# SiPlus a User-Centered Methodology for Serious Games Design
## 2 Related Research
### Background  
There is no final definition of \"Game\", new practices around games need new definitions. A definition can be better or worse within a particular cultural and historical context and for a particular purpose.  
There are game characteristics that better describe them in the literature, but some authors specify considerable difficulty in reaching a comprehensive definition of the game despite this.  
Some authors mark the beginnings of the use of games from different perspectives; for example, [PERSON] [4; 5] argued that play itself is a necessity of cultural development, emphasizing that the characteristics of play are \"free\", the game is \"as if\", it has a \"disinterested character\" that becomes \"complement of life\".  
[PERSON] [6] from the mathematical current says, \"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules\". He notices the need to play under some rules so that the game can be a game. His definition does not account for the more modern video games, where the players are NOT limited in scope.  
[PERSON], in [7], expresses that six characteristics best describe the game: \"free\", \"separate\", \"uncertain\", \"unproductive\", \"governed by rules\", \"make-believe\".  
These diverse qualities are purely formal; researchers have criticized this definition, leaving the definition of games open.  
Although these authors do not speak from a digital perspective, their critical opinion is essential since our study considers two key terms, the game and the serious content.  
On the other hand, the first formal definition of \"Serious Game\" was proposed by [PERSON] (1970) [8]: \"Games may be played seriously or casually. We are concerned with SGs in the sense that these games have an explicit and carefully thought-out educational purpose and are not intended to be played primarily for amusement. This process does not mean that SGs are not, or should not be, entertaining.\"  
Back then, the first \"Serious Games\" were not necessarily thought of in terms of digital support. The game was seen as an element that allows people to develop skills or acquire knowledge through practice through play. [PERSON] talks of \"non-digital \"games, using a wide range of support such as board games in the classroom. The physical elements of interaction and participation between the different participants intervene.  
Later, the concept of \"Serious Game\" was redefined by [PERSON] [9], oriented to digital use. \"A computer application, made by developers, researchers, industrialists, whose chief mission is not entertainment.\" [PERSON], in [10], proposes a relevant definition: \"A mental contest played with a computer following specific rules, that uses entertainment, to further government or corporate training, education, health, public policy, and strategic communication objectives.\"  
Unlike their entertainment-only counterparts, SGs use pedagogy to infuse instruction into the gameplay experience. [PERSON] [10] states that a game must combine components of a video game (story, art, and software) with pedagogical elements to be considered serious.  
A more recent relevant definition was proposed by [PERSON] [11], who studies the origins of SGs and defines them as \"a computer application whose initial intention is to consistently combine serious aspects such as teaching, learning, communication or information, with playful aspects of the video game.\" Such an association operates through the implementation of a pedagogical scenario that, at the computer level, corresponds to the performance of a sound and graphic design, a story, and appropriate rules.  
There is no perfect definition for serious games because the quality of a definition depends on its purpose. Thus, perhaps the appropriate approach would be to adopt as simple a definition of serious games as possible. However, it would be a mistake to understand this to mean that there is no point in studying and making definitions or that all of them are useless.