
...and by toys, he means video games.
As reported by
Cnet, Will Wright spoke last week at the Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference in Monterey. The famed designer expressed hope that his upcoming (and much anticipated)
Spore will inspire young people to consider how their actions can have lasting effects on humanity and the environment. Players whose virtual species generate too much carbon dioxide, for example, will destroy their planet with the effects of global warming. Said Wright:
By giving kids toys like this, I hope to give them some sense of what it might be like to (live on Earth) in 100 years. That's why I think toys can change the world.
Comments
"I probably should clarify my whole “Toys with political messages” bit. It’s not necessarily that toys shouldn’t be made with political messages, as some people do like them. Freedom and all that. I don’t, however, like them aimed at children with the goal of “changing the world”. Can we just teach them to think for themselves instead and let them make up their own minds? Or is that too dangerous?"
Like what they did with Happy Feet? It was all fun and games 'till the evil humans came.
More Scientific consensus than evolution... please.
remove religious interference and you will see both the scientific consensus and evidence is stronger for evolution than global warming (given that we have been researching it for many more years).
I like the idea of games like this but I would hope the makers take the time to fully research anything they add, by using it as an educational tool they have to avoid as much subjectivity as possible.
Seems like the majority of climate scientists supports the idea of man-made gobal warming:
---
Statistical analysis of consensus
Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase "climate change") from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80
As for the toys part, yes, I oppose toys that teach political messages. Global warming, like it or not, is a very political topic, not an absolute science.
You know this game is going to be revered by all just because it's one of the most complicated games and most interesting.
THe whole Global Warming thing is a political science, but I think that Wright is just trying to make a point of Cause and Effect, not neccessarily stating facts.
What do the majority (not just the most vocal) of scientists believe now?
For example, in the year 2000, the North Pole melted. Entirely. Something that hasn't happened in 50 million years.
Modern research suggests that now Antartica is melting faster than is expected and is being corroded from both above and below.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1678441&page=1
Worse still, not only are more scientists accepting it, but even the doubters are quite concerned at how quickly it is taking place.
It's like these people who walk around saying things like 'Those who support Global Warming are the same ones who went on about an imminent Ice Age in the 80's', they tend to forget 2 things. 1. It's all part of the same thing, and, 2. 'Soon' in Geological terms is somewhat longer than the 20 years that have passed so far,
"It more likely a combination of Man-made actions AND natural cycles."
Which of course makes it infinitely harder to explain to the common man... because when it gets complicated, they get all glazed over and ignore the rest of the explanation, followed by a "well why did they call it global warming then?"
Of course, Hecker would say those Toys are crap because they don't have photorealistic graphics and super-advanced AI.
Too much carbon dioxide causing global warming is "junk science"? So... 90% of the scientific community on the planet are "junk scientists"?
Putting something in a game that has more scientific consensus than the theory of relativity or evolution is not what I would call "junk"...
As for "toys being toys"... are you opposed to toys that teach in general, or just when they put something into your world view that is inconvenient to you? How do you feel about Speak-n-Spell?
When they talk about games as toys, they are referring to specific open ended games like SimCity, Sims etc. GTA and HALO are not toys in that aspect.
I like the idea of experimenting with the lives of a colony. I can't wait for it to be released. This topic goes quite well with the othe next one about the Canadian town's web game. If a game can make learning politics and social implications of your actions, then I say That's the best news I have heard so far.
Now as a game mechanic, I can understand it as a trade off for extreme environmental abuse of power (even though I found it very annoying), but as a teaching tool? I think we have enough junk science floating around in actual discourse affecting our real lives, I don't think we need extreme scenarios built in as a balancing factor of a game being presented as 'fact' to try to 'change the world.' Let toys be toys please.
As other posters have noted, this isn't new territory for Wright -- he's always been big on showing players the consequences of their choices, and this isn't exactly his first foray into exploring man's effect on the environment.
SimAnt was an awsome game. He should make a sequal to it.
And I can't wait for Spore. I have also learned a lot from his games like Sim City. We need more games like that.
Is he talking about Spore? I had no idea the civilization phase would be that complex.
*will starve his planet of resources then colonize the moon!*
But basically, I agree with everyone. I honestly can't think of any game he's made that can't be attributed as a large factor to learn about something extra. As an example, I follow construction and city planning developments more closely now thanks to simcity and the sims have made me take a look at how my own day to day life is structured and whether or not I could be more efficient (in short: I can).
Sim city was an amazing game. It gave me my first look at infrastructure. I was so proud the first time I payed back a savings bond........ then my power plant exploded because it wore out and I was going to fast so for 2 years my town had no power and everyone left. Im not going to lie, I hadn't saved, couldn't get it quite right again.... i cried.... a little bit. Then got back to building a huge map with arcos and everything.
Wright has been a visionary on this topic for a long, long time.
We all know that global warming was a myth created by socialist countries to justify destroying western economies through Kyoto... - Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper, Conservative
Nice idea though. Reminds me a bit of "SimEarth"... :)
Do video games teach? I'd say so. Not in the way he-who-shall-be-named thinks though. As previous posters have stated, they have learned from games. There are too many possibilities to list. Be it a deeper understanding of zoning, chaos theory, strategic thinking, etc; we can all learn from games and that includes video games. How many times in your life has someone taught you through a game?
As far as Global Warming is concerned, I understand that the Earth has moved closer to the Sun and that the Moon has moved further from us. Just tossing that out there.