At CHRONES., we work with games that inform, educate, inspire, and transform—but we rarely, if ever, call them serious games. Not because they aren’t meaningful, complex, or challenging. But because we believe the term itself is a contradiction in terms, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what play is.

The problem with serious games

“We must emphasize once again that play does not exclude seriousness.”

— Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens, 1938

Let’s start with language. The concept of serious games implicitly assumes that games, by default, are not serious. To become valuable or purposeful, a game must be fixed, reframed, or labelled otherwise. But this assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

As Johan Huizinga wrote in Homo Ludens, play is not the opposite of seriousness. It is a foundational human activity, one that precedes culture, shapes society, and encodes our deepest rituals and expressions. From ancient ceremonies to early legal systems, the ludic impulse has always been deeply entangled with how we learn, relate, and imagine.

To call a game serious is to attempt to elevate it, but in doing so, we implicitly accept the false premise that games are inherently frivolous. At CHRONES., we believe games deserve better than that.

Applied games: a better alternative

We prefer to talk about applied games. These are games designed with a purpose beyond entertainment. They might aim to educate, to train, to raise awareness, to simulate a process, or to foster behavioural change. But unlike the label serious game, applied doesn’t carry the same burden of contradiction.

An applied game does not attempt to shed its playful nature to be useful. Instead, it embraces the mechanics, logic, and aesthetics of play, while aligning them with a clear, intentional outcome. It is about applying the power of game dynamics to real-world problems, without stripping away the elements that make play compelling in the first place.

In our work, applied games often blur the boundaries between performance, interaction, simulation, and storytelling. They are not always digital. They are not always competitive. But they are always playful.

Edutainment and the fear of fun

There is a long-standing anxiety in the world of education and professional training: the fear that if something is enjoyable, it cannot be rigorous. This is the great misunderstanding of edutainment, a term that is often used pejoratively to suggest fluff, distraction, or oversimplification. But the truth is quite the opposite.

Research across cognitive psychology, pedagogy, and design shows that when learners are engaged, when they feel agency and curiosity, they retain more, process more deeply, and build more durable knowledge structures. And what better way to provoke engagement than through play?

At the same time, we want to acknowledge another perspective we’ve encountered: someone once told us they disliked the term edutainment because, in their view, real education should always be entertaining. While we understand the sentiment, we respectfully disagree.

Creating true entertainment is a craft of its own, one that involves a distinct set of professional skills, tools, and artistic sensitivities. A teacher who makes their lesson fun is doing great work, but it’s not the same as designing experiences with the intention and mechanics of entertainment at their core. That distinction matters, especially when we talk about collaboration between educators and game designers, artists, and performers.

Why terminology matters

Words shape expectations. They signal how we frame an experience and how others will interpret it. When we use terms like serious game, we risk reinforcing the idea that games must be rehabilitated before they can be valuable.

That framing not only diminishes the long and rich tradition of games as cultural artefacts, it also misunderstands their unique strengths.

By calling them applied, we do not deny the seriousness of their goals. But we preserve the dignity of play itself. We assert that games are not a second-best solution. They are a domain of expression, experimentation, and insight with their own rules and merits.

The seriousness of play

We return to Huizinga: “Play is older than culture.” To play is to be alive. And to design play intentionally, with care, ethics, and a sense of purpose, is one of the most serious things we can do. So no, we don’t call them serious games. We just take play seriously.

Want to learn more about how CHRONES. applies game design to real-world challenges? Explore our formats or get in touch. Let’s design something meaningful and fun!

Photo by Freepik