We would like to warmly thank David Crookall for his thoughtful and constructive commentary on our manuscript ClimarisQ (ms 2025-2222). Although this is not part of the formal review process, we value such contributions from the community, as they allow us to reflect, improve, and situate our work more effectively within the wider field of game-based learning and climate communication. We will take all the points raised very seriously in preparing the next version of the manuscript.

On the issue of terminology, we are grateful for your detailed remarks. We now realize that the term serious game is more problematic than we had appreciated, and we are sorry we were not fully aware of this debate when drafting the manuscript. In light of your comments, and of the literature you point us to, we will revise the terminology in the next version of the article. Where possible, we will avoid the expression altogether and instead use clearer terms such as educational game or learning game, while also acknowledging how different communities (particularly in France, as you mention) have adopted “jeu sérieux.”

With respect to debriefing, we completely agree on its importance as an integral part of the learning process. The current version of ClimarisQ does not include a structured debriefing protocol. This omission is not because we underestimate its value, but because of very concrete resource limitations: the game was developed on a very small budget, and we did what we could within those constraints. As you suggest, developing an online debriefing module—or even short in-game debriefs—would be a natural next step, and we will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript. We will also cite your chapter and related work to highlight how debriefing practices could be integrated in future versions of the game, should funding permit.

On the question of fun versus engagement, we accept your point that engagement is the more precise concept for understanding the pedagogical effect of games, and we will adjust our phrasing accordingly to avoid trivializing the learning experience.

Concerning statistics and self-reported learning, we take note of the ambiguities in wording (e.g. “large majority” vs. 35%) and will correct these. We will also clarify that what we measured is the perception of learning, not actual knowledge gain, and that more robust methodologies (pre/post testing, control groups) would be required to substantiate claims about actual learning outcomes.

We will also address your very helpful observations on style and academic writing, including avoiding abbreviations, revising clumsy constructions, and correcting language such as “there is/are.”

Finally, we acknowledge the error in our reference list: as you correctly suggest, the proper citation is:

Kwok, R. (2019). Can climate change games boost public understanding? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903508116.

We are grateful for your catching this and will correct it in the revised manuscript.

Publisher’s note: this comment is a copy of AC1 and its content was therefore removed on 20 August 2025.

Thank you for your helpful and positive comments. Our answers are given in bold

General comments:

This is a very interesting and engaging article that describes a free, open access web-app game called ClimaRisQ. The article is well written and has a good basis in the literature, while exploring relevant and important ideas. The article aims to evaluate the game as an education tool, specifically whether it helps players to better understand the urgency of collective action, the complexity of climate-ocean interactions, and the ethics of decision-making under uncertainty. I had not previously come across this game, but since I was interested in the article, I downloaded the game and found it well designed and engaging.

The literature review in this article is articulate and fairly comprehensive. The methods are simple, involving only a public survey, with a fairly limited sample. I am a little disappointed that given the quality and effort put into the game, more effort was not put into methods of evaluation, such as focus groups, or analysing players’ decision-making processes in the game through data recorded during gameplay.

I don’t think that the journal imposes a word limit (perhaps they should!) but this reads very long, even for a social science paper – I’d suggest editing it down to a maximum of 12,000 plus references. My reason for this is that being concise is respectful of the reader. The Results section in particular is over-long, there is a lot of detail here that on individual survey responses that while it may be of interest to you as a developer, doesn’t have a lot of broader merit to scholarly literature. I also think that there is a section missing that describes the game theory, mechanics, and intentions in more detail – more on this below.

We are glad that you found the article engaging and the game interesting. We will carefully consider your suggestions in the revision. In particular, we will shorten the manuscript by making the results section more concise and moving some detailed material to supplementary information. We will also add a brief section that better describes the game mechanics and their pedagogical intentions. Regarding the evaluation methods, we agree that a more detailed assessment could provide additional insights, but this would go beyond the scope of the present paper, which was intended as a first exploratory evaluation. However, oral feedback are continuously demanded with the goal of improving the game. We will clarify this point in the revised version and mention possible future developments including more comprehensive analyses of players’ decision processes.

Specific comments

It is unclear from the article that the authors are also the game creators. Apart from this representing an apparent conflict of interest worth noting, it would be helpful for transparency for this to be made clear throughout. “The developers appear to have been cautious” p29 l691 suggests that you are not the developers, but from my reading of the credits page of the game it looks like you are? I don’t have a problem with you evaluating your own game, but it is important to be open about this.

We thank the reviewer for this useful observation. We will clarify throughout the manuscript that the authors are indeed the creators and developers of the game. We will add a statement both in the introduction and in the methods section to make this explicit, as well as a short note on potential conflicts of interest indicating that the evaluation was conducted with full transparency and with the aim of improving the educational value of the tool rather than promoting it. We remind you that the game is totally free and that we support it voluntarily with our own fundings to make it accessible free of charge by anyone.

To follow on from this, it would be great if you could describe in some detail how the game looks and works. In particular, I would like to see a description of:

Game target audience – there is currently inconsistency. In P10 l255 “The primary intended audience was secondary school students (approximately ages 15–18) and their teachers, as indicated by the developers.” But P27, l625 “the results demonstrate that ClimarisQ successfully engaged its target users, delivering an enjoyable learning experience that users are inclined to share with others.” Did it? I thought target users were 15-18 year olds, and there seem to be very few of these in the sample? The sample is strongly skewed toward graduate and PhD students. [Note as an aside from the review: From my own experience designing games for high school aged audiences, I personally feel that the level of complexity of language and concepts is a bit high – there is some pre-learning needed to be able to understand the context. But as a facilitated game in which a teacher sets the scene and supports teams of students to understand the context of their decision-making, I think it could work really well.]

We will clarify in the revised version that there are several target audiences and several levels of reading so that each group can have fun and learn. For students or a non-expert audience, even if the scientific level may be slightly complex at times, the game mechanics and the playful aspect allow them to play all the way through and to learn many concepts. For a scientific audience, the entire decision-making component is instructive, highlighting the complexity of balancing climate urgency, funding, and public acceptability. Indeed the first evaluation presented in the paper was conducted with a broader audience, mainly composed of university students and early-career researchers. We will adjust the wording throughout the manuscript to make this distinction explicit and to avoid confusion about the target users. We will also add a short paragraph describing how the game looks and works, including its visual layout, gameplay flow, and the intended use as a facilitated educational tool, which can be adapted for different age groups depending on the level of guidance provided by the teacher or facilitator.

By what method have the needs of your target audience been considered in game design, and how has the appropriateness of the game design and mechanics for your target audience been evaluated?

We appreciate this important question. In the revision, we will clarify that the game design was informed by discussions with educators and climate communication specialists, as well as by prior experience using simplified climate models and games in classrooms. The mechanics were chosen to balance scientific accuracy with accessibility, emphasizing decision-making and trade-offs rather than technical detail. We will also state more clearly that the evaluation presented here is preliminary and focuses on general engagement and understanding, while a more specific assessment of suitability for secondary school audiences will be addressed in future classroom-based studies.

Game Aims – what are the educational/behavioural aims? There is currently inconsistency – aims are described in different ways in different parts of the article, and what is measured in the survey doesn’t necessarily match with these aims.

We will make the educational and behavioural aims more consistent throughout the manuscript. In the revised version, we will clearly state at the beginning that the main educational aims are to foster understanding of the complexity of climate–society interactions, the need for collective action, and ethical reasoning under uncertainty. Indeed this game is nowadays  used to support interdisciplinary master classes on extreme events, climate dynamics, climate economics. The behavioural aim is to encourage reflection and discussion rather than to measure direct behavioural change. We will ensure that these aims are stated consistently and that the survey questions are explicitly linked to them in the methods and discussion sections.

Theoretical framework for these aims within the game - P10 l248 Describes the intention of the game not only to inform but to motivate action. It is unclear by what behavioural model the ‘motivation to action’ was designed within the game.

The game is grounded in experiential learning and social dilemma frameworks, rather than in a specific behavioural change model. The design aims to stimulate reflection and dialogue about collective action and responsibility by placing players in a situation where short-term and long-term goals could conflict. We will make this theoretical basis explicit in the text and clarify that the game’s purpose is to raise awareness and prompt discussion, not to directly measure or induce behavioural change.

Design practice – what were the reasons for incorporating different game elements, such as money, popularity, ecology, news, etc.?

We thank the reviewer for this pertinent question. In the revision, we will briefly explain the rationale behind the main game elements. The three gauges money, popularity, and ecology were designed to represent the main dimensions of real-world decision-making: economic sustainability, social acceptance, and environmental impact. The “news” component was included to provide narrative context, connecting players’ decisions to plausible climate-related events and thereby reinforcing the learning objective of understanding feedbacks between human choices and environmental outcomes. We will add a short paragraph describing these design choices and how they contribute to the educational goals of the game.

What is the cultural context of the game, and how does it reflect differences in regional history and approaches to climate change

We will clarify in the revised version that the game was developed in a European context and draws on global but generalized representations of climate impacts and policy challenges, without reference to any specific country or region. The intention was to create a universally accessible framework that could be adapted to different cultural and educational settings. We will also mention that some regional bias may exist in examples or terminology, and that future updates could include localized versions or translated content to better reflect regional histories and approaches to climate change.

In what ways is collective action understood and encouraged through the game, in which the player’s role is as a top-down government decision-maker? I read in P8 l193 that “Another dimension highlighted by ClimarisQ is collective decision-making and dilemmas, which are integral to climate governance.” I don’t see how this is only done other than by indicators such as popularity and finance, which are not mechanisms for collective decision-making.

We will clarify in the revised version that collective action in the game is represented indirectly through the dynamics of popularity, finance, and ecological balance, which reflect the societal feedback to governmental choices. While the player acts as a decision-maker, the consequences of their actions simulate collective responses with effects on public support, economic resilience, and environmental health illustrating the interdependence between policy and society. We will also explain that the game is typically used in group settings, where players discuss and negotiate decisions together, making the collective dimension emerge through the facilitation process rather than solely through in-game mechanics.

I don’t share David Crookall’s aversion to the term ‘serious games’, which is now a commonly understood phrase, although there are alternatives, such as ‘games for change’, or ‘persuasive games’, that perhaps more clearly convey the intention of these games not only to entertain, or to educate, but to somehow motivate social change. My suggestion would be that whatever term used is clearly defined and referenced, and used consistently.

We agree that the discussion around the term “serious game” is interesting but goes beyond the scope of this paper. To avoid confusion and unnecessary debate, we will simply use the term “game” consistently throughout the manuscript, while keeping the focus on its educational purpose and scientific basis.

P3 l67 ‘interactive non-judgemental experiences’ – please explain in what way game experiences are non-judgemental, and why this is important.

We will clarify that the term “non-judgemental” refers to the way the game allows players to explore the consequences of their choices without assigning moral value or prescribing a “correct” solution. The aim is to create a safe space for experimentation and discussion, where players can test different strategies, make mistakes, and reflect on trade-offs without feeling criticised. This approach is important because it encourages open dialogue and critical thinking, key elements for learning about complex issues like climate governance.

Technical corrections:

P6 l135 – should this be social learning?

P8 l202 – missing space

Technical corrections will be taken into account

We thank Elena Shliakhovchuk for taking the time to provide a detailed and constructive comment. Her observations are highly relevant and will be carefully addressed in the revision. We agree that the manuscript can be improved by reducing its length, strengthening its theoretical grounding, and presenting a more explicit discussion of methodological limitations and learning mechanisms.

We will shorten the text by approximately 20–25%, mainly by condensing the literature review and the section comparing ClimarisQ with other climate education games. A short comparative table will replace part of the descriptive discussion, allowing the main points to be presented more efficiently. The introduction and discussion will also be streamlined to remove repetitions and to better emphasise the paper’s main contributions.

The theoretical framework will be expanded to include key concepts from game studies such as situated, transformative, and affective learning, as well as the notions of flow and procedural rhetoric. These elements will help clarify how ClimarisQ fosters engagement and reflection, and why the balance between challenge and skill differs across levels of prior knowledge.

Concerning the methodology, we acknowledge that the current evaluation—based on a small, self-selected group of 77 participants—represents an exploratory step rather than a comprehensive assessment of learning outcomes. The survey relied on a non-validated post-hoc questionnaire and self-reported perceptions, which introduces several limitations, including social desirability bias and the absence of objective measures of learning. In the revised text, these constraints will be discussed more explicitly and systematically. We will also note that, at present, it is not possible to expand the questionnaire or to increase the pool of participants because the project has no dedicated funding for a large-scale evaluation campaign. Future developments will therefore depend on securing external support to enable broader testing, classroom studies, and complementary qualitative analyses. For now, the present study should be regarded as a formative evaluation providing first insights into user perception and engagement.

Where data allow, we will include a simple subgroup analysis to distinguish between novice and expert players, clarifying how the game functions for different audiences. In interpreting the results, we will better separate cognitive, affective, and metacognitive learning outcomes, giving a clearer picture of the types of learning supported by the game. The discussion will also point out how ClimarisQ can be used not only to communicate information but also to explore complex governance dilemmas and policy trade-offs.

Finally, we will ensure terminological consistency by using “game” throughout, and we will update the references to include more recent studies on sustainability and game-based learning. We thank Elena again for her thoughtful feedback, which provides clear and constructive directions for improving the focus, theoretical depth, and methodological transparency of the paper.

We thank the reviewer for these positive and encouraging remarks. We provide are answers below in bold.

This manuscript introduces ClimarisQ, a web- and smartphone-based serious game developed by the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL), designed to enhance climate literacy and awareness. The authors present the game’s concept, rooted in real climate models and IPCC scenarios, and analyze user feedback from 77 respondents via a questionnaire. Findings suggest that players rated ClimarisQ positively for usability, scientific accuracy, and engagement. The paper argues that serious games like ClimarisQ can complement traditional education and foster systems thinking about climate change.

Strengths

* The paper addresses a highly relevant and timely topic - the use of interactive tools to support climate change education.

* The game’s scientific grounding and emphasis on systems thinking align well with current pedagogical priorities in climate education.

* The authors provide a clear description of the game’s pedagogical goals, highlight the general strengths of games for climate change education compared to other media, and reflect on challenges, such as balancing scientific accuracy with playability.

* The qualitative data provide valuable insights for developers and educators interested in pursuing similar initiatives.

* The manuscript is generally accessible to an interdisciplinary readership.

We are pleased that the relevance of the topic, the scientific grounding of the game, and its educational potential were well recognized. In the revised version, we will make small adjustments to further clarify how the game contributes to systems thinking and complements traditional education, while keeping the manuscript concise and accessible to a broad audience.

Primary Issues

* The paper is overly long. Both the Literature Review and Results sections could be shortened without losing substance. This would help sustain reader engagement and strengthen the paper’s overall impact.

This comment is in line with the other reviewers. We will shorten the manuscript by condensing the literature review to focus on the most relevant works and by streamlining the results section, removing repetitive descriptions and moving secondary details to supplementary information. This will make the paper more focused and improve readability without affecting the substance of the analysis.

* Many findings (e.g., user experience ratings, willingness to recommend) are useful for the developers of this game but of limited academic significance. The authors could more clearly highlight the broader implications of their findings for climate change education research and for developers or educators.

We will revise the discussion to emphasize more clearly the broader implications of our findings for climate change education and for the design of educational games in general. We will better connect the user feedback to established concepts in climate literacy and experiential learning, showing how the results inform future development and classroom use beyond the specific case of ClimarisQ.

* The article lacks a deeper analysis of the game’s pedagogical design and offers limited insight into how ClimarisQ functions as a pedagogical tool, including in comparison to similar games. A more comprehensive description of its game and instructional design would enhance the paper’s educational relevance. Figure 1 provides valuable insights into the game’s mechanics. I recommend incorporating these points into the main text, as key arguments should not be presented exclusively within a figure.

We will expand the description of the pedagogical design (alone, in group, by applying a specific strategy) by explaining more clearly how the game mechanics support learning objectives, and by comparing ClimarisQ to similar educational games. We will integrate into the main text the elements currently summarized in Figure 1, so that the reasoning behind the design choices and their educational implications are more evident.

* Learning outcomes are assessed through self-reported questionnaires, which presents methodological limitations. Alternative or complementary approaches (e.g., classroom observations, in-game analytics, qualitative interviews, or focus groups) could yield more robust evidence. That said, I recognize that such methodological changes are not feasible for the current publication.

We fully agree that self-reported questionnaires have limitations. We will clarify this in the text and specify that this first evaluation was exploratory. We will mention that future work will include complementary methods such as classroom sessions, focus groups, and in-game data analyses to better assess learning processes.

* The study’s respondent group - composed primarily of adults, including climate experts already knowledgeable about climate issues - does not reflect the game’s original target audience of secondary school students aged 15-18. Although the authors acknowledge that the target audience shifted during the project and note the sample as a limitation at the end of the Methods section, this major limitation remains underemphasized and should be discussed more critically and prominently, including in the abstract.

We acknowledge that the sample composition is a significant limitation. We will make this point more explicit in both the abstract and the discussion, clarifying that while the survey mainly involved adults and experts, the game was conceived for different audiences (from students to general public to stakeholders). We will note that future assessments will specifically target this group to evaluate the game’s suitability for younger learners.

Secondary Issues



* The authors should state more clearly that they are evaluating their own game.

Thank you; we will state unambiguously in the introduction and methods that we are evaluating our own game to ensure full transparency.

* I agree with David Crookall’s argument regarding the use of the term “serious game.” In addition, I would emphasize that this terminology tends to exclude entertainment games, which can also contribute to climate education when accompanied by appropriate debriefing. That said, I would be comfortable with the use of the term “serious game” provided it is clearly defined, critically discussed, and applied consistently throughout the paper.

On terminology, to avoid a debate outside the scope of the paper we will use the neutral term “game” consistently throughout; we will add a short sentence acknowledging that entertainment games, when properly debriefed, can also support climate education.

* Several claims require citations, e.g., line 467–468: „This polarization of views is a known challenge in educational game design: novices may find a realistic simulation unforgiving, whereas experienced players can master the system quickly.“

We will add supporting citations for claims such as the polarization of user experiences in educational games (formerly at lines 467–468) and check the manuscript for similar statements that currently lack references.



* Parts of the Discussion section lack references to related research, e.g., line 661 ff.: “This aligns with academic findings that interactive simulations can improve understanding of complex environmental systems compared to static instruction.” Please check for missing citations and integrate relevant studies.

We will add references to related research.



* Some parts of the introduction also lack supporting references, e.g., line 94 ff.: „The broader context for ClimarisQ’s development is the rise of experiential, game-based learning in science communication. Prior studies have documented a variety of serious games related to climate and environment – from simulation-games on energy transitions to role-play exercises on climate policy negotiations – noting their potential to increase engagement and knowledge retention, especially among younger audiences. At the same time, researchers emphasize that such games must be carefully designed to achieve learning outcomes: games should have clear connections to real-world science, avoid misrepresenting complexities, and include debriefings to solidify conceptual understanding.” 

We will strengthen the Discussion by integrating references to related research where missing (e.g., after line 661) and ensure that each comparative or causal claim is backed by appropriate literature. We will also tighten the Introduction by adding references to substantiate the rise of experiential, game-based learning and prior climate-related games (formerly after line 94), including notes on design requirements such as scientific grounding and debriefing.

* If a thematic analysis was conducted, a reference to a methodological source (such as Braun & Clarke) would be appropriate.

A thematic analysis was not conducted. We will rephrase accordingly

* The phrase “large majority of respondents (approximately 35%)” (line 497) should be corrected for accuracy.

We will correct the wording “large majority of respondents (approximately 35%)” to an accurate quantitative description of proportions and avoid misleading qualifiers.

* The authors argue that limited replayability is common in serious games because “once educated, players might ‘solve’ the game.” This claim deserves nuance and should not be generalized. It also raises the question of whether education is being assumed as a fixed end goal.

We will nuance the point on replayability by removing any generalization about “serious games” and reframing our claim to emphasize that replayability depends on design goals and context; education is presented as an ongoing process rather than a fixed end state.

* There is a redundant section beginning at line 247 that provides a second overview of the paper.

We will remove the redundant overview section beginning at line 247 and ensure the manuscript has a single, concise roadmap to guide the reader.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Overall, this is a valuable contribution to the emerging field of climate game research and communication. While the study’s methodological limitations and sample bias restrict the generalizability of findings, the paper offers useful insights into the pedagogical potential of climate-related games.

The paper would benefit from:

1. Substantial shortening and focus.

2. More detail on the game’s design and instructional approach.

3. Clearer discussion of methodological and sample-related limitations.

4. Improved referencing.

With these revisions, the article will make a strong and meaningful addition to the literature on climate change education.

We thank the reviewer for this encouraging overall assessment and for the clear recommendations. In the revised version, we will shorten the manuscript to improve focus, add more detail on the game’s design and instructional approach, and strengthen the discussion of methodological and sample-related limitations. We will also review and improve the referencing throughout to ensure that all claims are properly supported. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive view of the paper’s potential contribution and will carefully implement these revisions to enhance clarity and impact.

We thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and for taking the time to read and align with the other reviewers’ comments. Our answers are given in bold.

Overall, this is a good article.  I have read the other comments and I agree with their recommendations.  I therefore do not have a great deal to add, except maybe some clarification and a few corrections.  The numbers refer to line numbers in the current preprint.

We will carefully address all the shared recommendations and incorporate the clarifications and corrections suggested, ensuring the revised version is clearer, more concise, and fully consistent throughout.

Introduction

The introduction is well structured.  It is good that recent references were used.  However, some suggestions should add clarity: Mention potential limits when using games.  For example, you might discuss how to ensure accessibility for diverse, global populations.  The whole world needs this information.  Then, explain the thorny difficulty of translating in-game learning to real-world behaviour.  For this, you might also suggest various forms of debriefing or follow-up activities.

In the revised version, we will add a short paragraph in the introduction acknowledging the main limitations of using games for climate education, including accessibility for diverse global audiences and the difficulty of translating in-game experiences into real-world behavioural change. We will also briefly mention that structured debriefing sessions and follow-up discussions can help reinforce learning and support reflection beyond gameplay.

Regarding the introduction, we will add a short passage acknowledging potential limitations of using games for climate education, including accessibility for diverse audiences and the challenge of translating in-game learning into real-world behaviour. We will also briefly mention the importance of debriefing and follow-up discussions as ways to reinforce learning and support behavioural reflection. We appreciate your support for our decision to simplify terminology and avoid the “serious game” debate. We will also revise the citations to remove redundancy and improve the flow of the text.

​​We will add in the introduction a short discussion on the limitations of using games for climate education, highlighting issues of accessibility for diverse audiences and the challenge of translating in-game learning into real-world behaviour. We will also mention that debriefing and follow-up discussions are effective strategies to consolidate learning and encourage reflection. In addition, we will simplify the terminology as planned, avoiding the “serious game” debate, and we will revise the citations to reduce redundancy and improve readability.

I read, in AC1, that you would change the term “serious game”.  I applaud your initiative.

We confirm that we will use the neutral term “game” throughout the paper to keep the focus on its educational and scientific dimensions, without entering into the broader debate on terminology, which is beyond the scope of this work.

Some references are cited repeatedly for similar ideas (e.g., Flood et al., 2018).  To reduce redundancy and improve flow, I suggest consolidating these citations where appropriate.

We will review the manuscript to identify and consolidate repeated citations, such as those of Flood et al. (2018), ensuring that each reference is cited only where it adds distinct value. This will help improve the flow and readability of the text.

(64-109)  About ClimarisQ.  The description is comprehensive and clearly explains the game.  However, these suggestions should help provide added clarity:Clarify technical terms.  For example, briefly explain what “feedback mechanisms” entail. Incorporate specific evidence of impact from pilot testing. For example, state who gave the feedback (e.g., high school teachers) and the specific results (e.g., "85% found the game engaging"). Link game features directly to intended learning outcomes. For example, clarify how the parameter management system connects to curriculum goals for climate literacy.

In the revised version, we will clarify technical terms such as “feedback mechanisms” with a brief explanation accessible to readers outside the field. We will also include concise information from the pilot testing phase, indicating who provided feedback—such as teachers and students—and summarizing the main findings on engagement and usability. Finally, we will make the connection between specific game features and intended learning outcomes more explicit, explaining how the parameter management system supports curriculum goals related to climate literacy and systems thinking.

(110-113) System Thinking:  Please clarify what "systems thinking" means early in this paragraph.  For example, are you referring to the work by people such as Forrester, Donnella Meadows, von Bertalanffy?

In the new version of the manuscript we will drop this part as this is a secondary aspect in our study. This will help to make the paper more concise.

(118-124) Grim FATE:  Provide a brief description of the Grim FATE game – for context and for readers who do not know it.

We will add a brief description of the Grim FATE game to provide context for readers unfamiliar with it, explaining that it is a simulation-based educational game focusing on the challenges of climate policy and global cooperation, often used to illustrate trade-offs between short-term interests and long-term sustainability.

(125-128) Explicitly link this discussion to the importance of social acceptance in policy success.  For example, you could state:  "This highlights the crucial role of social and cultural factors in successful climate policies."  How does it highlight?  What is their role?

In the revised version, we will make the link to social acceptance more explicit by explaining that the discussion highlights how climate policies, even when scientifically sound, depend on public support and cultural alignment to be effectively implemented. We will add a short sentence noting that the game reflects this dynamic through the “popularity” gauge, which represents the societal response to policy choices and illustrates the importance of social and cultural factors in determining policy success.

(129-133) For the World Climate simulation, I suggest clarifying the nature of the evaluations.  Were these evaluations surveys, tests or interviews? Giving this detail adds credibility.

We will add few words on the nature of the evaluations for World Climate Simulation

(138-143) Regarding KEEP COOL, could you briefly mention how the game influences players' perceptions? For example, specify if this influence is achieved through debriefing, discussion or reflection.

We will add a sentence explaining the point raised by the reviewer.

(153-157) In the discussion about affective and social dimensions, please clarify the mechanism: how does emotional engagement influence real life behaviour?

We will clarify that emotional engagement can enhance real-life behavioural intention by increasing empathy, personal relevance, and motivation to act. In the revised text, we will briefly explain that affective responses, such as concern or responsibility elicited during gameplay, can strengthen cognitive processing and make climate issues feel more immediate, thereby supporting reflection and potential behavioural change beyond the game context.

(247-250) The last part of the introduction describing the study organisation needs editing, to improve its clarity and grammatical correctness.

We will revise the final part of the introduction to improve clarity and grammar, ensuring that the description of the study’s structure and objectives is concise, clearly written, and flows smoothly into the following sections.

(370-372) The language in the last paragraph of the introduction is clear, but I suggest using more precise terms for statistics.  Please replace informal phrases like "roughly another one-fifth" and "perhaps ~10%" with clear percentage figures.

We will replace informal expressions such as “roughly another one-fifth” and “perhaps ~10%” with exact percentage values to improve precision and maintain a consistent, formal tone in the presentation of statistics.

Discussion

You might consider three ways in which you could enhance the paper's impact:

1. Consider suggesting supportive messages or debriefing guides for teachers and facilitators. This would help them manage emotional reactions students might have.
2. It would also be helpful to include a feature that shows how real-world actions (like policies or technological innovations) influence outcomes and then link the game more strongly to solutions.
3. Suggest ways in which debriefing can be built into the game itself – mostly at the end, but also during the game – you might also include a guide for facilitators.

In the revised version, we will add a short paragraph in the discussion highlighting how teachers and facilitators can use debriefing guides or supportive messages to help students process their emotional reactions and reflect on what they have learned. We will also mention that future versions of the game could include features linking in-game decisions more directly to real-world policies and technological solutions, making the connection between gameplay and action clearer. Finally, we will note that incorporating structured debriefing moments both during and at the end of the game, along with facilitator guidance, would further enhance its educational value.

Technical corrections

Grammar and punctuation need to be corrected in several places.  For example:

• Add a comma after “e.g.” =--> e.g.,
• Sentences start with a capital letter (e.g., 866)
• Methods =--> method = singular
• Line 253: removing “the” before “Google Play store”, and Capital S
• Line 256: Splitting this sentence would improve clarity.

• Suggested change:  “However, the game, available online for free, attracted a broader user base.  This included university students, researchers in climate-related fields and members of the general public interested in climate change.”

• Line 321: Breaking this line into two sentences would improve readability.
• Suggested change:  “Where relevant and if the data allow, we compared subgroups (for instance, ratings from self-identified students versus researchers).  However, the questionnaire did not explicitly ask for occupation beyond broad self-identification.”

Thank you all these technical corrections will be taken into account in the next version of the manuscript