安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Then in 2019 there was a study that showed the 2018 study was only half right.
Posting here is NOT FOR blogs. You might want to read those rules.
Yes, I'm saying this snarkily but I mean no offence (it's just an effective method of getting the point across). Seriously, the rules here mean you shouln't do this. Off topic is for this very reason.
I doubt the veracity of them anyway - where's the peer reviews on them? Where was this published? Without this for others to check, it's like your opinion man.
Credit for OP's post goes to https://www.classcraft.com/resources/blog/10-facts-games-learning/
The Scientists were all distracted and spent time studying games.
Parents 1 Scientists 0
At least that gives some link to the sources where I can check them out.
Sadly, I'm still very sceptical of a few of them, because they seem to depend on keynote speeches and there's no peer review I can see.
Most of the earliest video games were scientists in a lab goofing off and programming numbers blackjack games or simple tic-tac-toe and tennis games on the big mainframes, using hacked oscilloscopes or radar screens for display.
Alan Turing himself played around with writing a chess program before his death.
And then of course, there was Alexey Pajitnov's little side project.
He really deserves a big, heroic Motherland Calls-esque monument. Not just a silly little plaque in the hallway where he worked or whatever.
Gamepolitics is still up, but hasn't updated since ceasing production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y-RkiPhpPY