The notion of predetermined outcome has no bearing on serious or other kinds of games.

But I’d even argue that a predetermined outcome is detrimental to a well designed game. It is one of the major flaws in the game tic tac toe for example- you know how it’s going to end before it’s over. That’s no fun.

You can also play with toys, even though they are not games. I think you can also learn a lot from playing with toys.

@April: Speaking of the Sims, a very interesting talk with Will Wright is posted on TED in which he refers to Spore as a toy rather than a game. The talk is really worth watching:
http://www.ted.com/talks/will_wright_makes_toys_that_make_worlds.html

Thanks for the Line Rider tip.

Line Rider is definitely not a game, (no winning condition) its more a physics simulation that you can have lots of fun with; while discovering the underlying physics. Its casual, since it doesnt require time and effort to master.

Another game very similar to this one I like is Crayon Physics; its a physics simulation, but that has clear winning conditions – why I used the word ‘game’

The lines between simulation and games are getting blurred more each passing day. Your reference to ‘play’ is fundamental; its because we play that we learn; you could play a game or a simulation.

Are your saying that a casual game with multiple choice questions can be considered serious game if it is used for learning/training?
And are you saying the 5 clues you listed actually differentiate non-games from games rather than casual-games from serious-games?

My response:

No, a game that has multiple choice questions is necessarily a casual game – a puzzle even; because there is a single repeatable path to victory.

My comment “That’s what makes it ’serious’; if we were playing for fun, it’s a casual game, perhaps with some learning value.” was arguing that The Sims 3 is a serious game if it’s content/context were applied to learning. The Sims 3 is a hardcore simulation game; there’s no chance it will appeal to a casual gamer; simply because of the time and effort needed to master the simulation and its varied, perhaps infinite outcomes.

I look at The Sims 3 as a fine example of a open-ended simulation. The context of recreational use and its content which is geared towards entertainment make it a game too. The Sims 3 is a simulation-game.

A Flight Simulator like Chaim mentioned is a great example of a simulation that’s a game in one context like microsoft’s flight simulator because of recreational use and a serious learning game if you are looking at what Boeing makes and sells for millions of dollars as flight simulators; the content is very similar, while the fidelity differs vastly.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the difference between games and simulations is that a game has pre-determined outcomes, a defined purpose and ending if you will, whereas simulations are open-ended and can have many possible outcomes.

Purpose does play a great role in determining how games are used within a learning context. Then again, so does the scaffolding around the game as learning tool.

“ there is currently no agreed upon definition for “game”, “simulation”, or “serious game”, even by the industry producing”

That’s spot-on, simulations vs. games is dangerous territory and lots of hair splitting does exist. I personally dont see a difference between a game and simulation. All games are simulations with varying levels of fidelity.

An example of which I’m currently enamored by is the Sims 3; a beautiful example of a social simulation or is it a game? Does it have great potential for learning? yes. In that case, I’d like to think of it as a great game.

If we were to repurpose The Sims to a learning game; wouldnt it be the content and context that would make it ’serious’? That’s what makes it ’serious’; if we were playing for fun, its a casual game, perhaps with some learning value.

These are my thoughts of the bat; I’d like to consider your comments some more…

How does a “game” differ from a “serious game”? Intended use.

I am going to disagree with you. Some may claim that I am simply splitting hairs and that it is simply a matter of semantics, however there is currently no agreed upon definition for “game”, “simulation”, or “serious game”, even by the industry producing this applications.

I don’t disagree that the items you have listed will make for a more effective serious game, but I don’t think they define/identify serious games.

I believe the difference is one of purpose. Although a “simulation” often has a connotation of having more fidelity than a game, no one would deny that a “flight simulator” is very often played as and classified as a “game”. Chess might be called a “game”, but it is a “serious game” when used as a tool to teach about long-term planning, and second- and third-order effects.

There is also a secondary argument that, along with intended purpose, context is also a determining factor. In my previous example of chess, a cluefull instructor and a set of supporting instructional materials would most likely be required to be effective. However, a lunchtime game of chess between friends, would just be a game.

In short, a “game” is something that is played for fun and a “serious game” (or “simulation”) is something that is played with the intent of learning (or increasing or enforcing prior learning).

I would appreciate anyone’s feedback on this.

Archana: You make a valid point; ‘gray’ areas rather than ‘black and white’ decisions are what are required of learners in serious games. Life as we know if never black and white, and simulation/games must be able to replicate that grey area in game play and mechanics. In that sense, there is no wrong decision only undesirable outcomes. The beauty of the game/simulation is that the learner can realize the factors that influence the outcomes and their manipulations – that’s true learning.