Why did the government spend $10 million to create a new video game?

 The US National Institute of Health spent more than $10 million developing and promoting a video game to combat obesity. How well did it work? 

YouTube screenshot

Who says video games make kids fat?

The federal government has spent more than $10 million developing and promoting a video game to combat obesity, according to a report by the Washington Free Beacon, drawing ire from some observers who view it as an example of wasteful government spending.

The video games, financed by National Institute of Health (NIH) grants between 2003 and 2008, have been designed as one method to encourage healthy diet and exercise among American youth. First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move!" campaign, which aims to end childhood obesity in one generation, brought fresh attention to the problem of childhood obesity in the US, as well as criticism from some on the right for what they have called "nanny state" policing.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’s vice presidential nominee in 2008, has called the first lady’s efforts a “nanny state run amok," a view reflected by other conservatives, including Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

The NIH's video game experiment is likely to draw similar controversy, though the NIH defends it.

“With the increasing rates of child obesity and diabetes, innovative programs are needed that capture children’s attention and permit behavior change messages to get through,” the grant for the video games said. “Serious video games with their immersive stories offer one such promising alternative.”

Archimage, Inc., a computer game company, received $9,091,409 to develop the games. One game, called "Escape from Diab," centers on Deejay, a teen who must escape the nightmare fictional city of Diab, where people eat only junk food.

“This is the town of Diab. You can eat all the junk food you want. In Diab, you never have to exercise,” a narrator says over a trailer for the game. “Sound like a dream? It’s not.”

Deejay must teach his overweight friends about healthy eating and exercise to escape the city, which is full of “high-rise vending towers” that give “free access to foods like Lard Chips, Creamy Cakes, Butter Breads, and Etes Burgers."

The video games, which are not available to play online, were tested on some 100 kids aged 10 to 12 to measure their effectiveness.

"Results of the study found that children increased the amount of fruits and vegetables they eat by 0.67 servings, but that playing a video game did not increase their physical activity levels," reported the Beacon.

According to its report, the NIH is now spending $1,760,807 for further research on how the games can fight obesity, through studies being conducted by Baylor College of Medicine.

The NIH has also used computer game developer Archimage to develop at least two other video games: “Nanoswarm: Invasion from Inner Space,” is a game set in 2030 when the United States has a female president and life is “almost perfect,” but kids have to save the planet from obesity and diabetes. “Kiddio: Food Fight” is a mobile game that teaches parents how to feed fruits and vegetables to their kids.

How much does it cost to develop a video game? Estimates range from $10 million to $100 million, according to video game development sites.  

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why did the government spend $10 million to create a new video game?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today