Talk:Serious game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serious game article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] AA a serious game

You were right about AA being a serious game. This source convinced me [1] (pages 26 and 27) but it also confuses me as there are now three different difinitions. You can also use the source (UNIVERSITY!!) as a compelling argument for "serious game"'s right to exist but I'm sceptical about it's accurate definition. Maybe you should work on your definition. I'll also include a link from the AA article to it... I've today started to work on a larger edit for the AA article. =)NightBeAsT 23:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, NightBeAsT. As long as AA mentions it being a serious game, I'll probably stay away from any of your other AA edits.  :-)
If you feel the definition is out of whack, please make the edits or discuss them here first if you feel so inclined. The definition of an SG is kind of murky right now, so I wouldn't be surprised if many people are confused by or have different opinions about what constitutes a serious game. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Board games too?

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)

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)

[edit] VBS1 / Operation: Flashpoint

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)

[edit] Seriously Military / Industrial Complex?

Do any real games companies get involved in this, or is this mostly a military endeavour being supported by certain industries and educational institutions? There are a few humanitarian / non-military applications listed here, are the proportions accurate? And I've never heard of the games companies on this page (but I'm not a deep expert in the area.) --Jaibe 15:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BreakAway Games is probably the largest single developer of serious games, and they are a traditional video game developer. As a matter of fact, I think most of the developers are traditional video game developers, and the military and government just happen to be some of their customers. However, as opposed to traditional games, the end products aren't always released to the mass market; the are often used internally by the customers.
It's not surprising that you haven't heard of many of the developers. They tend to be very small and some aren't video game developers at all, but small media companies. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The term 'real game companies' may be a bit dubious. If by 'real' we mean 'large' then it's not too surprising that one mightn't recognize these names. Larger game developers are most often developing for profit, whereas the serious games concept almost inherently implies that the developer has some other interest (such as education or propaganda). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanenbaumm (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why is Clark Abt's work missing?

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)

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)

[edit] Lists too long

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)

  • Thanks for offering to clean this up--the lists are definitely getting out of hand. --Alan Au 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of games / "serious" versus "educational"

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)

[edit] Clean-up lists

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

  • Thanks for cleaning that up. There are only a handful of well-known games, much less development studios. Breakaway and Cyberlore are two interesting studios, as they were entertainment developers that converted over to the SG market. --Alan Au 16:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Cleanup Tag

  • I've just removed the Cleanup tag since it related to the long lists which have now been dealt with. If there are any other specific issues with the article please either fix them or note them here, or if you feel really strongly about it, put the tag back! Gizmo 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is removing the list of Serious Games Developers?

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)

  • Hi there, I've just resurrected the developers and games lists and placed them in new 'lists' articles, hopefully this will allow the lists to contain a comprehensive set of data whilst keeping the core article concise. Gizmo 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Gizmo, hopefully the new pages will get better organised now as time passes. Playgen 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for better definition of Serious Game

I am not 100% happy with the current definition of Serious Game at Wikipedia. Here is my new definition:

Serious game: product developed with game technology and game design principles for another primary purpose than pure entertainment.

Why I think this definition is better:

  • More to the point
  • Not limited to computer and video games
  • Covers the whole spectrum better without becoming very lengthy

Any feedback? PjotrAtVSTEP 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good, but how about this:
A serious game is a software application developed with game technology and game design principles for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment.
instead? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the definition needs to be changed, at present it does not communicate quickly and cleanly what the article is about, the suggestions above are defiantly steps in the right direction, although Frecklefoot's probably works the best for wikipedia. Gizmo 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)



Does the term "Serious Game" exist outside of the Serious Games Initiative? If no other sources recognise the phrase, it might not be the best title for this article. --McGeddon 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is recognized outside the initiative. It is becoming more recognized in academia, the military and government organizations. I just wish the article made this clear. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging List of Serious Games and List of Serious Games Developers

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)

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)
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)

Merged the non-redlinks and non-spam entries from those lists back here. Separate lists don't change the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Any entries should clearly demonstrate salience and notability, or be removed. Femto 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No more "examples"

I don't know why or how, but ever since I started this article, it has been a huge target for spammers and self-promoters. I have no idea why: does anyone see a flood of serious games on the market? Every few days (or hours), some self-promoter will add his product to the Examples section and/or his company to the Notable developers section. Since most of these products and companies are two-bit operations, can we agree to only allow products and companies that already have articles? Otherwise we're just asking for noise. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat related http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15832
My advice is to remove as many of them as possible. Keep it limited to several specific high-profile product examples in the various categories and do away with all the company examples etc. It's not relevant. We don't name every company that builds a computer in the "computer"-article either. Only historic "breakthrough" developments by several computer-companies are detailed by company name. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and use prose instead of lists. People have a tendency to make lists "complete" whereas they have less tendency to make prose "less readable". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militainment

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)

[edit] Conferences and organizations?

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)

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)
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)