“Mordin’s psych profile warned of hyper behavior, but he is like a hamster on coffee. He’s going to be a very productive member of the team.”
Yeoman Kelly Chambers about the Salarian Scientist Mordin Solus in “Mass Effect 2″
Distracting me from the time until I had my thesis defense, I watched a walkthrough of “Mass Effect 2″. Due to the frequent cut scenes, it was like watching a very, very long movie. Stumbling over the Launch Trailer (see below) also got me thinking.
As an academician, I often work on solutions for problems that have rather small effects, and the topics are not that terribly important (lives do not depend on it, which is probably a good thing regarding the effect sizes 
). One thing where games have it very easy is setting goals that are clear cut and that really matter (in the world of the games): Defending the galaxy against a species that will wipe out all organic life is a crucial goal (in the world of the game). One that really matters. One where one could not say: “Well, we found a significant difference (p < .05) in the two conditions of information presentation, with a very small effect size (η² = 0.01).” It would be more like “Base conquered, enemy destroyed” or “Critical mission failure: Team killed. Humanity will be wiped out completely over then next few years.”.
So, yes, these scenarios (defending the galaxy against a clearly defined and terrible enemy) are artificial, but I wonder: How many of our problems are really worth solving? How much of our research really makes a difference? And how much of our time are we wasting on ivory tower discussion and solutions?
I don’t have an answer, but it got me thinking. And if you have an answer or a solution, I’d be glad to hear it.
Note: After writing this posting, I stumbled over a TEDTalk by Jane McGonigal that actually joins games and really important problems. While the speaker is not a scientists and I would be skeptical with some of her arguments, she makes some interesting points for further thought and discussion.