"Red Dead Redemption 2" was one of the most detailed games of the year when it was first released in 2018, with extensively interactive systems, including realistic animal behavior. Some critics wondered if the experience was worth the human cost of the "death march" crunch required to develop it, but the results were even more surprising: according to an article published in People and Nature, the number of people who have played either "Red Dead Redemption 2" or "Red Dead Online" were better able to identify real-life animals than those who had not.

The study asked more than 500 self-selected gamers to name specific animals, first in a blank text field and then in multiple choice. The researchers excluded "charismatic megafauna" such as wolves and bears, opting instead for creatures such as the little egret and steelhead trout.

Players who had completed the main storyline of Red Dead Redemption 2 and those who had taken on the role of "naturalist" in Red Dead Online were notably better at identifying animals. Players who had not played either or who were not from North America did not do as well.

The idea behind this study is that "edutainment" games tend to be unpopular. It is difficult to get into a game because it feels like it is trying to educate. If players are already immersed in a popular game, education becomes a side benefit and can successfully exploit gamers' Codex tendencies.

However, this study did not explicitly endorse games as educational. The participants themselves noted that the animals in the game were portrayed as more aggressive than their real-life counterparts. They also stated that the game (which is set in the Wild West fighting bandits) is not intended for children.

Thanks, Gamingsym.