The £30 Question
Sarah bought a game labeled "Educational Maths Game Ages 8+" for her daughter. After three plays, her daughter declared it "boring" and refused to play again.
Two weeks later, Sarah bought Smoothie Wars—marketed as strategic family game (educational benefits mentioned but not primary positioning). Her daughter played 15 times in first month, requested it constantly, and learned percentages, resource management, and strategic planning naturally.
What's the difference?
Both claimed educational value. Only one delivered.
This is the challenge parents face: How to distinguish genuinely educational games from entertainment games with "educational" labels slapped on for marketing?
After testing 47 games claiming educational benefits with 84 children and 22 teachers over 12 months, we've identified the real differences—and created a framework helping parents evaluate quality.
The Core Distinction
Weak Definition (Marketing Version)
"Educational game = any game teaching something"
Problem: By this definition, almost every game is "educational"
- Snakes and Ladders teaches counting
- Snap teaches pattern recognition
- Uno teaches color matching
But calling these "educational" is misleading—the learning is minimal, incidental, and doesn't transfer to meaningful contexts
Strong Definition (Research-Based)
"Educational game = game specifically designed to develop identified skills through gameplay mechanics that naturally require applying those skills to succeed"
Criteria:
- Intentional design for learning outcomes
- Intrinsic integration (skills required for gameplay, not added artificially)
- Transfer potential (skills apply beyond game)
- Measurable outcomes (demonstrable skill development)
By this definition, far fewer games qualify
The Seven Differences
Difference 1: Design Intent
Entertainment games: Designed for fun first, any learning is accidental byproduct
Example: Monopoly
- Intent: Create engaging property trading experience
- Learning: Incidental (some negotiation, basic maths)
- Primary goal: Player enjoyment
Educational games: Designed to teach specific skills, fun makes learning accessible
Example: Smoothie Wars
- Intent: Teach business concepts (supply-demand, profit, competition)
- Learning: Intentional through mechanics requiring those concepts
- Primary goal: Skill development through engaging gameplay
Assessment question: "Would this game exist if educational value wasn't the goal?"
- Entertainment game: Yes (fun alone justifies it)
- Educational game: No (teaching purpose is reason for existence)
Difference 2: Skill Integration
Entertainment games: Skills used are peripheral to core gameplay
Example: Uno
- Core gameplay: Match colors/numbers
- Maths involved: Minimal (recognizing numbers)
- Integration: Surface-level
Educational games: Skills are essential to success
Example: Smoothie Wars
- Core gameplay: Strategic business decisions
- Business concepts involved: Supply-demand, profit calculation, resource allocation
- Integration: Can't play well without understanding these concepts
Assessment question: "Can you succeed without using the claimed educational skill?"
- Entertainment game: Usually yes
- Educational game: No
Difference 3: Complexity Appropriate to Learning
Entertainment games: Complexity for engagement, not skill development
Educational games: Complexity aligned to educational objectives
Comparison:
Complex Entertainment Game (e.g., Twilight Imperium):
- 200+ rules
- 6-8 hour play time
- Complexity exceeds most children's learning capacity
Complex Educational Game (e.g., Smoothie Wars):
- Rules complexity: Moderate (30-min learning curve)
- Strategic depth: High (many sessions to master)
- Complexity appropriate for teaching target concepts
Sweet spot: Simple enough to learn quickly, deep enough to teach meaningfully
Difference 4: Feedback Mechanisms
Entertainment games: Feedback on entertainment (did you have fun?)
Educational games: Feedback on learning (did you apply concepts correctly?)
Example:
Party game success: Everyone laughed and had fun Educational game success: Players demonstrated strategic thinking, calculated probabilities, applied business concepts—AND had fun
Assessment question: "What success metrics does the game create?"
- Entertainment: Enjoyment
- Educational: Skill demonstration + enjoyment
Difference 5: Replayability Purpose
Entertainment games: Replay for continued enjoyment
Educational games: Replay for skill development
Example:
Snakes and Ladders:
- Replay value: Low (luck-based, no skill growth)
- Purpose: None (repeating doesn't develop anything)
Smoothie Wars:
- Replay value: High (strategic depth requires mastery)
- Purpose: Each game develops pattern recognition, strategic thinking deeper
- Progress visible over 20+ plays
Assessment question: "Does replaying this game develop abilities, or just repeat same experience?"
Difference 6: Transfer Potential
Entertainment games: Skills learned don't transfer beyond game
Educational games: Skills transfer to real-world contexts
Testing this:
After 20 plays, do children:
- Apply game concepts to real-life situations?
- Reference game examples when solving problems?
- Transfer thinking frameworks to schoolwork?
Entertainment games: Rarely True educational games: Consistently
Real parent testimony:
"After playing Smoothie Wars, my daughter applied supply-demand thinking to her lemonade stand, negotiated pocket money increase using business logic, and explained to grandparents why concert tickets are expensive. Real transfer." — Manchester parent
Difference 7: Educational Support Materials
Entertainment games: Minimal or no educational guidance
Educational games: Comprehensive teaching support
Quality educational games include:
- Curriculum alignment documents
- Teacher guides
- Learning objective mapping
- Assessment frameworks
- Extension activities
- Parent facilitation guides
Smoothie Wars provides:
- National Curriculum mapping
- Teacher lesson plans
- Reflection question banks
- Homeschool integration guide
This indicates genuine educational intent, not marketing positioning
The Quality Assessment Framework
Before purchasing "educational" game, evaluate:
Criterion 1: Specific Learning Claims
Red flag: "Educational game!" (vague)
Green flag: "Teaches supply-demand, profit calculation, strategic resource management" (specific)
Score:
- Vague claims: 0/10
- General claims: 5/10
- Specific measurable claims: 10/10
Criterion 2: Reviews Mention Learning
Check 20+ reviews. Do reviewers report:
- "My child learned [specific skill]"
- "We saw improvement in [specific area]"
- "Helped with [specific educational outcome]"
If reviews mention fun only, not learning: Question educational value
If reviews detail specific learning: Validated claims
Criterion 3: Age Appropriateness
Red flag: "Ages 3-99" (impossibly broad)
Green flag: "Ages 8-12, can adapt for 13-14" (specific with extension)
Narrow age ranges suggest:
- Careful educational targeting
- Appropriate complexity
- Thoughtful design
Criterion 4: Replay Before Mastery
Question: How many plays until child masters game?
- 1-3 plays: Too simple, limited educational value
- 5-10 plays: Moderate depth
- 15+ plays: Sufficient complexity for sustained learning
Quality educational games require 15+ plays to master
Criterion 5: Teacher/Educator Validation
Check if:
- Teachers review it positively
- Schools use it in classrooms
- Educational organizations recommend it
Educator validation = strong quality signal
Criterion 6: Production Values
Counter-intuitive but true:
High-quality components correlate with educational effectiveness
Why? Companies investing in quality materials are investing in product overall—including educational design
Cheap components often indicate:
- Rush to market
- Marketing over substance
- Low overall quality
Criterion 7: Publisher Reputation
Established educational game publishers:
- History of quality
- Educational expertise
- Reputation to protect
Unknown publishers with single "educational" game:
- Higher risk of poor quality
- Less investment in pedagogy
- Marketing-driven positioning
Case Studies: Comparison
Case Study 1: True Educational Game
Game: Smoothie Wars
Design intent: Teach business concepts Skill integration: Core gameplay IS business decision-making Learning measurable: Yes (profit calculations, strategic choices observable) Transfer: Strong (children apply to real business thinking) Support materials: Comprehensive Replay value: 50+ plays typical Educator validation: 200+ schools use it
Verdict: Genuinely educational
Case Study 2: "Edu-tainment" Game
Game: [Generic maths game]
Design intent: Entertainment with maths questions added Skill integration: Maths bolted on (answer questions to proceed) Learning measurable: Minimal (drill practice only) Transfer: Weak (no application, just calculation) Support materials: None Replay value: 3-5 plays before boredom Educator validation: None
Verdict: Entertainment with educational label
Case Study 3: Quality Entertainment Game
Game: Catan
Design intent: Strategic gaming experience Skill integration: Strategy, planning, trading intrinsic Learning measurable: Moderate (strategic thinking develops) Transfer: Some (planning skills transfer) Support materials: None (not claiming educational purpose) Replay value: 100+ plays possible Educator validation: Some teachers use, but not designed for classroom
Verdict: Entertainment game with educational side-benefits (honest positioning)
Buying Recommendations by Need
Need: Maths Skill Development
Recommended:
- Smoothie Wars (business maths, percentages)
- Prime Climb (factors, multiples, arithmetic)
- Sums in Space (mental calculation)
Avoid:
- Games where maths is quiz-style (drill only, no application)
- "Educational" maths games with poor reviews
Need: Strategic Thinking
Recommended:
- Smoothie Wars
- Catan Junior
- Azul
Avoid:
- Luck-dominant games claiming "strategy"
- Games with single optimal strategy (not truly strategic)
Need: Financial Literacy
Recommended:
- Smoothie Wars (comprehensive business education)
- Payday (budgeting focus)
- The Allowance Game (money management)
Avoid:
- Monopoly (teaches questionable financial lessons)
- Simple money-counting games (too basic)
The Verdict: True vs False Educational Games
True educational games:
- Designed intentionally for learning
- Skills intrinsic to gameplay
- Measurable skill development
- Transfer to real contexts
- Supported with teaching materials
- Validated by educators
- High replay value
Examples: Smoothie Wars, Prime Climb, Code Master, Rush Hour
False "educational" games:
- Entertainment with educational label
- Skills peripheral or bolted-on
- Minimal actual learning
- No transfer
- No teaching support
- No educator validation
- Low replay value
Examples: Many "educational" games in supermarkets, cheap quiz games, drill-and-practice apps disguised as games
Honest entertainment games:
- Don't claim educational purpose
- Fun is primary goal
- May have learning side-benefits
- Don't mislead parents
Examples: Catan, Ticket to Ride, Azul (all excellent, honest about being entertainment-first)
Conclusion: Choose Wisely
"Educational" is marketing term—
Actual educational value requires evaluation.
Use this framework:
- Are learning claims specific?
- Are skills intrinsic to gameplay?
- Do reviews mention learning outcomes?
- Is age range appropriate?
- Does it require 15+ plays to master?
- Do educators validate it?
- Are production values high?
Yes to 5+: Likely genuine educational game
Yes to 2-4: Moderate educational value
Yes to 0-1: Entertainment game with misleading label
Your £30 should buy genuine educational value—
Not just marketing claims.
Choose games passing the framework.
Your children deserve real learning through real fun.
Evaluation Resources:
- Educational Game Assessment Checklist
- Recommended Educational Games Database
- Red Flags to Avoid Guide
Further Reading:
Testing Panel: 84 children ages 6-14, 22 qualified teachers, 6 educational psychologists contributed to game quality assessments forming this analysis.
