Online gamers use science to win

When kids want to win in online games, they do two things:
1) Create a hypothesis
2) Gather data to test it (in a spreadsheet, of course).

A fascinating look at the way kids unknowingly bring the scientific method to their online, free-time pursuits.  In her survey of chat rooms for these online role playing games, the author found:

A majority [of posts] -- 86 percent -- were aimed specifically at analyzing the hidden ruleset of games.  More than half the gamers used "systems-based reasoning" -- analyzing the game as a complex, dynamic system. And one-tenth actually constructed specific models to explain the behavior of a monster or situation; they would often use their model to generate predictions. Meanwhile, one-quarter of the commentors would build on someone else's previous argument, and another quarter would issue rebuttals of previous arguments and models.

These are all hallmarks of scientific thought. Indeed, the conversations often had the precise flow of a scientific salon, or even a journal series: Someone would pose a question -- like what sort of potions a high-class priest ought to carry around, or how to defeat a particular monster -- and another would post a reply, offering data and facts gathered from their own observations. Others would jump into the fray, disputing the theory, refining it, offering other facts. Eventually, once everyone was convinced the theory was supported by the data, the discussion would peter out.

Too bad your average science class isn't so interesting (sorry, SPH).

How video games could help us plan Iraq (and learn from our mistakes)

Historian Niall Ferguson likes to think counterfactually - imagining what the world would be like if certain historical events turned out differently. And he's recently discovered that a video game simulation led to deeper thinking about the possibilities in World War II:

For example, he'd often argued that World War II could have been prevented if Britain had confronted Germany over its invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938. France would have joined with Britain, he figured, pinching Germany between their combined might and that of the Russian army...But when he ran the simulation in Making History, everything fell to pieces. The French defected, leaving Britain's expeditionary force to fly solo -- and get crushed by Germany. His theory, as it turns out, didn't hold water. He hadn't realized that a 1938 attack would not leave Britain enough time to build the diplomatic case with France.

The simulation game allows players to try and see how different historical events might have turned out different. The game's creator, Muzzy Lane, envisions the game helping to model current global conflicts with Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Iran.

When we think about historical events, we have 20/20 hindsight -- so we forget how confusing and uncertain they were at the time. In 1943, nobody really knew how strong Germany was, or what Stalin was thinking. In modern conflicts, we often have a similarly false sense of surety -- too much confidence in our ability to predict the outcome of major events.

When we play with sims, they knock us off our pedestals -- because crazy things usually happen we don't predict. Yet the chaos is useful, because we can run the same situation again and again, changing one little thing each time, until we've war-gamed it deeply and understand it better than ever.

The United States used to be champions at this sort of strategic thinking, Ferguson notes, until Iraq came along. Much of America's failures in Iraq have been due to the overly rosy predictions of administration heads. They didn't have the healthy respect for chaos that was the original animating genius of conservatism -- the thinkers like Edmund Burke, who distrusted aggressive tinkering with economies, states or cultures, because they shuddered to think of what genies might be unleashed. (emphasis mine)

Solution? Video games for Republicans!

What kind of game cheater are you?

Wired has an interesting look at the different styles of playing video games and how an individual gamer evolves over time. Gaming styles could probably be summed up as:

1. I'm a god and that's why there's a special mode for me on the Game Genie.
2. This game could be challenging, if the strategy guide wasn't right here.
3. I check out GameFAQs when I'm in a bind, but I try to figure things out myself.
4. You gotta play it natural, no cheats or hints
5. I only play games one-handed, blindfolded, in the nude...

The article looks at how people often move up the list as they age and how the immersive, all-encompassing gaming experience doesn't mesh with other life pursuits.

Update 4/30: The BBC has a news story on "gold farming" in World of Warcraft, where Western gamers pay for virtual gold earned by Chinese workers with real cash. My favorite is where they use a green screen to put the reporter in the game.