What do serious games bring to resilience?

Just presented Robert Grayston as an example of a societal resilience game at @Connections (UK) Professional Wargame Practitioners conference in Brunel University. I had great company with presentations from Robert Grayston and Joe Liano in the same slot. As always, I tried to maximised audience interaction, and e.g. asked what the public saw as being advantages and limits of games in this context. Some of the answers were quite revealing:

1. We get to practice with nobody dying, BUT precisely because it is a game, some people will not take it so seriously.
2. Resilience (in some academic circles) is seen as a way for government to push responsibility from its plate onto that of the citizens. It becomes an excuse for not dealing with the causes. BUT, given that X-Events are inevitable, is it responsible if we fail to promote societal resillience?
3. Such games identify structural problems that prevent resilience, and often these structural
problems are beyond the pay-grade of those playing. BUT it is possible to use such games to come up with concrete lists of what we can do differently on Monday morning, even if the structure does not change.

What do you think are the advantages and limits of using serious games to promote societal
resilience?

Thanks to Graham Longley-Brown and all the other organisers for a great event, plus the Neustart team Till Meyer and Herbert Saurugg for the English version, and Thorsten Kodalle for connecting us all.