Your friend spent 300 days on a Duolingo streak. You spent 300 hours in Skyrim. Guess who has the bigger vocabulary.
If you guessed the gamer, you are probably right. And this is not some hot take designed to make you feel better about your Steam library. There is a growing body of research in second-language acquisition that explains exactly why absorbing English through games works better than drilling isolated words on flashcards. The short version: your brain does not learn languages the way most apps think it does.
Let me walk you through what the research actually says, why flashcards have a fundamental design problem, and what makes gaming such an effective (if accidental) language-learning method.
What research actually says about learning a language
In the late 1970s, a linguist named Stephen Krashen proposed something that sounded almost too simple: people acquire languages by understanding messages, not by studying grammar rules or memorizing vocabulary lists. He called this the Input Hypothesis, and its core idea is elegant. If your current level is i, then you acquire new language by being exposed to input at level i+1 — just slightly above what you already know.
Think about how children learn their first language. Nobody hands a toddler a deck of flashcards. They learn by being surrounded by language they mostly understand, with a few new words and structures sprinkled in. They figure out meaning from context, from pointing, from the situation around them. Krashen argued that second-language acquisition works the same way.
The 95-98% rule: Linguist I.S.P. Nation found in a landmark 2006 study that you need to understand roughly 95 to 98 percent of the words in a text for effective reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Below that threshold, too many unknown words pile up and comprehension breaks down. Above it, you naturally pick up new words from context — without even trying.
This is a crucial insight. It means the ideal learning environment is not one where everything is new and challenging. It is one where almost everything is familiar, and a few things are not. That gap is where acquisition happens. And for most intermediate-to-advanced English learners, a narrative-heavy video game sits right in that sweet spot.
The flashcard problem
Flashcards are not useless. Let me be clear about that. Spaced repetition systems like Anki are well-designed tools backed by real cognitive science. The issue is not the technology. The issue is what flashcards ask your brain to do.
When you study a word on a flashcard, you are learning it in isolation. There is no story around it, no emotional weight, no visual scene, no reason to care. The word exists as an abstract pairing: foreign word on one side, translation on the other. You are training recognition — the ability to match a word to a meaning when prompted. That is a very different skill from acquisition, which is the ability to understand and use a word naturally when you encounter it in the wild.
Hermann Ebbinghaus demonstrated back in the 1880s that we forget information rapidly when it lacks meaningful connections. His forgetting curve shows that within 24 hours, we lose 60 to 70 percent of newly learned material if we do not review it. Spaced repetition fights this curve through scheduled review — and it works, to a point. But it is fighting an uphill battle when the material being reviewed has no emotional or narrative anchor.
Context changes everything: Research on memory consistently shows that words learned in meaningful contexts — embedded in stories, connected to images, tied to emotional experiences — are retained significantly better than words learned in isolation. The encoding specificity principle tells us that memory recall is strongest when the retrieval conditions match the conditions present during learning.
In other words, if you learn the word "forge" from a flashcard, you might recognize it on a test. If you learn it because you spent an hour in Whiterun figuring out how to upgrade your armor at the Skyforge, that word is anchored to a vivid, specific memory. It is not going anywhere.
Why games work differently
Games are not designed to teach you English. That is actually part of why they work so well. When you play a game in English, you are not studying. You are doing something — solving puzzles, following a story, making decisions, talking to characters. The language is the medium, not the subject. And this distinction matters enormously.
Here is what games provide that flashcards cannot:
Visual context. When a character in a game says "the bridge collapsed," you are watching the bridge collapse. Allan Paivio's dual coding theory, developed in the 1970s, demonstrated that information encoded through both verbal and visual channels is retained far better than information encoded through words alone. Games are a constant stream of dual-coded input. Every word arrives alongside images, animations, and spatial context.
Emotional stakes. You care about the outcome. When an NPC warns you about a trap, you pay attention because your character might die. When a quest description uses a word you do not know, you work to figure it out because you need that information to progress. This emotional engagement is not a nice bonus — it is a core mechanism of memory formation.
Repetition without boredom. Games naturally repeat important vocabulary across hours and hours of play. The word "inventory" appears every time you open your bag. "Quest," "damage," "shield," "merchant" — these words come up hundreds of times in organic contexts. You never sit down and think "I should review these words." You just encounter them, over and over, in situations where they matter.
Active processing. Games require you to understand language to make progress. If you do not understand the dialogue, you might take the wrong path, miss an objective, or fail a puzzle. This creates what researchers call a "need to know" that passive study cannot replicate. You are not reading because someone told you to. You are reading because you want to find out what happens next.
A low affective filter. This is another concept from Krashen. He proposed that anxiety, stress, and self-consciousness act as a "filter" that blocks language acquisition. When you are stressed about making mistakes, your brain is less receptive to new input. When you are relaxed and engaged — like when you are playing a game you enjoy — that filter drops. You absorb more. A study by Sylven and Sundqvist published in ReCALL found that young learners who gamed frequently in English significantly outperformed non-gamers on vocabulary tests, and identified the low-pressure nature of gaming as a key factor.
The research confirms it: A systematic review of digital game-based vocabulary learning found consistent positive outcomes across multiple studies. Learners who engaged with games showed higher vocabulary retention rates than those using traditional methods, with gains attributed to multimodal contextual clues, repetitive exposure, and positive emotional associations with the learning experience.
The catch (because there is always a catch)
Gaming in English is powerful, but it is not magic. There is an important difference between passive exposure and active acquisition.
If you play a game and skip every line of dialogue, mash through every cutscene, and never pause to think about an unfamiliar word, you are leaving most of the learning on the table. Exposure alone is not enough. You need to notice new words — to register that something is unfamiliar, wonder what it means, and make a connection. Linguists call this the "noticing hypothesis," and it is the bridge between input and intake.
The ideal approach combines the rich, contextual input that games provide with some deliberate attention to the words you encounter. Not flashcard-style drilling, but a habit of pausing when something is new, figuring out its meaning from context, and ideally capturing it somewhere so you can see it again later — still attached to the scene and situation where you first found it.
This is exactly the gap that Termy is designed to fill. It watches your screen while you play and identifies words that are likely above your level, giving you quick definitions without pulling you out of the game. Every word gets saved with its original context, so when you review later, you are not staring at an isolated flashcard — you are looking at the moment you first encountered that word. We wrote more about the science behind this approach here.
You have been learning English longer than you think
Here is the thing that language-learning culture gets wrong. We treat "studying" as the real work and everything else as procrastination. If you are playing games instead of doing your Anki reviews, you must be slacking off. If you are watching Netflix instead of attending a class, you are not serious about learning.
But the research tells a different story. The hours you spend immersed in English — following stories, reading dialogue, solving problems, making choices — are not wasted time. They are some of the most effective language-learning hours available to you. Not because games are a clever hack, but because this is how language acquisition actually works. Meaningful input, in context, at the right level, with low anxiety and high engagement.
You have been studying English your whole life. You have been learning English since you started gaming.
The 300-hour Skyrim player and the 300-day Duolingo streak holder both put in real time. The difference is that one of them spent those hours doing something their brain was actually built for.
Termy explains hard words on your screen — in games, movies, and websites. One shortcut. At your level.
Try Termy FreeBack to all articles