable orbit around earth for the first time. Taught me what an apigaeum, perigaeum, MFD and such things are... It´s free btw. Give it a shot.

El_Cid: I do agree with you on the topic, that the gaming industry lost a lot of niveau, since it became popular. Or rather: The games we dreamt about, when all gamers were pretty much freaks, how we expected games to be like if the proper computers would just be avaiable back in the days, never made it to reality really. Take spacegames as an example. If You played Elite II or III, you know, that a realistic physics engine (if only newtonian and not einsteinian) in a gameworld consisting out of the whole galaxy was totally doable in the early 90´s on a 880K disc (Amiga version), including seemlees landing and such things. Today this seems to be impossible. In the 15+ years since then, nothing really comparable showed up (AFAIK). The reason of course is not technical, but simply the fact, that such a game is expected to sell better, if it´s made into some kind of 3D-arcade-shooter, with a simplistic flight-model (best example: Freelancer, what it was aimed to be at the start of the development, and what it turned out to be when it was released). If one longs for innovative game design these years, one has to look at russia - sadly though, the games made there seem to have always the same problems of bad quality and translation (and often a considerable time-lag before they get released in the west, making them technically outdated as well).

Another genre, that suffered badly IMHO, is the classical RPG. Today, by RPG, what is really meant is usally an action-RPG, single-player or massive multiplayer. Back in the days, RPGs where strictly turn-based and you usually had a party of somewhere between 4 and 9 characters, which strengths and weaknesses to each. By droping the party-concept, the RPG-genre has already lost half of its appeal (Wizardry 8 actually managed a good mix of 3D and classical IMHO). It might be retrospective bias, but i also have the impression that the quests tended to be a lot deeper. I mean, you cant really compare a Wizardry7 quest with one of Fallout(here you go,onedera)3, now can you? In the later you usually walk from A to B, where you either talk to someone, kill someone, pick up an item (to return to A) or use an item you got at A, or something very simplistic like that. In Wiz 7 you could be stuck on a riddle for weeks. Yes, it could get frustrating sometimes, but it was also rewarding. In comparison (and disregarding the technical side for now) F3 (or Oblivion) quests seem so dull. It is obvious that they are made for the casual player, who shall not be bothered with thinking. And i didnt even talk about the green arrow or ´dungeon´ (there are none anymore - the most complicared modern ones would probably translate into something like a 12x12 tile-3lvl dungeon in classical Bard´s Tale - tiny) design, yet... Dont get me wrong: F3 is probably one of the best SP-RPGs released during the recent years, but if you´d strap it off its graphics, the excellent atmosphere might remain (or not), but the game itself would (in any case) reveal itself as being very shallow. You walk and shoot, you talk (by clicking sentences) and loot - and that´s it, pretty much. And the looting part becomes pointless after a while. Maybe i should ramp the difficulty up, but on medium, i drown in caps and ammo (without the enhancing perks) and dont know what to do with it anymore. And an action-RPG obviously requires a different skill system than a classical RPG. Take ´lockpicking´: In F3, you pick locks by a mini-game. Wether you are allowed to give it shot or not is determined by your skill. Locks come in different ´difficulties´ requiring you to have 1-24,24-49,50-74,75-99 or 100 skillpoints in order to try to pick it. IMHO that system is nothing short of moronic. Instead, your skillpoints should be treated as making lockpicking (the minigame) easier and you should be allowed to try to pick any lock at any skill. If you fail, there should be chance of the lock getting ´jammed´, making it impossible to open it without the proper key (like in Wiz7, for example). That way, picking a lock could actually make you sweat (to avoid reloading, grant XPs for failing attempts, and maybe only for failing attempts - that would have made alchemy in Morrowind a big deal better as well). But the way it is, when you try to pick a lock and are allowed to, the only question is wether you will waste a hairpin or two in order to succeed (and you will succeed as long as you aren´t a spastic with massive motoric issues - no offence intended). I cant stand it, if so much is at stake (esp. if i find hairpins in every second locker or so).

Uhem, yeah, rambling, sorry, gets posted anyway :P ...

EDIT: Uhhh, i forgot the most important thing games taught me: english. Back in the days, games werent translated into german, and so, in order to play them and while playing them, i picked up english, even before i had it in school. My teachers were impressed. On the gerunds i went all guts, where all the other students had to learn very hard and often failed miserably, and got an A. Simply the term of ´saving a game´ made me ´win´ an argument in grade school with another student, who claimed it was ´god sHave the queen´. I told him, that he should tell that to an englishman - and that i´d like to see his reaction.

[El_Cid]

@Unimatrix11,

Thanks for that long post, and your english is indeed very good if you basicaly learnt it from computer gaming! That is one side effect from gaming that is a great example of where games can help grow the mind My brother in-law had the same experience, in that he was a big role playing gamer as a kid, but in his country nearly all the game books and systems(DnD etc) were in english/american.

The first time i met him we could talk pretty fluently in english to one another - and all from him and his friends having to read and understand games!

And yeah i'd give another vote for formula one tracks. When i watch it on TV i can most times read the corners from my days playing Microproses F1 games.

I also agree with Hex about games being great for the broadstroke look on a subject, and providing food for thought that can lead you onto more detailed study of a topic. The kind of games that promote that reaction are some of my favourite

oh and lol at DaShi - ain't that the truth

[Victor Galis]

Pirates! taught me a lot about Caribbean geography. I think I was too young to really understand the finer points of naval tactics of that era.

The old copy protection mechanisms taught me to identify a lot of historical pirates by their flags or steam engines. I've forgotten all that now

[vee4473]

Lots. I've probably learned more via playing games than my entire life spent at school.

That's either a horrible school, you dropped out at age 8 or you couldn't put down the wacky tobakky

[Unimatrix11]

it´s c) for me...

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh gosh.

1. Geography.

Civ 2 was awesome at teaching you where different parts of the world were and why they were important. I remember acing a high school challenge in grade 8 and representing my school. Civ helped tremendously with that. Where in the World is Carmen San Deigo was also one of my favourites growing up. Pirates! for the caribbean geography which is annoyingly hard.

2. History.

Any of the Civ conquest scenarios were extremely well done, and help you get a feel for what was going on at the time. Gave me a good understanding of the first and second world war and the Napoleonic Era. Vicky has been another realm for my understanding. Have really gained a better understanding of the political arrangements of that time, the German city states, etc.

3. Economics.

Civ is good at teaching you that it is "wealth that moves the world and profit that rules it". Any wonder why the camel is considered the best unit? Vicky really teaches you about mercantalism. Teaches you debt management. Sim City teaches you more about efficient city planning.

4. Military/Logistics/Planning.

Another huge part of civ. Importance of RR to concentrate forces, as well as response times. Whereas civ wasn't good for tactical combat, but overall strategy is important. Vicky takes this to another level using support payments.

5. Tactical.

X-Wing vs Tie Fighter teaches you about space combat. I don't know how educational it is, but it must be of some use when you are a pilot as a pilot sim. Mount and Blade teaches you battle tactics, how to position your army, why it's so difficult to cross a point, something I didn't really get until I got to play the game, and realised that crossing a lance will more then likely get you killed. HOMM is also ok for tactics, although less realistic.

6. Game theory/Problem solving.

Magic the gathering. Huge, huge game.

7. Driving

Stunts, learn how to shift on manual gear, and why it's a good thing.

[Unimatrix11]

hihi on 7) - never drove anything, but manual gear...

5) The OP ruled out ´irreal´ knowledge - i think the Elite games (II&III) still do count though, because of their semi-realisitc physics, while X-Wing is questionable at best.

3) Vicky´s economics - sometimes, i wonder, how realistic they are, esp. on the debt management. Is the sum of money (-debts) equal among all nations at all times? If not, how is the new money generated - where does it come from? Cause in Vicky, all the bigger nations can more or less easily have balanced budgets and over time even save up surpluses. That didnt quite happen in RL. It´s the one part, i´m cautious picking up as fact from Vicky. The geography, history, culture part of it is excellent, hands down, though.

2) Just to avoid misconception: German particularism did not majorily consist out of city-states (like the greek polis for example), but mostly out of smallish territories. The most important city-states still exist: Hamburg & Bremen (Frankfurt is not a state anymore though), while most of the territorial states became merged into what are the states of the FRG today, with the exception of bavaria and saxony, which were pretty much reserved in their ancient form (and have the right to secceed (free-states/´Freistaaten´), i think). What territories are left by the time of the crowning of queen victoria is btw a faint remnant compared to the number of states that existed in germany prior to napoeon. Carribean geography is a joke compared to that patchwork.

[Dis]

aww I thought this would be a humorous thread like I learned that scythes can be deadly combat weapons. Even more powerful than a sword.

in any case the amount of knowledge I picked up from civ is extraordinary. It even inspired me to do more research on my own.

[duke o' york]

Sorry, but feel free to start that thread too.

[Sirotnikov]

Sim City- Should be required reading for Left-Leaning Socialists. Raise taxes on industry and you ultimately hurt the residential zones. It took much playing for me to realize that you can't squeeze the productive classes.

They'll obviously tell you that there's a fault with the implementation of the game mechanisms.

And that the residential zones will be better off when the industries are gone, and everyone will be making only required stuff for everybody else, in sheer joy, and out of pure love for mankind.

pheew..

[Lord Avalon]

I learned to be afraid of hearing "wololo" from the darkness.

I learned that demolition derby is not just about smashing the hell out of other cars, but being judicious about how and when you smash other cars. Like do as much driving in reverse as possible in order to preserve your engine. Hearses were a lot of fun! And T-bone the other guy while avoiding same.

[Ben Kenobi]

Vicky´s economics - sometimes, i wonder, how realistic they are, esp. on the debt management. Is the sum of money (-debts) equal among all nations at all times?

No, it will be constantly increasing, as the population grows.

If not, how is the new money generated - where does it come from?

From the increased production of your population.

Cause in Vicky, all the bigger nations can more or less easily have balanced budgets and over time even save up surpluses. That didnt quite happen in RL. It´s the one part, i´m cautious picking up as fact from Vicky. The geography, history, culture part of it is excellent, hands down, though.

It's a mercantalist philosophy. What you make is directly correlated to what your population produces. Trade has no impact. Civ, on the other hand is very much about trade. Shipping caravans is the quickest way to win the game through boosted productivity from trade. With civ you can get the unrealistic result, that you get free food everywhere through the food caravan trick.

[Unimatrix11]

a) So money growth is mostly correlated to popultion growth? How realistic is that?

b) Production makes products, not money. My question was: Where does the money come from?

c) So, in Vicky, a factory produces a chair. It gets a price tagged on it, acording to the world market (WM) price. In addition to that, tarifs may apply. So, another pop buys that chair. Who gets the money? As i understand it, i (as ´the state´) only get the money from tarifs (which make imports and exports more expensive), but not directly from the chair. If that chair is being bought by one of my own pops, i dont make any money at all. Still, in any case: Who gets the money for the chair? From the real world, i´d make two suggestions: Either the factory is private and the capitalist who built it gets the money, or it´s a state-built factory and the state gets the money. In either case, the owner would have to pay for materials and labour in that factory. I doubt it works like that in Vicky, though... I think, labourers have a fixed income which is not being calculated in the product price and thus a whole big concept of economics is left out. And even privately built factories (capitalists dont need ressources for that either) seem to be state-driven, once they exist, since you have to provide the raw-materials. It´s rather confusing and frankly i do not have a full grasp of how the economy of vicky actually works.

[El_Cid]

I make a chair as i know how to do that(and have the tools+material).

you pay me 20 credits for it.

you get the chair(makes you happy?)

i get the 20 credits(makes me happy?)

now out of that 20 credits I may lose some to materials(if i dont just find wood around), and some to the time it took me to make the chair(my hourly wage).

Then if the 20 credits you gave me was in a payment form that went through the banking system, i would at some point have to pay tax(to my government) on that. If you just gave me the 20 credits in cold hard cash i could just pocket it and spend it on something else, thus avoiding tax.

in a system without a banking system(dont know if Vicky has/models one) it is much harder for a government to control taxes, although they could and did. banks and us using them, just makes it all more accountable.

Does that help some?

Games also taught me that it is much easier to destroy than it is to create, but i know which is better now.

[Ben Kenobi]

a) So money growth is mostly correlated to popultion growth? How realistic is that?

It's actually very accurate.

b) Production makes products, not money. My question was: Where does the money come from?

Assigned population makes products. These products then hit the chart, where they can be bought by governments.

Goverments make money from taxing the people. The money spent on these items goes back to the people, where they make more, and continue on.

The game gives you money from taxes per person. You can make more money (and production) per person by building railroads and factories, and creating populations of factory workers. If you tax too much, you get population loss by both emigration, and a lower birthrate.

c) So, in Vicky, a factory produces a chair. It gets a price tagged on it, acording to the world market (WM) price. In addition to that, tarifs may apply. So, another pop buys that chair. Who gets the money? As i understand it, i (as ´the state´) only get the money from tarifs (which make imports and exports more expensive), but not directly from the chair.

State gets it's money from the yearly taxation of the people.

In either case, the owner would have to pay for materials and labour in that factory. I doubt it works like that in Vicky, though... I think, labourers have a fixed income which is not being calculated in the product price and thus a whole big concept of economics is left out. And even privately built factories (capitalists dont need ressources for that either) seem to be state-driven, once they exist, since you have to provide the raw-materials. It´s rather confusing and frankly i do not have a full grasp of how the economy of vicky actually works.

All industries are state-based. Heavy industries I've not found very profitable, at least not until the end of the game. You need to build improvements to make your investment back on the people. IMO, the best, (and cheesiest) way to make money is to tax 100 percent, and make up your population losses through constant expansion.