Glossary

Serious games

A serious game is a game whose main purpose is something other than amusement: training, assessment, rehearsal or persuasion. The rules and the play are real; the reason for playing is a change in what someone can do afterwards.

The term comes from Clark Abt, whose 1970 book Serious Games described games with an explicit educational purpose, not played primarily for amusement. Abt meant board games and classroom exercises; the software came much later. Armies had been at it for a century, rehearsing decisions on a map because rehearsing them on a battlefield is expensive.

Why the simple definition misleads

"A game that teaches something" licenses two very different failures.

The first is decoration. The content is unchanged, a spaceship is drawn around it, and a quiz becomes a serious game by press release.

The second is subtler: the game works, and people get very good at the game. Whatever the scoring rewards is what they practise. If the quickest route to a high score is guessing early and often, you have built a guessing trainer.

A serious game teaches whatever its scoring rewards, not whatever its content says. Read the scoring rules as if they were a job description.

Serious describes the purpose, not the tone. Some of the best serious games are funny, and a group enjoying itself argues more honestly than a group being careful.

What they look like in practice

The oldest examples are simulators: flight decks, operating theatres, control rooms. Nobody calls those gamification. They are games in the strict sense, and their purpose is to make the first failure happen where it costs nothing.

In corporate learning: negotiation simulations, crisis and escalation exercises, phishing simulations, supply chain models, and narrative induction games where a cohort learns a culture by deciding inside it rather than reading about it.

Two of ours. HEARTWARE is five rounds over ninety minutes on judgment in the AI era: teams decide what to trust, what to verify and what to own, and question the people in the case in their own words rather than picking from a menu. Every reveal lands on all phones at once. Operation Keystone is a spy-thriller induction for two hundred joiners in sixteen teams across five levels, deliberately hybrid: ciphers and deduction in the app, physical challenges off-screen with facilitators, and solving the puzzle earns the passcode for the next level. More on how these are built: gamified learning apps.

What each mechanic actually rewards

Mechanics are not neutral. Picking them by taste is how good intentions produce bad behaviour.

Serious games versus gamification

GamificationSerious game
What it isGame elements bolted onto a non-game activityA whole game with its own rules and goal
Where the learning sitsIn the content being decoratedIn the decisions the rules force
Typical mechanicsPoints, badges, leaderboards, streaksScenario, constraints, consequences, hidden information
What it rewardsCompletion and persistenceJudgment under pressure
How it failsRemove the rewards, the behaviour stopsEnjoyed, then never made explicit
Best used forVolume through material people avoidRehearsing decisions that are costly to get wrong

Game-based learning is a third term, used more or less interchangeably. The usable distinction: game-based learning means using a game as the vehicle, including one you did not build, while a serious game is an artefact made for the purpose. Not worth defending in a procurement meeting.

How to specify one well

  1. Behaviour first, mechanic last. Decide the mechanic in the first meeting and the objective gets bent to fit it.
  2. Make the scoring the syllabus. Score what you want more of; everything else will be ignored.
  3. Withhold information deliberately. A game where the right answer is visible is a quiz with atmosphere.
  4. Let people ask in their own words. Multiple choice teaches recognition; free text teaches enquiry, and shows you who enquires.
  5. Write the debrief before the game, and give a facilitator control of the pace. An activity without a debrief is entertainment. How to debrief an activity covers the rest.

When a serious game makes things worse

How to tell whether it is working

Enjoyment is the weakest signal available and the one most often collected. It is level one of the Kirkpatrick model for a reason.

Common myths

The model underneath all of it is experiential learning: the game manufactures an experience worth reflecting on, and the reflection is where the learning happens.

Tour De Force runs this as live, experiential training for teams worldwide — online and in person. Talk to us, or play Gamified learning appsThe Weekly Challenge to see the method in ten minutes.

Questions

Serious games FAQs

What are serious games?

Serious games are games designed for a purpose other than entertainment, most often training, assessment or rehearsal. The player experiences real rules, constraints and consequences, but the reason for playing is that they should be able to do something differently afterwards. Flight simulators, negotiation simulations and scenario-based induction games are all serious games.

What is the difference between a serious game and gamification?

Gamification adds game elements such as points, badges and leaderboards to an activity that is not a game, usually to increase completion. A serious game is a game in its own right, where the learning sits in the decisions the rules force rather than in the content being decorated. Gamification is a layer; a serious game is the thing itself.

Are serious games effective for corporate training?

They are effective for a specific job: practising decisions that are expensive to get wrong in reality, and surfacing how a team behaves under pressure. They are poor value for straightforward knowledge transfer. Be sceptical of vendor effectiveness statistics, which are frequently unsourced. What most reliably determines whether a game teaches anything is whether it is debriefed.

Do serious games have to be digital?

No. Board games, card-based simulations and physical exercises have been used this way for decades. Software becomes worth it when you need large numbers, live scoring, simultaneous reveals across many phones, or a facilitator view of what every team is thinking at once.

When should you not use a serious game?

When the objective is simply to convey information, when nobody will facilitate the debrief, when the group is very small, when the scoring can be gamed more easily than the underlying skill can be learned, and when scores will feed performance reviews. That last case turns play into assessment, and participants respond by protecting themselves rather than experimenting.

Keep reading

Related reading

Get in touch

Want one built around your objective?

Book a 30-minute call. We will tell you honestly whether a serious game is the right instrument, or whether something simpler would do the job.

Book a discovery call