Talk:Serious game

message: I'd like to suggest that Serious Games could include non-digital games, e.g. Winds of Change, A Climate Board Game. The U.S. military apparently includes board and card games in their repetoire as well: Serious games in the services: Army vs. Navy.--Edalton 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect.  While the literal meaning of a "Serious Game" could include board games and other traditonal types of games, the definition of Serious Game, as jargon and as used in the industry, applies only to computer and video games. I agree that many board games can have very serious premises, but they simply aren't referred to as Serious Games. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Board games too?

message: Would someone consider VBS1, the Flashpoint Training System by Bohemia Interactive to be a serious game, or not a game at all? I have seen VBS1 through their website, and it appears to be Operation Flashpoint on steroids, made into a training simulator for military and law enforcement squad tactics. Pyrogen 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VBS1 / Operation: Flashpoint 

message: Clark Abt wrote a book in 1970, titled Serious Games.  I am surprised to see that this work and work prior to 1980 is not represented in this article.  Admittedly, Abt was focusing on non-computer-based games, but the ideas are still relevant and one would expect to see them in a history section, if nothing else.  There seems to be a strong bias towards computer-based games, which is understandable, but makes the article incomplete.  --John F Patterson 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "serious games" was recently applied to computer games.  If it was used before them, it was off our radar.  Nothing's stopping you from adding it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Clark Abt's work missing? 

message: I'm afraid I've created a monster.  The text in this article is vague and confusing.  Perhaps it's due to the recent nature of serious games—and that they are ill-defined even within the industry.
But one thing I can fix quickly and will do soon.  The lists are unbalancing the article.  Soon I'll break them off into List of serious games and List of serious game developers.  If you object, please state here why.  If no objections are raised, I'll take care of it in the next few days. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists too long

message: Coming in off the CFD for :Category:Serious games ... It seems that the serious games listed are either some variant of educational (training, simulation) or are advertising.  I wanted to get some discussion from other folks interested in the serious game article.  To me, it seems that most serious games are equivalent to educational.  The other category that I see included in this article is "advertising/marketing" based games.  I'm not sure that "advertising" is the same "kind" of distinction as education or play.  For instance, a media tie-in game is a type of advertisement for the overall product franchise. Other games might include advertisement (a la product placement).  In thinking about sensible categories for this, does it make sense to think about what the game producer intends, or what the game player intends, or how the game is actually used?  I'm a little resistant to using trade terms like "serious games", especially when the trade terms haven't stabilized yet; I think it's better to use neutral non-jargon, with cross-references from industry jargon. (Posting here and --lquilter 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of games / "serious" versus "educational" 

message: THose lists need a clean-up. --Fredrick day 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up lists 

message: I'd like to know who is removing the list of Serious Games Developers? 
Are they being moved somewhere else, if so where are they going and why is there no link to it. Playgen 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is removing the list of Serious Games Developers? 

message: Both of these list articles are mainly external links, and Wikipedia is not a link directory. We should pull out the games that are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, and merge them back into this article - either as a flat list, or prose sections that usefully describe the types of games and use wikilinks as examples. "Serious game" would be better off as a category. --McGeddon 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the list contains a lot of external links.  But trying to find the most notable serious games will be hard since most are developed for private entities.  — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The lists themselves are useful and contain factual information, by merging the lists back into the main article would we not be either stifling the content of the list or over burdening the content of the main article (as it was before when it was all one article).  I understand that Wikipedia is not a link directory but the lists themselves are useful resources that should not be discarded IMHO. There are many lists on Wikipedia, are these different, and also I bet that many of those lists started like just like these.  Just some thoughts on the subject. Gizmo 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[List of Serious Games]] and [[List of Serious Games Developers]] 

message: I noticed that militainment isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Does it fall under a category that is already mentioned? SharkD 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Militainment

message: I keep up with this industry, and I am just wondering if anyone has input on putting in something like a conferences or organizations section.  Game developers conference has a serious games section now, as do most big events, which is pretty noteworthy.  As well as the serious game summit itself, and academic institutions popping up like Serious Games Institute in the UK. 
Suggestions/input?
Mlcblj (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Game Developers Conference used to have an annual Serious Game Summit, but they canceled it and all future summits because they lacked interest and most people attending didn't know what they were doing. The annual summit in DC might still be active, but I don't know for sure. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Ben Sawyer and Ian Bogost, "There is a Serious Games Summit @ GDC [2008] this year.  It's single track but we've got about 20+ sessions planned.  The dates for the summit are the 18 & 19th [of February].  There are also plans underway for a final session on day II titled Serious Games Potluck.  Essentially it's a semi-formal session where you BYOD (bring your own demo) and we will allocate space to you to showcase your demo in a sort of festival style atmosphere."  There's also a Games for Health conference in Baltimore on May 8-9, 2008.  --Alan Au (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conferences and organizations? 

message: This time I've just removed the "List of serious game developers" completely. It's a spam magnet; it offers no worthwhile content to the article; there is a list of notable games above, which is more useful; and finally, this would be better served by adding a category template to each company's article and then letting people go to the category's page to see the list. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists again 

message: The article cites the shoot-'em-up video game Halo as an example of a serious game, claiming that it "explores the subject matter of Western art and culture."  That must be a joke, right?  I'm not aware that Halo has any serious focus on artistic or cultural matters.  I'd suggest deleting Halo from the list, but before doing so I'm putting it up for discussion in case I'm missing something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that it shouldn't be there. Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that were true - that wouldn't make it a "serious game" - at least not in terms of this article.  We're not talking about games that are not funny - we're using it in terms of a game that is intended for serious purposes such as training soldiers or firefighters or something - games that do not have entertainment as their major objective.  I've removed it. SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Halo really a game about Western art and culture? 

message: I have just noticed that "Serious Games on Twitter" has been added to the further reading list. 
I read a lot about serious games, and that includes these Tweeter posts. I believe this Twitter link is not of substantial encyclopedic value. Isn't there a policy with regard to what should - and what shouldn't - be in this list?
DrJHoward (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the link and wasn't too sure about it either.  The policy you mention can be found at WP:EL. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link in question clearly falls under the "Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." entry of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I'll remove it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading recommendations 

message: I've recently added the History section and would like to tackle the Overview section. There is some good information here but only 1 citation. I would like to shorten this section to remove cross-over information or even combine it with History under one topic heading (which can be History or Overview). Regardless, the information there needs citations or it needs to be removed/re-written with citations. I do not mind researching the info (since I am a grad student studying  Instructional Design in Simulations and focusing on Serious games), and reworking this topic, but at the same time I don't want to step on anyone's toes.
Thoughts? I am new to adding content at Wikipedia so guidance would be appreciated.
Kelly O'Brien Wilson 15:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the edits to this article have been people trying to advertise their products.  Any editing with a serious purpose is absolutely welcome -- go for it. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the current number of examples acceptable? I can understand wanting to give a broad view of what the field of serious games has to offer, but the list is rather long. Is culling the list necessary, and if so how do we parse the acceptable games from the gratuitous entries? Bobkat1252 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If so they should moved to a new, separate article: List of serious games. --Fixuture (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview Section needs work and citations 

message: Me and a partner have done some research on the topic of serious games and there are some things we would like to add to the discussion.
A possible definition: A serious game is defined as “video games, productive in other words, whose design aims to bring about a transformation in their recipients in line an improvement of skills (training), the adaptation to the environment (treatment of phobias), understanding of a phenomenon (education) or greater adherence to the message (promotion, advertising, ideological video games” (Mouaheb)
A couple of important points: Health education is a particular area where results have been observed by the use of serious games “Video games, enhanced by behavior-change technology and motivating story lines, offer promise for promoting diet and physical activity change for diabetes and obesity prevention in youth.” (Thompson).
Intrinsic motivation is another feature provided by serious games that facilitates education. To produce motivation four characteristics are provided by serious games “challenge, curiosity, control and the imagination / imaginary (fantasy)” (Mouaheb). These four characterisitics create a particular advantage “in an educational context the game is likely to make the learning process interesting in itself to obtain the greatest motivation in the learner” (Mouaheb).
The dynamic nature of virtual environments also causes “active participation by the player” (Mouaheb). Active participation leads to “a fertile ground for the generation of real cognitive conflicts ensuring a personal and solid build of knowledge” (Mouaheb). Another researcher confirms this view “computer games are more engaging, motivating and interesting
by virtue of their interaction, rich universes, challenges and safety” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen). 
The combination of all these factors leads to significant benefits “retention increases when using computer games compared to other teaching” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen). The use of reward in a behavioral sense is also a powerful tool in serious games “the video game will ask a question and the player will answer.
When students link the question and the answer enough times, reinforced by a reward, learning will occur” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen). 
And a point about the comparison between other learning methods and serious games:  Limited studies have been performed to compare the effectiveness of serious games to other learning formats. One such study comparing games to an educational video found that “The children playing the video game
expressed more enjoyment and learned the same as those watching the television program” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen). Studies have shown that games can have a strong effect on day-to-day health management. In one study, children who played a game about healthy living principles had “a 77 percent drop in visits to urgent care and medical visits in the experimental group compared with the control group” (Egenfeldt-Nielsen). 
References: 
1.	Houda Mouaheb, Ahmed Fahli, Mohammed Moussetad, Said Eljamali. The Serious Game: What Educational Benefits? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281202201X. Sep 6, 2012
2.	Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon. The basic learning approach behind Serious Games. http://media.seriousgames.dk/downloads/the_basic_learning_approach.pdf  April 2005
3.	Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Simon. Overview of research on the educational use of video games. http://media.seriousgames.dk/downloads/game-overview.pdf March 2006
4.	Thompson D, Baranowski T, Buday R, Baranowski J, Juliano M, Frazior M, Wilsdon J, and Jago R (2007). In Pursuit of Change: Youth Response to intensive Goal Setting Embedded in a Serious Video Game. http://www.journalofdst.org/pdf/VOL-1-6-OBT1-THOMPSON.pdf
Prepared by: Kevin Cummings A.J. Welch   University of South Carolina ITEC 544
Cumminkm  —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Changes to Article 

message: Just pasting these here, because someone mentioned them in the List of video game genres talk page a few years ago: , ,  These look like excellent sources. ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some references 

message: It would be useful to have a section devoted to the gamification of health-related activities other than traditional exercising (which is covered in the exergaming article). I know of hands-free breath/breathing-related video games used to treat various health conditions, and  recently  about a amblyopia-oriented game over at the "video game controversies" article. The placement at that article was inappropriate so I've reverted it and I'm shifting the content of this edit below in the hopes that it can be used in a new health-related section either here or perhaps at "Exergaming". -Thibbs (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health gamification 

message: User:JzG recently removed the list of examples, saying "Unsourced list".
Imo this list should be readded, preferably with new references.
What do others say?
--Fixuture (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of examples 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Serious game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610101344/http://media.seriousgames.dk/downloads/the_basic_learning_approach.pdf to http://media.seriousgames.dk/downloads/the_basic_learning_approach.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610102240/http://media.seriousgames.dk/downloads/game-overview.pdf to http://media.seriousgames.dk/downloads/game-overview.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi all. I am thinking of adding some content to this page. I read through the previous chats and see there was some differences in the nature of serious games. I would argue it is not limited to videos games. Also, there growing literature on serious games as social impact games, humanitarian games, etc. and these can be digital or analog. Just putting this out before I make edits to see what others think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawenad (talk • contribs) 20:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributing to serious games 

message: The description of Art Games strikes me as poor, as it claims that Art Games emphasize aesthetics over gameplay mechanics, but many games I see labeled as Art Games use gameplay mechanics AS part of the aesthetic experience, for example Don't look Back. As such I find the description to be very misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A927:1900:D9DD:DB5B:44FF:9A09 (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art Games 

message: This article is missing a bunch of citations for factual claims. I don't have a ton of time but I'm tagging some.
Editors: If you're just putting stuff you "know" into the article without a reliable secondary source, you're doing it wrong. If you want to add something but have no idea where to find a source for it, post it in talk and ask someone who knows a good source to add it for you. If you're editing something because you feel the content is wrong/incomplete/inaccurate, but don't have a source for your change: don't. Andythechef (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations