Published on in Vol 11 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
Games in Times of a Pandemic: Structured Overview of COVID-19 Serious Games

Games in Times of a Pandemic: Structured Overview of COVID-19 Serious Games

Games in Times of a Pandemic: Structured Overview of COVID-19 Serious Games

Original Paper

Human-Centered Design, Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Tjaša Kermavnar, MD, PhD

Human-Centered Design

Industrial Design Engineering

Delft University of Technology

Landbergstraat 15

Delft, 2628 CE


Phone: 31 648921936


Background: The COVID-19 pandemic introduced an urgent need for effective strategies to disseminate crucial knowledge and improve people’s subjective well-being. Complementing more conventional approaches to knowledge dissemination, game-based interventions were developed to create awareness and educate people about the pandemic, hoping to change their attitudes and behavior.

Objective: This study provided an overview and analysis of digital and analog game-based interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As major pandemics and other large-scale disruptive events are expected to increase in frequency in the coming decades, this analysis aimed to inform the design, uptake, and effects of similar future interventions.

Methods: From November 2021 to April 2022, Scopus, Google, and YouTube were searched for articles and videos describing COVID-19–themed game-based interventions. Information regarding authorship, year of development or launch, country of origin, license, deployment, genre or type, target audience, player interaction, in-game goal, and intended transfer effects was extracted. Information regarding intervention effectiveness was retrieved where possible.

Results: A diverse assortment of 23 analog and 43 digital serious games was identified, approximately one-third of them (25/66, 38%) through scientific articles. Most of these games were developed by research institutions in 2020 (13/66, 20%) and originated in Europe and North America (38/66, 58%). A limited number (20/66, 30%) were tested on relatively small samples, using a diversity of research methods to assess the potential changes in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors as well as their gameplay experience. Although most of the evaluated games (11/20, 55%) effectively engaged and motivated the players, increased awareness, and improved their understanding of COVID-19–related issues, the games’ success in influencing people’s behavior was often unclear or limited.

Conclusions: To increase the impact of similar future interventions aimed at disseminating knowledge and influencing people’s attitudes and behaviors during a large-scale crisis, some considerations are suggested. On the basis of the study results and informed by existing game theories, recommendations are made in relation to game development, deployment, and distribution; game users, design, and use; game design terminology; and effectiveness testing for serious games.

JMIR Serious Games 2023;11:e41766




The outbreak of the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 [1]. With increasing restrictions and uncertainty, a growing number of studies have reported troubling large-scale psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including worry, fear, anxiety, boredom, frustration, irritability, anger, sadness, and depression [2-7]. On a collective level, health anxiety, collective disorientation, community panic, crisis fatigue, and social isolation fatigue have been observed [3,4,8]. These effects seem to be perpetuated by doomsurfing or doomscrolling, which refers to the tendency to continually search for bad news on the web even though it is saddening, disheartening, or depressing [9]. An increase in additional dysfunctional behaviors such as panic purchasing of essential household items, increased consumption of psychoactive substances, weight gain because of stress-induced eating, and complete social withdrawal has suggested an imbalance between increased environmental demands and the efficacy of people’s resilience and coping. Experts have advised that people adhere to daily routines and maintain a strong degree of social connectedness to improve communication and reduce boredom [10-12]. Less conventional means to maintain or improve people’s subjective well-being have also been investigated, including digital health interventions (ie, telemedicine, eHealth, and mobile health) [13-15], exergames [16], arts-based interventions [10], bibliotherapy [17], and the company of pet animals [18].

Playing games has been a popular coping strategy during the pandemic [19,20]; it has even been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an effective way to stop the spread of COVID-19 [21]. Kleinman et al [22] reported that people resorted to games to maintain their mental well-being (eg, to cope with loneliness, escape from the troubling real world, or replace the loss of routines because of quarantine), connect with others (eg, with distanced friends and family, people confined to the same household, or new people), or substitute reality (eg, using game characters as a substitute for real interactions and hosting internet-based events). Some people have also found solace in creating games or gamifying everyday activities to cope with distress during quarantine [22].

During the pandemic, an increased interest specifically in pandemic-themed games such as the board game Pandemic, which was developed after the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic, was observed [23]. In 2020, over 50 global game industry leaders launched the campaign #PlayApartTogether to encourage gamers to follow the WHO guidelines as well as incorporate COVID-19 prevention messages into their games [24,25]. Thus, in addition to entertainment games intended to be played primarily for amusement purposes, a considerable number of serious games were developed to educate people about the COVID-19 pandemic, influence their behavior, and improve their well-being in terms of increased life satisfaction and decreased negative affect. These games drew upon the proven positive effect that (serious) games can have on increasing health literacy [26,27]. Although the entertainment in playing games can in itself benefit one’s psychological well-being, our study focuses on serious games that were intentionally designed to spread awareness and knowledge of COVID-19, promote healthy behaviors, and increase people’s resilience during the pandemic.

Serious games (hereinafter referred to as games) often use entertainment qualities to increase player motivation to learn and change their attitudes or behavior in the real world (ie, to facilitate transfer effects such as contagion-preventive behavior) [28]. They can increase people’s understanding of complex situations and equip them with the knowledge and skills that are required in real life [24], especially when immersive simulations of threatening new or unusual situations are used in a safe environment that players can explore to prepare for the possible consequences of a real disaster [29]. Although multiple theories on the motivational effects of game and play (starting in 1938 with Homo Ludens by Huzinga [30,31]) have been developed, it is very difficult to specify the exact game elements that cause games’ transfer effects [32,33]. Some theorists have stated that games are ideal candidates for optimally responding to universal motivational needs (cf the relationship between games and self-determination theory [34]), whereas other theorists [35] have claimed that games provide a safe space to explore and play along the dimensions of rule-based games (ludus) and spontaneous play (paidia). In addition to the motivational effects of game elements, such as rewards, challenges, or imagination [36], games can motivate people by offering an alternative world that is fun, safe, and engaging. Huizinga [30] dubbed this (experienced) game world “the magic circle,” defining it as “a temporary world within the ordinary world with specific time- and space-boundaries.” Several theories, such as the theory of narrative transportation [37] and make-believe [38], describe why people tend to be attracted to these alternative worlds. Serious games make use of the motivational aspects of (entertainment) games to intentionally achieve effects in the ordinary or real world. These can involve effects on awareness (cf health risk awareness [39]), health knowledge [40], health attitudes [41], and health behaviors [42].


Recent reports such as that by Metabiota [43] have warned that the risk of another major pandemic during our lifetimes is higher than many expect—they estimate the likelihood of another pandemic occurring within the next 25 years to be 47%-57%. Similarly, Marani et al [44] predicted up to a 3-fold increase in the yearly probability of extreme epidemics in the coming decades. This implies that the games developed in response to the recent pandemic could potentially serve as a basis for future games, indicating a need to explore the landscape of COVID-19–themed games. Apart from a recent analysis of 5 studies that evaluated 4 games in total [45], to date, no comprehensive reviews that could help evaluate the various game design decisions for this specific context have been published. Thus, the overview presented in this paper aims to inform the design of similar game-based interventions by showcasing the diversity of intentions and design strategies.

Search and Selection of COVID-19 Games

In November 2021, we performed a search of Scopus to identify scientific articles that described the development or testing of COVID-19–themed games. The search was limited to articles and conference papers published in English after 2018 that included the keyword “game*” and any of the keywords “covid*,” “sars-cov*,” “pandemic*,” or “lockdown*” in the title. To further reduce the number of irrelevant results, we excluded those where the word game was used in relation to game changer or the Olympic and Paralympic games. The search was then repeated in April 2022 to include the most recent studies. Titles and abstracts of the identified 181 results were screened to exclude publications that did not focus on games developed to educate the general public on the COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 34 full texts describing 25 different games were included in the review.

An important consideration that informed the literature review was that games are not necessarily disseminated through or discussed in scientific publications. To avoid excluding relevant games that had only been disseminated through nonscientific media, Google and YouTube were also searched using the aforementioned keywords. This search, which was performed from November 2021 to April 2022, identified 42 additional games developed by private citizens, studios, and profit and nonprofit organizations. Owing to the overwhelming number of prototypes of digital games developed primarily for game jams (eg, International Festival of Independent Games “JAMMING THE CURVE: COVID-19 Game Jam”) or competitions (eg, the 2021 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces contest “Challenging Pandemics”), these were not included in this study.

Data Extraction

The identified games were analyzed and categorized based on the Comprehensive Taxonomy for Serious Games by De Lope and Medina-Medina [46]. This taxonomy builds on a series of concepts from existing partial classification systems to collect and organize a large number of game features when developing new games or when analyzing or comparing existing ones [46]. Information regarding the games’ authorship, license, deployment, genre or type, target audience, player interaction, in-game goal, and intended transfer effects was extracted. Information regarding the year of development or launch, country of origin, and user testing was also obtained where possible.

COVID-19 Games


By January 2022, a total of 66 COVID-19–themed games—23 (35%) analog and 43 (65%) digital—were identified. Detailed overviews of analog and digital games are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1 [47-52] and Multimedia Appendix 2 [53-70], respectively; Figures 1-10 show 10 game examples. The general findings are presented in the following sections.

Figure 1. Clinic Deluxe Edition: CoVid_19 variant (image reproduced with permission from Alban Viard [71]).
Figure 2. Plague Inc.: The Cure (image reproduced with permission from Ndemic Creations [72]).
Figure 3. Antidote COVID-19 (image reproduced with permission from Psyon Games [73]).
Figure 4. At-Home Scavenger Hunt [47]. Materials developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Reference to specific commercial products, manufacturers, companies, or trademarks does not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by the US Government, Department of Health and Human Services, or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Figure 5. GO VIRAL! (image reproduced with permission from Tilt Studio and Professor Sander L van der Linden from the University of Cambridge [66]).
Figure 6. You Make Me Sick! (image reproduced with permission from The Partnership in Education [52]). The game was created by The Partnership in Education, a project supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award R25GM132910.
Figure 7. Lockdown! (image reproduced with permission from Yann Boucher [76]).
Figure 8. Corona Bee (image reproduced with permission from Focus Games [56]).
Figure 9. Heroes of Covid-19 (image reproduced with permission from GRM Digital [67]).
Figure 10. Destroy COVID (image reproduced with permission from Kristóf Horváth [74]).
Release Year and Location

The vast majority of the identified games were developed or launched in 2020 (41/66, 62%); the rest were developed or launched in 2021. The largest number of games originated in the United States (10/66, 15%), India (9/66, 14%), and the United Kingdom (7/66, 11%). The countries of origin of other games included Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (3/66, 5% of the games each); Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Morocco, Portugal, and South Africa (2/66, 3% of the games each); and Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Taiwan (1/66, 2% of the games each). For 8% (5/66) of the games, the country of origin could not be determined.


The lead developers were research institutions (31/66, 47% of the games), game development studios (17/66, 26% of the games), or private individuals (13/66, 20% of the games). A total of 9% (6/66) of the games were developed by children aged 10 to 17 years (Better than Hugo, Corona – Mit Eifer ins Geschäft, Corona Yuga, COVID-19: A Race to the Vaccine, Go Corona Go, and Infected!). Governmental and nongovernmental organizations (eg, ministries, educational institutes, the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], the United Nations Children’s Fund, and Médecins Sans Frontières) were involved in the development of 22% (5/23) of the analog games and 16% (7/43) of the digital games.


In total, 65% (15/23) of the analog games were commercial (price: US $6.54-33.77), 30% (7/23) were available for free (6/7, 86% of these as Print & Play games), and 9% (2/23) were Kickstarter prototypes. In contrast, the vast majority of digital games were free to play (20/43, 47%) or prototypes (20/43, 47%); 5% (2/43) were commercial (price: US $4.36-9.80), and 2% (1/43) were developed for internal use at a company.

Target Audience

Most games (38/66, 58%) targeted younger audiences, including children as young as 3 years old, teenagers, and university students. Analog games were often designed to be engaging for the entire family, whereas 36% (24/66) of all digital games did not have a defined target audience. Certain other games targeted very specific user groups, such as gamers, active social media users, health care workers, health enthusiasts, employees of certain enterprises, and the African population.

Game Types and Genres

Practically all games identified were simulations of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some were set in the players’ immediate environment, such as the classroom (eg, Fighting COVID-19 at Purdue University), the office (eg, Social Distancing – The Game), or the supermarket (eg, Dino-Store), or more broadly in a village, town, or city (eg, Clinic Deluxe Edition: CoVid_19 variant [Figure 1], COVID Dodge, SurviveCovid-19, and VRS Fight Club); a country (eg, Better than Hugo and Korona hra); or the world (eg, Plague Inc.: The Cure; Figure 2), where the players were tasked with controlling the spread of the disease. Others were set in a microscopic environment of the human body, where the players assumed the role of immune cells in fighting off the infection (eg, Antidote COVID-19 [Figure 3] and Infekcja) or of the virus in spreading the disease (eg, Viruscape). Other interesting approaches were used in games such as At-Home Scavenger Hunt by the CDC (Figure 4), which required the players to find relevant physical items in their actual environment; the location-based game MeetDurian, where virtual items could be collected in the player’s physical environment (similar to Pokémon GO) if the player was wearing a face mask, the presence of which was detected by face recognition software; and GO VIRAL! (Figure 5), which was set in the environment of a simulated social media platform.

The vast majority of analog games were board games (15/23, 65%) or card games (6/23, 26%). The most common analog game types or genres were strategy games (11/23, 48%; eg, Lockdown!; Figure 7) and race-to-the-end games (6/23, 26%; eg, You Make Me Sick!; Figure 6), whereas most digital games were primarily strategy (15/43, 35%; eg, Plague Inc.: The Cure), action (14/43, 33%; eg, COVID Dodge), and trivia (12/43, 28%; eg, Corona Bee; Figure 8) games. Some less common game types such as meditation or Zen (CovidShield), hidden object (Help to stop the COVID-19 coronavirus and At-Home Scavenger Hunt by the CDC), memory (Heroes of Covid-19; Figure 9), and escape room–type puzzles (COVID-19 [CORONA VIRUS] and Destroy COVID; Figure 10) were also identified.


Most digital games (23/43, 53%) were web-based and playable on PCs, mobile devices, consoles, or a combination of these. An additional 21% (9/43) were deployed for mobile platforms, 7% (3/43) were deployed for desktop and mobile platforms, 2% (1/43) were deployed for desktop only, 2% (1/43) were deployed for desktop and consoles, and 2% (1/43) were deployed for consoles only. Analog games mainly took the form of physical objects (eg, game boards with figures and dice, play money or tokens, playing cards, and puzzle pieces) or free electronic files that were designed to be printed at home (Print & Play).

Player Interaction

Of the 43 digital games, 37 (86%) were single-player, 4 (9%) were multiplayer (up to 7 players), and 2 (5%) were single- and multiplayer. Of the 6 multiplayer digital games, 5 (83%) were co-operative, and 1 (17%) was competitive. In contrast, all analog games (23/23, 100%) were multiplayer (up to 100 players), although single-player versions were also available in 26% (6/23) of the cases. Of these 23 games, 18 (78%) were competitive, 4 (17%) were co-operative, and 1 (4%) involved only teams or partnerships.

Gameplay Duration

Information retrieved from 15 analog games showed that gameplay duration ranged from 5 to 180 minutes—3 (20%) games required up to 15 minutes, 5 (33%) games required up to 30 minutes, 2 (13%) games required up to 45 minutes, 2 (13%) games required up to 60 minutes, and 3 (20%) games required >1 hour. The estimated duration could only be retrieved for 7% (3/43) of the digital games, which were substantially shorter than most analog games and lasted 5 to 15 minutes.

Intended Transfer Effects

In addition to a mostly entertaining in-game goal, serious games explicitly add a more serious, out-game goal [75], which refers to the intended effect of the game in the real world [28]; such an effect can be observed after playing the game and may include increased knowledge and awareness, skill development, and changes in attitudes or behaviors. Such serious games aim for impact that is typically long-term, in contrast to more short-term or direct forms of impact such as interactions, actions, and experiences while playing the game (for discussion on human impact–centered design, refer to the study by Fokkinga et al [77]). This repertoire of COVID-19 games covers this diversity of purposes, as summarized in Table 1 (extracted from the games’ descriptions; for details, refer to Multimedia Appendix 3).

Table 1. Intended transfer effects of COVID-19–themed games (listed according to the hierarchy of effects model originally developed for advertising and recommended by McGuire [78] for use in public health campaigns [79]; N=66).
Intended transfer effectGames, n (%)Examples
Awareness-oriented effects11 (17)

Need for vaccination
  • Antidote COVID-19
  • Beat Corona
  • Corona – Mit Eifer ins Geschäft
  • COVID Challenge
  • Heroes of Covid-19
  • Social Distancing – The Game

Preventive measures

Need for well-being
Education-oriented effects38 (58)

  • Antidote COVID-19
  • Clinic Deluxe Edition: CoVid_19 variant
  • Corona Bee
  • COVID Safety Simulation: CAMPUS LIFE
  • Govid
  • You Make Me Sick!



Personal care

Information assessment
Attitude-oriented effects12 (18)

Improving empathy
  • Better than Hugo
  • Breaking the Magic Circle
  • Corona Game
  • Essential Workers
  • SurviveCovid-19++

Sense of collective responsibility

Critical reflection
Behavior-oriented effects8 (12)

Executing preventive measures
  • At-Home Scavenger Hunt
  • Corona Yuga
  • CovidShield Game Suite
  • Fighting COVID-19 at Purdue University
  • MeetDurian
  • The Magic Soldier of the Human Body

Social conversation

Staying healthy


Maintaining well-being
Increasing Awareness and Spreading Knowledge

Overall, the games reviewed in this study aim to educate the players on the COVID-19 pandemic in an entertaining way. Practically all games (66/66, 100%) were developed to spread general awareness about COVID-19 (eg, Is COVID-19 caused by bacteria or a virus?; Name one symptom of COVID-19 that affects the respiratory system; and What does the “19” in COVID-19 stand for?). Some (6/66, 9%) were intended to educate people about the means and mechanisms of virus spread, the immune response, or both (eg, True or False: COVID-19 can only be spread from person-to-person and Can you get COVID-19 from drinking water?), whereas others (34/66, 52%) focus more on safety precautions to avoid catching and spreading the infection (eg, True or False: Wearing a face mask can help stop the spread of COVID-19 to others; When should you wash your hands?; and What is the minimum percentage of alcohol that a hand sanitizer must have?). Still others (5/66, 8%) specifically address vaccination (eg, True or False: The COVID-19 vaccines can give you COVID-19; True or False: The vaccine will damage my DNA; I’m healthy and I’m never ill, should I still get vaccinated?; and Should a pregnant woman have the vaccine?).

Influencing Attitudes

Several games (11/66, 17%) aim to cultivate people’s sense of empathy and collective responsibility (eg, Clinic Deluxe Edition: CoVid_19 variant, Fighting COVID-19 at Purdue University, and Essential Workers) as well as encourage critical reflection on policy makers’ dilemmas (eg, Better than Hugo and Lockdown!) or the spread of misinformation (eg, CoronaChampion and GO VIRAL!). Heroes of Covid-19 may be the only game to focus on positive aspects of the pandemic, raising awareness of people’s noble deeds during this period (eg, Quinn Callandar, a boy scout from Canada, used his 3D printing skills to create ear guards for people who feel pain from wearing masks all day; Intensive care nurse Molly Watts created a book entitled ‘Dave the Dog is worried about coronavirus’ to help tackle anxiety in children amid the Covid-19 outbreak; and “Annemarie Plas from Brixton, London united the nation and gave the NHS frontline a boost with her ‘Clap for our Carers’ initiative.”).

Influencing Behavior

Some games were designed to promote adherence to safety precautions in real-life settings. For example, Fighting COVID-19 at Purdue University aims to encourage students to clean their university laboratories, and MeetDurian encourages players to wear protective masks in public. Other games aim to stimulate behavior that can directly improve the players’ well-being, such as mindfulness breathing (CovidShield Game Suite) and immunity-increasing nutrition (The Magic Soldier of the Human Body).

In most cases, the players were to adopt the positive role of a hero fighting the virus or protecting their avatar from infection in a simulated environment. An interesting yet less common alternative was to teach people about undesirable or unsafe behaviors by putting them in the negative role of, for example, the virus (Viruscape), an infected customer at a store (Instructional remote multiplayer VR game), or a misinformation spreader (GO VIRAL!).

Testing of Effectiveness in Promoting Transfer Effects

A relatively small number of scientific studies that investigated the effectiveness of the individual COVID-19–themed games (20) have been published (Multimedia Appendix 4 [80-101]). In total, 3 categories of effects were most frequently tested: the change in participants’ knowledge of COVID-19 and infection prevention measures, their gameplay experience, and the games’ potential to facilitate players’ attitude or behavior change. The studies used various research methods and tools, including heuristic evaluations by experts, surveys composed of custom or standardized questionnaires and administered before or after gameplay, observations during gameplay, semistructured interviews, self-reports, or game log analysis after gameplay. A total of 15% (3/20) of the studies assessed the players’ changes in knowledge [80-82] and attitudes [80,83,84] by comparing their pre- and postgameplay responses. One study involved a control group that watched an educational video about COVID-19 for comparison with a test group that played the game [80], whereas another used comparative analysis with other similar games [85]. With the exception of 30% (6/20) of the studies, which involved larger numbers of participants or instances of gameplay, testing was performed on relatively small samples (2-30 participants).

At this point, it is important to emphasize the diversity of methods used to assess the effectiveness of the games as these can greatly limit the comparability of the results. Nevertheless, most of the studies considered (11/20, 55%) found that the games succeeded in engaging and motivating the players [80,81,83,84,87,91,94,99,101], increasing awareness, and facilitating teaching COVID-19 hygienic knowledge [80-83,89,91]. Improved understanding led to positive changes in players’ attitudes toward COVID-19 preventive measures [80,82,83,87,89,91,94,97,102]. A study reported that health anxiety remained relatively unchanged in response to playing 1 game [80].

Certain limitations of these studies have been acknowledged, especially in relation to the games’ capacity to change players’ behaviors. A proper assessment of the games’ capacity to influence behavior was found to be particularly challenging as different sources of information may have contributed to people’s adherence to safety measures [90,103] and as other factors—most notably, the players’ ages—also affected the games’ effectiveness [87,94]. The effectiveness of the reviewed games was often unclear or limited [98,103], and Suppan et al [92] explicitly stated that a longitudinal trial would be necessary to accurately assess their behavioral impact.

In addition, the studies recruited participants to play the games and evaluate their impact as opposed to surveying people who had already obtained and played the games through their own initiative. Information regarding the number of times the games were downloaded or played also does not appear to be structurally documented or made available; thus, it remains unclear to what extent the games were able to motivate people to play them in the first place. However, this information is of key importance as a game cannot be effective if it is not played.

Principal Findings

This study aimed to provide an overview of games that were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to disseminate crucial knowledge and enhance people’s subjective well-being. In general, we observed an extensive proliferation of games—especially digital games—in 2020, when the pandemic was declared. Most (31/66, 47%) were developed by research institutions in Europe and North America—some in collaboration with health authorities. All efforts notwithstanding, the overall frequency of use and impact of these games seem to have been modest at most.

To effectively influence people’s attitudes and behavior, design interventions need to be tailored to each situation, considering the environmental demands—as perceived by the target group—and their personal resources to meet these demands. On the basis of the findings of this study, we provide recommendations for the design of games aimed at improving people’s well-being in future global health crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Game Development, Deployment, and Distribution


A game only has an impact if it is played. It is noteworthy that we only became aware of the multitude of COVID-19–themed games when we started actively searching for them. Although our experience is anecdotal, it does suggest the importance of investing time and effort in the dissemination of serious games.

Develop a Dissemination Plan

In the context of a pandemic, game developers should carefully consider their target audience. In many cases, this is probably the broadest audience possible, making it crucial to plan for the effective dissemination of the game. Most of the reviewed analog games (15/23, 65%) were commercially available physical objects, whereas most digital games (20/43, 47%) were freely accessible web-based applications. Each of the various forms of dissemination has advantages and disadvantages, but deployment strategy and cost may influence game accessibility to the greatest extent. Commercial games, for example, have an advantage in that they have access to professional dissemination channels and are often designed to be intriguing and esthetically appealing to attract people’s attention. However, the cost and effort necessary to obtain such games can preclude them from reaching a broader audience. For analog games, Print & Play games tend to be the most convenient to access, especially when freely available on the web. Such games have a relatively low threshold for access in that buying them is not necessary.

When social distancing is required, as was the case during the pandemic, playing analog games is typically only possible for members of the same household. In contrast, digital games are easy to obtain and play remotely provided that the users have access to electricity and the internet. To maximize reach, Hill et al [82] advised that COVID-19–themed games must be platform-independent and playable with minimal hardware.

Collaborating with health authorities, the media, nongovernmental organizations, educational institutions, (local) governments, and social media influencers can also help spread awareness of a game’s existence, although this may not always be the case. The designers of Escape COVID-19, for example, conducted a retrospective analysis to investigate the reasons for their limited success in recruiting participants for their study [104]. Specifically, they aimed to assess the effect of 3 different dissemination strategies on game account creation over a period of 6 months. In the first period (53 days), the game was disseminated by a part-time worker; following this was a press release (15 days); and in the final stage, the game was officially announced by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (15 days). Their findings suggested that the press release was the most successful and the official communication was the least successful. Nonetheless, the sequence and duration of communication interventions should also be considered.

Ensure the Reliability of Information

For games that aim to inform and share recommendations during a pandemic, a prominent challenge is that such recommendations are inherently dynamic. Although some information might be fixed (eg, what a virus is), other information may likely change after a game is introduced. The use of reliable sources such as the WHO, the CDC, and local governments can assure people that the communicated knowledge is factual. Practically all the reviewed games based their learning objectives on such sources. However, as guidelines may differ among different institutions and game developers may have different opinions on which information is correct, it is recommended that players be explicitly informed about the sources of the communicated knowledge. In addition, the credibility of the aforementioned sources can be subject to change, as seen with the rapidly waning trust in the CDC in the United States.

Real-time updates can be especially helpful in tackling confusion when guidelines change rapidly owing to the evolving understanding of health crises. It is critical that pandemic games be designed in a way that prevents them from becoming outdated too quickly; this can be addressed by incorporating sufficient flexibility in game design to allow for changing guidelines or information. Although this tends to be more challenging for analog games, it is possible—the content of analog games can be updated via expansion packs, and hybrid games where physical game elements are complemented by a regularly updated mobile app can be developed.

Game Users, Design, and Use

How, where, when, and with whom a game is intended to be played can influence players’ motivation and the efficiency of the learning process [105]. Thus, it is important to design pandemic games that facilitate the acquisition and transfer of the intended learning objectives under pandemic-specific learning conditions.

Consider the Target Audience and Context of Use

When designing any serious game, it is generally advised to consider the entire ecosystem of stakeholders, including not only the players but also the initiators of games (eg, governments, nongovernmental institutions, health authorities, schools, and private citizens), design agencies, and game developers. The involvement of these stakeholders in various phases of game design (ie, problem definition, product design, and tailoring) can improve a game’s implementation [106]. For pandemic games, this can be challenging, especially if the game is intended to appeal to a broad variety of affected people. Therefore, it is necessary to determine exactly which stakeholders need to be targeted. The following sections focus specifically on player characteristics.

Player Demographics

According to the effectiveness studies we reviewed, certain target group characteristics—most notably, age—influence people’s engagement and the perceived effectiveness of the games [87,94]. Thus, caution is required when designing multiplayer games for people of different generations (eg, family games); it is important to avoid making such games too complex for very young or inexperienced audiences or too simple to effectively motivate adults and experienced players.

A general recommendation for game design is that game instructions should be easy to understand for a targeted user group. This recommendation is especially important for pandemic-focused games to minimize as much as possible the chances of spreading misinformation or confusion. Special attention needs to be paid to the language (preferably native language or multilingual versions) and vocabulary (preferably simple and familiar expressions) in the games. Using rules or elements from popular existing games (eg, Monopoly, Ludo, Uno, and Pacman) can help users understand and adopt a game more rapidly as people can only appreciate novelty when the product is also simultaneously perceived as familiar or typical [77,107].

Player Type

The process of meaning attribution can be influenced by the players’ culture, personality traits, and current mental state, as well as by other people [77]. Similarly, product emotions, which are the emotions users experience in response to (playing) the game, are influenced by their personal needs, goals, values, and abilities [77]. Thus, a detailed psychological understanding of a game’s target population can increase its impact.

First, it is important to understand that different people choose to play games for different reasons. A popular typology of player personalities developed by Bartle [108] distinguishes between 4 player types that differ based on their preferred way of engaging in the virtual world: achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers (for details, refer to the study by Bartle [108]). People assume different styles of play depending on their mood or in-game goals [108], suggesting that setting appropriate goals and using game elements to influence players’ moods may discourage adverse social in-game behavior. However, Bartle based his taxonomy specifically on multiuser dungeon games; thus, his taxonomy cannot be directly extrapolated to other game types. The player profiles by Bartle [108] might work for entertainment games but not for serious games. To address this issue, Siriaraya et al [28] advised that users’ experiential preferences be investigated for the game world as well as for the real world.

For COVID-19 games, it is also important to consider the differences between social and solitary players, especially in the degree of autonomy, presence, and relatedness they seek to experience (for details, refer to the study by Vella et al [109]). Understanding the specific needs and sources of motivation for different players can support the preferred player interaction.

Support Player Interaction

All the analog games reviewed in this study (23/23, 100%) were multiplayer and mainly competitive, whereas only 14% (6/43) of the digital games supported a multiplayer mode, of which 83% (5/6) were co-operative. The main advantage of single-player games is that they can be played at any time independently of other people. However, most single-player games do not allow for socializing, sharing opinions, or discussing ideas. In contrast, multiplayer games allow for socializing, but the minimum number of players required can limit the number of opportunities to play the game as this may depend on other people’s interest, availability, or both. Optimally, a game should be designed to support both single- and multiplayer modes, as was the case for 26% (6/23) of the analog games and 5% (2/43) of the digital games studied in this review.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, collective action and compliance with safety guidelines were paramount in reducing the spread of the virus. Co-operative games can communicate this need to the players and support social bonding and collective decision-making that can be transferred from the in-game world to real-life situations. Previous studies have suggested that participation in co-operative—as opposed to competitive—multiplayer games can support team building [110-113] and increase real-world collaboration and prosocial behaviors among players [114-117]. In contrast, the motivation to win in competitive games may leave little room for bonding and the exchange of ideas, possibly limiting the encouragement of prosocial behavior. Nevertheless, competitive games tend to be more stimulating, whereas co-operative games may support passive participation when responsibilities are not equally distributed among the players. Therefore, it is advised to design for teams or partnerships, which combines both co-operation among team members and competition against the opposing team or teams.

Balance Visual Design and the Realism of the Simulated Domain

Immersive simulations of realistic environments and experiences where acquired knowledge can be put to use without the serious consequences of a real disaster may facilitate players’ transfer of new knowledge to everyday life [29]; this is particularly important during pandemics, when rapid changes in attitudes and behavior are required. Presumably for this very reason, practically all the reviewed games were either literal or metaphorical simulations of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, as such games tend to emphasize educational goals, caution is necessary to adequately balance such education with entertainment so that games remain appealing to a broader audience.

To foster players’ motivation and consolidate their engagement, fun elements that are unrelated to the simulated domain (eg, avatar shape or a game within a game) can be used. For example, the authors of Escape COVID-19 found that attractive graphics that were adapted to fit the preferences of the target population were essential in increasing players’ engagement [92]. Nevertheless, the designers of Point of Contact [82] stressed that a game’s graphics and cross-player communication need to be lightweight to minimize players’ dependence on high-performance devices and high-speed networks. Similarly, it is important to avoid substantial hardware demands, which were present in 2 game prototypes that were included in this study: the Instructional remote multi-player VR game requires access to a VR headset, and participants need to own an Xbox 360 device for the Physical Fitness Training Program.

Consider Time Requirements

Most of the analog games reviewed in this study (9/15, 60%) were designed for longer durations of gameplay (up to 3 hours); we could only retrieve the predicted duration for 7% (3/43) of the digital games, but the time required to play these games was considerably shorter (up to 15 minutes). The main advantage of short game durations (a few minutes) is that they do not require high levels of commitment, so the games can be played without previous planning. However, they may fail to elicit a flow state, reflection, or both. In contrast, long game durations (several hours) may deter potential users, especially if the game is multiplayer and requires scheduling a time that is appropriate for all players. Moreover, players may lose interest if a game lasts too long. Therefore, it is important to carefully design pandemic-themed games for optimal duration, depending heavily on the target group, game type, and intended transfer effects.

Challenge and Progression

To avoid cognitive overload, it is generally advised that games provide a clear distinction between the active and reflective phases of gameplay. Marne et al [105] suggested that intensive action phases that engage players emotionally and shift their focus toward a game’s goal can be used for practice and training, whereas less intensive phases should be provided for reflection and relief purposes. During reflective phases, games should provide feedback to players so that they can understand the consequences of their actions and keep track of their own progress. However, this information must be provided in a way that does not interfere with the player’s state of flow as this could cause them to lose interest in the game.

A possible solution proposed by Marne et al [105] is that individual items of obtainable knowledge or skills are represented as collectible virtual objects (rewards) that can be showcased or used as an asset later in the game. In addition to material rewards or achieving (publicly displayed) high scores, sensory stimulation (eg, sounds or graphics indicating an achievement) can also be rewarding, as can be messages of affirmation or commendation. For example, games such as Escape COVID-19 included a positive message at the end of each level to strengthen players’ motivation to comply with guidelines [92]. In such cases, simple, commonly used terminology can help a game more effectively reach broader target audiences.

Terminology for and Testing of Serious Games

In addition to the aforementioned considerations, our investigation revealed a need to agree upon a shared terminology and standardized testing approaches to improve the discourse on serious game development. From a scientific point of view, the wide diversity of findings at present renders it practically impossible to make any definitive conclusions or generalizations. A commonly agreed-upon method for effectiveness testing could facilitate the comparison of different approaches in game design and encourage the development of more impactful games. Consequently, we propose that a shared database of knowledge be created, such as the recently developed co.LAB methodological framework, which was implemented in a collaborative web platform that allows for the co-designing, codevelopment, and coevaluation of serious games [118].


Despite all the efforts to provide a comprehensive review of COVID-19–themed games, we acknowledge that other games that were not included in this report exist (eg, competition and game jam entries were excluded). Furthermore, information on games that were not described in scientific papers was obtained from various web-based sources, potentially limiting the study’s reliability. Nevertheless, we believe that this study correctly reflects the diversity of COVID-19–themed games.


This study aimed to provide a structured overview of serious games developed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to improve people’s well-being through entertainment and education. We identified 66 diverse games, most of which were digital (43/66, 65%), were developed by research institutions in 2020 (13/66, 20%), and originated in Europe and North America (38/66, 58%). An analysis of the games’ characteristics was performed to identify potential pandemic-specific challenges and opportunities for improvement, and some recommendations were made based on the findings of the reviewed studies and existing game theories.

In total, 2 additional themes emerged as a result of this overview. First, better planning for effective dissemination of the games appears to be necessary if the goal of these games is to reach the broadest audience possible. Second, to increase the impact of similar future interventions, the collective effort of game developers and researchers is needed to advance the discourse on game design and testing.


This research was supported by Vici grant 453-16-009 of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Division for the Social and Behavioural Sciences, awarded to PMAD.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Summary of analog COVID-19–themed games (N=23).

DOC File , 111 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

Summary of digital COVID-19–themed games (N=43).

DOC File , 162 KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Intended transfer effects of COVID-19–themed games.

DOC File , 90 KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

Testing of COVID-19–themed games.

DOC File , 145 KB

  1. WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. World Health Organization. 2020.   URL: https:/​/www.​​dg/​speeches/​detail/​who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-​march-2020 [accessed 2022-03-04]
  2. Santini ZI, Koyanagi A. Loneliness and its association with depressed mood, anxiety symptoms, and sleep problems in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2021 Jun 11;33(3):160-163 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Pedrosa AL, Bitencourt L, Fróes ACF, Cazumbá MLB, Campos RGB, de Brito SBCS, et al. Emotional, behavioral, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol 2020 Oct 2;11:566212 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Raihan MMH. Mental health consequences of COVID-19 pandemic on adult population: a systematic review. Mental Health Rev J 2020 Dec 01;26(1):42-54. [CrossRef]
  6. Terry PC, Parsons-Smith RL, Terry VR. Mood responses associated with COVID-19 restrictions. Front Psychol 2020 Nov 4;11:589598 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Thangaswamy GC, Arulappan J, Anumanthan S, Jayapal SK. Trends and determinants of mental health during COVID-19 pandemic: implications and strategies to overcome the mental health issues - a rapid review from 2019-2020. Int J Nutr Pharmacol Neurol Dis 2021;11(1):1. [CrossRef]
  8. Flinders M. Coronavirus and the politics of crisis fatigue. The Conversation. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-05-31]
  9. Anand N, Sharma MK, Thakur PC, Mondal I, Sahu M, Singh P, et al. Doomsurfing and doomscrolling mediate psychological distress in COVID-19 lockdown: implications for awareness of cognitive biases. Perspect Psychiatr Care 2022 Jan;58(1):170-172 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Holmes EA, O'Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, et al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry 2020 Jun;7(6):547-560 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Sweeney M. Counseling clients during New York City's COVID-19 pandemic: observations on fundamental elements of emotions management. Ir J Psychol Med 2020 Sep;37(3):212-213 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Lyons Z, Wilcox H, Leung L, Dearsley O. COVID-19 and the mental well-being of Australian medical students: impact, concerns and coping strategies used. Australas Psychiatry 2020 Dec;28(6):649-652 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Rauschenberg C, Schick A, Hirjak D, Seidler A, Paetzold I, Apfelbacher C, et al. Evidence synthesis of digital interventions to mitigate the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public mental health: rapid meta-review. J Med Internet Res 2021 Mar 10;23(3):e23365 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Ueafuea K, Boonnag C, Sudhawiyangkul T, Leelaarporn P, Gulistan A, Chen W, et al. Potential applications of mobile and wearable devices for psychological support during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review. IEEE Sensors J 2021 Mar 15;21(6):7162-7178. [CrossRef]
  15. Marciniak MA, Shanahan L, Rohde J, Schulz A, Wackerhagen C, Kobylińska D, et al. Standalone smartphone cognitive behavioral therapy-based ecological momentary interventions to increase mental health: narrative review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020 Nov 12;8(11):e19836 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Viana RB, de Lira CAB. Exergames as coping strategies for anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 quarantine period. Games Health J 2020 Jun 01;9(3):147-149. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Monroy-Fraustro D, Maldonado-Castellanos I, Aboites-Molina M, Rodríguez S, Sueiras P, Altamirano-Bustamante NF, et al. Bibliotherapy as a non-pharmaceutical intervention to enhance mental health in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods systematic review and bioethical meta-analysis. Front Public Health 2021 Mar 15;9:629872 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Johnson E, Volsche S. COVID-19: companion animals help people cope during government-imposed social isolation. Soc Animals 2021 Feb 02:1-18. [CrossRef]
  19. Howley D. The world is turning to video games amid coronavirus outbreak. Yahoo Finance Home Page. 2020.   URL: https:/​/finance.​​news/​coronavirus-world-turning-to-video-games-150704969.​html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=​aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi5tLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcv&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKXHUfQ3HFeK9PeV4LcIWWvEeAu0CkT9​qygqOvb0SSBl1wvamT3OWV3_4SxvDucVgsomxVEDfPFPfSzPUTN4pruawSnzGE4YXW8NpkEHpxnJgXnmV2uoXsUxK2K2BAlSd​9qw7_2jCW82mOrdTq5edbC7NxhD-uPPdaAmm4ahcWbb [accessed 2021-12-23]
  20. Barr M, Copeland-Stewart A. Playing video games during the COVID-19 pandemic and effects on players’ well-being. Games Culture 2021 May 06;17(1):122-139. [CrossRef]
  21. The WHO is recommending video games as an effective way to stop the spread of COVID-19, one year after adding ‘gaming disorder’ to its list of addictive behaviors. Business Insider US. 2020.   URL: https:/​/www.​​who-video-​games-coronavirus-pandemic-mental-health-disorder-2020-4?international=true&r=US [accessed 2021-12-23]
  22. Kleinman E, Chojnacki S, El-Nasr MS. The gang’s all here: how people used games to cope with COVID19 quarantine. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2021 May Presented at: CHI '21: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; May 8 - 13, 2021; Yokohama, Japan. [CrossRef]
  23. Beattie S. Playing Pandemic - the hit board game about the very thing we’re trying to avoid. The Conversation. 2020.   URL: https:/​/theconversation.​com/​playing-pandemic-the-hit-board-game-about-the-very-thing-were-trying-to-avoid-137009 [accessed 2022-03-24]
  24. Kriz WC. Gaming in the time of COVID-19. Simulation Gaming 2020 Jul 14;51(4):403-410. [CrossRef]
  25. Games industry reflects on and recommits to #PlayApartTogether campaign at one year milestone. Business Wire. 2021.   URL: https:/​/www.​​news/​home/​20210413005079/​en/​Games-Industry-Reflects-on-and-Recommits-to-​PlayApartTogether-Campaign-at-One-Year-Milestone [accessed 2022-04-06]
  26. Wilson AS. Game-based learning as a promoter for positive health behaviours in young people. In: Gamification: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global; 2015.
  27. Sharifzadeh N, Kharrazi H, Nazari E, Tabesh H, Edalati Khodabandeh M, Heidari S, et al. Health education serious games targeting health care providers, patients, and public health users: scoping review. JMIR Serious Games 2020 Mar 05;8(1):e13459 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Siriaraya P, Visch V, Vermeeren A, Bas M. A cookbook method for persuasive game design. Int J Serious Games 2018;5(1):37-71. [CrossRef]
  29. Lukosch H. Simulated disaster: how games prepare us for emergencies and crises. Aus J Emergency Manag 2020 Jul 10;35(3):10.
  30. Huizinga J. Homo Ludens: proeve eener bepaling van het spel-element der cultuur. Haarlem, the Netherlands: H.D. Tjeenk Willink; 1938.
  31. Salen Tekinbaş K, Zimmerman E. The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: MIT Press; 2006.
  32. Hammady R, Arnab S. Serious gaming for behaviour change: a systematic review. Information 2022 Mar 08;13(3):142. [CrossRef]
  33. van der Kooij K, Hoogendoorn E, Spijkerman R, Visch V. Validation of serious games. Int J Serious Games 2015 Sep 18;2(3):63-75. [CrossRef]
  34. Ryan RM, Rigby CS, Przybylski A. The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv Emot 2006 Nov 29;30(4):344-360. [CrossRef]
  35. Caillois R. Man, Play, and Games. Champaign, Illinois, USA: University of Illinois Press; 2001.
  36. McGonigal J. Imaginable: How to See the Future Coming and be Ready for Anything. London: Transworld; Mar 24, 2022.
  37. Green MC, Brock TC. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Personality Social Psychol 2000 Nov;79(5):701-721. [CrossRef]
  38. Walton KL. Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press; 1990.
  39. D’Errico F, Cicirelli PG, Papapicco C, Scardigno R. Scare-away risks: the effects of a serious game on adolescents’ awareness of health and security risks in an Italian sample. Multimodal Technologies Interact 2022 Oct 18;6(10):93. [CrossRef]
  40. Ghoman SK, Patel SD, Cutumisu M, von Hauff P, Jeffery T, Brown MR, et al. Serious games, a game changer in teaching neonatal resuscitation? A review. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2020 Jan 29;105(1):98-107 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Sharma SV, Shegog R, Chow J, Finley C, Pomeroy M, Smith C, et al. Effects of the Quest to Lava Mountain computer game on dietary and physical activity behaviors of elementary school children: a pilot group-randomized controlled trial. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015 Aug;115(8):1260-1271. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. David OA, Costescu C, Cardos R, Mogoaşe C. How effective are serious games for promoting mental health and health behavioral change in children and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Youth Care Forum 2020 Jul 31;49(6):817-838. [CrossRef]
  43. Cheney C. How might probability inform policy on pandemics? Metabiota has ideas. Metabiota. 2021.   URL:!how-might-probability-inform-policy-on-pandemics-438 [accessed 2022-03-07]
  44. Marani M, Katul GG, Pan WK, Parolari AJ. Intensity and frequency of extreme novel epidemics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2021 Aug 31;118(35):e2105482118 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Montalbano L, Gallo L, Ferrante G, Malizia V, Cilluffo G, Fasola S, et al. Serious games: a new approach to foster information and practices about Covid-19? Front Robot AI 2022 May 23;9:830950 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. De Lope RP, Medina-Medina N. A comprehensive taxonomy for serious games. J Educ Computing Res 2016 Dec 12;55(5):629-672. [CrossRef]
  47. At-home scavenger hunt. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.   URL:
  48. CDC Board Game: Protect Others & Protect Yourself from COVID-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020.   URL:
  49. Help to stop the COVID-19 coronavirus. UNICEF South Africa. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  50. Infekcja. Wojciech Glac. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  51. Social Distancing – The Game. DICE Toy Labs. 2020.   URL: https:/​/ne-np.​​dicetoylabs/​posts/​play-the-social-distancing-gameits-free-you-just-need-a-pencil-and-paperhttpbitl/​489543455074372/​ [accessed 2021-11-12]
  52. You Make Me Sick Board Game. The Partnership In Education, Duquesne University. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  53. Antidote COVID-19. Psyon Games. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  54. Coret Q. Beter dan Hugo. 2022.   URL: [accessed 2022-04-07]
  55. Can You Save the World? Martin Jacob Itch homepage. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  56. Corona Bee game. Focus Games. 2020.   URL:
  57. Korona hra. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  58. Fight against COVID-19. UNDP India Accelerator Lab, IPE Global Centre for Knowledge and Development. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  59. CoronaQuest. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  60. COVID Safety Simulation: CAMPUS LIFE. Arizona State University. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  61. COVID Challenge. Pixel Impact. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  62. The Dilemma Game – Stay Safe Edition. Lulu Lab. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  63. Dino-Store. Digital Integrative Liberal Arts Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  64. Escape COVID-19. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  65. Das AR. Go Corona Go. Abhinav Das GitHub homepage. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  66. GO VIRAL!. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  67. Heroes of Covid-19. GRM Digital.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  68. MeetDurian. AppDownloadr. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  69. Plague Inc: The Cure. Ndemic Creations.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  70. VRS Fight Club. Magikbee. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-11-12]
  71. Viard A. Kickstarter.   URL:
  72. Last Chance to Play Plague Inc: The Cure for Free!. Ndemic Creations.   URL:
  73. Psyon Games Presskit. I Am the Shield.   URL:
  74. Destroy COVID.   URL:
  75. Abt CC. Serious Games. New York: The Viking Press; 1970.
  76. Lockdown! an engaging and exciting educational card game. Shopee.   URL:!-an-engaging-and-exciting-educational-card-game-i.205719557.15017303132
  77. Fokkinga S, Desmet P, Hekkert P. Impact-centered design: introducing an integrated framework of the psychological and behavioral effects of design. Int J Design 2020;14(3):97-116.
  78. McGuire WJ. Public communication as a strategy for inducing health-promoting behavioral change. Prev Med 1984 May;13(3):299-319. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  79. Kite J, Gale J, Grunseit A, Li V, Bellew W, Bauman A. From awareness to behaviour: testing a hierarchy of effects model on the Australian Make Healthy Normal campaign using mediation analysis. Prev Med Rep 2018 Dec;12:140-147 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  80. Kao D, Joshi A, Mousas C, Peddireddy A, Kramadhati GA, Li J, et al. Fighting COVID-19 at Purdue University: design and evaluation of a game for teaching COVID-19 hygienic best practices. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. 2021 Presented at: FDG'21: The 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games 2021; Aug 3 - 6, 2021; Montreal, QC, Canada. [CrossRef]
  81. Chettoor Jayakrishnan G, Banahatti V, Lodha S. GOVID: repurposing serious game for enterprise COVID-19 awareness. In: Proceedings of the 12th Indian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 2021 Presented at: India HCI 2021: India HCI 2021; Nov 19 - 21, 2021; Virtual Event India. [CrossRef]
  82. Hill J, Corke E, Salawu M, Cotterell E, Russell M, Gibbons J, et al. Point of Contact: investigating change in perception through a serious game for COVID-19 preventive measures. Proceed ACM Human Comput Interact 2021 Sep;5(CHI PLAY):1-19. [CrossRef]
  83. Holliday EL. Breaking the magic circle: using a persuasive game to build empathy for nursing staff and increase citizen responsibility during a pandemic. In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2021 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 2021 Presented at: CHI PLAY '21: The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play; Oct 18 - 21, 2021; Virtual Event Austria. [CrossRef]
  84. Venigalla ASM, Vagavolu D, Chimalakonda S. SurviveCovid-19++: a collaborative healthcare game towards educating people about safety measures for Covid-19. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2021 Presented at: CSCW '21: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing; Oct 23 - 27, 2021; Virtual Event USA. [CrossRef]
  85. Bouroumane F, Saaidi A, Abarkan M. Design of a serious game to strengthen the immune system against Covid-19. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM). 2020 Presented at: 2020 8th International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile Communications (WINCOM); Oct 27-29, 2020; Reims, France. [CrossRef]
  86. Nurjanah RL, Waluyo S, Kusuma AFAA. Developing Adobe Flash-based game to teach children Covid-19 vocabulary. Metathesis J Engl Lang Lit Teach 2021 Jan 01;4(3):249-262. [CrossRef]
  87. Mulchandani D, Orji R. Age and the persuasiveness of a game to promote the adoption of COVID-19 precautionary measures. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 9th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health(SeGAH). 2021 Presented at: 2021 IEEE 9th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health(SeGAH); Aug 04-06 ,2021; Dubai, United Arab Emirates. [CrossRef]
  88. Thomas RJ, Masthoff J, Oren N. "Can I influence you?" Development of a scale to measure perceived persuasiveness and two studies showing the use of the scale. Front Artif Intell 2019 Nov 21;2:24 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  89. Grizioti M, Oliveira W, Garneli V. Covid-19 Survivor: design and evaluation of a game to improve students’ experience during social isolation. In: Games and Learning Alliance. Cham: Springer; Nov 30, 2021.
  90. Gaspar JDS, Lage EM, Silva FJ, Mineiro É, Oliveira IJR, Oliveira I, et al. A mobile serious game about the pandemic (COVID-19 - did you know?): design and evaluation study. JMIR Serious Games 2020 Dec 22;8(4):e25226 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  91. Satu M, Mizan K, Jerin SA, Whaiduzzaman M, Barros A, Ahmed K, et al. COVID-Hero: machine learning based COVID-19 awareness enhancement mobile game for children. In: Applied Intelligence and Informatics. Cham: Springer; Jul 26, 2021.
  92. Suppan M, Catho G, Robalo Nunes T, Sauvan V, Perez M, Graf C, et al. A serious game designed to promote safe behaviors among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: development of "Escape COVID-19". JMIR Serious Games 2020 Dec 03;8(4):e24986 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  93. Davids MR, Chikte UM, Halperin ML. An efficient approach to improve the usability of e-learning resources: the role of heuristic evaluation. Adv Physiol Educ 2013 Sep;37(3):242-248 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  94. Suppan M, Stuby L, Harbarth S, Fehlmann CA, Achab S, Abbas M, et al. Nationwide deployment of a serious game designed to improve COVID-19 infection prevention practices in Switzerland: prospective web-based study. JMIR Serious Games 2021 Nov 25;9(4):e33003 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  95. Anupam A, Stricklin C, Graves J, Tang K, Vogel M, Dominguez-Mirazo M, et al. Essential workers: a multiplayer game for enacting patterns of social interdependency in a pandemic. In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 2020 Presented at: CHI PLAY '20: The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play; Nov 2 - 4, 2020; Virtual Event Canada. [CrossRef]
  96. Nikolov I, Madsen C. Initial development of “Infection Defender”: a children’s educational game for pandemic prevention measurements. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - GRAPP. 2021 Presented at: 16th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - GRAPP; Feb 8-10, 2021; Online. [CrossRef]
  97. Chen D, Bucchiarone A, Lv Z. MeetDurian: a gameful mobile app to prevent COVID-19 infection. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/ACM 8th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems (MobileSoft). 2021 Presented at: 2021 IEEE/ACM 8th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems (MobileSoft); May 17-19,2021; Madrid, Spain. [CrossRef]
  98. Jiang R, Shao B, Si S, Sato R, Tsuneo J. Health communication in games at the early stage of COVID-19 epidemic: a grounded theory study based on Plague, Inc. Games Health J 2021 Dec 01;10(6):408-419. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  99. Venigalla ASM, Vagavolu D, Chimalakonda S. SurviveCovid-19 - an educational game to facilitate habituation of social distancing and other health measures for COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Human Comput Interact 2022 Jan 13;38(16):1563-1575. [CrossRef]
  100. Pohjolainen S, Mattila J, Tuovinen J, Rajanen M, Arhippainen L, Alavesa P. Heuristic evaluation of a mobile game developed to help battle the pandemic. In: Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). 2021 Presented at: 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG); Aug 17-20 , 2021; Copenhagen, Denmark. [CrossRef]
  101. Su JM, Yang YC, Weng TN, Li MJ, Wang CJ. A web-based serious game about self-protection for COVID-19 prevention: development and usability testing. Comunicar 2021 Oct 01;29(69):91-104. [CrossRef]
  102. Suppan M, Abbas M, Catho G, Stuby L, Regard S, Achab S, et al. Impact of a serious game (Escape COVID-19) on the intention to change COVID-19 control practices among employees of long-term care facilities: web-based randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2021 Mar 25;23(3):e27443 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  103. Ravelo JL. These games target COVID-19 misinformation. But do they work? Devex. 2021.   URL: [accessed 2022-01-07]
  104. Suppan M, Stuby L, Fehlmann CA, Abbas M, Achab S, Harbarth S, et al. The impact of three communication channels on the dissemination of a serious game designed to enhance COVID-19 prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022 Aug 16;19(16):10143 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  105. Marne B, Wisdom J, Huynh-Kim-Bang B, Labat JM. The six facets of serious game design: a methodology enhanced by our design pattern library. In: 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.
  106. van Dooren M, Visch V, Spijkerman R, Goossens R, Hendriks V. Personalization in game design for healthcare: a literature review on its definitions and effects. Int J Serious Games 2016;3(4):3-28. [CrossRef]
  107. Hekkert P, Snelders D, van Wieringen PC. 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. Br J Psychol 2003 Mar;94(Pt 1):111-124. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  108. Bartle R. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit MUDs. J MUD res 1996;1(1):19.
  109. Vella K, Johnson D, Hides L. Playing alone, playing with others: differences in player experience and indicators of wellbeing. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 2015 Presented at: CHI PLAY '15: The annual symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play; Oct 5 - 7, 2015; London, United Kingdom. [CrossRef]
  110. Ellis JB, Luther K, Bessiere K, Kellogg WA. Games for virtual team building. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Designing interactive systems. 2008 Presented at: DIS08: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2008; Feb 25 - 27, 2008; Cape Town South Africa. [CrossRef]
  111. Dabbish LA. Jumpstarting relationships with online games: evidence from a laboratory investigation. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 2008 Presented at: CSCW08: Computer Supported Cooperative Work; Nov 8 - 12, 2008; San Diego CA USA. [CrossRef]
  112. Badatala A, Leddo J, Islam A, Patel K, Surapaneni P. The effects of playing cooperative and competitive video games on teamwork and team performance. Int J Humanities Social Sci Res 2016 Dec;2(12):24-28 [FREE Full text]
  113. Vegt N, Visch V, Vermeeren A, de Ridder H. A case study on gamified interventions for team cohesion in factory work. Human Technol 2018 Aug 31;14(2):176-208. [CrossRef]
  114. Ferguson C, Garza A. Call of (civic) duty: action games and civic behavior in a large sample of youth. Comput Human Behav 2011 Mar;27(2):770-775. [CrossRef]
  115. Velez JA, Mahood C, Ewoldsen DR, Moyer-Gusé E. Ingroup versus outgroup conflict in the context of violent video game play: the effect of cooperation on increased helping and decreased aggression. Commun Res 2012 Aug 16;41(5):607-626. [CrossRef]
  116. Peppler K, Danish JA, Phelps D. Collaborative gaming: teaching children about complex systems and collective behavior. Simulation Gaming 2013 Sep 18;44(5):683-705. [CrossRef]
  117. Nasir M, Lyons K, Leung R, Moradian A. Cooperative games and their effect on group collaboration. In: Design Science at the Intersection of Physical and Virtual Design. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013.
  118. Jaccard D, Suppan L, Sanchez E, Huguenin A, Laurent M. The co.LAB generic framework for collaborative design of serious games: development study. JMIR Serious Games 2021 Jul 02;9(3):e28674 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
WHO: World Health Organization

Edited by G Eysenbach, N Zary; submitted 08.08.22; peer-reviewed by L Suppan, A Bucher; comments to author 18.11.22; revised version received 12.01.23; accepted 12.01.23; published 07.03.23


©Tjaša Kermavnar, Valentijn T Visch, Pieter M A Desmet. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (, 07.03.2023.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Serious Games, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.