Exploring the Potential of Digital Games for Climate Education: A Review of Policy-Focused Climate Action Games

Czauderna, André

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790

Preprints

10 Apr 2026

| 10 Apr 2026

Exploring the Potential of Digital Games for Climate Education: A Review of Policy-Focused Climate Action Games

André Czauderna

Abstract. Communicating the complexities of climate change and the challenges of climate policy decision-making remains a persistent challenge in geoscience and climate education. This review offers a focused examination of policy-oriented digital games addressing climate action, encompassing both mitigation and adaptation, and considers their potential as educational tools for fostering systems thinking and enhancing understanding of climate governance. It concentrates on digital games that combine engaging gameplay with substantive representations of climate action and meaningful learning opportunities, typically situated between large entertainment titles and specialized academic simulations. The review examines how these games frame climate policy dilemmas, articulate causal relationships, and represent trade-offs across scientific, social, and political domains. In particular, the review analyses key game design choices – such as how conflict is framed, decisions are structured, feedback is delivered, and time is compressed – which shape players' understanding of climate action and its environmental, social, and political consequences. The review furthermore offers a critical evaluation of how these games represent and simplify complex systems – especially how they portray climate action, climate models, and political decision-making processes. In addition to the main review, a separate section illustratively underscores the importance of debriefing – such as reflective practices in informal online discussions and formal education – in shaping learning outcomes. Overall, the review suggests that, for pedagogical practice, climate action games are most effective when combined with debriefing to support critical engagement with trade-offs and underlying model assumptions. For educational game design, the review highlights the importance of transparent feedback systems, meaningful temporal dynamics, and explicit representation of political and ideological dimensions. For future research, the review calls above all for empirical studies on players’ learning processes and outcomes across different age groups, demographics, and levels of prior knowledge and literacy, including how structured reflection and debriefing shape these processes and outcomes.

Received: 30 Mar 2026 – Discussion started: 10 Apr 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

André Czauderna

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1790', Charlott Sellberg, 04 May 2026

Dear André Czauderna,
Thank you for submitting your work the Special Issue "Climate and ocean education and communication: practice, ethics, and urgency". First, I want to highlight that your manuscript addresses a relevant topic and offers a well-structured comparative overview of policy-oriented climate action games. However, I also think that your paper would benefit from clearer methodological positioning, a narrower focus, and greater analytical depth to really do justice to your comparative analysis of different policy-focused climate action games.
My first comment is that in presenting your analysis as a review, I first through that I was about to read a literature review. While your primary objects of analysis are games rather than research studies, I think that the manuscript would benefit from a clearer positioning as a comparative analysis of selected artefacts rather than a review.
The ambition of the manuscript is clear, and the breadth of topics you cover (game design, learning, representations of climate science, political processes, and ideological framing) allows you to map out important patterns across the selected games. However, this breadth also limits the depth of the analysis. Several of the most significant issues you raise (e.g., simplification of complex systems, representations of political processes, pedagogical implications of design choices) are treated primarily at a descriptive level. As a result, the paper tends to identify recurring patterns without fully interrogating their implications. Narrowing the analytical focus and engaging more deeply with a smaller set of dimensions would allow you to sharpen the comparative argument.
This need for a more narrow focus and a stronger analytical integration is also visible in the discussion of learning. The main analysis focuses almost entirely on games as designed systems, whereas the section on debriefing shifts attention to how learning is shaped through pedagogical framing, discussion, and reflection. This is an important point, but it is not fully integrated into the analytical framework and remains only loosely connected to the categories used earlier in the paper. You may consider either strengthening this integration by showing more explicitly how debriefing interacts with the design dimensions you analyse, or narrowing the scope to focus more consistently on design elements.
Overall, the manuscript presents a well-suited research design and engages with a topic that fits well within the scope of the Special Issue. With clearer methodological positioning, a more focused analytical scope, and deeper engagement with the issues identified, the study has the potential to make a substantial contribution to Geoscience Communication.
Best wishes,
Charlott Sellberg

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', André Czauderna, 05 May 2026
  
  Dear Charlott Sellberg,
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive review. I greatly appreciate your feedback and find your three main points - clearer methodological positioning, a narrower focus, and greater analytical depth - both valid and highly helpful for improving the manuscript. I agree that addressing these aspects may lead to a more focused and analytically stronger final version.
  I understand your surprise regarding the classification of the manuscript as a review paper. When I was first asked by the editors to transfer the draft into this format, I shared some of this uncertainty, as I initially assumed they were requesting a more traditional literature review. However, I have since learned that Geoscience Communication adopts a broader understanding of review papers, including the comparative investigation of educational artefacts within specific domains (see for example an analysis of commercial off-the-shelf video games featuring aspects of palaeontology: https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/5/289/2022/). That said, I fully agree that the methodological approach and positioning of the present manuscript need to be articulated more clearly.
  Regarding your interconnected points about focus and analytical depth, I find your critique well taken. My initial intention was to build on several aspects of an earlier publication (Czauderna and Budke, 2020) and to apply the analytical framework developed there as comprehensively as possible. I subsequently incorporated debriefing and reflection components, which, as you rightly note, are not yet well integrated into the main analytical framework. This breadth has indeed come at the expense of analytical depth. Narrowing the focus therefore appears to be an appropriate way to go, although determining where to make these cuts remains challenging at this stage. Additional review comments may help to inform this decision.
  I also appreciate your suggestion of two possible ways forward regarding the issue that the debriefing section - shifting attention to how learning is shaped through pedagogical framing, discussion, and reflection - is not yet fully integrated into the analytical framework and remains only loosely connected to the earlier categories. As you suggest, this could be addressed either by strengthening the integration, for instance by more explicitly linking debriefing to the analyzed design dimensions, or by narrowing the scope to focus more consistently on the design elements. Deciding between these options is not straightforward. It may be that the current treatment of debriefing cannot be sufficiently integrated within the scope of this paper and would be better developed separately in a dedicated analysis, i.e., another paper. I will consider this carefully, and guidance from the other reviewers and the editors will be valuable in resolving this issue.
  Once again, thank you for your careful and constructive review, dear Charlott. Should I be invited to revise the manuscript, I am confident that your feedback will significantly contribute to improving its clarity and overall quality.
  All the best,
  André Czauderna
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-AC1
- EC3: 'Thanks for RC1', David Crookall, 29 Jul 2026
  
  Many thanks, Charlott, for your excellent reviw - very helpful.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-EC3
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1790', Andreas Gerber, 28 Jul 2026

Dear Dr. Czauderna,
I was invited to review your manuscript entitled “Exploring the Potential of Digital Games for Climate Education: A Review of Policy-Focused Climate Action Games.” Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting contribution!
The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic, as digital games have considerable potential for climate education. I particularly enjoyed reading the study because it is evident that you have extensive knowledge of the analyzed games, which makes the manuscript both insightful and engaging.
At the same time, I believe the manuscript still has substantial potential for improvement. Most of my comments concern the scientific framing and presentation rather than the underlying work itself:
1. Positioning, objectives, and relevance

I believe the manuscript would benefit from a clearer positioning and articulation of its objectives as well as a corresponding refinement of the presentation of its methodological approach. At present, I am not entirely sure whether the paper aims to present a review study, as for example suggested by the title, or rather a qualitative comparison of selected climate games. As this remained unclear to me throughout the manuscript, I believe clarifying this point would be central to strengthening the contribution’s novelty and scientific relevance.
2. Methods

In my opinion, the description of the methods could be more concise and comprehensive. Based on the current presentation, I am not sure whether other researchers could replicate the study, as some important methodological aspects appear to be missing or are discussed in other sections of the manuscript rather than in the Methods section itself.
3. Selection of games

The game selection procedure was not entirely clear to me. While the ten selected titles appear appropriate and relevant, I did not fully understand how they were identified and selected. For example, was completeness an objective? Were all eligible games considered, or were some eligible titles excluded?
4. Depth of the findings

Partly because of Points 1 and 2 above, I found that the Results/Review and Conclusions sections somewhat lack focus and depth. While many interesting observations are presented, it was not always clear to me why they were included or what their specific relevance is. I believe that addressing Points 1 and 2 would help establish a clearer focus for the Results, Discussion (if applicable), and Conclusion sections.
5. Debriefing

I gained the impression that the section on debriefing is not yet fully integrated into the overall structure and argument of the manuscript. A clarification of its role would therefore be helpful. Furthermore, this section appears to be based primarily on a single game from the sample. If this was intentional, I would be interested in learning more about the rationale behind this choice.

I could imagine integrating the aspects of debriefing and transfer more directly into the main analysis, for example through an analytical category such as “application context” or a similar concept. From my perspective, the analysis of debriefing is particularly interesting in the context of digital games and represents a valuable contribution of the manuscript.
6. Overview of the reviewed games

It is evident that, as the author, you have an excellent overview of the ten games analyzed. To provide readers with a similar overview, I suggest including a comparative summary of all reviewed games, highlighting their most important characteristics (including key findings/results). Such a concise table could be placed at the beginning of the Results/Review section. I believe this would improve readability and make the subsequent analyses easier to follow.
Final thoughts

Overall, I consider this manuscript to address an important and worthwhile topic. The author's familiarity with the analyzed games is evident and provides an excellent foundation for a valuable contribution. For the next version of the manuscript, I would encourage sharpening the manuscript’s scientific focus and aligning its structure more closely with that focus. In my opinion, this would give the manuscript a clearer positioning and, consequently, enhance its scientific relevance.
I hope these comments are useful for the further development of the manuscript and I wish you every success with the elaboration!
Best regards,
Andreas

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', André Czauderna, 28 Jul 2026
  
  Dear Dr. Gerber,
  Thank you very much for your thoughtful, detailed, and encouraging review. I greatly appreciate the time you invested in reading the manuscript so carefully and am especially pleased that you found the topic relevant and the comparative analysis of the selected games insightful.
  I fully agree with your central critique. Your comments reinforce several issues that were also raised by another reviewer, particularly the need for a clearer scientific positioning, a more explicit methodological description, a narrower analytical focus, and a stronger integration of the individual sections into a coherent overall argument. I find these suggestions both convincing and highly valuable.
  I concur that the manuscript currently does not communicate its methodological approach clearly enough. The paper originated from an invitation by the editors to prepare it as a review paper. While I initially interpreted this as a request for a more traditional literature review, I have since learned that Geoscience Communication adopts a broader understanding of review papers, including comparative investigations of educational artefacts within specific domains. Nevertheless, your comments make it clear that the methodological positioning and research objectives need to be articulated much more explicitly. As both published reviews raise concerns about framing the manuscript as a review paper, it may be worth considering whether it would be more appropriately presented as a qualitative comparison of selected climate games. Should I have the opportunity to revise the manuscript, I would discuss this with the editorial board.
  Your remarks regarding the Methods section and the game selection procedure are equally well taken. I agree that the criteria for identifying and selecting the games, as well as the analytical procedure itself, should be described more systematically to improve transparency and reproducibility.
  I also appreciate your reflections on the debriefing section. You are right to point out that it is not yet fully integrated into the overall analytical framework. In its current form, the discussion is largely based on an exploratory analysis of discourse within the surrounding affinity space of a single game (Half-Earth Socialism). The main reason for including it was my conviction that debriefing is a crucial, yet often overlooked, aspect of climate game-based learning, as well as my belief in the potential of qualitative analyses of discourse in online affinity spaces to advance our understanding of this issue. At the same time, I acknowledge that the discussion presented here is not based on a systematic qualitative analysis across the full sample of games.
  Your suggestion to integrate debriefing more directly into the analytical framework – for example through an analytical category such as “application context” – is an interesting possibility that I will carefully consider. In fact, my initial analytical framework already included a category on the availability of debriefing materials. However, only a few of the selected games provided such materials, which ultimately left too little evidence for this category to play a meaningful role in the comparative analysis.
  I therefore need to assess whether any comprehensive discussion of debriefing can be sufficiently integrated into the manuscript or whether it would be better developed as a separate contribution. I believe this topic has considerable potential for future research, whether through a systematic investigation of informal learning practices in affinity spaces or through empirical studies of debriefing in classroom settings. However, either of these approaches would extend well beyond the scope of the present manuscript. Although I would be disappointed to omit a topic that I consider highly important, doing so may ultimately allow for a more coherent manuscript with a clearer analytical focus and greater depth. I expect that the combined feedback from the reviewers and the editors will help me determine the most appropriate course of action.
  Finally, thank you for suggesting a comparative overview table of the reviewed games. I believe this is an excellent recommendation that would substantially improve the readability of the manuscript and help readers navigate the subsequent analysis more easily.
  Once again, thank you for your constructive and encouraging review. Should I be invited to revise the manuscript, I am confident that your comments will help me substantially strengthen its clarity, focus, and overall contribution.
  All the best,
  André
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-AC2
- EC2: 'Thank you for RC2', David Crookall, 29 Jul 2026
  
  Many thanks, André, for an excellent review - most helpful.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-EC2
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1790', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Jul 2026
Overall Summary
This manuscript explores an important and timely topic: how digital games designed around policy-focused climate action can serve as tools for climate education. There is undeniable potential in this work, and the authors have assembled an interesting corpus of policy-oriented games.
However, in its current draft, the manuscript lacks a cohesive, singular focus. It currently feels like several distinct research projects stitched together, each driven by competing motivations—vacillating between a systematic categorization of games, an empirical claim about game impact, and a theoretical discussion on the role of reflection and debriefing. To realize its full potential, the paper needs to select a clear primary aim and align its methodology, analytical framework, and conclusions strictly around that goal.
Major Revisions & Core Concerns
1. Conceptual Cohesion and Primary Focus
Competing Directions: The paper tries to accomplish too much at once. It is unclear whether the core aim is to establish a review based on defined analytical categories, evaluate the real-world impact of climate games, or explore the theoretical role of player reflection.

Recommendation: The author should explicitly define a single primary contribution in Section 1 and structure the entire paper around it. If the aim is a analytical synthesis of game mechanics/features, discussions on player impact and extensive debriefing theories should be streamlined or framed explicitly as directions for future empirical research.

2. Methodological Rigor and Corpus Selection
Mismatched Framing: The manuscript frames itself as if it is a systematic review, but the execution does not follow established systematic review methodologies. Furthermore, the paper does not sufficiently justify why a systematic review of this specific subset of games is currently needed or how it fills a gap left by prior reviews.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: The criteria used to select the corpus are vague and lack rigor, making the process unreplicable. As written, the selection of the 9 featured games appears driven by "feel" rather than objective, standardized metrics (e.g., publisher size, inclusion of academic consultants, distribution reach) which other researchers could pick up on or use in the future (to replicate or on future games).

Defining Scope: Concepts such as "middle-segment games" are introduced without clear definitions or explanations of their significance to the broader field.

3. Analytical Framework and Categorization Scheme
Category Selection & Consistency: The rationale behind the chosen analytical categories is unclear. It is difficult to follow why all identified categories are necessary or what distinct purpose each serves. Moreover, the application of these criteria across sections feels inconsistent.

Vignettes vs. Systematic Synthesis: The use of narrative vignettes takes up significant real estate without offering clear analytical returns. The paper would be far better served by replacing or supplementing these vignettes with a comprehensive, standardized cross-analysis of the entire corpus against the identified categories.

4. Depth of Analysis and Analytical Credibility
Generalizations vs. Specificity: The depth of analysis fluctuates significantly. The manuscript frequently relies on sweeping claims using phrases like "most games" without detailing which specific titles exhibit these traits, whereas other paragraphs single out individual games.

Analytical Matrix Recommendation: To build credibility, the author should present a clear synthesis table/matrix mapping every game in the corpus against each analytical criterion. This would justify broader claims and directly connect the findings back to the unique contributions promised in Section 1.

Structural Flow: The writing frequently uses "empty preview sentences"; making a broad claim early on, only to delay the supporting explanation or evidence for several paragraphs.

Section-Specific Feedback
Section 4
Section 4 feels like an odd add-on that belongs in a separate manuscript. It focuses heavily on a single game, which creates a jarring narrative shift from the rest of the corpus analysis. The discussion wanders into commentary that inadvertently undercuts the educational value of digital games without providing a strong theoretical justification for how debriefing functions in single-player digital contexts. Consider reframing the core concepts of reflection/debriefing strictly as a key feature within your analytical framework, or move the deeper theoretical exploration to the Future Work section.
Section 5
The conclusion takes the review a step too far by asserting that these games achieve their desired educational or behavioral impacts. Because the study analyzes game design rather than player learning outcomes or empirical player data, these claims are unsupported by the evidence presented. Lines 834–839 introduce sudden assertions without clear grounding. I wrote in my notes: "Which theoretical frameworks? Where is this coming from?" I'd suggest refocusing Section 5 on how the synthesized categories establish the structural potential for educational outcomes. Frame player impact and the nuances of post-game reflection as logical next steps for empirical player-centered research.
I wish you the best in implementing the revisions from myself and others!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-RC3
- EC1: 'Thanks for RC3', David Crookall, 29 Jul 2026
  
  A note to say thank for an excellent review - much appreciated.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-EC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', André Czauderna, 30 Jul 2026
  
  First, I would like to thank you - Reviewer 3 - for taking the time to engage so deeply with my manuscript and for providing such thoughtful feedback. I particularly appreciate the action-oriented nature of your recommendations.
  After reading the three published reviews, it has become clear to me that the manuscript currently tries to achieve too many objectives at once and therefore lacks a sufficiently clear analytical focus. After all, I think that the primary contribution of the paper should be an analytical synthesis of the game mechanics and design features of policy-focused climate action games. The exploratory analysis of online discourse surrounding Half-Earth Socialism and the broader discussion of debriefing and player impact do not fit this focus. Rather than attempting to integrate these topics into the current manuscript, I now believe they would be better presented as promising avenues for future empirical research.
  I also agree with your comments regarding the methodological framing, the transparency of the corpus selection, the presentation and depth of the analysis, and the need to ensure that the conclusions remain closely aligned with the empirical evidence presented. Should I be invited to revise the manuscript, I am confident that your comments will help me to improve it substantially.
  I also appreciate your recommendation to provide “a comprehensive, standardized cross-analysis of the entire corpus against the identified categories” resp. “a clear synthesis table/matrix mapping every game in the corpus against each analytical criterion.” In fact, such a matrix already formed the backbone of my analysis during the research process. The current vignette table was intended to give readers a glimpse into this analytical approach, while a complete version was omitted for reasons of space. I would certainly be able to build on the existing analysis matrix that served as the backbone of my research process and, after further refinement and editing, include it in a revised version of the manuscript. At this point, however, I would appreciate editorial guidance on the most appropriate format. Reviewer 2 recommends a “a comparative summary of all reviewed games, highlighting their most important characteristics (including key findings/results”, whereas Reviewer 3 suggests “a clear synthesis table/matrix mapping every game in the corpus against each analytical criterion”. In the case of a comprehensive analytical matrix (suggested by Reviewer 3), an additional question arises regarding its appropriate format. Should it follow the qualitative vignette style used in the current manuscript? From my perspective, this would result in a very large table, likely exceeding 10,000 words in addition to the existing manuscript. Alternatively, the matrix could be presented in a highly condensed format using bullet points. However, I am concerned that such a condensed presentation might oversimplify what is intended to be a qualitative comparative analysis. I would therefore be grateful for the editors’ advice on how best to balance analytical transparency, qualitative depth, and the format requirements of the journal.
  Finally, since all three reviewers have questioned the current framing of the manuscript as a review paper, I believe this issue would also benefit from editorial guidance. It may be more appropriate to frame the manuscript as a qualitative comparison of selected climate games. Alternatively, if the review paper format is retained, the methodological positioning and the manuscript’s broader understanding of a review paper (in line with the journal’s approach) would need to be articulated much more explicitly.
  Once again, I would like to thank Reviewer 3 for a thoughtful, critical, and constructive review. Before awaiting the editorial decision, I wanted to express my sincere appreciation for the valuable feedback.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-AC3
RC4:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-1790', Florian Kapmeier, 07 Aug 2026
General comments
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Exploring the Potential of Digital Games for Climate Education: A Review of Policy-Focused Climate Action Games”.
The paper is a comparative study of ten digital games for climate education. It addresses an important and timely topic, how digital games in the “middle segment” can help educate people on climate mitigation and adaptation. The manuscript is clearly written and easy to follow, and includes interesting insights that may interest a broader audience.
Nevertheless, I do not think the manuscript is ready for publication. The paper has some fundamental drawbacks around nine major concerns. The first three address the scientific substance of the review, the next two the research design, and the final four the scope, comparison, and presentation. These require substantial reframing of the paper, that may eventually lead to a (or two) different paper(s).
Specific comments
Scientific substance
The academic invisibility of the "middle segment" is asserted as a gap, while it should be questioned. The paper states that existing reviews “pay comparatively little attention to the ‘middle segment’ of climate policy-focused digital games” (line 93). The author treats this as an opportunity to explore under-served games. The author further states that reason for the neglect is that reviews focus on academic games, and gives as the reason for the neglect that reviews focus on academic games “largely because these are documented in peer-reviewed literature” (line 92).

This is a major concern, and the author does not ask the question why these games are not reviewed in the academic literature (if this is the case). I can think of the following reasons: (i) there is no incentive for commercially or NGO-developed games to publish; (ii) the games have not been empirically tested; so, nothing to publish; (iii) the games do not have a transparent or verifiable scientific basis and would not pass a peer-review process; (iv) the games have been examined by researchers and judged unsuitable for scholarly scientific publication; and (v) other? These possibilities have different implications for the manuscript's premise, and they are empirically distinguishable.

My concern is that an excellent simulation model behind an unusable game has no effect and wastes the resources spent developing and marketing the game. But the reverse case is more harmful: A weak or wrong model embedded in a compelling game teaches people incorrect and potentially damaging insights with the confidence that comes from game, and it does so more efficiently the better the game is designed. The middle segment is defined by the property that makes this dangerous and risky: the manuscript states that the games are characterized by “significant appeal and high production value”, (line 173), while scholarly scrutiny of the models underneath is by the author's own account absent (except for the ones that draw on established climate models). I am not asserting that the games in this study build on poor modelling (several are co-developed with climate scientists and appear to draw on established climate models). My concern is that readers cannot tell from the manuscript either way, while the author simultaneously recommends the game category of “middle segment” for educational use. The question "why is this segment absent from the literature?" and the question "are these games scientifically sound?" are closely related, and the paper needs to address them. If the simulation models underneath the games are sound and simply unpublished, the author will have demonstrated this, and hence the case for the middle segment becomes much stronger. If they are not, that would be the most important finding in the paper, and a genuine service to the educators who want to use games for climate education.

I suggest testing these candidate explanations against the corpus directly: for each game, does a published evaluation exist; is the model documented anywhere; has anyone outside the development team examined it; etc.? I also refer to this in another comment below.

Related, in line 577, the authors list a few models ("Hector, MAGICC, IPCC-aligned scenarios"). I suggest the authors to attribute each to its game and provide the according literature reference for the respective models.

The review evaluates engagement and production quality but does not evaluate model validity. This concern is related to the one above.

The framework used in the paper for judging the games rests on engagement, accessibility, production value, and design coherence. The author mentions model quality only in section 3.2.2, when he assesses the games on a spectrum from "qualitative or semi-quantitative" to those integrating "formal climate or energy models." Yet, the author does not address the question about model validity, acknowledging that “all models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box, 1976). Currently, the manuscript does not offer a basis on which a reader can judge which of the games fall on which side of that line. There is a vast literature around this, which I recommend the author to consult and cite.

In the same direction, the author notes that some games lack “transparency about underlying assumptions or calculations in favour of accessibility” (line 572). In fact, this is a serious limitation, and possibly the reason why there is no peer-reviewed assessment of the tools.

I suggest the author to treat model validity (e.g., Kapmeier et al., 2026) and transparency (e.g., Jalali et al., 2020) as a critical dimension in the assessment, reported for every game: what model or calculation drives the outcomes; is it documented and where; is it accessible to educators; is it peer-reviewed; are outcomes reproducible; is the emissions-to-temperature relationship physically defensible; etc. Where this cannot be determined, recording that explicitly is itself a valuable result, and it also answers my comment above.

This matters particularly given the framing of the paper. The title, the abstract and the selection criteria all focus on “policy” (e.g., the games are selected because they "focus on policy-relevant climate issues"). A game based on a model with major flaws may leave a player with a confident but wrong answer (see above). Policy relevance therefore raises the standard for model quality. I therefore suggest that the author states explicitly which standard of model quality a policy-focused game should meet, and assesses the games against it (see also above).

Related, and specific: the authors’ comment that the games’ shortcomings “can themselves become productive resources for climate education” (line 746) can only hold if educators are well trained in climate science so that she/he identifies these shortcomings to discuss them.

Learning about systems thinking, feedbacks, and delays are claimed as outcomes but are this outcome is not addressed in the analysis. The author claims that the games foster "systems thinking" (e.g., in the abstract, lines, 9, 460, 769) and communicate "key features of Earth-system behaviour – interconnection, feedback, and delay" (line 257). But the assessment categories do not analyze these constructs; this is as another major concern of the manuscript.

The "feedback" discussed in section 3.1.3 is interface feedback to the participants (e.g., visible metrics, narrative consequences). It does not relate to feedbacks in the climate-energy-economic system (e.g., albedo, atmospheric carbon uptake, economies of scale for new technologies). The use of the same word for two different aspects risks confusing readers, and, more seriously, allows the presence of the first to be reported as evidence of learning about the second. I recommend to work with different terminologies in the manuscript.

The same applies for time delays: “time manipulation” (section 3.1.4) refers to game pacing, and not the time delays that are critical in the climate-energy-economy system (e.g., atmospheric CO2 lifetime, capital stock turnover).

Also, I am missing stock–flow accumulation in the manuscript (this comment is related to the point above on model validity). There is a large and well-established literature showing that even highly educated audiences misunderstand the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 with its inflow (emissions) and outflow (carbon uptake) over time (e.g., Sterman, 2008). This is often one of the central misperceptions that many games seek to address. The author does not show or discuss how the games presented deal with this misconception, whether participants can learn about it through the games, or whether the misconception is reinforced (e.g., “how much do emissions need to fall for the climate to stabilize?”). In other words, there is a risk that a game doesn’t address this, or addresses this wrongly.

“Systems thinking” is not defined. The author mentions Wiek et al. (2011), but only in the conclusions, and the eight categories the author uses for the analysis do not assess whether game participants learn anything about systems thinking.

Research design
The game selection is not reproducible.

In section 2.2, the author lists the games reviewed, but this selection does not allow the scientific community to reconstruct how the author selected the corpus of the ten. For example, I am missing search terms, query dates, total number of candidates, screening and exclusions, etc. For a paper that the author positions against other reviews and claims to cover a segment that these reviews miss, the composition of the corpus needs to be defensible.

In addition, several criteria are not operationalized and hence remain vague. For example, when reading the manuscript, I highlighted that the games were selected for being “well-received and/or widely played” (line 169), for “significant appeal and high production value” (line 173), and for combining “engaging gameplay with substantive representations of climate action and meaningful learning opportunities” (line 168). These are all valid aspects, but I miss sales numbers, number of downloads, or use statistics, etc. (following the principle of “show, don’t tell”).

The analytical framework is applied but never discussed or justified. The author refers to the framework by Czauderna and Budke (2020) in section 3.1 as the analytical framework for the study. The manuscript presents it, summarizes it (line 238), and applies it. I am missing a critical engagement with this approach: alternatives (e.g., Reckien & Eisenack, 2013; Gerber et al., 2021) are mentioned, but they should be discussed. A reader cannot tell whether the framework was chosen because it is best suited to address the question or because it was at hand. Also, I am missing a discussion of transferability from the city-planning-related framework. Finally, there is no discussion of limitations of this framework (which relate to the comments above on model validity, etc.).

Scope, comparison, and presentation
Scope of the manuscript is too wide, mixing mitigation and adaptation without being able to treat either properly. The paper is already long, and out of the 10 games, only two address adaptation, one is hybrid, and the others address mitigation. I strongly suggest focusing the paper on either (and maybe this eventually leads to two papers?). The reason is that adaptation and mitigation, while interacting, operate in different time horizons and at different spatial scales (local vs. global), among other things. When the author writes about this in the conclusions, this lacks differentiation.

Mode of play is not addressed. To what I understand from the games presented, they seem to be single-player experiences. It would be helpful for readers if the author explicitly mentions this (was this a selection criterion?). This has implications. The author mentions that non-digital games “remain vital tools in climate and sustainability education, especially for fostering deliberation, collaboration, and dialogue” (line 49), but does not address how the games presented contribute to deliberation, collaboration, and dialogue. There is empirical evidence that participants in a single-player game might learn about climate change but do not seem to develop the required sense of urgency and motivation to act more ambitiously on climate (e.g., Landmann et al., 2024; Lenk-Ostendorf et al., 2026). These do develop in facilitated, interactive engagements that also simulate the social aspects, with participants holding different opinions, negotiations, etc. (e.g., Rooney-Varga et al., 2025). I advise the author to discuss this.

The comparison should be delivered as a criteria-by-game table, not as prose. The author presents the comparative study as prose. This makes it difficult for readers to compare the different games – especially, as the author does not assess all criteria for all games, and they are unevenly assessed, with some occurring throughout the manuscript (e.g., ClimarisQ, Half-Earth Socialism), and some only sporadically (e.g., Ensured Energy, Klim:S21). This leaves readers unclear whether the author analyzed all ten games with the same depth or whether some were analyzed in more depth, and the others only superficially.

A table, or multiple tables, should include aspects like

game overview with criteria such as game title, developer, mode of play (single/multi-player [nothing mentioned on this yet; see above]), facilitated/unfacilitated, game length, target audience, language, costs, etc.

Learning mechanisms, such as card game, simulation model, feedbacks, time delays, stock-flow

Scientific validity (relating to the points above), such as documentation and transparency of the simulator (if applicable).

Length of manuscript. The manuscript is fairly easy to read (well done), but it is relatively long with roughly forty pages for a review of ten games. Much of the text is descriptive (rather than analytical). Shortening it would improve readability, sharpen the argument, and make room for the tables and assessments requested above without further inflating the paper.

Technical corrections:
Line 66: units for "extinction rates below 20" are unclear. Please specify.

Abstract: the abstract does not state that there are 10 games under study, or that this is a qualitative assessment

The term “review” in the title seems to be misleading, as this might lead readers to concludes that the paper is a literature review (which is what I expected).

I hope these comments are helpful.

Success!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-RC4
- EC4: 'Reply on RC4', David Crookall, 07 Aug 2026
  
  Many thanks, Florian, for a truly excellent review.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-EC4
- AC4: 'Reply on RC4', André Czauderna, 10 Aug 2026
  
  Thank you very much for your detailed and critical review. I greatly appreciate the considerable time and thought you have invested in the manuscript. Your comments contain many useful and concrete suggestions, and they have helped me identify internal weaknesses, missing explanations, and places where I need to clarify the paper’s scope and disciplinary positioning.
  My background is in education and game studies, with a particular focus on digital game-based learning. I therefore approach these games primarily as educational and interactive artefacts, rather than as pure climate or simulation models. The object of analysis in this study is the game as a pedagogical medium, not the underlying climate or simulation model as a scientific model. My aim is to examine how policy-focused climate games represent climate action and structure player engagement through their mechanics and design features, and to discuss the educational opportunities these features may provide. I see particular value in focusing not only on the topics addressed by these games, but also on their didactic and pedagogical qualities: how digital (single player) games can be used to engage particular groups of learners and create meaningful learning opportunities that are well realized through the medium and grounded in contemporary learning theories. From this perspective, the “middle segment” is particularly interesting to me because these games combine substantive climate content with the possibilities of game-based learning, rather than functioning primarily as simulations of climate or policy systems.
  I understand the reviewer’s concern that games without peer-reviewed scientific evaluation may carry risks, particularly when they address policy-relevant climate issues. At the same time, I would defend the premise that the “middle segment” constitutes a highly interesting category of games from an educational perspepective. To my knowledge, experts with relevant scientific backgrounds have been involved at some stage in the development of all games included in the corpus. As with many (climate-related) games, there is inevitably a compromise between the complexity and accuracy of the underlying model or representation and the requirements of game design, accessibility, and playability. My argument is therefore not that these games should be regarded as scientifically validated simulations, but that they represent an important and currently underexplored group of educational artefacts in which substantive climate content, expert knowledge, and game design are brought together.
  The paper is not intended to independently validate or re-engineer the climate or simulation models underlying the games. While I agree that such an assessment could be highly valuable, some of the detailed suggestions you provide would require expertise beyond my own disciplinary background. Nevertheless, I agree that the scientific basis and transparency of these representations are relevant for the present study, particularly given the policy focus of the games. An appealing game with a questionable scientific basis would obviously raise important concerns. I very much appreciate the specific suggestions and references provided by the reviewer in this regard. I therefore think that the manuscript should acknowledge and assess this dimension where possible, while remaining clear about the limits of what can be established from my disciplinary perspective. Where information is available, I can consider the documented model basis, scientific sources, expert involvement, and transparency of the underlying representations. I see this as an assessment of their documentation and scientific credentials rather than an independent assessment of model validity.
  Beyond the scope of this paper, I can certainly imagine a separate review study examining the scientific and model validity of games in this “middle segment”. Such a project would be interesting from an academic perspective and could also provide a valuable service to educators considering these games for educational use. However, I would see this as a different research project, ideally conducted in collaboration with a geoscientist or researcher with relevant expertise in climate or simulation modelling. It would complement rather than replace the present study, whose object of analysis is the game as a pedagogical medium rather than the underlying climate or simulation model as a scientific model.
  More broadly, I believe that widespread pedagogical implementation of these games requires further work beyond the games themselves. In particular, educators need appropriate didactic materials and guidance for using individual games, including possibilities for debriefing and reflection. Without such pedagogical support, I suspect that both academically developed games/ simulations and “middle segment” games are likely to remain used primarily in individual or isolated educational contexts rather than becoming more widely integrated into educational practice.
  Furthermore, I would like to clarify that concepts such as “feedback” and “temporal structure” are used in their established sense within game studies and game-based learning. Here, feedback refers to player-facing feedback generated by the game in response to player actions, while temporal structure refers to how games organize and manipulate time during play. These concepts are central to the analysis of games as interactive systems from my disciplinary perspective. I agree, however, that the manuscript should make clearer that their presence should not be interpreted as evidence that players learn about climate-system feedbacks or delays, particularly given the disciplinary scope and readership of the journal. I appreciate the reviewer pointing out this potential ambiguity.
  Your comments regarding systems thinking are also helpful in identifying where the manuscript currently goes beyond what its analysis can support. I agree that I should avoid broad claims about learning outcomes, including claims about systems-thinking learning, that cannot be established through an analysis of game design alone. Rather than extending the study into an analysis of climate-system modelling or systems-thinking learning, I consider it more appropriate to keep the focus on the design and educational affordances of the games and to ground claims about learning more carefully in the relevant educational and game-based learning literature.
  In line with this broader effort to sharpen the manuscript’s focus, I will also remove the exploratory analysis of online discourse surrounding the game Half-Earth Socialism. While I still consider the role of reflection, debriefing, and informal learning practices around climate games an important topic, this analysis is not sufficiently integrated into the comparative framework of the current manuscript and would be better addressed in future research.
  Finally, I appreciate the reviewer’s comments on corpus selection, methodological transparency, the analytical framework, and comparative presentation. Together with the other reviews, these comments give me a much clearer sense of where the manuscript needs to become more focused and explicit, while also helping me to better articulate its contribution from an educational and game-based learning perspective.
  At this stage, I am not sure whether the editorial process will allow me to submit a revised version of the manuscript. Should the manuscript proceed to a revision stage, I am confident that the reviewer’s thoughtful and detailed comments will help me strengthen the manuscript considerably. At the same time, I recognize that some of the suggestions would require a different disciplinary approach and therefore extend beyond the intended scope of this study.
  Thank you again for this thoughtful, challenging, and very helpful review.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1790-AC4

André Czauderna

Viewed

Total article views: 597 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
339	227	31	597	18	26

HTML: 339
PDF: 227
XML: 31
Total: 597
BibTeX: 18
EndNote: 26

Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Apr 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2026	123	68	14	205
May 2026	63	65	5	133
Jun 2026	11	10	0	21
Jul 2026	90	42	11	143
Aug 2026	52	42	1	95

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Apr 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2026	123	68	14	205
May 2026	63	65	5	133
Jun 2026	11	10	0	21
Jul 2026	90	42	11	143
Aug 2026	52	42	1	95

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 532 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 532 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 20 Aug 2026

Short summary

This review explores how digital games that place players in climate policy roles can support learning about climate change and action. By analyzing ten climate action games, it shows how these games help players weigh trade-offs, understand long-term impacts, and engage with complex decision-making. The review argues that these games are most effective when combined with guided reflection. It also offers recommendations for game designers and educators alike and calls for future research.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0