There are two interesting aspects in this article (and in this discussion): One is representation of ānatureā (plants, animals and ecosystems in general) in various virtual worlds/digital games, and another is āgamificationā of iNaturalist project itself. Both are interesting and important to discuss and thank you, @marykrieger, for bringing this topic to the forum!
I could share an example of the World of Warcraft, one of the earliest large (mass-multiplayer) online games. Itās still played today by millions of player and at the time of its launch, some 15 years ago, was one of the most popular online games (phenomenally popular, if to be precise).
WoW is indeed a huge world, and incredibly diverse ones, with multiple zones representing different biomes like forests, swamps, deserts, jungles etc, each populated by the relevant plants and animals. Sure, some of them were deliberately made very fantastic (or phantasy-like), yet many were based on the actual ecosystems and their creatures. Despite the graphics of the game was fairly basic, these diverse habitats were very immersive and engaging,
One of the earliest āprofessionsā that you could master in this game was Herbalism, when players had to ācollectā different āherbsā. It wasnāt very central to the gameplay, but I recall a sheer pleasure of getting some rare and beautiful āplantsā by venturing into very remote corners of particular zones (and I know the pleasure was shared by millions of other players, too).
With every next expansion of the game new āherbsā were added, to the joy of ādigital herbalistsā. In one of such expansions, Myst of Pandaria (it was centered around āChinaā theme), an entire new profession of āGardeningā was added, where players had to āgrowā their own āvegetablesā and āherbsā, and then āharvestā them.
There are of course also animals in WoW, galore, and from all kind of kingdoms and phyla. Some of them are peaceful, other aggressive (the latter you would mainly need to kill, alas). Again, most of them are depicted in a fairly stereotypical way, but nevertheless they are all āaliveā and ābehavingā.
One of the classes in the game, Hunters, had an ability of ātamingā multiple animals that could be later used as companions (and also as the āweaponsā in the fights). Thousands of people were choosing this class and then invested in its specific ability to tame as many āpetsā as possible.
Again, later in the game Blizzard (the company behind WoW) had a similar ability to all players. They could now collect various ācompanionsā from a huge variety of creatures populating this world.
And yes, the Fishing!
I am pretty sure that the team of WoW developers was consulted by numerous biologists. Even the current level of representation of ānatureā in the game is quite stunning, and it could only gets better - including with the help of such communities as iNat.
I mentioned only WoW, but by now there are obviously dozens of other digital games with massive presence of ānatureā in their gameplay. Some of them beautifully photo-realistic, some are pretty basic yet nevertheless very interesting platforms for e-Naturalists (people already mentioned Minecraft, one of such games).
All of these diverse games could be seen as potential platforms for both education of and emotional engagement with different audiences (not only with children). And all of these games could become better if they would have a chance to tap into collective expertise of the communities such as iNat.
I will need to write a separate comment on the second topic :)