I think what you may be overlooking is the effect of designing games that are not for entertainment but for something else.



your Fallout3, your Spore, your starcraft, your triple A games are made to entertain. Often this means they have narritive, competitive, and escapist qualities. They are made for the market and to attact players to buy them.



a medical simulation doesn't have high scores, bonus levels, challenge levels ect. Airplane simulations don't have UFO's show up and try to blast you with plasma cannons, or send you on missions where you and only you can save the battle ship from the Evil lord Goz'zamog an his 5th dimentional raiders. Infantry tactics simulaters don't have 'Guns That Shoot Chainsaws That are Also on Fire' (tm) or make you fight Demonic Dragons Summoned by Cloned Cyborg-Hitler.



serious game 'simulations' are desinged to be 'simulation-y'. You don't need a motive to play or attact players. However your beef seems to be more with games that are supposed to be 'thought provoking'.



in film, you have movies like le jetee, which was never made for the general public. It was made for 'movie people'. most sand animations are made for a more enthusist crowd. For instance, mods like Dear Esther, games like the graveyard and facade arn't made to sell, but made for the developer crowd. you also have training videos for working at certain stores (fast food, notably). These are 'serious movies' in the sense that they arn't made to sell, but are made to educate. Another example would be that gem 'don't copy that floppy', its a movie made to educate, but its not really gonna be the next 24 or Fringe.



Now if these people making these games are arrogent, well ok. That's people. In a way its nice to know that they feel like their product is important and that they feel they are really doing some good. That's just taking pride in your work. I think they might be 'arrogent' because they probably get a lot of 'your not really making games' or 'I could do that' sort of stuff. There is still a lot of work that goes into makeing independent film or 'those fast food films' and nobody really takes the time to learn the names of those people, even if they do it under budget and at twice the qualtiy of their peers.



Maybe serious game developers feel like they are inferior cause they can't say; I worked on 'that big game' that every gamer has heard of. Honestly I don't really think that's true; having a 'serious' and unique perspective will probably move games forward and help people get some pretty cool ideas. I think we should give them a nod ever once in a while; after all Le jetee went on to be retold as Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys.





*seriously, Flaming Chainsaw Guns. let that soak in a little bit... you feelin' me?

"I think what you may be overlooking is the effect of designing games that are not for entertainment but for something else."



This is actually EXACTLY what I'm talking about.



The problem is that there doesn't need to be that wall between this is a serious game and this is a game for entertainment. Medical simulations SHOULD use the techniques that we've picked up in usability, interface, and design. Why NOT put a high-score in a medical simulation? Bragging about GPA is perfectly acceptable, why not your score at a realistic medical sim?



Conversely, when you're talking about designing games only for those people who "get it", like the way that Le Jetee was made for "movie people", I don't think that is a strategy we should be embracing as an industry. Rather than label our games as serious, making it for a niche audience who wants to "get it", we should make our games as engaging as we can like the other triple A titles, but also give it that message that was only for "game people". We should find a way to make the message felt by the mainstream, that's the goal.



I believe that using the term "serious games" makes the simulation type games worse, because they think they shouldn't use well done mechanics from "non-serious" games, and it makes the "just for movie people" games reach a vastly limited number of people. If we stop ourselves now before we erect that wall between "serious" and "entertainment", than I think we can accomplish real meaningful games faster.



My real problem with "serious games" is that it creates a distinction that I don't think does, or should, exist. Of course, I think that education games and simulators are very important. I think they need to be done as realistically as possible, to train their users to the best of their ability. But why go through the effort of separating them as serious games? They can borrow plenty of things from "entertainment" games that will help them in their purpose. Pushing "serious games" as a distinct separation to be celebrated stymies the design process on both sides of the wall.

As someone who's worked at a "serious game" company for the last couple years, I would like to comment on a points raised in this discussion. While I can't say my experience is exhaustive on the subject, I might have a little insight into the issue.



"a medical simulation doesn't have high scores, bonus levels, challenge levels ect."



In fact, one of our clients requested exactly these sorts of mechanics when he was talking to the design team. The project was a training simulation created mainly for public officials and higher-end emergency response personnel. The client asked specifically for a "score" tracking system, as well as the options for decal "trophies" and ranks for the users. Titles like "World of Warcraft" and "Dungeons and Dragons" were thrown around fairly often by both the design team and on the client side, and there was in fact a (half-joking) suggestion for a zombie apocalypse level. I kid you not. With that in mind, I'm sure you won't find those sorts of requests/discussions in every "serious game". However, that doesn't mean that a "serious game" excludes those sorts of mechanics by default.



"You don't need a motive to play or attract players."



I would call this an incorrect assumption. A game that no longer needs to attract players is a game that lives in a niche so mall that it is the only product available. Again drawing from my previous example, there were several competing products designed to fill the same niche as our client's. Their way of fighting for the top slot was to, among other things, draw upon a reward system and the potential for visible experience gain. Just because a game is "serious", doesn't mean that there aren't competitors jockeying for your player base.



"My real problem with "serious games" is that it creates a distinction that I don't think does, or should, exist."



I personally believe that this distinction, while perhaps distasteful, is commercially necessary in some regard. When a client is looking to hire a studio now, in theory they can either flip to the "serious games" section of the yellow pages or the "entertainment" section. It does indeed place "serious games" in a different room from your average triple A title, and that in fact may limit how much such developers can borrow from their entertainment counterparts. In the end though, I would say it's more an attempt at product distinction than anything else, much like the difference between RPG's and FPS's.

It really warms my heart to see that you as developers and especially your client were developing in that way. This is what I would hope is the future of these titles, but I suspect that all too often that isn't how it goes.



And I understand what you're saying about it being a business tactic to differentiate a studio, but I don't think it has to be that way.

I agree with Raymond. I hate the name "serious game". It's totally unnecessary.



And on my own point of view, i think that when a game's main purpose is not entertainment anymore, then it's not a game. Call it something else. Now... games CAN be educative and CAN train.. But if you want to use the true power of a GAME to do that, you should as well keep it fun as it's primary objective. As Will Wright said in an interview, games are way more effective in teaching when they motivate people to learn, even if outside the game itself.



As an example, anyone can teach and lecture that racism is a bad thing, but if you play Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance for the game cube (which is NOT a serious game) you will have a lesson on racism that no other so called serious game could teach you.



To end my comment. This division between "serious games" and "fun games" is only bad for both sides. It makes "fun games" be looked upon as kid's stuff and immature, and it makes "serious games" to lose lot's of potential in what they really strive for.



"Serious games" is a lie. Make games, make them fun. If they are fun, they will teach without you calling them serious. :D

Hmm.. I do agree with some points but disagree with others. I think the reason the term "serious games" exists is because the rift/distinction is very real, and the 'entertainment' focus of the game industry is one of the major reasons for this. Heck, it's a commercial industry and entertainment sells (and has prevailed). It can be observed that in many cases (certainly not all) games can been seen as a type of antidote or distraction from so called 'serious' themes (or even a trivialisation of them!). There are of course many exceptions to this, and the industry has come a long way and is moving forward, but nonetheless this is the basis upon which 'the industry' has established itself.



I personally also dislike the term "serious game" as I feel it represents the rift and shows there is still a lot of work to do to bridge that 'gap'. Some may even ask whether that gap even needs to be bridged, but I do believe that for serious games to fulfil their potential, it probably does, as there is much to learn in terms of design of user engagement, experience, technology, cultural pervasiveness etc. Whether the 'industries' actually merge or not is another question.



But generally, I think it's much more useful to think about a game as being 'dependable for a purpose', and I guess currently the "serious" term is a way of making that clear. Kind of like a guarantee to educators/trainers/industries etc. I'm not sure who coined the term or adopted it for this context, but for many it seems to be fulfilling its purpose. The trouble with the entertainment game that also happens to teach you something about a deep topic is that it may not always be accurate, dependable, clear, or usable for a particular situation.



Unfortunately the "serious" label is often also seen as an indicator that the game may not necessarily provide the most immersive/stimulating/engaging experience, and I can only hope (and help) for this to change in the future.

I think you're coming from the same direction as I am William, I believe that gap between should be bridged, I just think that the term serious games does far more to tear down that bridge than to build it up.

I think the difference is important. A "serious game" is a game whose *primary* purpose is education or enlightenment or something along those lines. Standard games may indeed include elements of those things, but they are *secondary* purposes. A serious game will sacrifice entertainment for the sake of education. Other games will sacrifice education for the sake of entertainment. It is a *huge* difference as a developer, because it will have major ramifications for how you design your game.



Can an entertaining game be educational? Of course it can, but that isn't it's goal. And no, not all games should be entertaining. Games should be what the people creating them want them to be. Should musicians who make ambient music infuse their songs with clear melodies to appeal to pop music fans? Of course not, because they're not making pop music. And neither should people who want to make games with intentions other than entertainment have to change how they design.

I am not largely disputing the method with which these games are developed. Educational games should borrow from entertainment games as much as they can, sacrificing engagement for education if they have to. I understand that that is a part of creating a game for those purposes. My issue is with the terminology, and my belief is that the term itself is negatively affecting both the serious games development and the development of entertainment games, when they could be much more freely borrowing from each other.

In response to Adam, I think that raises the issue that Raymond mentioned in his original post... "So, what we're really looking at is a number of two different types of serious games. Those that are developed explicitly for classroom use, government, and training purposes and also those games which are intended for the general public to promote some idea or theme."



I think that is an important point. Can "serious" games be something to be consumed like "non-serious" games? I guess that's like saying can a documentary be consumed like a feature film?, and I would be inclined to say yes. Surely learning or problem solving can be "entertaining" if it's engaging enough (many games prove this). I'm not so sure it's as simple as sacrificing one for the other, but I agree it greatly impacts on the design and development processes, just like a different genre. Think about simulation games. Some may say they sacrifice "fun" for "realism", but that's not really the case for those that like those games.

Raymond, thanks for the thought provoking article. It is well deserved of your subscription. Yet, just as Derek before me stated, I do have some points I would like to make.



While I am not currently actively developing any game, I am looking into the Serious Games movement. I am fascinated by what the video game industry can do for "serious" pursuits such as documentary and editorial content.



So here is my beef:



"That leaves us with the serious games which are supposed to be just like those normal games we play, but with serious and poignant themes in mind. Wait, don't we have these already?"



I am a strong proponent for games that are designed to entertain but also offer social and political commentary for real life events. Unfortunately the examples you state place those commentaries after graphics and gameplay. Often the gameplay has little to do with the commentary itself. If mainstream games are to really move forward and merge more wit hthe serious games movement, those commentaries will need to be placed in center stage with the graphics and gameplay designed around those themes.



One cannot apply all possible commentary to the mechanics of FPS, RTS and RPG games.



"We’re all getting better at this at the same time. But serious developers are actually starting back at square one, intentionally. Rather than work with those tools that we have already crafted, they try and reinvent the wheel. They seem to think that all of these techniques we’ve created for immersion and engaging players in other games won’t work in their serious games. Why not?"



This segment confuses me. Are you saying that serious games purposely avoid using any mechanics of mainstream game development? If so you are mostly right. The main reason most game mechanics are not used for serious games is because those mechanics were not designed for serious game use. They were designed to make FPS games more cool. They were designed to make RTS games scale further. They were designed to make entertaining games more entertaining.



It is possible to make those mechanics work, but not always. You can pound your swords into plowshares but they will never be as good as plowshares made from scratch.



"a medical simulation doesn't have high scores, bonus levels, challenge levels ect."



I would just like to reiterate what Derek said. High scoring, bonus levels, extra challenges, these are all things that any real simulator will actually want. I don't think I have ever been through any kind of training or seen anyone go through training and there not be some sort of scoring system. Difficulty setting are also quite common. If you ace one part of training in real life, chances are your next training session will be some thing more difficult.



"Rarely, if ever, will people make this kind of distinction in film or literature."



Wow. So there are no such terms as "Summer Blockbuster", "Documentary", "Docudrama", "Fiction", "Non Fiction" etc. When was the last time you heard writers of Non Fiction complaining that their location in the library was too close to the reference section and that they should be on the same shelves as Sci-fi or fantasy? Perhaps sex education books and videos should be in the same league as romance novels and porn. Why not? It would certainly make those education or "serious" films more engaging in their work.



It case it is hard to make out, my point is that not all serious topics can use current game mechanics and thus need to separate themselves from mainstream entertainment games.



"Calling these games serious does nothing except erect a big wall between developers who are trying to accomplish the same goal. It’s a wall that prevents healthy discourse between developers, businesses, and students."



Actually no. Calling them serious games creates a sign that allows other developers to notice them more. It creates discourse. Let me ask you something. Would you have written this article had their not been such distinctions? Most likely not.



Serious games require that people look at them differently than mainstream entertainment. People require labels on everything. It is part of the human condition to be able to classify and organize everything. By removing labels like "Serious Games" "Entertainment Games" etc, you would hurt all gaming more than if those labels were left in tact. It would be like removing labels like FPS, RTS, Action Adventure, RPG. Sure the content of the games will be unchanged but you have just made the game buying public's job of picking games to paly more difficult.



Here is another example, say you wanted to watch a war movie. You just want some nonstop action flick without caring about getting an accurate portrayal of the battle. You go to Blockbuster and since all War movies are together with no way to discern what is a documentary or action flick, you pick one titled "D-Day". There is a nice depiction of soldiers storming the beach on the cover.



You take it home and pop it in and you are greeted with a narrator narrating still shots of the real battle and interviewing 90 year old war vets and historians. You shut it off severely disappointed.



That is what you are looking at by removing such labels.



"You don't need a motive to play or attract players."



This little gem is a great touch. The whole point of Serious gaming is to attract players. What seems to have you confused is that you expect all games to attract player to games as a whole. With serious games, the motive is to attract players to the topic of the game. You want them to learn about global warming. You want them to learn about city scale economics. You want them to learn about the trials third party candidates have to go through to get on the ballot in Oklahoma. You want them to learn about these topics and then act on them. Sure introducing them to gaming is a nice perk, but it is not the central goal.



A well developed serious game will attract the players that it needs.

Hey Ray,



I definitely can understand your logic with disliking the term "serious". "So, what we're really looking at is a number of two different types of serious games. Those that are developed explicitly for classroom use, government, and training purposes and also those games which are intended for the general public to promote some idea or theme." -- and I do agree with what you're discussing here.



I think the problem here is the choice of words. "Serious" games are a term used now to describe "educational" games -- and in this case I'm describing games that are used directly for educational purposes. Unfortunately at some point in the industry, creating "educational" games carried the weight of a horrible stigma -- the "edutainment games". Why this stigma began is unknown to me directly; I have only heard horror stories of our educational game predecessors. In an effort to promote a new form of education, the term "serious" may have been picked as a way to promote this form of educationally focused games to clients.



I do not wish to defend the term, though.



"And on my own point of view, i think that when a game's main purpose is not entertainment anymore, then it's not a game. Call it something else. Now... games CAN be educative and CAN train.. But if you want to use the true power of a GAME to do that, you should as well keep it fun as it's primary objective" -- Rafael Kuhnen posted this in a comment earlier, and I totally agree with it. I want to tie this into what you also wrote: "I truly believe that a large portion of it comes from a desire to say, "I make serious games, about how beating women is wrong." so that they can get a pat on the back from those ignorant of the power already inherent in mass market games."



I find it unfortunate that you state here that people who make serious games are looking for a "pat on the back" and are unaware of the incredible opportunity that viral marketing and mass market hold. To give an example, the game I am currently working on, (which just so happens to be about stopping violence against women.... what a coincidence....) is 100% driven towards making this game a piece of entertainment that has, like most games, the ability to create social change. We are utilizing the Sabido Methodology, a television narrative technique, that requires its content to be at least 80% entertainment and 20% education (to give a rough estimation). So, what Rafael Kuhnen stated earlier is exactly what we're aiming to do. To assume that people lump themselves into a "serious game" category and dismiss the ability of mass market games is stepping on a few toes, and I thought I should bring that to light here. I do understand your point, however, that what you're really saying here is that the term "serious games" is arrogant -- and again, I do agree with you.



Very interesting post, and I look forward to seeing part 2!

Ray: First things first, I completely agree that the terminology divide is very artificial and constrains the concept of "games" ("Game" is another word that should be dropped from our vocabulary, actually) in an unnecessary manner.



But from a priorities perspective, that distinction actually does exist. One of the first things any game designer or design team does when starting a project is to clearly define their goals for said project. As a designer on the UNFPA Game to End Violence Against Women, which you so artfullly referenced in your essay, I have to be fully aware at all times that the #1 priority of our project is to achieve the humanitarian mission given to us by our clients. Making the game entertaining is crucial to achieving that goal, but is not the goal in of itself. If we were in desperate funding/scoping straits, and, god forbid, we had to choose between making the game fun and teaching our message, we would choose to teach the message.



If I was working on a profit-driven piece of entertainment, obviously those priorities would be reversed, even if we DID want to include some sort of message. So yes, it is a highly important distinction, and one that has to be made.



Is the line between serious game and entertainment game always clear? No. Does the term "Serious Game" oversimplify our medium? Yes. But is that distinction necessary? Yes.

Because people don't define words on the basis of what happens to be convenient for you. People call them "video games" because that's the word we use to describe interactive visual media. The term refers to a wide variety of creations, and people really need to get past these silly semantic arguments over what is "really" a game.

Another point that has been brought up after much discussion about your article here at work is quite interesting.



The term "serious" games came about because a lot of people in the world, who are potential clients that could utilize serious games as a way to educate people about their product or whatever else, don't take games seriously. Their only potential interaction with games comes from watching their kids zone out at the television instead of doing their homework. Educational games perhaps started being called "serious" games as an effort to distinguish themselves from the mass market games as a way to hook people who held personal biases against video games to begin with.



Now, again, I don't personally agree with this distinction or think it is right, but it makes sense. This name came about to show non-gamers the educational capacity of video games. Unfortunately, it is rather offensive to the game development community.

To me, a serious game is a game where serious real world issues are tackled in the game and I can use what I learned in the game and apply it to real life in hopes that I can make something better of a worsening situation. Such as, environmental issues.



Serious games don't need to focus entirely on the issue at hand. In a game where there is hunting, fishing, racing, and flying, many serious real world issues can be brought to light and possible solutions for handling them, and still be engaging, fun, relaxing and exciting.

Great article Ray and I wish I had more time to comment in depth, but I don't. However, I really think this last paragraph brings up a great point:



"We're going on a solid 40 years now, we don't have to pretend like this is just kids’ stuff anymore and we sure as hell don't have to label any attempts at mature themes as "serious". It's condescending, it’s counter-productive, and it’s unnecessary."



As much as we would like to destroy the term "serious" in an attempt to label all games as serious art, we are working against 40 years of social opinions. It is just now that games are moving from "kid's stuff" to a serious art and form of entertainment, and it is going to take time for people to recognize that.



But as you said, this is our responsibility and ultimately the best solution to this problem (and realistically the most viable one) is to continue pushing the envelope of what a game can be. New innovations like Project Natal are going to bring new types of market groups into the video game world and it is our responsibility to greet them with a new generation of games.



As Max said, currently the distinction is necessary, but I think through hard work, good examples and great games, we as an industry can blur that line and make the distinction obsolete.

I suspect that the reason the term "serious games" is used is because in the USA the word "educational", especially when applied to games, connotes dreary, boring, work. Education should not be, but often is, exactly those things. It is an almost entirely negative term when associated with games. So game makers looked for a term to avoid those connotations. (Btw, "connotation"--what it means in practice and common use, as opposed to the dictionary meaning.) I suspect "serious" also appealed mightily to academics.



This is an American problem, but as the US is such a big part of video gaming, what we do often "sticks".

Holy crap, I had no idea this post would get so much attention. I'm going to do my best to field all of the criticisms, so bear with me.



To Ephriam:

"If mainstream games are to really move forward and merge more wit hthe serious games movement, those commentaries will need to be placed in center stage with the graphics and gameplay designed around those themes."



I think that all these things can be developed as equals, where no sacrifices need to be made in any of those categories. Why do games HAVE to emphasize graphics over commentary? Or vice versa?



As far as mechanics being made to make entertaining games more entertaining, you're right. But I think those same mechanics can be taken and applied to a documentary or themed game to make those games more fun AND educational.



As far as the categorization of movies go, of course there are categories. I'm not saying that we need to obliterate genres. I think educational games can be called educational, documentary games can be called documentaries, etc. But "Serious Games" lumps ALL of those types of games and pits them against ALL of the RPGs, Shooters, MMOs, etc. That's unnecessary.



As far as the "You don't need a motive to play or attract players." that isn't my quote, so I'm not going to touch on that. I think that documentary games or games to bring awareness to a topic of course should motivate as many players to get interested in them as they can, USING those great mechanics we've already developed.



To Heather:



I think you and I agree about this for the most part. So I'll respond to this:



"I find it unfortunate that you state here that people who make serious games are looking for a "pat on the back" and are unaware of the incredible opportunity that viral marketing and mass market hold."



It's not so much that I have a problem with the developers of serious games, I don't. I think that these serious games should be made, they're an important stepping stone in the industry. What I take issue with is really emphasizing the difference between those games and "normal" games. Like you said, your game is attempting to be entertaining and engaging while getting it's point across. I think that is awesome.



To Max Nichols:



"Is the line between serious game and entertainment game always clear? No. Does the term "Serious Game" oversimplify our medium? Yes. But is that distinction necessary? Yes."



I would say to this that the line shouldn't be clear, and that the distinction is unnecessary. I get that there are time constraints in any production cycle and choices need to be made about what to focus on and what to let slip by. I think that using the term serious games gives developers the green flag to toss things that are unrelated to the message aside, which I don't think should be an assumption. Wouldn't making the game more engaging and less message focused let that message hit more people than a dryer more "messagey" title? As long as the message is communicated clearly, why not make them as fun as we can? The terminology gets in the way of that.



To Bryan O'Hara:



"As Max said, currently the distinction is necessary, but I think through hard work, good examples and great games, we as an industry can blur that line and make the distinction obsolete."



Maybe that distinction is necessary now (I don't think it is) but my hope is that we do keep blurring that line until it's gone. That's what I think we need to consciously do as a group, so I completely agree with you there.







So I hope that at least addresses what you were all talking about. Like I said, I had no idea that this little blog post would get so much attention, but I think this is worth talking about. Everybody here has made some great points on both sides of the argument, this is a good debate to have.

"Rarely, if ever, will people make this kind of distinction in film or literature."



This statement, unfortunately, is factually incorrect. These distinctions are made in film all the time. Narrative Films intended to entertain are not lumped in with documentaries ("serious" films) intended primarily to educate. So much so, that Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has separate categories for these types of films come Oscar time. The films, and the filmmakers, are different beasts. While they use the same tools, and apply the same narrative principles, the work is entirely different. To assume that a narrative filmmaker could create an effective documentary, or vice versa, would be to make a huge mistake. Not to say that it's impossible, or course. It's just not necessarily true.



Does calling an educational film a "documentary" condescending, counterproductive or unnecessary? Hardly. It recognizes important distinctions in the form and intent. Labeling games as "serious" does much the same.



That said, "serious" game toss out tools/experience earned by their entertainment brethren at their own peril. That'd be like a documentary filmmaker throwing out the rules/tools learned over a 100 years of cinema. It's a recipe for disaster.

"If you don't want to get into "silly semantics" and still want to call whatever you're making a "game", at least be upfront about what you're going for. I don't need to waste my time on "interactive visual media" only to find out it bores me to tears."



People *are* up front about what they're going for, that's why they're called *serious* games to begin with!

Congrats, Raymond, on the article! A very enjoyable read.



“Frankly, it's damned arrogant.”



Frankly this comment made me smile because I highly doubt you will find a serious game developer that puffs up with self congratulatory haughtiness when they say, “I am a serious game developer.” I have been the director of marketing for a serious game company for a few years now, and often when I tell people what I do it is followed by a lengthy explanation of what I mean by “serious game.” My company creates games specifically for changing health behaviors (serious games for health). Some great comments here that I think are right on target, but I have a few things to add.



In many ways approaching serious game design is a completely different process than approaching a “non serious game.” When we design a game, we start with the content. As Derek, Adam, and others have said, the primary purpose is to first educate and, in our case, ultimately change health behaviors in the player. Much of our dollars are spent on research, not market research, but psychological and medical. PhDs, MDs, clinical trials--all part of the process. I doubt Ubisoft hired folks from the UN or formed focus groups of arms dealers to make sure their content was accurate when they developed “Far Cry 2.”



“They seem to think that all of these techniques we’ve created for immersion and engaging players in other games won’t work in their serious games.”



Quite the contrary. Our top development question is always “How do we weave this content in a way that is immersive, fun, and engaging?” The point of using gameplay to present a topic, whether medical, social, or something else, is to utilize the immersive qualities that gameplay has to offer to reach the player. Otherwise we’d just throw a textbook at them and hope for the best. It is *advantageous* for serious game developers to use game mechanics and familiar game elements that have already seen success. From a psychological standpoint, if we call it a game, we want it to actually be a game. We want it to feel like a game and play like a game. Otherwise our credibility goes down the toilet along with the message we’re trying to get across.



Am I saying serious game developers incorporate everything the game industry has to offer? Am I saying serious game developers are better and deserve a special title? Absolutely not. I’m just saying that the two categories are different. Our development process is different…from the major parties involved to the production timeline. I think making the distinction is appropriate and indeed helpful.

I really appreciate your comments as an insider on the situation Melanie.



I don't think that any of the designers in these groups are arrogant, or at least, they have an equal number of arrogant people to the rest of the industry. Where I really take dispute is with your medical games being labeled as serious. I think they should be labeled as "Health", "Medical", or "Educational". Maybe even "Lifestyle". Because that is what your games are. Calling them serious though, I think implies that other games can't be serious, which is where I take issue.



You probably don't think that other games can't be serious, but never the less that is what your terminology implies, and why I'd like to change it. But just to fire back, the developers of Far Cry 2 did do some serious research on their topic. In fact, they sent a number of developers to Africa, which they chronicled online. Here's part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRJyBzYbt34 So right there, I think you made an assumption. That's the sort of thing we need to be wary of avoiding.

I'm so glad you posted the YouTube video because you prove my point exactly. All game developers must do their fair share of research. They have to in order to create a good product. But you're talking about a twelve day excursion to Africa during the middle of production versus two to five years of medical research that is involved throughout the entire development process. Not to say that what the team at Ubisoft did wasn't a big deal because it was. Twenty plus hour flight, lions, malaria...that's some major dedication there. BUT distinctly different from the kind of research I'm referring to.



I've heard the term eHealth thrown around in leu of "serious games for health." There's serious games with a social agenda are often called "social issue games" or "games for change." But those are all subsets. We avoid educational and edutainment simply because we're doing more than educating in an entertaining way. Knowledge is necessary but not enough to change behavior.



Regardless, if your primary point is that a new term needs to be developed, I can see that. I don't think most (if any) serious game developers believe that other games cannot be serious. If that's what the majority of industry sees when they read the words "serious game" then someone should come up with another term.

"Regardless, if your primary point is that a new term needs to be developed, I can see that. I don't think most (if any) serious game developers believe that other games cannot be serious."



That's exactly what I want. I think the whole term of "Serious Games" is what is arrogant, and to those who aren't in the industry it reads as "Okay, these games are serious and these games are just for fun" which everybody actually in the industry knows isn't the case. I think the term itself holds us back from affecting our audiences as powerfully as we can. In large part, I think it's a marketing term. Maybe an effective one for those in serious games, but it takes away effectiveness from the average developer.



I'd be more than happy with eHealth, because thats what your games are about. Calling them eHealth dismisses other games from being Health games. That's fine, because they're not. Calling them serious games, however, dismiss other games from being considered equally important. That's a problem for me.



It's absolutely the term, and not the people or the games themselves, that I take issue with.

"That's exactly what I want. I think the whole term of "Serious Games" is what is arrogant, and to those who aren't in the industry it reads as "Okay, these games are serious and these games are just for fun" which everybody actually in the industry knows isn't the case. I think the term itself holds us back from affecting our audiences as powerfully as we can. In large part, I think it's a marketing term. Maybe an effective one for those in serious games, but it takes away effectiveness from the average developer."



YES. YES. YES. I totally 100% agree. It IS just the term.



Personally, I understand the serious nature of the game I'm developing, but I cannot recall myself or any other of my team members referring to the game as a "serious" one. It seems like most people who are involved with "serious games" rarely say so because of what it implies. It truly is a term that is defined for those who do not know much about games in order to distinguish strictly educational games from mass marketed entertainment ones -- and I agree with you that this separation could cause more harm to the industry in the long run. Instead of calling the games "serious" games, we need something else that doesn't imply that others aren't serious. We need to help convince those who know little about games that all games have the potential to be serious. We need to start removing the stigma against games and showing more people that games DO have the potential to educate and create growth and change. And I'm realizing now that that is exactly what the "serious" game industry is attempting to do.



How can the industry as a whole help bring non-gamers to that realization?

Well Rohit sort of hits the nail on the head. We can call health games "eHealth" but I see a problem of the response you get when you tell a person that a given game is an "eHealth" game and they respond with the dreaded "well.... whats that?" the easiest description is that its a "Serious Game or Educational Game".



A large majority of the population is totally unaware of the existence of these types of games. So I think that this issue is timely since we obviously need to assess the use of this term before it becomes so widely used that we go beyond the "point of no return".

The absolute WORST definition I ever heard for a serious game was posted on a serious game networking portal, and it went: "Serious games, as a training-based category of software development products, only involves engaging but not "fun" material"



Why on Earth anyone would every specifically try to make something not fun is completely beyond me.



We have a title called Making History which we originally developed to be an educational WW2 sim for use in classrooms. It turned out to be a lot of fun, and we revisited the product and developed it in to a commercial title. Now in the near we are going to be launching the sequel. Its always been developed to be historically accurate, and you can still learn a great deal from playing the commercial versions of the title, so did at some point did it stop being a serious game, because now our target market it home consumers? I don't think so.



The perceived elitism you seem to be talk about, how calling serious games serious makes all other games frivolous, only occurs if you draw a line in the sand and say only only the games to the left may be considered serious. For your oft cited Far Cry 2 reference, if you want to talk about it's serious themes and educational elements, then just go ahead and call it a serious game!

One small but ultimately important detail that has gone unmentioned is that the vast majority of "serious games" clientele generally head for the hills when they hear the term "game" mentioned during any interactive software product proposal you may wish to make to them.



Oh, I know - the warped irony of it all. Before serious games, there were "VizSim" products.



While I find medical personnel far more flexible on terminology (because so much of what they do involves engaging people of all ages), government and military contacts who would "entertain" the idea of taking on one of your serious games proposals are much more receptive when you use the preferred terminology, such as VizSim or "LMS" (Learning Management System). The general government perspective is that, whether you are learning how to sort mail for the USPS or you are learning how to make an enemy headless at a distance of one mile, neither of those tasks are meant to be fun. "Nothing personal, just business."



On a slightly different note, it appears that "edutainment" is being lumped in with serious games in this thread. I view edutainment (for kids and young teens) as being under that other glamorous label of "persuasive games." I cannot remember the last edutainment product that was bored-to-tears serious. From "Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego" to "Grandma And Me - Living Books" to any of the Knowledge Adventure products.



Ultimately, if you are in game development for profit, and your target market is serious games, you will find yourself being highly flexible towards client-happy phrases . . . and you can complain to yourself about lousy labels all you want once you are off the clock.

If you read the definitions, there is no suggestion that entertainment CANNOT have serious themes. The point is they serious games serve PRACTICAL purposes. The key is they ARE games whose primary purpose is not entertainment. If you do not think the primary purpose of most games is entertainment, you seriously need to re-evaluate why traditional games like Far Cry 2 should even be made.



What would you call "games created for training, health, government, military, educational and other uses"? "Serious" when used to discuss themes is different than the "serious" meaning "non-fun oriented". Also, none of the definitions ever said seriousness is mutually exclusive to serious games.

I hate the term "serious game" as well. What is "serious"? To me, a "serious" game is one that entertains people and sells. Successful business is as serious as you can get...



If it isn't fun, it isn't a video game.



The moment it becomes a chore, it's not longer fun. And, that's when it stops being a game... and becomes a chore. Nobody wants another chore.

I think I should start charging for every time I am quoted.



Now that Shaun has let the cat out of the bag, everyone is invited to saunter on over to The Genuine Article Blog for a look at "Serious Games - Fundamentals and Function before Fluff" at http://emscharf-the-genuine-article.blogspot.com/2009/06/serious-games-fundament
als-and-function.html.



You can also drop by http://www.industrybroadcast.com to experience it as an audio recording by Ryan Wiancko.



Tasteful comments are preferred.

Actually, the recording will not be ready for another few weeks. My apologies. Besides "Reading is Fundamental." :)

Aaron- to some degree, I agree with you. I think they should be fun. On the other hand, you are approaching the concept from the wrong angle. In a serious game, you already HAVE a chore you have to do, the game is designed to make that less of a chore. Say you are a new employee at a customer service firm, and you need to learn all their protocols. You could be handed a pamphlet that has them all written out, or you could play through a game environment that teaches you the concepts and rewards you for doing well. Sure, you wouldn't pick up the training game and play it for giggles, that would be a chore- but it's a better alternative to just studying and memorizing a giant manual.



And Eric- I'm sorry I quoted you as the worst definition I've ever heard, but actively striving for a lack of entertainment strikes me as being completely against the point of making a simulation in the first place. I have no idea why you would want to do that- and you can quote the government as being afraid of the word "game", but we have an SBIR phase II grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that the proposal title said in giant letters on the first page "GAME WORLD". Fun is the very key differentiation that makes a serious game more effective than traditional training methods, and designing to eliminate fun is just designing to make your games less engaging, less effective, and less desirable to a client.

Shaun,



No apology necessary. I have a habit of stating that "interpretation is everything."



No one, let alone me, ever said the U.S. government is "afraid" of the word "game" in reference to any of their serious games efforts. They do not "appreciate" the word, because it takes away from what they often view as a deadly serious end result. Nothing more, nothing less.



I am familiar with the folks at DARPA, having crossed paths with them a number of times with a former D.C.-area developer. I must say it is getting harder and harder to procure DARPA funding. You and your colleagues deserve a pat on the back for your effort. I hope to someday get a glance at the results DARPA is keen to receive from you.



Regarding "GAME WORLD," you may or may not be surprised by how that label quickly changes as information is exchanged between your DARPA contact and his / her supervisor, one or two rungs up the ladder. This is just my experience and interpretation.



Nonetheless, consider for a moment that, with rare exception, the target user for any and all military-based serious games is a soldier who has already been trained in boot camp (and through other more advanced training) to use hand-to-hand deadly force and various weapons to devastating effect . . . without so much as a grin. While military exercises / missions are serious business, even the greatest soldier is taught never to take himself / herself so seriously that they got caught and shot by the enemy while deeply admiring the gold leaf on their laurel wreath.



Outside of hanging around with your fellow off-duty soldiers in the confines of base camp, or outside of pilot banter in-between unmanned drone flight sessions, or outside the good bedside manner military doctors attempt to show severely wounded warriors, the tone is all serious all the time. War-related activities are, typically, deadly serious.



Now, I know you know this, which brings me back to my original point. Interpretation is everything and what you refer to as fun may be in fact what I would refer to as successful engagement . . . without the grins. Then, again, that is my interpretation, isn't it? ;)



Best of success to you and your team on your DARPA project, Shaun.

What is a "serious movie"?



A movie that is bleak, dark, or subdued. Schindler's List. No Country For Old Men.



What is an "educational movie"?



A movie that is made with the primary goal of education, not entertainment.



Would you call a training movie a "serious film"? Of course not. Plenty of movies are serious.



The same principles should apply to games. Those who choose to refer to educational games, or training games, as "serious" are implying that other games are not serious, and do not deserve to be taken seriously.

@Shaun

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. From where I'm sitting, the training game you suggest falls completely outside the lines of a "video game".



And, you're right about a manual. That's not enough. People learn in many different ways. They need to both hear and read the material. During that process, they need opportunities to discuss it with peers and trainers. Most importantly, people need to feel free to ask questions. I'd much rather invest in an outgoing--yet organized--presenter (aka speaker/trainer) to guide training courses than a silly fake video game.



In theory, teaching dry material with a game sounds fun and hip. In action, I think it falls flat.



But, that's just me.

What is a FPS movie? There is plenty of terminology unique to specific mediums.



For reference, please view the following video:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/the-new-hawp/48621

Of course there's unique terminology. But plenty of the same conventions exist. There are comedy games, fantasy games, etc.



Just saying, "There are differences" doesn't mean that this is one.

Shaun, I think the point that Mark is trying to make is that informative, persuasive, and powerful movies that aren't called "serious movies" they're just called movies. Maybe they're even called action movies, or thrillers, but those titles don't say anything about any other movies the way that "serious games" do. I don't know anything about your WW2 educational title, but could it not fall into some category that we've already defined? Or at the very least into a new one that doesn't pass judgment on the others?

" One small but ultimately important detail that has gone unmentioned is that the vast majority of "serious games" clientele generally head for the hills when they hear the term "game" mentioned during any interactive software product proposal you may wish to make to them." -- Eric Scharf posted this in an previous comment, and this is exactly what I was getting at -- he just put it more eloquently :)



The term is around to appease the non-gamers who don't take games seriously. To me, that says that the main problem isn't necessarily that this term exists, it is that it HAD to exist in order for an untapped market to pay attention to games and see them as a legitimate form of reaching clientele goals.

I see what you're saying about how the term in a way came about through necessity. That's what I mean when I say that we need to stand up for ourselves as an industry. Think of it as a call to arms, we make more money than other entertainment forms, why do we need to get pushed around?

I haven't read all of the comments my self as of yet, but I wanted to throw my hat into the ring and comment in general about some of the things you raise.



Now, I can only speak from my experience working with the same organization as Heather, Derek, and Max mentioned, so I certainly don't expect this to be true of all serious game developers, but I have seen some problems with serious games.



I think that the terminology distinction is just the tip of the iceberg. I think the bigger problem (or challenge) is, as Eric mentioned, the fact that serious game developers work along side and compete for the funding of non-gaming companies, organizations, and causes. This can lead to situations where the ideals of the developers, who want to make a game that is fun and innovative, clash with the zeal of humanitarians, educators, etc in persuing a coherent vision for their work. In such cases, the choice of whether to make the game more entertainment-oriented or education-oriented comes down to a fight between the developer and the publisher (as I'm sure more seasoned developers that I are familiar with, serious game or not), and in such cases the choice of which side to fall on comes down to the people with the money and/or who is running/calling for the project: the non-gaming professionals.



I think the best way to avoid this whole rift between games and serious games is to rely on reasearch and experimentation, and see where that goes. Melanie brought up a great point about research, and I definately think that's the best way to go.



Perhaps the issue isn't so much the fact that serious games have broken off from "regular" games, but that the two have sort of split off in two different directions, and should make more of an effort to learn from one-another. Serious games could greatly benefit from playtesting and focus-group testing to make their game more fun, while "regular" games could benefit from more research into psychology, politics, philosophy, etc to introduce new, mentally stimulating themes into games in a way that is entertaining and allows the industry to become more mature in the pubic eye.

While I agree with many of the points in the article, I think it's a bit naive to think that a simple name change will do anything. The term "serious games" is a symptom, not a cause of the problem, and simply abolishing that label will not change the minds the millions of people (both inside the industry and out) that think "games need to be fun" or "games are a frivolous form of entertainment".

"I see what you're saying about how the term in a way came about through necessity. That's what I mean when I say that we need to stand up for ourselves as an industry. Think of it as a call to arms, we make more money than other entertainment forms, why do we need to get pushed around?"



Raymond,



When an industry as profitable as the video game business is still having its heritage . . . as the step-children of board games and toys . . . held against it's neck like the sharpest of hunting knives, it certainly can be humbling.



Our profit margins, fair or unfair, earn us nothing more than another opportunity to make another round of entertainment products that have even higher financial expectations heaped upon them. This is hard for a person, from any industry, to accept when that person believes, or even insists, that what they see is what everyone else should see as well and without question.



"You are who you chose to be" - Hogarth in "Iron Giant."



Interpretation is everything.



Your article boils down to one interpreted statement for me: You have chosen to view the current, general approach to serious games as, essentially, another attack on the entertainment software sector . . . and another attempt to pigeonhole "fun" as nothing greater than a romper room routine.



It may further disappoint you to learn that those funding entities (industry and non-industry groups alike) are not even viewing the games industry at even that level of importance. They are viewing it as a means to an end - and the most appropriate vehicle available for the delivery of their goals, perspectives, and themes.



The cure to your concern is at hand, and it is simple . . . but only for those who have the nerve to follow through with it. The answer lies in a "change in approach" that falls under role playing.



What do developers find themselves doing when they are considering a new concept? They ask: "What would our target audience think of this idea? What would our team leads think of this idea? What would our product manager think of this idea?"



Now - it is important to remember or identify that serious games clientele are not and do not behave or perform like the 800-pound publishers with which entertainment software developers are so terminally familiar.



So, if your familiar publisher has suddenly been replaced with a client who may have just as much available funding but is only interested in using the structure of a game to deliver a product, your approach and method of communication must change to suit that client's needs. That client may actually be, on some level, a gamer, but that client is not the gamer with whom you have become so familiar.



Your change in approach could come in the form of a label or your willingness to simply sit down with them at the bargaining / conference table . . . and listen to them share their idea with you; drinking in their perspective on why they are there, speaking with you about how to utilize your expertise and game vehicle in order to deliver their message to their target audience.



What do serious games developers find themselves doing when they are considering a new concept? They ask: "What would our client think of this idea?"



You will not know what your non-gaming client thinks unless you sit down with the intention of listening to them and encouraging them to reach some true depth with their information, rather than showing them what you can do for them. Serious games clients come to you, and it is far less the other way around. They have already seen your slick ad campaign (i.e. "some product of yours" that attracted them to you). Do not show it to them again. It is their turn to share with you so that you can provide an accurate, A-Z proposal back to them.



You could almost say, Raymond, that I am suggesting, through my own experience, that a change in approach, from one type of client to another, is the silver bullet every frustrated game developer wishes they had in order to bring the appropriate level of attention and respect to the products we make fresh daily in our industry.



I would stop there, but the hard part to this simple equation is that you need someone on your side who is capable of and comfortable with communicating with "the outside world." Our industry is not known for these types of communicators . . . who are not allowed to lean on a slick presentation in order to get the deal done. These kinds of communicators live and die by how well they listen and how well they respond, in person, in the same moment.



The games industry generates products in support of so many other products and industries that a change in approach, per client, should be fundamental to everything we do, Raymond. Developers have a choice. We can show our limitations to the world, or we can show the world that our products are not the only things capable of modification.



"You choose who you want to be." No one is bullying you, with respect.

@ Rohit Nirmal



"If you're making a "game" that doesn't focus on entertainment, why do you call it a game?"



Tee Hee, because a "game" doesn't have to be "entertaining" it's not part of the definition. Also to all those who feel using the word game is inaccurate, by actually tacking on other words you begin to lose the elegant precision the word already has.



As for "Serious Games", we seem to have this issue of taking any old adjective and then turning it into a genre. My only real issue is that the word "Serious" is a bad word for what they're trying to describe. If we want Genre's then lets define them properly, Serious is a bad and vague word, why not Educational, Simulation, Historical, Historical Fiction, Philosophical, lets be more precise about how serious our game is. Serious is merely a current buzzword (which have always been a marketing ploy), and a poor choice of one at that. What if I have a Serious Sci-fi. What does that make my game?? The term is too loose and imprecise and as such has no place describing a genre.

"Developers have a choice. We can show our limitations to the world, or we can show the world that our products are not the only things capable of modification. No one is bullying you, with respect."



You're right! But I'm not saying I'm being bullied, I'm still in school and I get to make whatever I well please (a freedom I rather enjoy). You guys are the ones out there in the real world. I'll be there soon enough, but I don't mind prodding you a bit while I wait.

"You're right! But I'm not saying I'm being bullied, I'm still in school and I get to make whatever I well please (a freedom I rather enjoy). You guys are the ones out there in the real world. I'll be there soon enough, but I don't mind prodding you a bit while I wait."



Call me one guy in the real world who does not mind being prodded . . . and who genuinely appreciates the source.



Many people, upon entering their industry of choice, find themselves feeling the urge to pick their poison rather quickly, but it should not be at the cost of an operational method that, honestly, empowers game developers towards strengthening communications with both client and co-worker alike.



As the various art, technical, and liberal arts schools of the world receive their game development guidelines directly from the games industry, schools are the perfect place to begin adopting such an approach . . . so that when the opportunity presents itself in the real world it becomes part of a natural progression, rather than a special trick, towards more of the attention and respect coveted by so many in the industry.



Go get your tuition's worth from your school, Raymond! Power to the students!



We will all be waiting for you upon your graduation. :)

Wargames, as practiced by militaries around the world, predate our own industry by over a century. Miliitary wargames were attempting to mimic at least military (and often political) realities long before any commercial publisher such as Avalon Hill or SPI even existed. Long before Jim Dunnigan was born, even!



Wargames are two things: They are serious, and they are games. Nobody claims they are fun (the term I usually hear applied is either "boring" or "unrealistic," which is sort of dismaying, considering their intended purpose). Personally, I think if they are not compelling, they will not serve their purpose. And "compelling" and "fun" are semantic cousins.



I feel as if we have already had this discussion in an alternate universe. My business card says, "Serious Games Project Manager." The reason it says this is because the people with whom I deal understand what this title implies, i.e., that I am involved with the creation of games that serve the purpose of helping professionals learn to do their jobs better.



I don't really like the term "serious games" either. But it does have the benefit of distinguishing the difference between a game-like entity and a simulation.

First off great article and a BOOSH to you Ray!



Also really great comments here (good to see we have so many Champlain college students commenting here!)



Now getting right into it.



"So there is one thing these definitions agree on, save for the last one. That is that serious games are for something other than "pure entertainment". This implies that any game that is "non-serious" is only for entertainment. These people are implying, some explicitly so, that any game which is non-serious cannot have a real impact beyond being entertaining"



I believe your analysis is wrong. All three definitions that you provided speak about the primary purpose of a serious game. They say nothing about intentions of other games. Your offense with the term seems to only be with the implication that if "Serious games" exist all others must not be serious. I use this as my starting off point because I feel like you miss the fundamental purpose of explicit designing serious games and the goals involved in doing so. (I believe that with different processes come different categories.)



The primary purpose of a serious game is to educate, instruct, make aware, or to motivate a person, or groups of people, for some reason. They use a form of entertaining and interactive technology to do so, for reasons I don't think I need to describe. One of the other big differences I see is that many serious games are games that are not explicitly being developed for a profit, or are being developed for a specific company, or group. In my experience the former generally is a product to introduce the general public to a problem that is being faced and raise awareness about something (IE: Darfur is Dying, or 3rd World Farmer). The latter is something that has already been covered in terms of things like in house flight sims, training games or games like Americas Army.



Because this primary purpose differs from what I believe is the primary purpose of other more general games (which is to say entertainment, and more directly money) I believe the distinction is a good one. It is not to say that a serious game can not have entertainment, or that Grand Theft Auto can't be made to prove a point, just that what they want to accomplish in being created is different. (Which also generally includes things like money. I can't imagine most serious games developers are being pushed by publishers who need big earnings to justify investments).



Because of this I feel like serious games deserve to have a separate category just like documentaries, and non fiction books. I do agree that the word serious carries with it other implications. But what would you propose we call serious games? Should Darfur is Dying be called a non-fiction action/resource management sim?



"That leaves us with the serious games which are supposed to be just like those normal games we play, but with serious and poignant themes in mind. Wait, don't we have these already? Didn't Far Cry 2 touch on the poverty and power struggles in Africa? Didn't Bioshock try to challenge our notions of freedom (“A man chooses, a slave obeys”)?"



You explicitly (in my opinion) state why a distinction exists. Far Cry may have touched on poverty and power struggles, and Bioshock did challenge our notions of freedom. And yes these are intentional themes introduced by the designers. These are also alternative pieces, and are supplemental to the core gameplay. In serious games you cannot separate the message from the play. But even if you don't subscribe to that definition, you must understand that a game where the whole game fundamentally revolves around providing the player an educational experience in some way, is different from a game which is intended for the entertainment first mentality.



Also on a personal note I think that your perspective comes to much from that of a game designer. Look at the stereotypical kid who idolizes the lifestyles that Grand Theft Auto makes fun of. I doubt they recognize the satire. Games for a lot of people are not something they think deep about at night, and in the end many of the artful intentions of developers can be missed fairly easily by someone paying close attention to the game. Serious games make it impossible to miss because they push it right in your face many times at the cost of things like entertainment.



Like I said great article Ray. Way to rock!



(shameless plug here since it has been mentioned in other comments: http://www.emergentmediacenter.com/UNVAW/)

Well, Bryan, we could call them "educational games". That seems to cover the bases.



"Should Darfur is Dying be called a non-fiction action/resource management sim?"



Well, yeah. Exceot for the non-fiction part, since it's a fictionalized account of a real problem. But it IS an action/resource management sim. It's also quite serious. It's also educational.



But SimAnt is an action/resource management sim. And it's serious.



And Bioshock is serious.



What's the difference between these games and Darfur is Dying? Education.



"Serious" games are really educational games. Whether explicitly so (typing games) or in a more subtly so (Darfur is Dying), these games exist to educate people.



If they were movies, they'd be called "educational films" or "documentaries". If they were books, they'd be called "non-fiction books" or even "textbooks".



But they're games. So they're called "serious games", because everyone knows that games NORMALLY aren't serious.

Well, where that applies, yeah. I can't think of any games off the top of my head that are actually document anything, except in maybe a very abstract sense.



I generally prefer "educational". And, hell, we're using "educational" already! For kids. 'Cuz apparently when adults need to be educated, it's "serious".

""Documentary" simply means the opposite of fictional. It's used in film to differentiate entertainment films from non-entertainment ones."



No, it doesn't. Educational films are non-fiction, but not documentaries. Documentaries are called that because they DOCUMENT THINGS THAT HAPPENED.

See, I don't see Sim ant as a Serious Title.



Is Sim ant supposed to be a sobering exposé on the lives of ants and the dangers of spiders? Should this enforce our hate of spiders or should we treat spiders nice because in the real world they kills mosquitoes. And I guess because rain harms our anthills I should I put a tarp over my lawn? After all the game teaches me to value my ants first. The concept is silly and I hope you agree. Its not to say that the developers were screwing around developing this game, or that the game is bad. The game just isn't about teaching us about ants. It is about playing with our anthil.



Serious games don't focus on that entertainment first. Because of that games get looked at as viable solutions to new problems that corporations want to solve with games. There exist very few other ways to effectively market serious games on a whole to these companies without breaking into a million different names for the games.



Like...



AdverGames

Edutainment

Educational Games

Exergaming

Simulations

Marketing Game

Persuasive Games

Games For Health

Art Games

Millitainment

Edumarket Games

News Game

Organizational Dynamic Games



Serious Games is a broad term that is supposed to cover these less general terms, and actually does a good job of labeling these genres for us. I feel like the term helps legitimize gaming as a whole, by including, and not dis-including Entertainment games with serious games. I don't look at the two Serious Games, and Entertainment Games as entities apart and the point of this article is that they should be more in union. So why insist on a name change that in my opinion hurts the viability of Serious Games to be looked at as options for the companies looking to use them as solutions.



I believe that an offense is being invented in the use of the term serious to describe a different style of development, and product, because of a perceived slight against Entertainment games(Games for which the primary purpose is Entertainment). In my opinion the people who will develop bad opinions of Entertainment Games based on the name Serious Games are not the people who Game Developers are really interested in.



Bottom Line is that Games are Games. The stigma around games will be around until we are older and do not perceive games and gamers as scary. Already our generation, the generation of people who played game as children are getting into the work force, and hiring, and making decisions. Soon stigmas like the ones we mentioned will start to disappear as we become more liberal with our use of interactive media in all parts of society. Labeling a game as a Serious Games, is no more likely to change someone's opinion about the need for Grand Theft Autos and Bioshocks, than not calling them serious.



Also to update the current genre status of Darfur is Dying it is now an "Historical Fiction Action/Resource management simulation for the purposes of advertisement and education"

@Rohit Nirmal

A game is merely a collection of goals, and rules that form a structured activity, that is "most often" used as a form of entertainment and is not undertaken for remuneration (otherwise it's work). It's defining characteristic is also interactivity. A game may also be undertaken for other purposes, personal gain, "he treated the law like a game", education, seduction etc. None of which are defined by being "fun" or "entertaining" (that's not to say they can't be though).



So it is that game is quite an elegant word, one that has many social connotations now, hence why it is so readily misunderstood. Many adults think games a children's thing, not realising that most things they do that isn't work could be termed a game. Going to a bar to pick up chicks is a game. Most forms of crime are a game, blackmail, murder etc, are usually all games that the perpetrator an his unwilling victim are playing. Outdoing your workmate for the sheer competition of it is a game, and the list goes on.



So when your talking genre's, the game doesn't need to be entertaining, much as a book or a film don't have to be entertaining.

"See, I don't see Sim ant as a Serious Title."



That's because you're putting "Serious Title" in caps. It's a serious game, as in, it's serious. It fits the definition of serious that applies EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, except in gaming.



serious: thoughtful or subdued in appearance or manner



SimAnt fits. It's not a particularly colorful or energetic game. The gameplay is not particularly energetic or wild.



You're criteria only prove that is that it's not MEANINGFUL. not that it's not serious.



"Serious Games is a broad term that is supposed to cover these less general terms, and actually does a good job of labeling these genres for us. I feel like the term helps legitimize gaming as a whole, by including, and not dis-including Entertainment games with serious games."



'Serious Games' is a terrible term for these, more specific, genres. It implies that these games must be serious in nature, which they don't! I played a McDonald's-style restaurant game a few months ago that fits into the 'Serious Games' definition, but it wasn't a serious game. It was bright, amusing, and sometimes downright silly. Meanwhile, it also implies that games that are entertainment titles are not serious, which is equally false.



The problem here is simple: 'serious' just isn't the right word. The continued use of it leads to implications which are bad for the game industry. Let's use the right word instead.