Digital games are increasingly being used to teach the processes of scientific inquiry. These games often make at least one of four key assumptions about scientific inquiry: that inquiry is a problem-solving process which is value-neutral, bounded by strict subject-matter constraints, and conducted by practitioners separable from society. However, feminist, STS, and pragmatist scholars have demonstrated the flawed nature of these assumptions. They highlight instead that: inquiry is a process of problematization that is value-laden, unbounded by subject-matter, and conducted by practitioners who socially, politically, and culturally situated. In this paper, I argue that three of the key affordances of digital games-their procedural, evaluative, and fictional qualities-can constrain their ability to teach inquiry understood as such. I examine these affordances and their relationship to the nature of scientific inquiry through a design case examining our game Solaria designed to teach students how to inquire into the development of solar cells. Specifically, I ask: To what extent can the procedural, evaluative, and fictional affordances of digital games (designed to teach students about solar cells) support the learning of scientific inquiry as a problematizing, situated, and value-laden process, unbounded by subject-matter constraints? I discuss how these affordances of games supported but ultimately limited the design of the game by trivializing real situations, predetermining criteria for progress, and distancing students from real-world risks and responsibilities, respectively. In conclusion, I briefly discuss how understanding these limitations can support the design of educational environments to complement digital games for teaching scientific inquiry.