I am pleased to inform you that based on the two in-depth reviews provided by the referees. I accept your manuscript following revision.
First of all, I would like to comment on the reflection of Referee 1 that the manuscript falls outside the defined scope of Geoscience Communication because it does not present a research question and a methodology of evaluation to a science question. This is indeed a valid point if the guidelines are applied very strictly. However, I think that the papers submitted to a special edition on art and science must be given some room to approach scientific method in a different way. This does not mean that scientific reasoning should be entirely absent. I would therefore ask you to explain in a paragraph the concept of practice-based research and explain the scientific reasoning behind your paper, e. research intentions, the methodology applied and the outcome you are expecting.
Second, both referees have made suggestions for improvement of the document in terms of language. One particular difficulty when communicating in a multi-disciplinary environment is the use of language because different communities may interpret the same words differently and different audiences are used to a different style. This is even more apparent when working transdisciplinary through natural science, art and in this case gaming. I am inviting you to take into account the comments and reflections of the referees and where appropriate revise your text towards a healthy compromise of factual language to story telling while totally avoiding biased and marketing language.

I am looking forward to receiving your revised document, taking into account the comments of the referees as provided in your answers to them. Most of the questions seem to be addressable with an editorial revision of the manuscript.

Thank you for this interesting paper and having addressed the issues highlighted by the referees. Working at the science/art/gaming interface is challenging as well as conveying its messages,

I really enjoyed reading this and congratulate Isaac and co-authors on a careful and substantive critique of the creative process involved in developing a novel and engaging hazard communication product. I'm sure this will be a paper that will become highly cited in the emerging serious games and natural hazards research field.