Content uploaded by Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen on May 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 1 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
After developing more than 30 learning games I can safely
say that it is definitely not an easy task. Developing good
learning games requires constant attention to opposing
factors, which only through creativity can truly be made to
smoothly work together.
Since the inception of computer games, there has been
learning games. In the early years, games were used to
demonstrate the potential benefits of computers. Although
learning games date back to at least the 1960s, it is still a
discipline fraught with challenges [1]. One of the fundamental
questions that remain unanswered is: What really makes a
good learning game? This simple question is far from trivial
as it might be seem upon first sight. The question relates to
what we define as a good game and what we define as good
learning—none of which have been fully answered.
This article is not be a quick-guide for "how to design"
learning games with ideas like points, leveling, power-ups
and clear goals. Rather it will present a helicopter view on
what often happens when you apply these principles and
ignore the fundamental structure of games. You may very
well create a learning game that is motivating, and uses level
and feedback in some ways, but still fail miserable. This often
happens because designers are not conscious of how games
are fundamentally structured. They forget games are about
"what you do" and not "what you see." Instructional designers
apply game principles but forget to step back and see
whether these principles distort the learning experience.
Often this happens by failing to integrate game and learning
goals, losing sight of the difference between seeing and
doing, and accidentally derailing the player away from
learning in favor of pure fun. When you use very simple
principles from games in your e-learning applications the risk
of distortion is less, unlike when designing more complex,
game-based learning applications.
The Critique of Edutainment
Let's go beyond the traditional edutainment games that can
be characterized as low-budget, student-centric, skills-based
games exhibiting simple gameplay, somewhat dated
graphics, and simplistic underlying learning theories. Such
games have been criticized for failing to integrate the learning
experience and game experience while lacking intrinsic
motivation, which is a crucial part of a successful computer
game [2].
We need to extend the scope of learning games beyond
edutainment. Seymour Papert's humorous quote points to
edutainment games that exhibit both flawed game design and
conservative learning theories:
"Most of what goes under the name 'edutainment'
reminds me of George Bernard Shaw's response
An ACM Publication | CONTRIBUTE | FOLLOW
What Makes a Good Learning Game? What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Going beyond edutainmentGoing beyond edutainment
BY SIMON EGENFELDT-NIELSEN / FEBRUARY 2011
1. Cross-institutional Leadership
Collaboration: Toward the
development of a peer-mentoring
framework of practice in adult online
education
2. Going Beyond Multiple Choice
3. Harnessing the Power of Natural
Language Processing to Mass
Produce Test Items
4. Centering All Students in Their
Assessment
5. Transitioning to and Navigating
Virtual Conferences as a Result of
COVID
6. Closing the Assessment Excellence
Gap: Why digital assessments should
go beyond recall and be more
inclusive
7. Inclusion Rather Than Exclusion: An
interview with Simos Retalis on
accessibility
8. Profound Learning Through Universal
Design
9. Getting Authoring Right: How to
innovate for meaningful improvement
10. Supporting Online Teaching Faculty
Beyond the Pandemic: A “faculty
concierge” model
11. Finding the Right Tools for Your
Classroom's Tech Needs
12. Blended Learning Technologies in
Dental Education: A case study in
orofacial pain
13. Blended Teaching in Health
Professions Education
14. Teaching Tracheostomy Management
Using VoiceThread: Reflection on the
evolution of our blended coaching
approach
15. Maintaining Social Support in the Era
of Social Distancing: Transitioning an
in-person family-oriented wellness
event to a virtual venue
MOST VIEWED
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 2 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
to a famous beauty who speculated on the
marvelous child they could have together: "With
your brains and my looks..." He retorted, "But
what if the child had my looks and your brains?"
[3]—Seymour Papert (p. 88)
Thomas Malone laid the foundation for criticism in the 1980s,
when he identified a lack of intrinsic motivation and the
limited integration of learning and games [4]. The reliance on
drill-and-practice learning principles, which have and continue
to dominate edutainment titles, can be added to this critique.
Although drill-and-practice is a sound learning principle, it
limits the domains of knowledge where we can use learning
games—often the delivery of quite simple information.
Usually, drill-and-practice learning entails we end up of with
quite simple games that are lacking when compared with
entertainment games.
The path to answering the question "What is a good learning
games?" requires that we dig a little deeper into the concepts
of games and learning.
Defining Games and Learning
The first precondition is to conceive what a game is: I define
computer games as virtual worlds with a conflict. Virtual
worlds are finite, rule-based problem-spaces that offer
players different means to solve problems with a precise
feedback and reward system.
Inspired by the work of Raph Koster, I talk of games as
consisting of verbs and substantives [5]. This is a crucial
distinction to understand not only what makes a game a
game, but what makes it good. Furthermore, this distinction
will help us focus on the elements where games differentiate
themselves from other learning forms.
The starting point for most games is substantives, which
make up the story and the environment. But verbs are what
you can actually do in the story and environment. You can
say substantives set the scene. You can have a game with a
tree, car, boat, robber and cop, but before you add verbs it is
nothing more than a representation. The substantives have a
purpose. They set the initial stage, make actions meaningful,
and add, in general, more immersion. They draw in the player
by setting the scene, explaining the universe, and providing
the background story. The substantives make your actions
matter—they are required for the verbs to works, even if the
substantives are sometimes very limited. Take the somewhat
abstract ghosts in "Pac-man or the vivid big-city mafia in
"Grand Theft Auto". However some of the games considered
to be the very soul of gaming stand out for their almost
complete lack of substantives. Instead they herald the core of
games to do something! Tetris is a prime example; it is almost
completely void of substantives. In Tetris the turning of blocks
makes up the core gameplay, the verbs. The substantives are
basically different forms of blocks.
So why are verbs important? Games are about making
decisions, what will you do next, It is about seeing
consequences, and receiving feedback on your actions. It is
also about getting rewards from your actions, and it's about
actions not being too easy. The reason why a game like
Counter-Strike is very popular is related to the fact that there
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 3 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
is a working and interesting virtual world (substantives),
where you can perform a number of actions (verbs) that are
well balanced. You get immediate feedback from your actions
and the consequences are clear. This is similar to most other
games, and indeed the focus in many a game review is often
on so-called game play (a term to describe this fuzzy
interaction of verbs). It is the verbs that really make computer
games stand out from other media. Through the verbs you
are immersed and engaged in an interesting world. The game
needs to stay interesting in terms of substantives, but more
importantly at its core, the things you do. The verbs.
The focus on verbs also means that when you are designing
(learning) games the focus should also be on the rules of the
games, which is very closely tied to the verbs. A rule is a
clear principle for what happens in a system given a specific
action (which is why most games transfer so well to
computers). The rules don't define a substantive—
substantives are simply there. However, the rules define the
verbs and create delicate relationship with substantives,
feedback, and rewards loops.
In a learning perspective the verbs are what you will learn,
but it will rely on how you set up the feedback and reward
systems through the rules of the game. Rules are central to
games, whether digital or analog, because they are the
"language" of games. When we design learning games we
should therefore be very focused on how the rules in the
games works, because they define the core of the game
experience, and ultimately the primary learning results.
A lot of the elements present in a good game relate to a good
learning game. Without interesting substantives, and verbs
you risk the game losing its fun factor. The loss of the fun can
be related to either the verbs or substantives losing their
attraction. It might be that you have seen and experienced all
there is to the virtual world (substantives), but more than
likely you have mastered the actions at your disposal. You
can drive the same racing course, play the same strategy
scenario or complete the same level, yet your attraction has
not waned because you still see new ways of mastering the
verbs even if the substantives are mostly the same.
So What Makes a Good Learning Game?
If we combine the above understanding of verbs and
substantives with the criticisms leveled earlier at edutainment
we can better appreciate what makes for a good learning
games. We need to focus on three factors when designing
strong learning games
Integration
When you play a learning game you need to make sure that
learning and play are integrated. This means that to succeed
in the game you also need to master the learning goals
behind the game. In developing a learning game, one must
recognize how integration works both in relation to the verbs
in the game and the substantives.
Often proponents and newcomers to the field of learning are
distracted by the seeming overlap in substantives and their
curriculum. For example with a historical strategy game that
covers the same contents found in many school curriculums,
players will learn something from this content. But on closer
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 4 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
examination, very often the substantives, and especially the
verbs, in these historical strategy games are less than a
perfect match with the learning goals in schools.
In the real-time strategy game Age of Empires II the verbs
are basically about mastering paper-rock-scissors dynamics,
but they are not really integrated with any learning goals.
Although the verbs are wrapped in a historical setting
(substantives), historical knowledge is not really necessary to
succeed in the game, and hence become of little importance
to the player. At best the player will skim the historical
information, but mostly just ignore it because it is of no
consequence for mastering the game.
Motivation
We need to make sure that the game is as intrinsically
motivating as possible. The actual key activity in the game
must be interesting and engaging.
Motivation should be in tune with the requirements of good
gameplay like good balancing, a well tuned rewards system,
varied consequences, and quick user feedback. This can also
be summarized into the concept of "challenge." When a
player experiences motivation they are challenged, which is
the consequence of a number of underlying variables working
well. Feedback is quick, precise and relevant when delivered
to the player. The reward system is well balanced with a
progression that follows Csikszentmihalyi's flow theory [6].
These motivational elements are largely a result of the rules
set up by the system.
A good learning game succeeds when it does not become
void of meaning, when there is motivation. The underlying
principle behind learning with games is to take advantage of
the engagement and attraction of the game format, and
therefore it needs to be sustained no matter what. Otherwise,
the game really stops being a game and should rightly be
categorized as educational software or similar.
Focus
The final element is the game's focus. Sometimes you will
have many relevant verbs and substantives, but if the game's
focus is off then you may only encounter them rarely, or not at
all. Again it makes sense to remember to differentiate
between substantives and verbs. You can be focused in the
learning experience by exploring, operating and interacting
within a setting like a historical map or a historical city.
However for focus to be optimal during the learning
experience it needs to be supplemented by working with the
verbs. If you are constantly spending time clicking the ground
to walk around, examining surroundings to identify small
boxes and then picking them up, the verbs may not be
relevant to the learning experience. You will basically learn to
walk, identify boxes and pick stuff up, which is not relevant
beyond the game.
Although historical strategy games will often address
economy, diplomacy and politics, however these areas are
peripheral to the main gaming activity. Therefore players may
learn about these areas, but only for a limited part of the
game time.
Conclusion
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 5 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
The three elements are not absolute variables but rather a
continuum from very strong learning games to weaker
learning games. The threshold for how good a learning game
should be needs to be defined in relation to context. We need
to set stricter demands on some variables for formal
education rather than informal. It is important that learning
games are focused on the targeted curriculum and the game
integrates learning, so users are not sidetracked by the
game-part. Motivation can be of less importance in formal
education where the competition for attention is often not as
harsh as in the informal context. On the other hand in an
informal context we may require less in terms of focus and
integration, but demand that motivation is comparable to
entertainment titles that compete for players' time.
Hopefully the above has outlined a framework for analyzing
and evaluating what makes for a good learning game. You
need to examine the game's verbs and substantives in
relation to focus and integration, while being sensitive to the
motivational power of the learning game. So now that we
have the formula we can get started building good learning
games.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to the many people who have over the years given
feedback at conferences on the work presented in this paper.
About the Author
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen is the CEO of Serious Games
Interactive. After receiving his Ph,D., which focused on the
educational use of computer games, he worked as an
assistant professor at IT-University of Copenhagen for five
years on games and learning projects. He has studied,
researched, and worked with computer games for more than
10 years; over the years he has been involved in developing
more than 30 games. At Serious Games Interactive he has
participated in three EU research projects within the area.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen has served on the Digital Game Research
Association Board for three years, co-founded Game-
research.com, and authored four books on video games. He
regularly gives talks around the world.
References
[1] Kent, S. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon - The Story
Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World. Three Rivers Press.
[2] Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). The Educational Potential of Computer Games. Continuum Press.
[3] Papert, S. (1998). Does Easy Do It? Children, Games, and Learning. Game Developer
Magazine, 88-89.
[4] Malone, T. W., and Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivation
for Learning. In Snow and Farr (Eds.), Aptitude Learning, and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
[5] Koster, R. (2004). Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph.
[6] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial.
Comments
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 6 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
Sun, 20 Feb 2011
Post by Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
This talk is more center on that previous link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=xgS1xE7URZc&feature=related
Sun, 20 Feb 2011
Post by Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen
Thanks for the comments - good learning computer games
are definitely triggy to cover with an encompassing list, and
this wasn't necessarily the point here. I think there is [insert
number here] of elements to a good learning game. However,
I still think it makes sense to bring forth the above three
points, because when I look at the projects we have
completed these things cut across almost any project no
matter genre, scope, client, area etc. Its quite powerful to
stress that you need to approach games as consisting of
some more 'steady' elements (substantives) and 'moving'
elements (verbs). You can use these when looking at three
fundamentals that needs to work, namely motivation,
integration and focus. How you reach these goals are another
question, and probably worthy of at least another article if not
book. In relation aesthetics I believe that to be a means to
achieve motivation from a substantive point of view - its about
setting an interesting, appealing and immersive experience
that people want to engage with - hence being motivated.
However, I do not find it crucial elements you need to have
for a good learning game, and there are many other ways to
make a good game than to rely on aesthetics per se although
often it is a very powerful tool.
I have been using the concepts for a lot of years, and gave a
talk a few years back that entails the idea behind the
concepts. You can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=xgS1xE7URZc&feature=related
Fri, 18 Feb 2011
Post by Robert Becker
Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen's interesting essay lists only three
elements of a good learning game. Why not 300?
He knows what every child knows, that good games are rare
combinations of countless elements that shouldn't be
packaged in a taxonomy. We can no more define a good
game than define freedom. We may approach the subject
through experience, as he does, but our understanding
doesn't improve with reductionist analysis.
That being said, I admire his attempt to list and quantify the
ineffable. Isn't that what most teaching - versus learning - is
about? So I will join him and propose a fourth element of a
good game: aesthetics. A good game is a work of art -
kinesthetic, visual, contemplative, immersive. A game that
does not convey truth and beauty in some fashion may have
integration, motivation and focus in spades, and still never
win.
Wed, 16 Feb 2011
Post by Ugur DEmiray
to wish conduct with author in detail
cordially Ugur
To leave a comment you must sign in.
Please login or create a Web Account.
18/05/2023, 19.39elearn Magazine: What Makes a Good Learning Game?
Page 7 of 7https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=1943210
WEB ACCOUNT
PASSWORD
login
Forgot your username or password?
Create a Web Account:
Create a web account.
ACM Membership is not required to create a web account.
If you are an ACM/SIG Member or subscriber, the email address you
provide must match the one we have on file for you; this will enable you
to take full advantage of member benefits.