Following on the heels of last week's Games for Health, I thought I'd look at other ideas out there.
Houston Radiation Oncologist Uses Video Game Technology To Zap Cancer
By: The Methodist Hospital on Jul 18 2005 09:28:47
Cancer Treatment
For years, Dr. Brian Butler, radiation oncologist at The Methodist Hospital in Houston, would be the first to tell you that video games are a waste of time.
Shouldn't kids be reading, keeping their grades up and taking part in activities that keep them fit?
Butler now argues we have a lot to learn from those who immerse themselves in a world of video game technology. It is this technology that is revolutionizing radiation therapy for cancer. When an Ivy League college was unable to do it, he turned to a group of Dallas-based video game programmers in their 20s to create a system for him that takes targeted cancer therapy to another level.
Cancer therapy is now a video game, and the make believe shoot 'em up is not make believe at all. The enemy is cancer. The growth patterns of cancer are the "supply lines." And, because the program enables doctors to pinpoint the location of the cancer with the precision of a sniper rifle, it spares surrounding healthy tissue and cells from damage.
"The diagnostic radiologist, radiation oncologist and the computer gamers all came together to make this happen," Butler said. "Each piece of the puzzle was essential. This would have never happened if these three disciplines hadn't communicated. Methodist now has the first system in the world to target radiation in this manner."
Marrying more than 20 years of anatomical data from Houston radiologist Dr. L. Anne Hayman and three-dimensional computer gaming software, the program helps Butler and his team precisely analyze a tumor's location in the body and where they can and cannot deposit radiation.
The computer program is a refinement of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). IMRT, used for the first time anywhere at The Methodist Hospital in March of 1994, forever changed how cancer patients around the world receive radiation. Instead of a single radiation beam that treats the entire area around the tumor, IMRT uses a more precise multi-beam method that better pinpoints cancer cells in the body.
"At first, everyone thought it was absurd, and now everyone is doing it," Butler said. "It really took off."
The evolution of radiation technology has primarily involved the refinement of the weapon used against cancer, from the "shotgun" to the "sniper rifle."
"The other aspect is knowing where the lymphatic systems are, and understanding where nerves run in the body," Butler said. "Also, as a field, radiation oncology has no specific training in CT anatomy. This helps us overcome that problem by having all the information about the human body already in the system."
The computer gamers created an "outside the box" way of not only mapping the entire human body using Hayman's anatomical data, but also a way to bring in an actual CT scan of a sick patient. Once that data merges, a precise radiation treatment that considers the tumor size, location, growth pattern and stage of the disease can be administered.
"Not to minimize a very serious sickness we are fighting, but cancer treatment is now a game," he said. "I have a sniper rifle with a site, target areas, and the gamers created maps because we know the behavior of the enemy; we know how cancer spreads in the body," he said.
The sophisticated computer program works in tandem with Tomotherapy, a machine that conducts a CT scan of the patient and delivers the radiation. Methodist became the second site in the state (and the first in the Texas Medical Center) to obtain the technology. The machine delivers the radiation using as many as 50 small beams, which intermittently shut on and off as they revolve around the patient, like a second hand on a clock. This results in the most effective, precise delivery of radiation presently available.
Don Marrs, a patient who visited Butler for prostate cancer treatment, is happy with his results. "It's no problem. You don't feel anything. The machine does all of the work, and all I do is lay there," he said. He reported no negative side effects following his treatment.
Butler's excitement stems not only from being on the leading edge of this innovative technology, but also from the new perspective he gained on video game players and programmers. "Gaming is helpful because it teaches strategy," he said "This is an evolution of thought... a different way to look at the world. Successful people in the future, in all arenas of life, will be those who know how to strategize... not necessarily only those with the 'book smarts."
"I seriously doubt this will be the last piece of technology that people who have trained themselves to think like this will develop in the field of medicine," he said. "We are at the beginning of a new revolution in the treatment of cancer, and most likely many other diseases as well."
HOUSTON - July. 11, 2005 - http://www.methodisthealth.com
Friday, September 30, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Kids and Games
Reprinted by permission of the originator of the material for the following articles, the text is his letter in response to the article author's questions.
The general article is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9042384/
The sidebar article linked from the above is:
Parenting and video games: One dad's tips - Games - MSNBC.com
Full text: by Matthew Ford
My background
I've made games professionally for 12 years, and as an amateur for as long as I can remember.
Skippable details follow: I started off programming shareware computer games, and sold card games I designed on the streets of New Orleans. Starting in 1994, I worked as an arcade game designer and producer at Atari Games. I moved to Accolade to design and produce multiplayer PC game titles. I worked at the Games division at Microsoft for five years, where I was Lead Program Manager for Asheron’s Call 1 and 2 (PC online role-playing games) overseeing their production, design, and community. I also helped scheme Microsoft’s multiplayer strategy and design for both the PC and Xbox. I led the action game design for the Xbox Live title Citizen Zero, and worked briefly on an MMP called Mythica. In 2004 I moved to Australia to work at Auran Games, led a MMP project still in progress, and now leads development of a new online social application.
I have been married for twelve years and have a 10-year-old son.
How I decide what my son should play
From his early childhood, I have made a series of decisions about what my son (now 10) could play. My reasons for keeping him away from a certain game are one of a few categories:
* 1. May confuse him about the desirability and rewards of performing evil instead of good actions.
* 2. May disturb him with images that would haunt him afterwards.
* 3. May normalize for him disrespect for particular classes of people.
* 4. Expresses ideas that I find utterly repellent and of which do not wish to support the propagation with the fruits of my money and effort.
Examples and applications
So under these criteria I let him play Diablo (a PC game in which you are a hero killing demons and undead and evil minions and such) at a young age, skipping the video sequences. Nothing in the game seemed able to disturb him as it was bloody but tiny figures and he did not seem bothered. It was classic heroic good smiting evil. And nobody respects the undead, predatory, and demonic. :)
At the same time I did not let him play Goldeneye (a James Bond game on the Nintendo 64). It had no gore, and less killing than Diablo. But I did not think he was ready for the concept of why it's sometimes okay to sneak up behind a security guard, in his own country, and shoot him in the back of the head, because he was working for an uncontrolled party in possession of a dangerous weapon.
I did not let him play Halo (the future-military shooter on the Xbox) till about age 7 because of reason #2 (it can be intense and scary) and a bit of reason #1-- though it is still a good guy-versus-bad guys moral situation, some of those little grunt guys are fun to kill because they are so hapless and weak, though still dangerous. And your fellow soldiers do delight in a good kill, as fired-up soldiers would. But when I felt he was ready and understood satire well enough to get why it's fun to kill the little hapless guys in the game, even though the real life equivalent may be cruel, I let him play it.
I let him play Dungeon Keeper (a PC game in which you are an evil dungeon master, trying to corrupt a series of villages and repel heroes) eventually, at about 8, because I could tell his grasp of satire and irony was well enough developed, and the "evil" things you did were so obviously over the top, that it would be a good way to introduce him to a game where "evil is good". As a result we had several very good conversations about what defines evil, why doing evil things can be attractive, and why it can be fun to act out in a game, even though to do that in real life would be wrong.
Nowadays, I'd let him play Goldeneye (and Splinter Cell, and Rainbow Six, etc) because he's mature enough, at 10, to understand war and abstract threats.
The biggest step was recently letting him play Fable (a role-playing game on Xbox, where you can choose an either good or evil response to many situations), first as good then as evil, because I thought it was such a good illustration of what defines good and evil acts, and why it's tempting to do each.
As for language, I don't really care about naughty words. My wife and I and our friends sling them around and he knows that it's not good for him to use those words among the kind of company that would be disturbed by them. I do care about what the language teaches-- any game where the admirable hero makes fun of "fags" or the like is not going to be played in my house. I won't even get started on my struggles with how Eminem can fit into our lives.
How I do it now
All this time, at each stage, we had marvelous conversations about what each game made him feel and think about, how the game behavior relates to real life, why he was ready to play that game now but was not ready before, and so on. Through Fable I had very deep conversations about the nature of good and evil that taught me as much as him. I'm certain that I'd not have had these opportunities to hold his attention on these matters and get him really thinking without these games to provide the glue, so for that alone I think games are useful and good when used in this way. Stories, movies, and plays have a similar use in our society and I use them too. Harry Potter for example is another good way to illustrate the nature of right and wrong.
Because it takes such pleasure in immoral behavior and espouses a strong cynicism about society, I still won't let him play GTA, though his friends are starting to. He says he does not want to but I think he is curious. I think it is an excellent game and I look forward to when he's ready for it because I think it gives an amazing insight into the criminal mind, and taps into why being lawless is so attractive and seductive. And it's a lot of fun. I sense he's developing well enough to handle it soon. But he's not quite ready yet and he understands that. There are heaps of other games to play in the meantime.
If he wants to play or watch a game (or a movie) the rule is that if it is rated E or T, he does not have to ask me first. If it is M he does need to get my permission first. If he is at a friend's he needs to call me; he knows my mobile. If he can't reach me, he should not play or watch. Up until a few months ago he had to ask me about T games too.
So let's say he wants to play an M game. I ask him about it. I decide to let him do it not based on the rating but on what I understand of the game. Hopefully I know something about it already, but I can jump onto Google to learn more. I also ask him about what you do in the game, and what he thinks is the "worst" stuff in it. I do some research on it or recall what I know, and I tell him to go ahead or not. So the rating is a useful shorthand which allows him to play certain classes of games without needing to ask my first, but an older rating is not always forbidden.
On the flip side, I may learn after he comes home and we talk about what he played, that he played a Teen game that I find objectionable. I may tell him I don't want him playing it any more. That has not happened yet.
Looking to my son's future
Soon he will be at the age where rebellion kicks in and telling him not to do something is tantamount to compelling him to try it. That is why I am ramping him up and preparing him as quickly as I can do it safely, because my time as the benevolent beloved guide is closing and my time as an insufferable tyrant is at hand. :) Then I'll start letting him consume anything he wants, with some very wide limits (see below), and just track it and talk to him about the choices he is making and what he thinks of them. Game choices and behavior in games will become a kind of window into his mind which I think I will value highly.
Even when my son is 15 and furiously independent, I'd not let him play certain horrid, repellent games in my house using my electricity. If he wants to play Nazi propaganda or gay-bashing games, well for one thing I'll feel like a failure, but further I won't condone or support it. It's not playing in my house. I won't be able to lock him up, but I can make it very clear that if he's going down that path, he's doing it alone, and I'm waiting for him when he decides to come back. Okay, I don't want to think about that scenario any more...
Overall
I think any parent should decide what to let their kids play until they are an age the parent thinks the kid is ready to start deciding everything themselves. And parents should always be curious about what their kids are doing no matter what the age.
I don't tolerate games as a dubious but mostly harmless and, anyway, unavoidable part of the cultural landscape. I actually welcome them in my son's life as a fun activity, a workout for the mind, a spur to meaningful conversation, a cathartic experience, and a window into his thoughts and feelings. I wouldn't wish for a world without these vexing forms of entertainment.
This is just an illustration of my thought process which may be of some interest to some of you. It's personal, and not perfect, but hopefully, like this article, it's a bit of an insight into one parent's decision process.
"Screen time" limits
My son uses a digital kitchen timer to track his "screen time". Every day that he has school, he adds one hour to the timer. If there is no school that day, he adds two hours. Sometimes for doing good stuff I give him some bonus time. He can save up time for as long as he likes, though he usually runs the timer down to zero every day.
While his eyeballs are looking at a screen, whether it is a movie, TV, video game, or computer game, the timer has to be running. If it runs out, he should stop. If he's in the middle of a level or an online group or something, he can add tomorrow's time, run it again, and play for a few extra minutes to get to a stopping place. If I see he's playing without the timer running, I have to be the big meanie and deduct time based on a very pessimistic estimate, so he loses more time than he would have if he'd used the timer.
He does not have to run the timer in certain situations. If he is watching or playing something with me or his mom, that usually counts as fun family time, and we don't run the timer. If he is using the computer in a way that I think is basically educational or social, such as IMing with friends, reading comics, practicing making Flash cartoons, or designing his own computer game level, he asks me, and I usually tell him he can do it off the timer, because I feel he is learning a lot. Still, he can't stare at the screen all day even if he is learning how to program; I'll tell him he has to get outside. And I admit it, there have been times when I want to hop into bed with mom, and we tell him, go play games off the timer. :)
Eventually, maybe when he turns 13, we won't have the timer and I will expect him to make his own judgment to spend the right amount of time on the screen. If he shows himself unable to judge that balance, the timer will come back for a while until he is ready to try that responsibility again.
Friends
If a friend comes over, before he plays a T or M game, I ask the kid if it's okay with his parents that he plays it. I have to take the kid's word for it, but to probe a bit I ask what other games he plays at home. A few times I've learned that the kid is not allowed to play "gun games" at home, so I don't allow those games to be played while the friend is over.
When friends are over, he still needs to spend his "screen time" when he plays video games. I'm happy when they run out of screen time, because then they run around outside and do all that other great kid stuff.
What I recommend for parents
Let your child play games. There has been no proven harm. When you are tempted to ban games "just in case", try to remember when you were a kid and your parents were faced with rock-and-roll, or jazz, or comic books, or Western shootouts, or the like. Play is essential to the development of the mind, and games can make a positive contribution to your child's life.
Be skeptical about what you hear about the harmful or beneficial effects of game playing. Read the methodologies of the actual scientific studies before you believe them. Question the source and consider their motives. Respect the scientific method to discover the real effects, both positive and negative; don't just go on gut instinct or what everyone else is saying.
Set rules on what your kids should and should not play or watch. Assert yourself; it's your responsibility and kids do secretly want firm limits even if they complain. If you feel clueless, use the ESRB ratings and strictly adhere to the age limits in them. If you are able to understand game content and are willing to do a bit of research, use the E rating as a blanket-okay, and judge each T or M game on its own.
Watch your kids play games, and talk about them. You'll learn a lot about your kid by seeing how he or she plays games. You'll find great ways to talk about life, history, morals, and story in ways that your kids can relate to strongly. And your kid will admire you for being cool enough to get games.
Use the timer method as I describe it above, or something like it. Again, be firm and resolute. Games are not harmful, but sitting on the ass all day is harmful. So assert a balance, for their own good.
Do it all now. Get these habits ingrained in your kids before they are teenagers. Once they hit that magical age, it's too late; whether you like it or not their course is set and they will draw on the habits they have formed. If you don't let your kid start to play Teen games as soon as they are a teen, it will become forbidden fruit, they will probably do it anyway somehow, and you'll have lost a chance to influence their approach to games, their personal limits, and their bridge of communication with you.
What I do as a game developer
I stay conscious of the message my game sends. I like to make games which explore themes of good and evil, and help people appreciate both the power and fragility of good deeds. I would make a game with an antihero who engages in evil behavior as a way of illustrating the nature of evil, and provoking thought about same. I would not make a game which I feel would make a racist feel good about being a racist, a murderer feel good about being a murderer, or the like.
I urge developers to treat games as an art form, and to challenge themselves to add artistic merit to what they make, not to focus 100% on mere entertainment value.
I still seek to entertain. Even if I make a game with little to say and full of sex and violence, I am proud to do it because 1) games do not cause bad behavior; 2) games drive technology into the home, where it does much good for society overall; and 3) life is short and fun is good.
I speak out against developers and projects which I think are acting irresponsibly. For example I have been vocal in my condemnation of Rockstar's part of the [Sex] fiasco (see below). I have protested sexist and racist viewpoints in games which I think worsen instead of improve the social landscape.
I always have and will continue to fully support ESRB ratings, giving them all the information they need to make an accurate rating.
I vote for and otherwise support candidates who want to solve the world's problems by applying rationality, science, and fair reasoning. I seek to defeat those who seek to manipulate the public through irrational, unfair arguments.
A few other drips and drabs of questionable interest to you but which I feel compelled to mention
* Games are an art form just as defensible as literature, and just as subject to the First Amendment. Just as most early literature was full of sensational material and had little artistic merit (think pirate stories and romance), it evolved, and there were always gems among the coals. Games do often have messages. They often teach lessons. They can make you think about the world in a new way. And this is nothing compared to what will happen. Keep in mind that Shakespeare made and showed his plays while society regarded plays as immoral, decadent, and a source of social decay. His contemporaries made a lot of salacious trash. But a rose grew among the weeds.
* More and more retailers are enforcing ratings at the point of sale. If you care about it, support those companies and tell them why.
* The ESRB rating system has been praised by experts as the best rating system of any medium. And it is improving.
* Many game developers, myself included, fully support the ESRB's punishment of Rockstar for publishing GTA with the [sex] content and code on the disc. That was a violation of the ESRB standards and they deserve to be spanked, hard.
* The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 9.5 years.
* The average game buyer is 37 years old. In 2005, 95 percent of computer game buyers and 84 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
* Eighty-three percent of all games sold in 2004 were rated "E" for Everyone or "T" for Teen.
* The game industry grosses over $10billion in the USA, with worldwide estimates in the $25billion range. Further, well over a hundred thousand people are employed worldwide, on the development side as well as the business end of games.
* In the USA, violent crime rates among youth have been declining steadily over the past decade. Conversely, the increase in media attention of any one crime leads to the public perception that such violent crimes are pervasive – when in fact they are not. Further, in other countries with high levels of game consumption (e.g., Japan, Canada), youth crime is almost non-existent.
* Pointing to games and other forms of art and entertainment as scapegoats will not solve anything, but rather serve as an ongoing distraction from addressing real, hard-to-deal-with societal issues.
Thomas, I hope this was useful to you, as long as it is, and gives you a wide selection of material to use. I so appreciate being given the chance to say my bit. I deeply thank you for seeking to shed light another side of this important debate. Let me know if there is any way I can possibly help, anytime in the future.
Sincerely,
Matthew Ford
Reprinted by permission of the originator of the material for the following articles, the text is his letter in response to the article author's questions.
The general article is: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9042384/
The sidebar article linked from the above is:
Parenting and video games: One dad's tips - Games - MSNBC.com
Full text: by Matthew Ford
My background
I've made games professionally for 12 years, and as an amateur for as long as I can remember.
Skippable details follow: I started off programming shareware computer games, and sold card games I designed on the streets of New Orleans. Starting in 1994, I worked as an arcade game designer and producer at Atari Games. I moved to Accolade to design and produce multiplayer PC game titles. I worked at the Games division at Microsoft for five years, where I was Lead Program Manager for Asheron’s Call 1 and 2 (PC online role-playing games) overseeing their production, design, and community. I also helped scheme Microsoft’s multiplayer strategy and design for both the PC and Xbox. I led the action game design for the Xbox Live title Citizen Zero, and worked briefly on an MMP called Mythica. In 2004 I moved to Australia to work at Auran Games, led a MMP project still in progress, and now leads development of a new online social application.
I have been married for twelve years and have a 10-year-old son.
How I decide what my son should play
From his early childhood, I have made a series of decisions about what my son (now 10) could play. My reasons for keeping him away from a certain game are one of a few categories:
* 1. May confuse him about the desirability and rewards of performing evil instead of good actions.
* 2. May disturb him with images that would haunt him afterwards.
* 3. May normalize for him disrespect for particular classes of people.
* 4. Expresses ideas that I find utterly repellent and of which do not wish to support the propagation with the fruits of my money and effort.
Examples and applications
So under these criteria I let him play Diablo (a PC game in which you are a hero killing demons and undead and evil minions and such) at a young age, skipping the video sequences. Nothing in the game seemed able to disturb him as it was bloody but tiny figures and he did not seem bothered. It was classic heroic good smiting evil. And nobody respects the undead, predatory, and demonic. :)
At the same time I did not let him play Goldeneye (a James Bond game on the Nintendo 64). It had no gore, and less killing than Diablo. But I did not think he was ready for the concept of why it's sometimes okay to sneak up behind a security guard, in his own country, and shoot him in the back of the head, because he was working for an uncontrolled party in possession of a dangerous weapon.
I did not let him play Halo (the future-military shooter on the Xbox) till about age 7 because of reason #2 (it can be intense and scary) and a bit of reason #1-- though it is still a good guy-versus-bad guys moral situation, some of those little grunt guys are fun to kill because they are so hapless and weak, though still dangerous. And your fellow soldiers do delight in a good kill, as fired-up soldiers would. But when I felt he was ready and understood satire well enough to get why it's fun to kill the little hapless guys in the game, even though the real life equivalent may be cruel, I let him play it.
I let him play Dungeon Keeper (a PC game in which you are an evil dungeon master, trying to corrupt a series of villages and repel heroes) eventually, at about 8, because I could tell his grasp of satire and irony was well enough developed, and the "evil" things you did were so obviously over the top, that it would be a good way to introduce him to a game where "evil is good". As a result we had several very good conversations about what defines evil, why doing evil things can be attractive, and why it can be fun to act out in a game, even though to do that in real life would be wrong.
Nowadays, I'd let him play Goldeneye (and Splinter Cell, and Rainbow Six, etc) because he's mature enough, at 10, to understand war and abstract threats.
The biggest step was recently letting him play Fable (a role-playing game on Xbox, where you can choose an either good or evil response to many situations), first as good then as evil, because I thought it was such a good illustration of what defines good and evil acts, and why it's tempting to do each.
As for language, I don't really care about naughty words. My wife and I and our friends sling them around and he knows that it's not good for him to use those words among the kind of company that would be disturbed by them. I do care about what the language teaches-- any game where the admirable hero makes fun of "fags" or the like is not going to be played in my house. I won't even get started on my struggles with how Eminem can fit into our lives.
How I do it now
All this time, at each stage, we had marvelous conversations about what each game made him feel and think about, how the game behavior relates to real life, why he was ready to play that game now but was not ready before, and so on. Through Fable I had very deep conversations about the nature of good and evil that taught me as much as him. I'm certain that I'd not have had these opportunities to hold his attention on these matters and get him really thinking without these games to provide the glue, so for that alone I think games are useful and good when used in this way. Stories, movies, and plays have a similar use in our society and I use them too. Harry Potter for example is another good way to illustrate the nature of right and wrong.
Because it takes such pleasure in immoral behavior and espouses a strong cynicism about society, I still won't let him play GTA, though his friends are starting to. He says he does not want to but I think he is curious. I think it is an excellent game and I look forward to when he's ready for it because I think it gives an amazing insight into the criminal mind, and taps into why being lawless is so attractive and seductive. And it's a lot of fun. I sense he's developing well enough to handle it soon. But he's not quite ready yet and he understands that. There are heaps of other games to play in the meantime.
If he wants to play or watch a game (or a movie) the rule is that if it is rated E or T, he does not have to ask me first. If it is M he does need to get my permission first. If he is at a friend's he needs to call me; he knows my mobile. If he can't reach me, he should not play or watch. Up until a few months ago he had to ask me about T games too.
So let's say he wants to play an M game. I ask him about it. I decide to let him do it not based on the rating but on what I understand of the game. Hopefully I know something about it already, but I can jump onto Google to learn more. I also ask him about what you do in the game, and what he thinks is the "worst" stuff in it. I do some research on it or recall what I know, and I tell him to go ahead or not. So the rating is a useful shorthand which allows him to play certain classes of games without needing to ask my first, but an older rating is not always forbidden.
On the flip side, I may learn after he comes home and we talk about what he played, that he played a Teen game that I find objectionable. I may tell him I don't want him playing it any more. That has not happened yet.
Looking to my son's future
Soon he will be at the age where rebellion kicks in and telling him not to do something is tantamount to compelling him to try it. That is why I am ramping him up and preparing him as quickly as I can do it safely, because my time as the benevolent beloved guide is closing and my time as an insufferable tyrant is at hand. :) Then I'll start letting him consume anything he wants, with some very wide limits (see below), and just track it and talk to him about the choices he is making and what he thinks of them. Game choices and behavior in games will become a kind of window into his mind which I think I will value highly.
Even when my son is 15 and furiously independent, I'd not let him play certain horrid, repellent games in my house using my electricity. If he wants to play Nazi propaganda or gay-bashing games, well for one thing I'll feel like a failure, but further I won't condone or support it. It's not playing in my house. I won't be able to lock him up, but I can make it very clear that if he's going down that path, he's doing it alone, and I'm waiting for him when he decides to come back. Okay, I don't want to think about that scenario any more...
Overall
I think any parent should decide what to let their kids play until they are an age the parent thinks the kid is ready to start deciding everything themselves. And parents should always be curious about what their kids are doing no matter what the age.
I don't tolerate games as a dubious but mostly harmless and, anyway, unavoidable part of the cultural landscape. I actually welcome them in my son's life as a fun activity, a workout for the mind, a spur to meaningful conversation, a cathartic experience, and a window into his thoughts and feelings. I wouldn't wish for a world without these vexing forms of entertainment.
This is just an illustration of my thought process which may be of some interest to some of you. It's personal, and not perfect, but hopefully, like this article, it's a bit of an insight into one parent's decision process.
"Screen time" limits
My son uses a digital kitchen timer to track his "screen time". Every day that he has school, he adds one hour to the timer. If there is no school that day, he adds two hours. Sometimes for doing good stuff I give him some bonus time. He can save up time for as long as he likes, though he usually runs the timer down to zero every day.
While his eyeballs are looking at a screen, whether it is a movie, TV, video game, or computer game, the timer has to be running. If it runs out, he should stop. If he's in the middle of a level or an online group or something, he can add tomorrow's time, run it again, and play for a few extra minutes to get to a stopping place. If I see he's playing without the timer running, I have to be the big meanie and deduct time based on a very pessimistic estimate, so he loses more time than he would have if he'd used the timer.
He does not have to run the timer in certain situations. If he is watching or playing something with me or his mom, that usually counts as fun family time, and we don't run the timer. If he is using the computer in a way that I think is basically educational or social, such as IMing with friends, reading comics, practicing making Flash cartoons, or designing his own computer game level, he asks me, and I usually tell him he can do it off the timer, because I feel he is learning a lot. Still, he can't stare at the screen all day even if he is learning how to program; I'll tell him he has to get outside. And I admit it, there have been times when I want to hop into bed with mom, and we tell him, go play games off the timer. :)
Eventually, maybe when he turns 13, we won't have the timer and I will expect him to make his own judgment to spend the right amount of time on the screen. If he shows himself unable to judge that balance, the timer will come back for a while until he is ready to try that responsibility again.
Friends
If a friend comes over, before he plays a T or M game, I ask the kid if it's okay with his parents that he plays it. I have to take the kid's word for it, but to probe a bit I ask what other games he plays at home. A few times I've learned that the kid is not allowed to play "gun games" at home, so I don't allow those games to be played while the friend is over.
When friends are over, he still needs to spend his "screen time" when he plays video games. I'm happy when they run out of screen time, because then they run around outside and do all that other great kid stuff.
What I recommend for parents
Let your child play games. There has been no proven harm. When you are tempted to ban games "just in case", try to remember when you were a kid and your parents were faced with rock-and-roll, or jazz, or comic books, or Western shootouts, or the like. Play is essential to the development of the mind, and games can make a positive contribution to your child's life.
Be skeptical about what you hear about the harmful or beneficial effects of game playing. Read the methodologies of the actual scientific studies before you believe them. Question the source and consider their motives. Respect the scientific method to discover the real effects, both positive and negative; don't just go on gut instinct or what everyone else is saying.
Set rules on what your kids should and should not play or watch. Assert yourself; it's your responsibility and kids do secretly want firm limits even if they complain. If you feel clueless, use the ESRB ratings and strictly adhere to the age limits in them. If you are able to understand game content and are willing to do a bit of research, use the E rating as a blanket-okay, and judge each T or M game on its own.
Watch your kids play games, and talk about them. You'll learn a lot about your kid by seeing how he or she plays games. You'll find great ways to talk about life, history, morals, and story in ways that your kids can relate to strongly. And your kid will admire you for being cool enough to get games.
Use the timer method as I describe it above, or something like it. Again, be firm and resolute. Games are not harmful, but sitting on the ass all day is harmful. So assert a balance, for their own good.
Do it all now. Get these habits ingrained in your kids before they are teenagers. Once they hit that magical age, it's too late; whether you like it or not their course is set and they will draw on the habits they have formed. If you don't let your kid start to play Teen games as soon as they are a teen, it will become forbidden fruit, they will probably do it anyway somehow, and you'll have lost a chance to influence their approach to games, their personal limits, and their bridge of communication with you.
What I do as a game developer
I stay conscious of the message my game sends. I like to make games which explore themes of good and evil, and help people appreciate both the power and fragility of good deeds. I would make a game with an antihero who engages in evil behavior as a way of illustrating the nature of evil, and provoking thought about same. I would not make a game which I feel would make a racist feel good about being a racist, a murderer feel good about being a murderer, or the like.
I urge developers to treat games as an art form, and to challenge themselves to add artistic merit to what they make, not to focus 100% on mere entertainment value.
I still seek to entertain. Even if I make a game with little to say and full of sex and violence, I am proud to do it because 1) games do not cause bad behavior; 2) games drive technology into the home, where it does much good for society overall; and 3) life is short and fun is good.
I speak out against developers and projects which I think are acting irresponsibly. For example I have been vocal in my condemnation of Rockstar's part of the [Sex] fiasco (see below). I have protested sexist and racist viewpoints in games which I think worsen instead of improve the social landscape.
I always have and will continue to fully support ESRB ratings, giving them all the information they need to make an accurate rating.
I vote for and otherwise support candidates who want to solve the world's problems by applying rationality, science, and fair reasoning. I seek to defeat those who seek to manipulate the public through irrational, unfair arguments.
A few other drips and drabs of questionable interest to you but which I feel compelled to mention
* Games are an art form just as defensible as literature, and just as subject to the First Amendment. Just as most early literature was full of sensational material and had little artistic merit (think pirate stories and romance), it evolved, and there were always gems among the coals. Games do often have messages. They often teach lessons. They can make you think about the world in a new way. And this is nothing compared to what will happen. Keep in mind that Shakespeare made and showed his plays while society regarded plays as immoral, decadent, and a source of social decay. His contemporaries made a lot of salacious trash. But a rose grew among the weeds.
* More and more retailers are enforcing ratings at the point of sale. If you care about it, support those companies and tell them why.
* The ESRB rating system has been praised by experts as the best rating system of any medium. And it is improving.
* Many game developers, myself included, fully support the ESRB's punishment of Rockstar for publishing GTA with the [sex] content and code on the disc. That was a violation of the ESRB standards and they deserve to be spanked, hard.
* The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 9.5 years.
* The average game buyer is 37 years old. In 2005, 95 percent of computer game buyers and 84 percent of console game buyers were over the age of 18.
* Eighty-three percent of all games sold in 2004 were rated "E" for Everyone or "T" for Teen.
* The game industry grosses over $10billion in the USA, with worldwide estimates in the $25billion range. Further, well over a hundred thousand people are employed worldwide, on the development side as well as the business end of games.
* In the USA, violent crime rates among youth have been declining steadily over the past decade. Conversely, the increase in media attention of any one crime leads to the public perception that such violent crimes are pervasive – when in fact they are not. Further, in other countries with high levels of game consumption (e.g., Japan, Canada), youth crime is almost non-existent.
* Pointing to games and other forms of art and entertainment as scapegoats will not solve anything, but rather serve as an ongoing distraction from addressing real, hard-to-deal-with societal issues.
Thomas, I hope this was useful to you, as long as it is, and gives you a wide selection of material to use. I so appreciate being given the chance to say my bit. I deeply thank you for seeking to shed light another side of this important debate. Let me know if there is any way I can possibly help, anytime in the future.
Sincerely,
Matthew Ford
Monday, September 12, 2005
Well done, John Naughton.
The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk">The Observer | Business | John Naughton: Why the iPhone won't rock your world: "The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk
The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk">The Observer | Business | John Naughton: Why the iPhone won't rock your world: "The Networker
Why the iPhone won't rock your world
John Naughton
Sunday September 11, 2005
The Observer
The iPhone has arrived. Yawn. It was one of the worst-kept secrets of the technology world - that Apple had teamed up with Motorola to produce a mobile phone with an iPod inside. For months, Photoshopped fantasies of what the new device would look like circulated on the internet, no doubt elevating the blood pressure of Apple's CEO Steve Jobs, who is famously paranoid about the advance leaking of product details. But last week in San Francisco, Mr Jobs came clean, unveiling the Rokr (as in 'rocker', apparently).
In keeping with Motorola's recent design renaissance (see the ultra-slim Razr phone that is currently a prime cause of drooling among UK teenagers), the new device is nicely designed in two-toned silver with slightly rounded keys. Inside is a tiny 512 MB flash memory card configured to act like an iPod Shuffle. But it can hold only 100 songs at most.
Those who have used the Rokr say it's quite a good phone (with a camera, Bluetooth, speaker, voice dialling and reasonable battery life) but nothing special. And the (Motorola-designed) software is as uninspiring as that of the Razr. (Why is it that Nokia is apparently still the only company capable of designing an intuitive user interface for telephony?)
The music-player module works like an iPod - though it lacks the clickwheel that makes its big brothers function so slickly. But overall, the impression is distinctly underwhelming. The word on the streets is that far from being the revolutionary device that will bring about media 'convergence', the Rokr is, well, just the sum of its parts.
And that, it seems to me, is the most interesting thing about it.
Let me explain. The reason people were so intrigued about the idea of an iPhone is that it had the potential to make three hitherto-parallel universes converge. First, there was Apple's iTunes - the first, and still the dominant, legal online music business (which has sold half a billion songs since it opened). Then there was the mobile phone - the one modern device that has become ubiquitous in our lives. And finally, there was the iPod, the iconic gizmo that has become the Walkman de nos jours
Put these three together in a single device and - so the theory went - you had a truly revolutionary technology.
But it hasn't happened. Take, for example, the business of getting purchased tracks on to the Rokr music module. The obvious way would be to buy from iTunes and download via the phone network. But that's not the way it works: instead, you have to connect the phone to your computer (using a slow USB connection) and get songs from your iTunes music library - just as you do with a conventional iPod.
Here's another example. There's no technological reason why the music module in the iPhone couldn't hold 500 or 1,000 songs rather than the current measly 100; but if it did, then sales of existing iPod models might be undermined.
Similarly, there's no obvious reason why tunes stored on the music module couldn't be used as ringtones for the phone module. But that would undermine the mobile operators' lucrative trade in ringtones. (And, boy, is it lucrative: you can buy a Coldplay track from iTunes for 99 cents; but the same track bought at ringtone rates would cost $25.)
And as for the idea of downloading tracks directly to the phone via the mobile network - well, don't even think about it. Apple makes money from selling iPods, network-ready personal computers and online music. Using the phone network would bypass the first two of those cash cows.
I could go on, but you will get the drift. The real significance of the iPhone is the way it illustrates why companies find it hard to innovate. The difficulty stems from a simple, unpalatable fact - namely that radical innovation generally threatens your existing business model. Or, in MBA-speak, it cannibalises your core business.
The iPhone is considerably less than the sum of its parts for one reason: it was designed by a company that has become a prisoner of its previous success at innovation.
Apple's lucrative discovery and exploitation of online music transformed its image and its corporate prospects. But the assets it acquired in the process are now so valuable it would be corporate madness to do anything that might undermine them. And yet that is precisely what radical innovation would achieve. So Apple cannot do it.
It's a sad, but true, fact of technological life.
john.naughton@observer.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)