

Toys - bootload
http://jsomers.net/blog/toys

======
trackofalljades
First question, why dig up someone's blog post from last summer?

Second question, what gives with defining "toys" to so consistently mean
"branded icons from franchised fiction?"

This is precisely what I kind of hate about yuppie culture. You can't have a
model railroad, you have to have Thomas The Tank Engine. You can't play with
your mom's broomstick and be a wizard, you need a Nimbus 2000 (no, wait, make
that a 3000). It goes on and on, and even toys that used to have malleable
generic purposes by design, like LEGO, need to be branded and defined and
limited and explained and attached to some existing, trademarked, copyrighted,
closed universe of predefined meaning.

There's nothing wrong with having a bit of this, sure. I have nothing against
a couple Transformers or GIJOEs or Barbies or whatever. But if anything those
kinds of toys should be "a sometimes food" for the imagination, and certainly
not an all consuming obsession.

What kids need most of the time are real toys, the opposite of these sorts of
things. Some blank pages to color on, some simple building blocks, a train
that doesn't necessarily "go" anywhere...a racetrack whose races haven't
already been run.

If there's a nostalgia to be had for something "lost" in youth, that's where
it lies for me...not about anything I've lost, but rather what today's kids
are having stolen from them before they even have a chance to miss it.

~~~
bootload
_"... First question, why dig up someone's blog post from last summer? ..."_

reasonable question from someone who has only been here 154 days. Because it
fits the _"Anything that good hackers would find interesting"_.

 _"... Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is
inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag
it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will
see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't
also comment that you did. ..."_

If you think any submission is sub-standard, flag it (ie: click the bit
toggled "flag" url) More guidelines can be found here ~
<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

------
ericabiz
Teddy Ruxpin. That was mine.

My parents got it for me (an expensive gift!) When I found out it didn't
_actually_ talk, but instead had a cassette tape with "conversations" pre-
loaded onto its back, I never picked it up again.

Though I was really young, I still remember the disappointment and anger it
caused me. "But the commercials...they said it _talked_!"

I do think we could use some of our tech genius to make better toys that
delight and transform kids. What sort of programming would a _real_ sorting
hat require? And wouldn't that be way more fun than Yet Another Social
Network? Food for thought.

~~~
crgt
Hm. Maybe YC should fund someone to do this? ;)

~~~
GuiA
No need to wait for YC, there are many, many entities operating in the "tech
toy" scene. To name a few...

LaunchPad toys (<http://launchpadtoys.com/>) are doing some amazing things
with the iPad.

Chris O'Shea (<http://www.chrisoshea.org/>) is a British designer in that
space who did a fun little app recently called MakeGo which got great
reception.

Cynthia Breazal's group at the MIT Media Lab did some mind blowing things with
Tofulandia
([http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/robots/tofulandia/tofu...](http://robotic.media.mit.edu/projects/robots/tofulandia/tofulandia.html)).

Keita Takahashi (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keita_Takahashi>), who comes
from a video game background, did some interesting work on playgrounds (how to
make a 21st century playground?)

Yes, this is something I'm quite passionate about :)

~~~
pg
We funded Launchpad Toys.

------
MengYuanLong
I read this post this morning and had the day to put it through "the hopper".
Having done so, I think the key take away about "toy" value is the critical
necessity of a difficulty curve (though versatility certainly helps).

When my parents moved, there are three types of toys I saved from the donation
bin. The first were, of course, Legos. Legos (unlike the author's examples)
don't reduce immersion, rather they expand the "set and props" available.
Better yet, you can always modify building plans to create unique creations or
even build entirely new creations unrelated to the original intent of sets.

The second set of toys I still have are a cabinet of magic props. The illusion
of being able to perform impossible feats certainly agrees with the authors
assertion that toys are a form of escape for individuals who due to their age
are relatively helpless to control their plight. Further, a very real
difficulty curve exists in magic beginning with the ability to convincingly
perform a trick and fool an audience. Farther along the difficulty curve would
be applying techniques in unexpected ways and designing your own illusions.

The final toy that I still adore is my Rubik's Cube. Like Lego's it is a
branded product-- gasp..shock-- but it possesses an outer simplicity that
quickly transforms into an unending pursuit of faster times. Anyone can solve
a Rubik's cube with a few simple algorithms. But, to solve one in under twenty
five seconds starts to demand a significant amount of memorization, focus, and
spacial awareness. Thus, you can solve the cube in a day but never truly
finish solving it if you continue to seek faster times (by the way, current
world record is 5.66 seconds I believe).

Programming of course falls into this category as well. On the intro end of
the spectrum you can adjust others programs and build simple choose your own
path games. But, if you choose, there is always something more to learn, and
apply to the game.

P.S. Fun boardgames work in the same manner. The more you play, the better you
get and the more complex the strategies. Catan being a prime example.

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't know that I'd call Catan an example of complex strategies. It's far
more complicated than chutes and ladders, but there is still a big chance
element, and most of the technique is dynamic and social. (concealing your
goals, misdirection, negotiation)

Chess is the classic example, in my opinion.

------
duggan
That was a lovely read, thank you.

I think a lot of the comments are going to focus on how to make " _more_ toys,
_better_ toys", and maybe that's inevitable given the audience, but I think
that misses the point a little.

All children need is a prop and imagination; the more vague the prop the more
things it can be. Realistic toys are, frankly, an adult obsession, because
they will always fall flat in the face of what a child's mind can conjure up.

------
underwater
When, as a teen, I discovered programming I was immediately hooked. It was the
only "toy" that managed to match my immagination.

------
praptak
At the risk of sounding cliche: to me making software is like a toy that
delivers what the author described. Sure, I sometimes get disappointed (hours
spent hunting a dumb bug) but in the end it is as close to magic as the real
world allows. And it has real effects on the real world. I hope this never
wears off.

------
ciex
Just as modern toys prescribe a specific form of interaction, a specific game
to be played science prescribes a specific causal relationship between the
parts of the world. If toys or scientific theories describe a fixed link
between 'what is' and 'what can happen' the opposite process fails. Kids are
not able anymore to just invent a new meaning for the toy, a new way to play
it just as we are not able to form spiritual belief-systems. And that's
frustrating. That's why people say 'old toys were better, you could play with
them how you wanted' or 'science is bunk, explaining everything down to the
molecular level doesn't give me meaning in my life'. And that's why a new
religion is needed which is built on science. Which gives explanations of the
world that are not in direct conflict with scientific theories but also rooted
in human imagination instead of observation. Which makes them meaningful. Also
new toys.

------
sodiumphosphate
I really enjoyed reading this.

I don't really remember being disappointed with toys, but my parents do
remember me taking them all apart almost immediately. I had a vast assortment
of parts, which I used to build and rebuild and rebuild again all sorts of
little robots and Rube Goldbergish things.

Care to hazard a guess as to what I did with my first car at age 16? Yeah,
pretty much the same thing. Every computer I've ever owned? Yes, those as
well.

As an adult (technically) I manage to collect and routinely discard massive
heaps of techno-garbage.

Actually, I may never grow up; I create video games.

I guess I'm still searching for the magic; I know it has to be in there
somewhere.

Oh and James, turtles are amphibians (not reptiles) :p

------
icebraining
Calvin & Hobbes actually have a story that _perfectly_ illustrate this:
<https://imgur.com/a/wETcl>

Personally, I never had many toys, and yet I had hundreds. LEGO never fell
short to me ;)

------
johnnyjustice
I really enjoyed that read, well done. I didn't find toys to disappoint me
very much. I love love loved my action figures when I was a kids. But my
nephews boredom with his toys fits right into the picture you've written.

------
yogrish
Kids some how like super powers. They always need a hero who saves everyone
from evil. My son always asks bedtime stories which has got evils,
Thieves,dragons etc and ultimately a hero rescues everyone from these with
arrows, guns and some tricks.

------
Raphael
This makes a good case for open-ended video games with material from existing
franchises.

------
artursapek
I just read this yesterday after discovering that blog. Wow, weird. It is a
very good read, though.

