the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 19 Aug 2025
ClimarisQ: What can we learn by playing a serious game for climate education?
Abstract. Climate change education faces the twin challenges of conveying complex scientific concepts and inspiring urgent action. ClimarisQ is a web and smartphone-based serious game developed by the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL) to address these challenges by simulating climate–societal dynamics and extreme events in an interactive format. This article evaluates ClimarisQ's role as an innovative educational tool to raise awareness of climate issues. We outline the game's design (grounded in real climate models and IPCC scenarios) and its pedagogical objectives of illustrating the urgency of collective action, the complexity of climate-ocean interactions, and the ethics of decision-making under uncertainty. We present results from a user questionnaire (77 respondents) assessing learning outcomes and user feedback. Players rated the game highly in terms of usability, scientific content, and engagement (average 4.2/5 across categories), and qualitative feedback indicates that ClimarisQ effectively fosters discussion and systems thinking about climate challenges. However, many already knowledgeable players reported learning few new facts, highlighting the need to tailor content to varying prior knowledge. We discuss the strengths of ClimarisQ – notably its ability to simulate feedback and extreme events in an accessible way – and its challenges, such as balancing scientific accuracy with playability and ensuring inclusivity. Situating ClimarisQ in the broader context of climate outreach, we compare it with other educational games and initiatives. We emphasize the ethical responsibility of climate communication tools to empower action without misinformation or fatalism. In conclusion, ClimarisQ demonstrates how serious games can complement formal education and engage diverse audiences in climate-ocean literacy, an approach that is increasingly vital given the urgency of the climate crisis.
- Preprint
(2139 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Nov 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2222', David Crookall, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Davide Faranda, 19 Aug 2025
reply
We would like to warmly thank David Crookall for his thoughtful and constructive commentary on our manuscript ClimarisQ (ms 2025-2222). Although this is not part of the formal review process, we value such contributions from the community, as they allow us to reflect, improve, and situate our work more effectively within the wider field of game-based learning and climate communication. We will take all the points raised very seriously in preparing the next version of the manuscript.
On the issue of terminology, we are grateful for your detailed remarks. We now realize that the term serious game is more problematic than we had appreciated, and we are sorry we were not fully aware of this debate when drafting the manuscript. In light of your comments, and of the literature you point us to, we will revise the terminology in the next version of the article. Where possible, we will avoid the expression altogether and instead use clearer terms such as educational game or learning game, while also acknowledging how different communities (particularly in France, as you mention) have adopted “jeu sérieux.”
With respect to debriefing, we completely agree on its importance as an integral part of the learning process. The current version of ClimarisQ does not include a structured debriefing protocol. This omission is not because we underestimate its value, but because of very concrete resource limitations: the game was developed on a very small budget, and we did what we could within those constraints. As you suggest, developing an online debriefing module—or even short in-game debriefs—would be a natural next step, and we will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript. We will also cite your chapter and related work to highlight how debriefing practices could be integrated in future versions of the game, should funding permit.
On the question of fun versus engagement, we accept your point that engagement is the more precise concept for understanding the pedagogical effect of games, and we will adjust our phrasing accordingly to avoid trivializing the learning experience.
Concerning statistics and self-reported learning, we take note of the ambiguities in wording (e.g. “large majority” vs. 35%) and will correct these. We will also clarify that what we measured is the perception of learning, not actual knowledge gain, and that more robust methodologies (pre/post testing, control groups) would be required to substantiate claims about actual learning outcomes.
We will also address your very helpful observations on style and academic writing, including avoiding abbreviations, revising clumsy constructions, and correcting language such as “there is/are.”
Finally, we acknowledge the error in our reference list: as you correctly suggest, the proper citation is:
Kwok, R. (2019). Can climate change games boost public understanding? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903508116.
We are grateful for your catching this and will correct it in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2222-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', David Crookall, 19 Aug 2025
reply
Thank you for your swift response. This is a quick note to note that your AC2 is a repeat of your AC1. I am not sure if you are able to delete it. If not, let me know and I will ask Copernicus.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2222-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', David Crookall, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Davide Faranda, 19 Aug 2025
reply
Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC1 and its content was therefore removed on 20 August 2025.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2222-AC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Davide Faranda, 19 Aug 2025
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2222', Chloe Lucas, 01 Oct 2025
reply
General comments:
This is a very interesting and engaging article that describes a free, open access web-app game called ClimaRisQ. The article is well written and has a good basis in the literature, while exploring relevant and important ideas. The article aims to evaluate the game as an education tool, specifically whether it helps players to better understand the urgency of collective action, the complexity of climate-ocean interactions, and the ethics of decision-making under uncertainty. I had not previously come across this game, but since I was interested in the article, I downloaded the game and found it well designed and engaging.
The literature review in this article is articulate and fairly comprehensive. The methods are simple, involving only a public survey, with a fairly limited sample. I am a little disappointed that given the quality and effort put into the game, more effort was not put into methods of evaluation, such as focus groups, or analysing players’ decision-making processes in the game through data recorded during gameplay.
I don’t think that the journal imposes a word limit (perhaps they should!) but this reads very long, even for a social science paper – I’d suggest editing it down to a maximum of 12,000 plus references. My reason for this is that being concise is respectful of the reader. The Results section in particular is over-long, there is a lot of detail here that on individual survey responses that while it may be of interest to you as a developer, doesn’t have a lot of broader merit to scholarly literature. I also think that there is a section missing that describes the game theory, mechanics, and intentions in more detail – more on this below.
Specific comments
It is unclear from the article that the authors are also the game creators. Apart from this representing an apparent conflict of interest worth noting, it would be helpful for transparency for this to be made clear throughout. “The developers appear to have been cautious” p29 l691 suggests that you are not the developers, but from my reading of the credits page of the game it looks like you are? I don’t have a problem with you evaluating your own game, but it is important to be open about this.
To follow on from this, it would be great if you could describe in some detail how the game looks and works. In particular, I would like to see a description of:
- Game target audience – there is currently inconsistency. In P10 l255 “The primary intended audience was secondary school students (approximately ages 15–18) and their teachers, as indicated by the developers.” But P27, l625 “the results demonstrate that ClimarisQ successfully engaged its target users, delivering an enjoyable learning experience that users are inclined to share with others.” Did it? I thought target users were 15-18 year olds, and there seem to be very few of these in the sample? The sample is strongly skewed toward graduate and PhD students. [Note as an aside from the review: From my own experience designing games for high school aged audiences, I personally feel that the level of complexity of language and concepts is a bit high – there is some pre-learning needed to be able to understand the context. But as a facilitated game in which a teacher sets the scene and supports teams of students to understand the context of their decision-making, I think it could work really well.]
- By what method have the needs of your target audience been considered in game design, and how has the appropriateness of the game design and mechanics for your target audience been evaluated?
- Game Aims – what are the educational/behavioural aims? There is currently inconsistency – aims are described in different ways in different parts of the article, and what is measured in the survey doesn’t necessarily match with these aims.
- Theoretical framework for these aims within the game - P10 l248 Describes the intention of the game not only to inform but to motivate action. It is unclear by what behavioural model the ‘motivation to action’ was designed within the game.
- Design practice – what were the reasons for incorporating different game elements, such as money, popularity, ecology, news, etc.?
- What is the cultural context of the game, and how does it reflect differences in regional history and approaches to climate change
- In what ways is collective action understood and encouraged through the game, in which the player’s role is as a top-down government decision-maker? I read in P8 l193 that “Another dimension highlighted by ClimarisQ is collective decision-making and dilemmas, which are integral to climate governance.” I don’t see how this is only done other than by indicators such as popularity and finance, which are not mechanisms for collective decision-making.
I don’t share David Crookall’s aversion to the term ‘serious games’, which is now a commonly understood phrase, although there are alternatives, such as ‘games for change’, or ‘persuasive games’, that perhaps more clearly convey the intention of these games not only to entertain, or to educate, but to somehow motivate social change. My suggestion would be that whatever term used is clearly defined and referenced, and used consistently.
P3 l67 ‘interactive non-judgemental experiences’ – please explain in what way game experiences are non-judgemental, and why this is important.
Technical corrections:
P6 l135 – should this be social learning?
P8 l202 – missing space
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2222-RC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Crookall, 01 Oct 2025
reply
Many thanks, Chloe, for a terrific review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2222-EC1
-
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2222', Elena Shliakhovchuk, 22 Oct 2025
reply
This manuscript offers an overview and preliminary evaluation of ClimarisQ, a game for climate education. It situates the work within the literature on sustainability and game-based learning, describes survey results and discusses ethical and pedagogical implications. The topic is timely and relevant, yet the study requires stronger methodological rigor, deeper engagement with game-studies theory, and clearer articulation of learning mechanisms.
The current length of the manuscript is approximately 15,800 words exceeds the expectations for a typical research article in this domain. The extensive narrative occasionally dilutes the core contributions and makes it challenging for readers to quickly grasp the main findings and implications. The introduction is protracted and repetitive (e.g., themes like systems thinking reoccur in discussion/conclusion). I suggest the authors consider condensing the manuscript by approximately 20–25%. For example, the discussion of related games (e.g., World Climate, KEEP COOL, Grim FATE) is insightful, but could be streamlined. A comparative table or summary would convey these relationships more efficiently.
The introduction summarises the climate-education context well, it omits key applied-gaming concepts such as situated learning, transformative and affective learning frameworks. Without these, the paper cannot explain how ClimarisQ achieves learning beyond “raising awareness.” For instance, the results show that many respondents “already knew most of it” yet found the game engaging (p. 22 ). This is a perfect entry point to discuss experiential re-contextualization or metacognitive learning. Theories like Csikszentmihalyi's flow (optimal challenge-skill balance) could explain the mixed difficulty ratings (3.6/5), where novices found it overwhelming and experts too easy. Similarly, the role of replayability and procedural rhetoric (how rules persuade players about climate urgency) is mentioned but not deeply analyzed. Expanding this would strengthen the paper's contribution to game studies.
Methodological Limitations
The survey of 77 self-selected participants is clearly presented, yet the study remains an evaluation of user satisfaction, rather than a learning-outcome assessment. The sample is small, self-selected and biased toward educated, climate-aware users (e.g., mean age ~30, many PhD students/researchers). This undermines generalizability, especially since the game targets secondary school students. The lack of pre/post knowledge assessments or a control group means claims about learning outcomes rely heavily on self-reports, which are prone to social desirability bias. The authors acknowledge self-selection bias (p. 14), but do not propose mitigation strategies. In game-based learning research, objective measures are standard to isolate the game's impact; their absence here weakens the evidence. The Likert-scale analysis is purely descriptive; no inferential statistics or cross-tabulations are used to relate background to learning.
In the "Evaluation Methodology" section (Section 3), the authors must explicitly discuss the limitations of using a non-validated, post-hoc questionnaire for assessing cognitive constructs like systems thinking. They should also detail the future work that will employ a validated pre-test/post-test design or qualitative mental model analysis to rigorously measure actual cognitive restructuring.
Section 3.3 (pp. 21-24 ) reports that only ~25 % learned something new, with others emphasizing awareness of “balancing interests.” The authors interpret this as success. The argument that experts might use the game as a teaching tool is plausible, but unsupported. Distinguish between cognitive learning (new information), affective learning (empathy, motivation), and metacognitive reflection (systems thinking). Coding the qualitative responses under these categories would yield richer insight.
Some sections feel underdeveloped: the results report high ratings but do not statistically compare subgroups (e.g., students vs. researchers via t-tests or chi-square, despite a modest N).
The "Discussion" section (Section 5) could be expanded to discuss how the game can be differentiated for advanced learners. The discussion should pivot to how the game can be leveraged as a tool for "wicked problem" exploration—not just teaching what climate change is, but teaching how to negotiate policy trade-offs, which is a higher-order learning goal.
The "Results" section (Section 4.2) must be revised to present a differentiated analysis of the findings. Subgroup analysis should be conducted and reported for novice players (the target audience) and expert players (those with high prior knowledge), especially for the questions related to knowledge acquisition. Merging these groups dilutes the assessment of the game's impact on its primary educational demographic.
Minor observations:
There is a need for clarity on game terminology, for example, the consistency in the use of terms like "serious game" vs. "educational game" throughout the paper, particularly in the Introduction.
Review in-text citations for consistency and completeness. Moreover, most references pre-2022; consider adding recent work on gaming for sustainability.
I recommend major revisions before publication. The paper has strong potential as a case study in game-based climate education, but addressing methodological biases, deepening theoretical engagement, and tightening the structure will make it more impactful and rigorous.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2222-CC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 776 | 142 | 25 | 943 | 20 | 26 | 24 |
- HTML: 776
- PDF: 142
- XML: 25
- Total: 943
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Community comment on ms 2025-2222 -- ClimarisQ, Feranda et al – comment by David Crookall
Overall, I like the article, and the game ClimarisQ sounds excellent. I am not an official reviewer, and this commentary is not a review. However, I wish to pick some bones with you in the hope that it will help you improve your article. The topics concern terminology, debriefing and some other, minor things that I came across as I read your ms.
Terminology. I think that the term ‘serious game’ is far from serious, and should be eliminated from most scientific literature. I could write a lot about the reasons why, but I wish to keep this commentary short. My reasons are summed up in this chapter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374344073_Debriefing_A_Practical_Guide, where I wrote:
A basic contradiction emerges here. If games are fun (and therefore result in learning) why would we wish to make them serious? If our games are serious, how can we have fun and so, one assumes, help people learn? We cannot have it both ways.
It is rather ironic that some teachers use the term serious game and in the next breath assert that it is the fun that guarantees learning. My impression is that once people latch on to the superficially beguiling term, it becomes a language habit, and used without much thought about the implications. Once one pronounces such a term, it tends to lock the speaker into a social commitment, and switching back to another term can give the feeling of losing face with one’s peers.
The term serious game is a misnomer and is riddled with problems and impossible paradoxes. A preferred term is learning game or educational game—or simply game, in the way that we have been using it conveniently and widely, for decades, among gamers as an informal short-hand term for simulation/game/role-play/etc.
Also, in the way that many language fashions tend to come about, use of the term in France seems to have gripped people unawares, and they will use it ‘unthinkingly’ in English while speaking French. Of course, they sometimes use the French version ‘jeu sérieux’, which - in my ears - sounds even stranger. Go to an international meeting like ISAGA and you will hardly hear it.
In addition, your own website about ClimarisQ does not use the term; you use only the term ‘game’. So, why use it erroneously in your article and detract from your excellent game? [Moreover, you use a slightly clumsy phrase “experiences with climate serious games have shown” (l.129), when it is more natural to say ‘serious climate games’.] I could say more here, but do not wish to belabour the point.
Debriefing. You will have noticed that the above ref’d chapter is all about debriefing. May I suggest that you skim read it only. The basic idea is that all simulation/games need to be debriefed, even game apps like ClimarisQ. Take a look at the references in my chapter, and you will see how widespread it is. For an overview, see my slides here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391836828_Debriefing_keynote_Experiential_Learning_Congress_Katowice_March_2025
Also, see page 152 of the chapter. If you make any changes to ClimarisQ, I suggest that you work on a on-line debriefing protocol, so that players move directly into a debriefing when the game ends. Even better would be to have one or two mini in-game debriefs during brief pauses in play. In any case, I think that you would do well to explain the lack of debriefing; you could, for example, say that this will be accomplished in the next stage of development of your game.
Fun. In line 172, you mention fun. This is another trap that many fall into. It is not so much fun as engagement that pulls people into a game. See Whitton and others on this, and see pp 124 & 125 in the above chapter. If we wish to promote our games as effective methods to achieving climate literacy, we must be careful not to trivialize them and to be realistic about what it is in them that promotes learning.
Stats. In Fig 5, why use two different graphic types? You say, l.197, that a ‘large majority’ and then say 35%; do you not mean large minority? Maybe I am missing something?
I wonder if you tried teasing out how different types of participants (players) experienced the game, e.g., was it possible to detect any significant differences between women and men, or among age groups, or education level, or political persuasion? Here you would probably have to use non-parametric stats. In any caser, things like that would be of interest, especially as they are part of the landscape of climate communication and education.
Learn about. I see that respondents are reported as saying that they “learned about X”. Be careful not to interpret that as that they learned X. Many self-report studies tend to assume that respondents have actually learned, when they are simply reporting the impression of. To know if something was learned, one would have to conduct a far more elaborate studies, for example, using pre- and post- tests and even control groups.
Abbreviations. Do not use abbreviations, like “most didn’t” – that is a no no in academic writing.
Comma before ‘but’.
Avoid there is/are. For example, instead of “even if one tries to do the right thing environmentally, there are economic and political constraints that can hinder success”, you can write more simply and elegantly ‘even if one tries to do the right thing environmentally, economic and political constraints that can hinder success’
Refs. Your ref to Kwok 2019 does not seem to exist. If you have it, I would very much appreciate your sending it to me. However, maybe you mean Kwok, R. (2019). Can climate change games boost public understanding? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903508116
I had better stop there before this gets too long. Good luck with the review process. I hope that it gets through and is published, especially if you can ‘fix’ the main things, such as debriefing and terminology.