Someone else would have invented them eventually.
Can assure you that I wasn’t trolling at all, just giving my answer to the question asked. I wasn’t trying to imply that I was against video games in the least, believe it or not.
And the answer to the "fuck off" instruction is nope! 🙂
no
why?
everyone would be on movies
and game actually gives me a fucking imagination
like never before. couple it with books and films, and you got joorself the nitro of imagination
why?
everyone would be on movies
and game actually gives me a fucking imagination
Yeah, I know what you mean.
Given the choice between playing the Silent Hill game and watching the movie, I’d pick the game over the film anyday – though like the film well enough.
Assuming that those two weren’t linked however, and personal computers are still invented, I’d say I’d probably only be a computer gamer, and probably a happier one too, since computer games probably wouldn’t be overly-realism-driven to compete with videogames, and thus development would probably be slower. Ah, the good ol’ days of Karateka, where a 3.58MHz 8086 CPU with 768k of RAM and a PC beeper pwns everything. And people play games using the numeric 8-6-4-2 keypad instead of the wasd and wasz and arrow keys that I find clumsy to use.
Assuming that computer games weren’t invented by Robert Baer, but eventually invented by a Japanese, Maybe we’ll all have PS9s which are actually affordable and truly region-free by now.
it would have been a whole hel of alot better because not so many people would drop out of college and everyone would be smarter because the would read books instead of playing Final Fantasy all day every day. Although it really doesn’t matter because someone else would have invented them later.
Most likely they used convenience sampling, since there isn’t any probability-factor in which they select their sample from the population (which is surgeons all over the world). Using convenience sampling, a rough and ready rule to determine the number of required responses needed for analysis is that for each major sub-category that needs to be compared there should be about 20-30 responses [T.F.Burgess, 2001, University of Leeds]. In this case, we want to compare the results of two major segments (surgeons who have been playing videogames for 3 hours per week or more versus surgeons who don’t do that). If all groups are equally represented in the sample, we should aim at least at 40 responses.
If they would have used probability sampling, instead of convenience sampling -which would not have been a wise decision, because of earlier stated arguments-, they should have used over 50 responses.
Seeing that they merely used 33 responses, it can’t be considered a valid research, which means, Prezelman, your argument is void.
Please don’t take take them away from me. :laugh:
I wouldent mind if my kids would grow up that way too,but that doesent work this days.
So i let them play no more than half an houre a day,never more never less.
Most likely they used convenience sampling, since there isn’t any probability-factor in which they select their sample from the population (which is surgeons all over the world). Using convenience sampling, a rough and ready rule to determine the number of required responses needed for analysis is that for each major sub-category that needs to be compared there should be about 20-30 responses [T.F.Burgess, 2001, University of Leeds]. In this case, we want to compare the results of two major segments (surgeons who have been playing videogames for 3 hours per week or more versus surgeons who don’t do that). If all groups are equally represented in the sample, we should aim at least at 40 responses.
If they would have used probability sampling, instead of convenience sampling -which would not have been a wise decision, because of earlier stated arguments-, they should have used over 50 responses.
Seeing that they merely used 33 responses, it can’t be considered a valid research, which means, Prezelman, your argument is void.
Most likely they used convenience sampling, since there isn’t any probability-factor in which they select their sample from the population (which is surgeons all over the world). Using convenience sampling, a rough and ready rule to determine the number of required responses needed for analysis is that for each major sub-category that needs to be compared there should be about 20-30 responses [T.F.Burgess, 2001, University of Leeds]. In this case, we want to compare the results of two major segments (surgeons who have been playing videogames for 3 hours per week or more versus surgeons who don’t do that). If all groups are equally represented in the sample, we should aim at least at 40 responses.
If they would have used probability sampling, instead of convenience sampling -which would not have been a wise decision, because of earlier stated arguments-, they should have used over 50 responses.
Seeing that they merely used 33 responses, it can’t be considered a valid research, which means, Prezelman, your argument is void.
I didnt even really look at this article. I just already knew that this was true and tried to find an article about it as proof. They’re alot of other articles about this subject not this one. Even if this one cant make for a considerable argument one of the others possibly can.
I know I had a point in there someplace, I think I’ll have another drink…
Yah. it would have been hell. o_o
Everyone would be dead of obeisity, since playing video games loses weight due to the rapid movement of the fingers and arms.
Everyone would be on forums posting in topics like ‘What would life be like with videogames.’.
Everyone would be sitting in front of the TV instead of the computer.
There would be a lot more homeless people.
There would be a lot more suicides.
There would be a lot more operation related deaths.
Everyone’s reflexes would be slower.
People would be even less social.
Other businesses would be booming.
Less people with glasses.
Fat people would be shunned by society even more so.
Physically demented people would be shunned by society even more so.
That’s what life would be like without video games (there’s more, just can’t be bothered anymore)
People shunned by society use video games to escape reality, and online games to make friends. Sure there’s still msn etc. but how would they meet their contacts?
Without video games, the world would be completely different. It wouldn’t necessarily be like the way i said, as people would have found other activities to amuse themselves. but if you were to suddenly remove the existence of video games from reality and everyone’s memory without replacing it with something else. Most of that would probably be true.