Beyond the Hype: A Practitioner's Guide to Selecting COTS Games for Learning

"Just make it interactive and it'll be more engaging!"

Sound familiar? If you're in L&D, you've heard this before. The assumption that slapping some animation or gamification onto content automatically makes it "fun" is alive and well. It's the modern echo of what researchers call the "Edutainment Era," where educators believed wrapping a game around any lesson would magically transform learning.

Here's my claim: Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) games (Portal 2, Minecraft, Detroit: Become Human) can be powerful learning tools, but only when selected and implemented with surgical precision. A fascinating academic analysis by Katrin Becker and Elisa Gopin suggests why most attempts fail and what actually works. Here is a link to the chapter: Selection Criteria for Using Commercial Off the Shelf Games (COTS) for Learning 

The Academic Reality Check: Why Most Game-Based Learning Fails

Becker and Gopin's research cuts through the hype with three brutal truths: teachers need deep familiarity with both subject matter and the game itself, support materials are essential for classroom utility, and a game's ability to fit curriculum trumps its popularity every time.

This is supported by my own experience in using COTS games as learning tools. 

Take my work with commercial pilot students learning crew resource management (CRM). Using Portal 2, we quickly identified students who were moving ahead without clearance from their partner which is a potentially fatal habit in aviation. The game didn't magically teach this skill. It was an “Aha!” moment that came about when I noticed (as the facilitator) that as students were getting more comfortable with the gameplay, they were moving ahead through the levels before being told to. When it was identified, the actual pilots in the room (the instructors) were able to directly connect this behaviour to potentially dangerous behaviour in the cockpit of an aircraft.

The Framework Gap: What Research Reveals vs. What Practitioners Need

The authors analyze several selection frameworks, from James Gee's "Big G" vs "small g" games concept to Van Eck's adaptation of the NTeQ model for technology integration. Before knowing these frameworks existed (and through pure trial and error), I'd developed structured before/during/after procedures for my sessions and I'd always loved practicing inquiry-based methods. Seeing my practices validated in academic literature was reassuring, but it also revealed a crucial gap.

The Missing Piece: A Practitioner's Selection Framework

Most frameworks start with the game and work towards learning objectives. I think that's backwards thinking.

Here's the framework I've developed through real-world application:

1. Start with the End Goal

What specific skill or behavior change do you need? Not "better communication"—that's too vague. "Practicing empathetic responses when receiving difficult feedback" is actionable.

2. Identify Required Dynamics

What dynamics must emerge for learning to happen? Interpersonal communication breakdowns? Role rotations? Time management difficulties?

3. Map to Game Mechanics

Which game mechanics naturally create these dynamics? Resource management? Timed levels? Puzzles? Co-operative puzzle-solving?

4. Match Your Equipment Reality

Finally, analyze your actual setup. One computer? 20 gaming stations with 20 students? 20 gaming stations with 60 students?

5. Choose Your Game

Which game fits all the criteria? If there isn’t a game that fits all the right criteria, is there a way you can manipulate the lesson so that you create certain mechanics that the game is lacking? Maybe you find a game that has all the different mechanics you want, but lacks the aspect of timed levels. Is it possible for you to time students? Add that dynamic outside of the game to make it suit your needs?

Critical Analysis: Where the Research Gets It Right (and Wrong)

What Becker and Gopin nail: The emphasis on "off-label" use being analogous to medicine. We're using games knowing they weren't designed for our purpose, so efficacy comes from well-matched learning design outside the game.

What they miss: The persistent misconception that games need to be custom-built for education. I constantly encounter this bias. Trainers and educators assume if we're using games, they should be specifically designed for the course. I disagree. The Sims, Civilization, and Portal have educational value and they weren't designed as educational games.

The deeper issue: The authors note that almost no COTS games are immediately classroom-ready—they require teachers to analyze, build lessons from scratch, and create curriculum ties. This is the real barrier.

The Equipment vs. Effectiveness Reality

Here's something the research touches on but doesn't fully explore: the relationship between technical constraints and learning outcomes isn't linear.

One of my most effective sessions has used a single-computer setup where I was in a lab and the students were in a completely different room. Why? Because the constraint forced collaboration and conversation. Students couldn’t retreat into individual gameplay. They were required to negotiate, communicate, and problem-solve together.

The academic frameworks focus heavily on technical requirements as barriers. In practice, constraints can be leveraged to enhance learning dynamics.

What This Means for Your L&D Strategy

Stop chasing the perfect educational game. As the research shows, the guiding principle should be whether a specific game can support a specific learning experience—no game is inherently "good" or "bad" for learning.

Invest in facilitation skills, not game libraries. My breakthrough moments come from structured debriefs, not sophisticated games. When those pilot students recognized their dangerous communication patterns, it wasn't because Portal 2 is amazing, it was because we'd created a safe space to examine high-stakes behavior.

Challenge the custom-game assumption. Every time someone suggests building a training game from scratch, try and think of a game that exists already that may suit all (or most) of your needs.

Level Up Your Game Selection Process

The research validates what practitioners know: games are tools, not solutions. But it also reveals that we need better selection frameworks that start with learning objectives.

The future of game-based learning isn't about finding or creating the perfect educational game. It's about becoming skilled at recognizing when commercial games create the exact social dynamics that drive real skill development.

Ready to explore how strategic game selection can transform your team's skill development? Book a consultation to discover which commercial games create the exact learning dynamics your organization needs.