Stephen Downes

Most of the names suggested for what we most often see named 'serious games' are non-starters. I mean, 'Social Impact Games'? 'Practiceware'? Forget it. We could call them 'serious games', except as Aldrich notes, "Sponsors hate it; instructors from academics, corporate, and military hate it..." I hate it too - why should learning (or business, etc) always be characterized as 'serious'? Me, I think the category is too young to take on a name. For example: I think a 'sim' and a 'simulation' are two different things. How are they different? Well, I don't know, it's hard to characterize - a 'sim' is an object while a 'simulation' is an environment, maybe. I'm not sure we can - or would want - to lump them into the same category. As for "serious games", well I think that's a word made up by press agents and academics trying to get funding (and not a real category of 'thing' at all).