Gamespot PC/PS4/X1 visuals experiment. Can you tell the difference?

[jimmyD]

Because they tested this on people. And people are dumb.

What does being "dumb" have to do with people's perception? Do you feel your smarter then they are because you could tell a difference? What if you sat further back or removed your contacts/glasses? Do you automatically lose I.Q. and become a mouth breathing caveman or do you dull you senses?

Should have they ran the test on aliens since humans are stupid?

 

[jimmyD]

I noticed the PS4 versions right away. That superior quality is unmistakable. X1 and PC versions were the same washed out mess.

You must be a genius with superhuman senses the rest of the planet doesn't possess.

 

[Kassen]

You must be a genius with superhuman senses the rest of the planet doesn't possess.

Hey now. It's common knowledge. Just search the internet and see just how dumb people are. Take this video for example where no one knows what water is made of.

 

[jimmyD]

Hey now. It's common knowledge. Just search the internet and see just how dumb people are. Take this video for example where no one knows what water is made of.

I'm not saying there aren't stupid people out there I'm wondering why you need to call the people in the video stupid.

 

[Andy]

If people in the test used their head, they could have said they are the same.

No, a normal person isn't going to know at that point (after two legitimate trials) that the experimenter has changed the rules of the game and is now deceiving them.

 

[Intellivision]

No, a normal person isn't going to know at that point (after two legitimate trials) that the experimenter has changed the rules of the game and is now deceiving them.

I guess we'll have to disagree.

Just because someone says to do a test, nobody has to force themselves to say one thing is different for the sake of it.

At work, the marketing dept comes around every year and asks people what they think of the new smells and flavours are for new products. According to them, they all are different strengths and weaknesses in terms of chemical difference. Some are obviously "way too chemically", while some are mute. Some have chemical make-ups so same I can't tell the difference, so I'll just tell them that these 2 or 3 test samples seem the same to me. I don't think the mktg dept is faking the samples with placebos. But I guess some are so similar I can't tell.

So that's the answer I give them verbally and when I have to fill in those questionnaire sheets.

 

[Kassen]

I'm not saying there aren't stupid people out there I'm wondering why you need to call the people in the video stupid.

I never said they are dumb. What I am saying is how do you validate their participation in the visuals experiment over the participation of people in the H2O experiment.

 

[jimmyD]

^"Some perceived a difference"

um no some noticed the actual difference.

"um no" watch the video the last test for Asscreed was all 3 monitors ran PS4. "nice try though"

 

[Intellivision]

"um no" watch the video the last test for Asscreed was all 3 monitors ran PS4. "nice try though"

Looks like Val didn't watch the video.

 

[jimmyD]

I never said they are dumb. What I am saying is how do you validate their participation in the visuals experiment over the participation of people in the H2O experiment.

? how do we validate the people's participation? What does that even mean that they didn't play the games we actually see them playing in the video you're saying now? Are those stunt doubles playing?

Check the 1st page did someone other then yourself mention people are stupid so test proves nothing? After we test aliens should we call up the Gods to test?

 

[jimmyD]

Looks like Val didn't watch the video.

he doesn't need to he only rolls with the definitive criterion version the peasants only dream of playing.

 

[Kassen]

? how do we validate the people's participation? What does that even mean that they didn't play the games we actually see them playing in the video you're saying now? Are those stunt doubles playing?

But the people who did the visual experiment do not even know what water is made of. Isn't that terrible? How can they judge visuals if they can't even draw a picture of a water molecule?

 

[jimmyD]

But the people who did the visual experiment do not even know what water is made of. Isn't that terrible? How can they judge visuals if they can't even draw a picture of a water molecule?

ok, you got me. Is there a hidden cam around me somewhere to catch my reaction after reading this?

 

[jimmyD]

No, a normal person isn't going to know at that point (after two legitimate trials) that the experimenter has changed the rules of the game and is now deceiving them.

So you're saying the experimenter has slipped them hallucinogenics to make them see differences in the 3 identical PS4 versions?

 

[Kassen]

ok, you got me. Is there a hidden cam around me somewhere to catch my reaction after reading this?

Why are you dodging the subject?

 

[Andy]

Lol, no not @ all it speaks volumes. Some perceived a difference. That is why it was an excellent test. They could have answered it as the girl did that they couldn't tell but they definitely knew the better version was the PC...

No, I've studied a fair amount on experimental design and inference, so give me a little credit and stop with the "lols."

Yes, they perceived a difference. Ask yourself why. Is it because people like to imagine differences where there are none (I suspect this is the conclusion you would prefer to draw). No, it's because the "experimenter" set up a situation in which the "subjects" 1) expected to see a difference, based on the previous trials and the experimenter's instructions, 2) believed there was a difference, based on the previous trials and the experimenter's instructions, and 3) knew that their task was to find the differences (not the similarities); success meant distinguishing among the three and assigning them the right labels. Nowhere in this setup is the notion that all three are really the same. In fact, the experimenter set it up so that the expectations and requirements of the situation practically demand that the subjects find differences, even if they have to manufacture them subconsciously or base them on random variations (which is what they did).

It's a neat trick, but it leaves you nothing to infer about the real world. In order for this to "speak volumes" about anything, you have to show how this situation is analogous to anything in the real world. "People see differences between X1 and PS4 when there aren't any," I can hear you say. But that's not what happened here -- people saw differences in three PS4s. The only inference you can really make is that when people are led to believe they are presented with three things that are really different, and the task is to find those differences, they will do their task, even when the experimenter makes all three things equivalent. That's no big surprise to me. Given the conditions and the way things were set up, of course they "perceived" differences. You would, too.

Otherwise, it's an amusing little trick but not much else. I suspect that you'd like it to mean something that it doesn't.

If I were you, I'd hang my hat on the difficulty several of the Gamespot editors had with distinguishing Xbox and PS4. That's something you can draw a clear inference from (well, except for the sample size, and the fact that two of them got it right).

 

[TeKPhaN]

"um no" watch the video the last test for Asscreed was all 3 monitors ran PS4. "nice try though"

I didn't watch the last part

 

[jimmyD]

Why are you dodging the subject?

What subject? The people in the video play and review videogames and they had a tough time seeing any difference to noticing differences when there wasn't any. You can take from that either the games are close in fidelity or the human race is too stupid to notice such a huge disparity like you mentioned.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Looks like Val didn't watch the video.

Last part not a ass game fan.

 

[Andy]

I guess we'll have to disagree.

Just because someone says to do a test, nobody has to force themselves to say one thing is different for the sake of it.

At work, the marketing dept comes around every year and asks people what they think of the new smells and flavours are for new products. According to them, they all are different strengths and weaknesses in terms of chemical difference. Some are obviously "way too chemically", while some are mute. Some have chemical make-ups so same I can't tell the difference, so I'll just tell them that these 2 or 3 test samples seem the same to me. I don't think the mktg dept is faking the samples with placebos. But I guess some are so similar I can't tell.

So that's the answer I give them verbally and when I have to fill in those questionnaire sheets.

Okay, that's fine. I don't think I've ever been able to persuade you of anything before, so why start now.

I don't think the marketing example is the same, for several reasons (e.g., different context; you are being asked for your opinion and it's left open-ended, but these people were being asked to identify which is X and which is Y; "no difference" was not an option, in fact it was implictly a "failure" response).

 

[Kassen]

What subject? The people in the video play and review videogames and they had a tough time seeing any difference to noticing differences when there wasn't any. You can take from that either the games are close in fidelity or the human race is too stupid to notice such a huge disparity like you mentioned.

I never said there was a huge disparity. That's going off subject. Why not, in your own words, tell how would you validate the participants input into the experiment?

 

[jimmyD]

No, I've studied a fair amount on experimental design and inference, so give me a little credit and stop with the "lols."

Yes, they perceived a difference. Ask yourself why. Is it because people like to imagine differences where there are none (I suspect this is the conclusion you would prefer to draw). No, it's because the "experimenter" set up a situation in which the "subjects" 1) expected to see a difference, based on the previous trials and the experimenter's instructions, 2) believed there was a difference, based on the previous trials and the experimenter's instructions, and 3) knew that their task was to find the differences (not the similarities); success meant distinguishing among the three and assigning them the right labels. Nowhere in this setup is the notion that all three are really the same. In fact, the experimenter set it up so that the expectations and requirements of the situation practically demand that the subjects find differences, even if they have to manufacture them subconsciously or base them on random variations (which is what they did).

It's a neat trick, but it leaves you nothing to infer about the real world. In order for this to "speak volumes" about anything, you have to show how this situation is analogous to anything in the real world. "People see differences between X1 and PS4 when there aren't any," I can hear you say. But that's not what happened here -- people saw differences in three PS4s. The only inference you can really make is that when people are led to believe they are presented with three things that are really different, and the task is to find those differences, they will do their task, even when the experimenter makes all three things equivalent. That's no big surprise to me. Given the conditions and the way things were set up, of course they "perceived" differences. You would, too.

Otherwise, it's an amusing little trick but not much else. I suspect that you'd like it to mean something that it doesn't.

If I were you, I'd hang my hat on the difficulty several of the Gamespot editors had with distinguishing Xbox and PS4. That's something you can draw a clear inference from (well, except for the sample size, and the fact that two of them got it right).

OK, take the AC portion away. I never said there weren't definite differences and mentioned 1/2 the small sample size did nail the farcry portion. Maybe they would have hit the AC as well if it was done the same? So what? The other half couldn't distinguish the difference now explain away.

 

[Andy]

So you're saying the experimenter has slipped them hallucinogenics to make them see differences in the 3 identical PS4 versions?

No, I'm saying what I said above, that the situation was set up in a way that the subjects expected to find differences, were tasked with finding differences, and were implicitly rewarded for finding differences. And so, they "perceived" differences, which were imagined or subconsciously manufactured out of random variations. It's a common phenomenon. It goes under the labels of expectancy effect or demand effect.

 

[jimmyD]

No, you're being obtuse. I'm saying what I said above, that the situation was set up in a way that the subjects expected to find differences, were tasked with finding differences, and were implicitly rewarded for finding differences. And so, they "perceived" differences, which were imagined or subconsciously manufactured out of random variations. It's a common phenomenon. It goes under the labels of expectancy effect or demand effect.

I'm being obtuse, while you're not acknowledging half couldn't tell in any of the potions of the test.

 

[Frozpot]

No, a normal person isn't going to know at that point (after two legitimate trials) that the experimenter has changed the rules of the game and is now deceiving them.

To a degree, but the last two (the guys who got the other right) were saying that they SAW a clear difference in clarity and frame-rate. That means their brains were filling in to what they expected, not what they were actually seeing.

If there was intellectual honesty( so-to-speak) they would say the look the same because the DO, making the decision very difficult. They were, however, confident they had it right. because they could see a difference. THAT is what he is getting at.

 

[jimmyD]

...in your own words, tell how would you validate the participants input into the experiment?

I would ask which monitor they believe what machine was hooked up to.

 

[jimmyD]

No, I'm saying what I said above, that the situation was set up in a way that the subjects expected to find differences, were tasked with finding differences, and were implicitly rewarded for finding differences. And so, they "perceived" differences, which were imagined or subconsciously manufactured out of random variations. It's a common phenomenon. It goes under the labels of expectancy effect or demand effect.

What were they rewarded with?

 

[Andy]

I'm being obtuse, while you're not acknowledging half couldn't tell in any of the potions of the test.

Sorry, I edited out the "you're being obtuse" portion, when I saw you'd responded reasonably to my other post, but apparently I wasn't fast enough.

I did acknowledge that several of them couldn't tell the difference between PS4 vs. X1 differences.

"If I were you, I'd hang my hat on the difficulty several of the Gamespot editors had with distinguishing Xbox and PS4. That's something you can draw a clear inference from (well, except for the sample size, and the fact that two of them got it right)."

 

[Kassen]

I would ask which monitor they believe what machine was hooked up to.

Why would you ask the participant that? Since the participant is dumb, he or she will always give the wrong answer.

 

[Andy]

What were they rewarded with?

Not with anything tangible, like a cookie or money. But the task was such that success meant getting the right three answers in the right order. In that sense, they were "rewarded" psychologically for finding differences (the right differences, anyway). A feeling of rightness or perceptiveness, you might say. You can see it on the faces of the guys who got it right.