Serious games and how they differ from gamification

When discussing corporate training and educational alternatives, a niche term has become more and more popular since the early 2000s: serious games. The popularity of this medium has skyrocketed in the worlds of business and education, as serious games have found themselves successfully implemented in various subjects and across multiple business functions.

Of course, serious games often get lumped in with the frequently misunderstood discipline of gamification. The confusion is understandable, as the many different types of serious games that can be and have been created, utilise a lot of the same mechanics that makes gamification so effective.

The following topics will be covered in this decryption of serious games as a form of training and communication:

• Caillois’ definition of a game
• Can a game be a game if its main goal is to be educational rather than being unproductive?
• How do serious games diverge from gamification?
• What draws users to serious games?
• Serious game categories
• How to use serious games?

What is the definition of a serious game?

Julian Alvarez defines serious games as “a computer application in which the objective is to combine serious aspects such as teaching, learning, communication or information, in a non-exhaustive way with the playful energy of video games.”

So it is a computer game that’s main objective is not pure enjoyment as it aims to stimulate learning. Of course, Alvarez is not the only one to have proposed a definition for the term. Others, for example, define a serious game as a fun activity which does not need to be digitised.

Caillois’ definition of a game

However, Roger Caillois has developed a definition which opposes the definition that Alvarez has established. Having worked at length on the question of play, the sociologist defines the activity as:

• Free: playing must be voluntary and not forced.
• Separate: a game occupies its own space and time, it must have an end and clear limits, no matter how extensive they may be.
• Uncertain: the outcome of a game cannot be predetermined or known in advance.
• Unproductive: a game does not produce economical or proprietary gain, gambling is not a game but a transfer of wealth.
• Rule-bound: a game must be played subject to its own rules.
• Fictitious: a game is make-believe and not based in reality.

According to Caillois’s definition, serious games cannot be considered games as they are not unproductive (their main objective is to stimulate learning, with enjoyment being a secondary purpose).

Often, the trainer delivering the serious game presents it as a task to their learners, and in this sense, we can also say that Caillois’s element of “freedom” cannot be applied to serious games.

Can a game be a game if its main goal is to be educational rather than unproductive?

We can therefore wonder about the validity of the term “game” when talking about an activity not designed with the purpose of entertainment. It is possible that the term is not the most prudent in the traditional sense of the word.

In reality, it is not so much a case of playing, but rather a case of using the playful mechanisms of a game to serve an educational purpose, such as for developing soft skills. Jess Schell, for example, talks about the gamification of learning. The question of serious games qualifying as “real games” only arises if we take definitions by Caillois and other authors who consider games to be unproductive as a point of reference.

However, for many authors, bringing a playful dimension to educational content is sufficient for the activity to be considered a game.

How do serious games differ from gamification?

This is an area where a lot of people get confused, but there is a really easy way to think about both concepts that makes the distinction clear. Serious games apply serious purposes to a virtual, simulated reality: the digital environment of the game. Gamification takes elements of games and applies them to tasks or processes in the real world. In even simpler terms, serious games make games more purposeful, gamification makes real life more playful. Both, however, do so in order to drive engagement and achieve specific outcomes.

The term “serious games” can still probably sit under the gamification umbrella, but where serious games excel, and where they would be the superior choice to gamification, is in any setting involving the transfer of knowledge, or the development of skills. Basic gamification is adding points, badges and leaderboards to real life processes. It may well increase motivation, and drive engagement and performance, but in scenarios where people need to be trained, or lack experience, serious games come into their element.

If we return to Callois’s definition, there is a key point he makes: “A game occupies its own space and time.” This is a time outside of real life. Inside this virtual, simulated space and time, people can experiment, fail, repeat, and develop. Their failure in practice has no impact in the real world. They may develop the skills to achieve things in the real world, but no company will lose money, nobody will get hurt, and they won’t have failed an exam. For this reason they make for an exciting evolution of e-learning. They take the digital format of traditional e-learning, but add more interactivity, and more game mechanics to make for a more engaging and effective experience.

What interests users in educational games and interactive digital content?

• A motivation-booster for learning (Djaouti, 2016): the gamification of learning results in learners being more inclined to complete their training.
• Providing a sphere of experimentation in which the learner is invited to test their ability to reflect (Sanchez, 2011): serious games offer a space to help participants build a pertinent hypothesis independently.
• A deeper consideration of the range of learning differences between learners of the same group (Kafai, 1994): learners can advance at their own speed without any pressure from their peers.
• Improvement of group cohesion thanks to educational interactions between learners (Vygotsky, 1985).

In the context of business, we have also seen that the benefits of serious games can be important for employers. Fun, interactive modules modernise training within companies, improving talent retention in the company and the allure to potential candidates.

As well as being great training aids for onboarding new employees, and upskilling less experienced team members, they can be customised to cater for leadership development and project management training. The higher up the chain of command you go, the greater the impact of decision making. For this reason, serious games offer a virtual simulation of business scenarios in which leaders and managers can experiment, and develop best-practice strategies for leading and shaping companies. As virtual reality becomes more accessible, and gets integrated into gamification, serious games will become even more effective at delivering immersion.

Serious Games categories

A serious game can have different aims and can be used for the following purposes:

• Educational: the game therefore allows you to convey an education-based message. In this case, we can also call it “edutainment.” It is a great concept for use in a class or remote training, and can apply to purely academic subjects, or even skill-based subjects, like music tuition.
• Informative or communicative: the fun content allows you to inform participants on a particular subject.
• Training: the game facilitates teaching learners to complete a specific task.
• Education and learning are always at the heart of serious games.

How to use serious games?

Although the term educational “games” may be a contentious choice of wording in the eyes of some writers, it does not diminish the fact that integrating gaming mechanisms into teaching techniques for training and educational courses provides a positive and beneficial strategy for the end user. The only condition for successful integration is ensuring that the serious game is relevant to the content.

Bibliography

• Caillois, R. (1991). Les jeux et les hommes : Le masque et le vertige (Édition revue et augmentée). Gallimard.
• Alvarez, J. (2007). Du jeu vidéo au Serious Game : Approches culturelle, pragmatique et formelle [Spécialité science de la communication et de l’information]. Université de Toulouse II.
• Djaouti, D. (2016). Serious Games pour l’éducation : Utiliser, créer, faire créer ? Tréma, 44, 51‑64.
• Kafai, Y. B. (1994). Minds in Play : Computer Game Design As A Context for Children’s Learning. Routledge.
• Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333‑369.
• Metra, M. (s. d.). Approches_théoriques_du_jeu. 13.
• Sanchez, E. (2011). Usage d’un jeu sérieux dans l’enseignement secondaire. Modélisation comportementale et épistémique de l’apprenant. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 25, 203‑222.
• Vygotsky, L. (1985). Pensée et Langage (1ere éd.). Editions Sociales.
• Wastiau, P., Kearney, C., & Van Der Berghe, W. (2009). Quels usages pour les jeux électroniques en classe ? European Schoolnet.
  Bilan_jeux-serieux__2011-2012.pdf. (s. d.).

Want to know more?