Video Games & College Education

With the exception of the breakout hit Oregon Trail franchise, video games are an art form developed primarily as forms of entertainment, much as novels, movies, and radio programs are.  But today I was challenged with the statement "video games are a crippling educational problem for college students."

Well, I work with college students, and I play video games.  But before I went on a rant that this statement couldn't possibly be true, I decided that I would actually research the topic.  Do video games represent a barrier for student academic success?

(Disclaimer: to be certain, compulsive video game behaviors do represent very serious barriers to academic and professional development in the same ways that compulsive internet use, gambling, or drug and alcohol addiction would.  I hope to address more habitual and casual forms of play in this analysis.)

My initial findings were not particularly endearing to my original thesis.  In A Study of Time Management, published in 2007 in CyberPsychology & Behavior, researcher Vivek Anand found an inverse trend in grade point averages with higher daily video game usage. 

Graph!

Anand did note that with the study group, SAT scores were highest among those students who played for approximately 4.5 hours, however "the p value for the correlation between a person's SAT score and video game usage was 0.618, which shows that they are most likely unrelated and thus have no correlation" (Anand, 555).

(In case you haven't been to a stats class forever, but are still reading this, here's what p means.)

However, I have some criticism to Anand's findings (which is easy, since I write a blog, and he is - you know - actually doing research).  The data presented does not indicate what types of video games are being played.  Due to the Skinner box mechanics of online gaming (and the online social environments therein), online games would represent a far different issue with GPA than offline gaming.

Also, results were not delineated by gender.  I, for one, would have liked to have seen whether or not the GPA correlation in gameplay was accurate for both genders, since Anand himself admits to having a higher percentage of male respondents.

If I had hoped a 2010 article in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence titled More Than Just a Game: Video Game and Internet Use During Emerging Adulthood by Laura Padilla-Walker, Larry Nelson, Jason Carroll, and Alexander Jensen would encourage me to think that gaming wasn't a huge concern to college students, I was wrong.  "Specifically, regardless of gender, video game use was linked to greater drug use, drinking behaviors, and lower relationship quality with friends and parents" (Padilla-Walker, et. al., 109).

Furthermore, "research suggests that time spent playing video games may also inhibit identity exploration," a complete antithesis to the notion that games can help facilitate identify exploration (Padilla-Walker, et. al. 110).

In fact, the entire article by Padilla-Walker and her team suggests that video games are bad news, not just for academic performance, but for the development of an older adolescent into adulthood!  Crud.


This article does not please me.

 Again - video games are not specifically delimited in this study, although there is a comparison between "violent" video games and non-violent games.  And, a nod to the research team, because unlike the Anand study, Padilla-Walker does an excellent job in exploring the differences between men and women.  The team went even farther to point out "another limitation [to the study] was the use of single items to assess video game and violent video game use ... future research should examine video game use in more detail by assessing specific games played, as well as other contextual factors" (Padilla-Walker, et. al., 112).

Luckily, I did find an article from CyberPsychology & Behavior by Marko Skoric, Linda Lay Ching Teo, and Rachel Lijie Neo that found a strong causal link between the amount of time playing video game on weekdays and English scores, supporting the notion that Intensive English Language Institute (IELI) students may benefit from playing games in English.  So, I am not left wholly disheartened - only mostly.

The findings from the Anand and Padilla-Walker studies are both pretty directional into my understanding of one very important thing: we've got a long way to go in understanding how video games impact academic performance.  While neither study had great things to say, they were also both quick to establish that they are trailblazers in this area of research, and that without more studies, there could be no conclusions drawn.

If video games are a significant impediment to academic success (research seems to be leaning this way), it would behoove those of us who are assigned the task of removing barriers success to know a little more about them, and a little more on how we can employ harm reduction techniques to make education a priority, and gaming a recreational activity.

But until more research can be done, I guess we'll just wait.

Donkey Kong Country Returns

You've got to feel bad for Donkey Kong.  The dude was originally cast as a barrel-chunking overlord of a world created of platforms, ladders, and sentient flame.  Later though, DK gained more independence as a go-kart racer, and had his own series of platform games on the SNES called Donkey Kong Country.

Simian miscreant, or domestic violence intervener?

Donkey Kong Country (and its two follow-up iterations) were never bad games, and in fact, represented a good deal of my childhood play-time on the SNES.  The graphics (courtesy of Rare) were crude in today's gameplace, but state of the art when the game was released.

The game focused on DK's loss of his banana stash, because he likes to eat bananas.  So, you know, there was a plot-ish.  Akin to "Save the princess."  In case you were to ask why, the game would glare at you and shout "Because I said so!" and hurtle you into a mini-game.

But games are more sophisticated now, like Donkey Kong Country Returns, which subjects you to some storyline where the volcano on Kong island is inhabited by bad mojo, and the chieftan of bad mojo steals all of your bananas.  Bad mojo chieftans, as we all know, are in constant need of a steady flow of potassium to continue their malicious operations on islands inhabited by Kong on his relatives.

Okay, so the game isn't going to win story of the year, or anything - but we didn't really expect it to.  I craved some 2D, beautifully rendered, platforming!  Donkey Kong Country, the Return of the Jedi was sure to please.  Nintendo practically wrote the book on what a 2D platformer needs to be successful.  But wait, what's this - to kill enemies, I must ... waggle?

Like a hooker clinging to the testicles of a customer who refused to pay for services rendered, Nintendo wants to force every single one of its game experiences to use the motion controls that made the Wii so famous.  Nevermind that when using the nunchuck accessory that I have like 12 buttons, only the joystick, A, and B buttons are used for moving, jumping, and grabbing respectively.  If you want to do your super-neat DK roll, you have to waggle the damn Wii-mote while pushing forward.  Didn't push forward correctly?  You'll ground-pound, or ... blow air?

If you have friends, you can play the game with them.
Then you won't have to worry about having friends anymore!

There are things to collect, which is kind of a fun part of Donkey Kong Country games, but the game play was severely wounded by the inclusion of needed waggling.  The platforming was a huge step back, as well, in my humble opinion.  There was very little strategy involved, and it just wasn't very fun to play.

Okay, it does look good.  I mean, this is exactly what I wanted in looks.  You know, Super Mario Galaxy 3, pretty much.

If you were looking for a game on the Wii that you could play as Donkey Kong for, you may as well just dust off Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which offers way more DK technique and a myriad of better control options.  Or, wait for the next go-kart, party, or olympic sporting game that Nintendo's over-used, tie-wearing mascot could be crammed into next.

Catherine

I really want to like Catherine, Atlus' bizarre puzzle-platformer/horror/romance-sim game that was released stateside back in midsummer.  After an unimpressive demo back in July, I've recently given the full-game a shot, having borrowed it from my friend.  However, despite my interest in its bizarre gameplay, I simply cannot embrace the game.

Could it be its more-difficult-than-they-need-to-be Q-bert style block puzzles?

Could it be the hamby-pamby story of Vincent, the protagonist stuck between his overbearing girlfriend, Katherine, and his multiple-night-stand-may-not-be-a-real-person-since-she-doesn't-interact-with-any-other-characters Catherine?

Could it be the stumbly dialogue options via text message that you exchange with Catherine or Katherine?

Or is it simply the lack of gender role nuances that forces the thought that Vincent is afraid of commitment, like all men must be, and that the "right" path is to get over it and settle with your domineering (and possibly pregnant) girlfriend?

Whichever of these is the real culprit, I'll not be able to say.  Not simply because blaming just one seems too limiting, but because I can't bring myself to play the game again.

Final Fantasy XIII

To say that I was excited about Final Fantasy XIII is a bit of an understatement.  One of my favorite series had been constantly reinventing itself for years, and now had the opportunity to do so on the PS3, which was the best processor to date!  I nearly wet myself in anticipation of a complicated storyline, detailed characterization, menu-driven combat, and angst!  Bring on the angst!

Instead, what I got was a 40 hour life magnet.  You know, because it sucked 40 hours of life away from me like a magnet would for a metalic object.  In this example, my life is the the metalic object.  Nevermind.  Bad analogy.  Fucking magnets...

Remember that thing that Westley was strapped to in The Princess Bride?  You can't tell because of all the bells and whistles, but actually it was Final Fantasy XIII.

And look, there's Count Rugen mashing the X button.

The game starts off with a disenfranchised soldier and a stereotypical black character on a train, preparing to commit a well-meaning act of terrorism against an imperialist force.  Seriously?  I have no problem reusing story material, but this was a little too copy-paste for even me.  At least the soldier is a powerful female pressence?  Wrong.

Listen, "Lightning," if that is your real name (spoilers!  It's not)...  You have a fold-up gunblade thing, and you clearly went to Cloud Strife's School for Jumping Higher Than is Reasonable for your Musculature and Height, but you are no where near the woman I was hoping you'd be.  Celes would waste your puny ass.  Ashe not only played the part, but looked so much better while doing so!  Even Yuna grew a pair in her dress-changing sequel.  Also, can we please comb your hair?  It's driving me batshit crazy.

Straight on the top, wavy at the bottom.  Why?  WHY?

I had hoped the game would become redeeming, but (spoilers!) it didn't.  The game eventually lets you develop your characters, in a Final Fantasy X sort of sphere grid that was designed by people who were deathly afraid of decision making.  You can pretty much only go one direction, so character customization is pretty lame.

The battles, though, that was the heart and soul of all this.  Who cares how I advanced my characters, just so long as I could tactically and strategically... oh?  What's that?  Auto-battle?  You mean, I don't have to do anything?  I literally just mash the X button and hope that the AI is smart enough to beat ... well, itself, I guess?  If Final Fantasy XII's gambit system was like watching a game masturbating, than this battle system was like watching a game trying to swallow its own tongue. 

If I held out any hope for an engaging story, that was deftly bashed against the rocky walls of inanity like so much else in this game.  To even understand half of the shit going on, I had to constantly stop action and read the obviously detailed Compendium of who was who, what was what, and why I cared.  Except, here's the thing: I didn't care!

I guess I finished it.  It's hard to remember, because I've gone through intensive therapy to forget most of what happened.  The thought of playing the game long enough to get every trophy is beyond insipid.  In an attempt to appeal to what was left of the faith I had in the game, there was an ability to continue playing after you beat the game, pretending that your final boss fight was a figment of your imagination, and now with the ability to fully develop each character's roles.  It was like a New Game + that sucked, and I almost never hate that idea.

I recently put FFXIII back in the PS3 to have another go, but found myself quitting in disgust.  I couldn't even bring myself to a second playthrough.  And, I play through every game, at the absolute least, twice.

So, in short, Final Fantasy XIII certainly broke the conventions (as has been the style of FF games), I've come to know, but not in a good way: in fact, in a bad, bad way.