Aiandimmersion

THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON PLAYER 1
EVALUATIONS OF IMMERSION IN ROLE-PLAYING GAMES
Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Player Evaluations of Immersion in Role-Playing Games
Word Count: 5,497
Abstract
In this study, surveys and interviews were conducted with ten participants concerning
their opinions of AI in RPGs and their evaluations of systems that were hypothesized to have
some effect on immersion: conversational AI, interactive narrative systems, and pathfinding AI.
A correlational analysis was undertaken based off the point-scales provided with the questions
and the qualitative reasoning provided by most participants was examined through a thematic
analysis to look for common lines of reasoning and explanations for any trends in the data. This
resulted in three questions with high means of 4 or higher, four questions with moderately
positive means of 3.5 or higher, and one question with a moderately negative mean of 2.5 or
lower, and twelve correlations. Once evaluated based on the qualitative data, conversational AI
and pathfinding AI were found to have the most positive effects on information, though faced
some difficulties when tested in the study, and interactive narrative systems produced mixed
results both in practice and concept.

Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI), or "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge” (Yildirim, &
Stene, 2010) by an artificial entity, has existed for many years and been used in a variety games,
ranging from real-time strategy games to first person shooters, but in Role-Playing Games
(RPGs), an issue has emerged in its use. In some notable releases such as Fallout 76 (Bethesda
Softworks, 2018), games have faced criticism over their implementation of AI. For instance, a
critique of Fallout 76 from the online review of Attack of the Fanboy, a video game reviewer,
included a section on the subpar AI of the game (Hanson, 2018). While some of these issues
were ultimately due to mistakes made in coding the AI (Hanson, 2018), it is possible that this
reflects a problem in the design of AI as a whole in RPGs, which is that AI is underutilized or
even detrimental to immersion, a factor linked to player enjoyment in RPGs (Knutson, 2006).
One reason this may be the case is the lack of literature that explores the connection between AI
and immersion, especially in RPGs. This suggests that little research has been conducted to fully
explore this connection and, as a result of the lack of research, game developers do not have the
knowledge to enable them to create AI that can optimally increase immersion. To address this
issue, this study will use a series of interviews, which include questions meant to discern how the
participants link AI to immersion and analyze their data to attempt to answer the question of to
what extent does AI impact the player’s immersion levels.
Literature Review
From the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to the modern-day, its purpose in
applications has been widely debated. In 1997, it was theorized in Strategic Directions in
Artificial Intelligence, an article from the long-running and respected publisher on artificial
intelligence AI Magazine, that AI has four aims: “constructing intelligent machines”,
“formalizing knowledge and mechanizing reasoning”, “using computational models to
understand the psychology and behavior of people, animals, and artificial agents”, and “making
working with computers as easy and as helpful as working with skilled, cooperative, and
possibly expert people” (Doyle, & Dean). These aims have resulted in various fields of AI, such
as its use in robotics (Smith & Eckroth, 2017), but more important to this study is how these
aims have aided the creation of AI in Role-Playing Games (RPGs). Specifically, the aims
pertaining to the understanding of the psychology and behavior of people, and “constructing
intelligent machines” (Doyle, & Dean) have aided game designers in the fulfillment of RPGs
using a mix of simulation, ludology, or the use of game theory with the aim to improve and
understand the design of an optimal player experience, and narratology, or the use of narration,
to invoke player enjoyment (Balducci et al., 2017). More commonly however, these factors
relate to “an experience of feeling deeply engaged with the medium" (Qin, Rau, & Salvendy,
2009), or what is more often referred to as immersion.
Immersion itself has been researched in multiple studies with the aim of determining
what factors best fall under it. For instance, Measuring Player Immersion in the Computer Game
Narrative (2009), designed two thirty and twenty-seven question surveys based on six factors:
Curiosity (“Arousal of senses and cognition and attraction to explore game narrative”),
Concentration (“Ability to concentrate on the game narrative”), Challenge (“Understanding of
the structure and content of the storyline”), Control (“Ability to exercise a sense of control over
the characters and the game world”), Comprehension (“Some relative difficulty in the game
narrative for players”), and Empathy (“Mentally entering into the imaginary game world”) (Qin,
Rau, & Salvendy, 2009). This survey was then hosted on a website and received 634 valid
responses primarily from a demographic made up of students and people aged 20 to 30 (Qin,
Rau, & Salvendy, 2009). Based on the survey data, the researchers concluded that a new factor
called “familiarity”, which referred to “what degree players familiar with game playing had
different experiences", was needed and concentration was expanded to include the player
thinking about the game outside of playing it and the curiosity dimension was expanded to
include “the players’ activity and inner experience while the players had strong desire to explore
unknown parts” (Qin, Rau, & Salvendy, 2009). However, results from a study called Measuring
and Defining the Experience of Immersion in Games (Jennett et al., 2008) researched their own
set of five factors and found a slightly different conclusion with a set of factors called “Cognitive
Involvement, Real World Dissociation, Challenge, Emotional Involvement and Control”
appearing to suit RPGs best based on the responses from the surveys they ran with a similar
demographic of young students. Furthermore, the authors of Measuring Player Immersion in the
Computer Game Narrative (2009) had also published Player Immersion in the Computer Game
Narrative in 2007, in which they used similar methods although with only 340 respondents, and
determined perception, cognition, motion and emotion to best fit as the factors of immersion in
RPGs (Qin, Rau, & Salvendy, 2007). Due to these varying ideas of what factors should be used
for player immersion and the subjective nature of surveys, the factors shared most between these
studies may be the most optimal potential factors until further research is conducted, which are
for the most part focus (the ability for the player to be distracted from outside elements by the
game), control, and empathy.
In addition to the importance of determining which factors best fall under immersion,
research has also been conducted, although indirectly in many cases, into which forms of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) are most important in impacting and studying player immersion. One
such form that has not been directly studied in relation to immersion is AI pathfinding, which is
used to automatically design the route an AI-controlled object or player will take in the in-game
world. The reason this type of AI is related to immersion is due to its connection to control, a
factor linked to all three of the aforementioned studies into immersion, or rather the player’s
perception of AI-controlled Non-Playable Characters (NPCs) to control themselves. An example
that explains its importance from Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games
is the use of the “hazard training course” from Half-Life (Valve Corporation, 1998), a popular
first-person shooter, by participants to give them a “sense of control and autonomy” (Jennett et
al., 2008). This experience by the players involved them determining and navigating paths for
themselves in differing conditions and suggested higher immersion arising from increased
control (Jennett et al., 2008). Thus, these same principles could be applied to AI pathfinding
because NPCs are usually designed to take the place of characters that players cannot play and
therefore must often obey the same rules and logic of the player, so an AI’s method of navigating
itself may impact the degree of control the player feels the AI can exert over itself. This is
similar to the player’s degree of control, one of the commonly accepted factors of immersion, so
it may have an impact on the player, especially when the AI’s degree of control interacts with the
player’s control.
As well as pathfinding, AI-generated conversations are increasingly displaying
connections to and usefulness for player immersion. A notable example that illustrates the rise of
AI-generated conversations is Can machines think? A report on Turing test experiments at the
Royal Society (Warwick, & Shah, 2016). In this report, an AI called “Eugene” was designed to
emulate and create human dialogue to pass the Turing Test, in which 33% of judges had to be
unable to determine that it was an AI (Warwick, & Shah, 2016). During the test, it used the
imitation of a “13-year old Ukrainian boy” to convince ten out of the thirty judges that it was a
human, and thus it passed the Turing Test as the first AI to do so (Warwick, & Shah, 2016). This
represents not only a major accomplishment in the development of AI, but also a substantial
opportunity in increasing immersion in RPGs due to the illusion of intelligent AI-controlled
NPCs, especially in dialogue, giving the player more versatility in how they interact characters.
Specifically, the player could interact with NPCs in ways not initially designed for by the
developers of the game, allowing the player to exercise more control and experience an increase
in empathy (Qin, Rau, & Salvendy, 2009) due to a higher level of engagement enabling higher
mental involvement with the game world. Therefore, AI-generated conversations like Eugene
(Warwick, & Shah, 2016) pose substantial opportunities for increasing immersion and could be
studied to determine how they impact reported player immersion, making it a considerable point
of research.
One last aspect of AI in RPG game design that is linked to player immersion is
interactive narrative systems. These forms of AI refer to the use of AI to change the events of the
game world “to immerse users in a virtual world such that they believe that they are an integral
part of an unfolding story and that their actions have meaningful consequences”, which is
accomplished by using an experience manager controlled by an AI that attempts to balance
keeping the story the developers created intact and modifying it based on player actions (Riedl,
& Bulitko, 2013). This system has shown its usefulness in games such as Façade (Mateas and
Stern, 2003), an independently developed JavaScript game that heavily uses the concept, by
increasing player control over the game world (Qin, Rau, & Salvendy, 2009) and emotional
involvement (Jennett et al., 2008) due to all player actions bearing some form of consequence in
the game world, thus making player choices more impactful. Therefore, interactive narrative
systems can be used to study the effects of these factors on player reports of immersion and
possibly to increase immersion itself, warranting research.
Research into immersion provides many possible benefits, although in the context of this
study, these benefits mostly pertain to RPGs and similar playable applications. In RPGs,
immersion as discussed above is an integral component to player enjoyment and engagement;
thus, it is directly proportional to engagement and improvements in it could lead to increased
player enjoyment. This increase in player engagement would be worth pursuing by game
developers because it has been linked to increased sales of microtransactions, a form of revenue
from video games (Hamari, 2015). In other words, if an increase in immersion is secured, as this
study endeavors to do, then game developers could benefit from increased profits as player
enjoyment increases in proportion to immersion.
In addition to this benefit for game developers, increased immersion can also improve the
effect of more practical applications like Virtual Standardized Patients (VSPs) and “learnbots”
(Kowald, & Bruns, 2019). VSPs are medical simulations in which an AI controls a patient whilst
the player attempts to treat them (Talbot et al., 2012). This application is meant to teach medical
students how to perform treatments without physically conducting them (Kowald, & Bruns,
2019), so increased immersion could potentially aid the student’s experience by making it more
in line with physical operations, which would better prepare them for conducting real operations.
Similarly, Learnbots would gain benefits pertaining their ability to teach as well since they refer
to programs that simulate situations with the intention of teaching the player specific tasks, such
as the qualifications for an official forklift license in “Who Wants to Be a Forklift Operator?”
(Kowald, & Bruns, 2019). By improving immersion in applications such as this, the simulation
may prove more conducive to teaching the player as they are better able to engage with the
simulation and its tasks. Therefore, based on the aforementioned benefits, researching ways to
improve immersion with AI as this study endeavors to accomplish may give opportunities for
benefits in multiple applications, thus making this study worth pursuing.
As well as the potential benefits of the research, this study may also address a gap in the
literature currently available: the lack of research into the effect of AI on immersion, specifically
in RPGs. While the two subjects may have been studied independently in conjunction with
RPGs, such as in Bernacchia and Jun'Ichi's article AI Platform for Supporting Believable
Combat in Role-Playing Games (2014) that explored AI in RPG combat, neither have been fully
researched together to determine how AI may affect immersion in RPGs. Thus, this study is
designed to accomplish exactly that purpose and work towards addressing this gap by examining
how the most probable factors of immersion are affected by three types of AI likely to have
impacts based on previous studies.
Methods
An integral first component of the methodology was deciding which factors of immersion
would be examined. To determine this, the three previously conducted studies on the factors of
immersion, mentioned in the literature review, were read through and the factors shared between
them were compared. These factors which seemed to be mentioned the most are focus (the
ability for the player to be distracted from other elements by the game), control (the degree to
which the player can interact with the in-game world), and empathy (“mentally entering into the
imaginary game world”) (Qin et al., 2009). Each of these factors were found to be probable
elements by the studies, which conducted their own surveys within college bodies to gather data,
thus, they are at the very least backed by current research and members of the field of video
game design as viable factors of player immersion.
From these factors, eighteen questions (Appendix A) were designed to ask every
participant. Of these questions, fourteen were given point-scales that the participant must first
answer by, allowing this numerical data to later be used as quantitative data for a correlational
analysis. Another four questions were designed with the pathfinding of AI as a central topic due
to its widespread use in video games to give NPCs, or non-playable characters, movement and its
ability to affect a player’s focus with the possibility of being illogical to the player and thus
damaging the illusion of a functional in-game world for the player. Following this topic, five
questions were designed with the central topic of AI-generated conversations for the player
which was chosen because this topic represents a viable way to improve RPG AI by enabling AI
to react to player dialogue not expected by the developers and thus increase player engagement
with and control over the in-game world. Then, the last multi-question topic of the survey was
about interactive narrative systems and includes three questions. This was included due to the
system showing potential in research, but also in small-scale games (Riedl et al., 2013) due to
giving the player control over the events and story of the in-game world, and if its successfully
implemented, it could possibly enable greater empathy if the AI-controlled NPCs respond
appropriately to the player’s actions. Besides these topics, the other six questions are directly
related to the factors, such as asking whether they prefer more human-like AI, which refers to AI
that attempts to make logical choices based on their NPC’s previous actions and attributes in the
in-game world, or more efficient AI, which only attempts to accomplish a specific goal. The
given question relates to focus and empathy because it is about what degree to which they want
the AI to take into account and act upon factors of the in-game world.
To select participants for the survey, permission was first requested from the AP
Researcher teacher for sending an informatory email about the study to all students within the
high school and permission was sought with the IRB for ethic approval. Permission was given,
along with IRB approval, allowing the informatory email to be sent to all students at the high
school — explaining the purpose of the research, a possible benefit being increased knowledge
on AI, and an estimated interview time of thirty minutes. The decision to use the student body of
the high school was taken due to this being the most feasible option to obtain participants and
there being a high degree of students acquainted with the concept of AI and RPGs, although their
ages are dissimilar to those of the college students in the previous studies on immersion that have
been previously cited. Ten to twenty participants were estimated to be needed for the process due
to the study operating at a much smaller scale and including less factors than the previously cited
studies. For the students that responded to the email, more detailed information on the survey
process, such as the number and types of questions, was given along with the assent and consent
forms for them and their parent or guardian to sign. Once signed, a date for the interview was
determined or, in many cases, an online survey version of the interview was offered due to time
restrictions for most participants. Once the interview took place, an audio recording of the
interview was taken if the participant grants their permission for it. This was done to increase the
accuracy of the recorded data and reduce the time required for notes to be taken about the
participant’s answers. Throughout the interview, the participants were provided visual examples
(Appendix B) of the AI systems being discussed along with definitions to enable them to
understand the topics and give their most certain answers. Following the end of the interview, the
participant was asked if the analysis of their opinions made throughout the interview is correct to
ensure the data is usable in research.

Following the conclusion of the interview and survey process, the quantitative data from
that process was used to create a table of the data in Microsoft Excel, a commonly used table and
chart creator, for each question (Appendix C). The table displayed the answer given for the
question by each participant and group the answer into the column for the answer. Next, the
statistical mean value of each point-scale question was taken, using the equation mean=sum of
all points given by participants/answers given to the question. If a mean for a question was 1.5
more or less than the highest or least possible value, then it was considered a possible trend with
that associated value. To determine its validity and where it may come from, the qualitative data
given by participants for that question or topic was analyzed to determine if there was common
reason given for associated answers by participants and correlations between the answers to each
question were made to determine whether any factors played into the answers of students, such
as the level of experience with RPGs. Each correlation was also examined to determine whether
it was explainable by determining how related the questions themselves were, with a thematic
analysis of similar concepts or methods in the answers. If no explanation was found, then the
trend was marked as notable but not a cause for further research by itself. If an explanation was
found, then the trend was noted with its cause and labelled as a potential source of further
research and conclusions may be made upon it.
Results
Following the interview process, the raw quantitative data was gathered and is displayed
in chart form below (Figure 1 and Figures 3-15). By averaging them, three questions resulted in
high means of 4 or higher, four questions returned moderately positive means of 3.5 or higher,
and one question returned a moderately negative mean of 2.3. For the three questions with high
means, Question 5 had no significant correlations with other questions but did have some
common concepts in its answers, such as efficiency for pathfinding being equated to human
movement so it is a trend with limited explanation, Question 7 had an explainable negative
correlation of –0.5 with Question 15, and Question 8 had two explainable positive correlations
and one explainable negative correlation. As well as this, the qualitative-based questions resulted
in 90% agreement over the answer for Question 10, which pertained to whether the participants
thought the AI in the Turing Test section was the first or second entity. The participants
predominantly chose the second entity that was in fact the AI and causation for this choice was
provided by the reasoning of participants for this question and the relatively low mean of 2.6 for
Question 12, which asked how human-like the second entity was, compared to the higher mean
of 3.5 for Question 11, which asked how human-like the first entity was. Furthermore, the
answers to Questions 17 and 18 provided a total of five other types of AI that could be
investigated in future studies, although, no research was conducted during this study to
determine whether that is necessarily worth the time and resources, only that a select group of
players brought them up as concerns in RPGs. Located in Appendix C is the full table of means
and correlations, while below in Figure 1 is a radar chart of all the means and Figure 2 is a table
of each correlation, regardless of the questions’ means, and their possible explanations
summarized (full explanations in Appendix D).

Figure 1: Statistical Means for all Eighteen Questions and the Alternate 5-Point Versions of Questions 8 and 13
Questions and Explanation

Mean
Questions 1 and 11: No apparent causation due to the different subject matter of the questions.
-0.514
Questions 1 and 8: Apparent explanation due to the experience mentioned in Question 1 by participants
0.726 being used in their reasoning for Question 8.
Questions 2 and 4: No apparent causation due to the similar focus on RPG AI specifically not being
-0.527 reflected in the reasoning for both questions.
Questions 2 and 6: No apparent causation without assumptions due to the similar focus on RPG AI
-0.649 specifically not being reflected in the reasoning for both questions.
Questions 2 and 12: Likely explanation due to knowledge of AI from Question 2’s responses manifesting in
-0.602 the reasoning for Question 12.
Questions 4 and 6: Likely explanation due to both questions asking the same inquiry but for two different AI
0.702 that accomplish the same task, making them very similar.
Questions 7 and 15: Apparent explanation due to the focus on logic in the questions themselves and their
-0.5 answers, with Question 15’s subject matter simply seeming less logical than Question 7’s
AI, resulting in the negative correlation.
Questions 9 and 12: Apparent explanation due to Question 9’s inquiry into the participant’s level of
-0.678 confidence depending on how logical they thought the AI discussed in Question 11 and
12 to be, with Question 12’s AI being the one thought to be the least logical – resulting in
the negative correlation.
Questions 9 and 15: Possible explanation due to both the questions themselves and their responses being
0.879 based on how “natural” an AI’s interaction with a human was.
Questions 11 and 8: Possible explanation due to similar subject matter and reasoning based on the realism of
-0.605 an AI’s conversational abilities with differing judgements for the AIs resulting in the
negative correlation.
Questions 12 and No apparent explanation due to varying subject matter and reasoning.
15: -0.584
Questions 15 and 8: Likely explanation due to Question 15 acting as an expansion of Question 8’s subject
0.647 matter.
Figure 2: Summarized Explanations of Correlations
Figures 3 and 4: Correlations of Questions 1 and 2 with Other Questions



Figures 9 and 10: Correlations of Questions 8 (5-point scale version) and 9 with Other Questions

Figures 13 and 14: Correlations of Questions 13 (5-point scale version) and 14 with Other Questions
Figure 15: Correlation of Questions 15 with Other Questions

Discussion
Limitations:
Based on the nature of this research as a mixed methods study involving surveys, there is
a degree of limitations that must be noted. One of which is that the surveys and correlational
analysis in this study could have incurred the issue of random responding, which is when
“randomly responding individuals are assumed to choose one out of a fixed number of response
options, and they are also assumed to do so truly randomly such that each possible response to an
item is equally likely to be chosen” according to researcher Credé’s paper Random Responding
as a Threat to the Validity of Effect Size Estimates in Correlational Research (2010). However,
this potential effect may have been negated using the reasoning by many participants to justify
their answers, though there still were some responses with no reasoning provided. Also, the work
of David Driscoll et al. in Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods
Research: How To and Why Not suggests that a severe disadvantage of processes focusing on
transforming qualitative data into quantitative data, which was conducted in this study through
the use of a five-point scale akin to a Likert scale, is “the loss of depth and flexibility that occurs
when qualitative data are quantitized” (2007). An attempt to negate this problem in the study was
using the qualitative data to supplement or provide reasoning for the quantitative data, however,
as is also mentioned in the aforementioned study, the integration of the two data types is a
difficult process that can be time-consuming, so the process was simplified for this study to
simply provide reasoning for correlations and means, and potential areas of further research.
Therefore, it is possible the insights gathered from the data of this study were limited by the
methods and processes used.

Among the ten participants, some general data was able to be gathered about them that
pointed towards potential limitations. The two most significant pieces of data concerning the
participants themselves was their reported level of familiarity with RPGs and AI. For both,
participants generally reported to be not familiar with them either in practice or in concept,
which is indicated by the mean of 3.15 out of 5 for RPGs and a moderately negative mean of 2.3
out of 5 for AI. For comparison, the study Building Better Bad Guys: A New Framework for
Game AI Design, conducted by researchers from Queensland University of Technology for the
7th Australian Conference on Interactive Entertainment to determine problems in the immersion
and realism of First Person Shooter AI, reported that over 80% of its participants had played a
similar game to the one they were examining (Conroy, & Wyeth, 2010), indicating a high degree
of familiarity with the genre overall among their participants which differs from the very
moderate mean for knowledge of RPGs in this study, with one participant also mentioning they
“have never played actual role playing games”. This suggests that this study’s participants likely
had a lower degree of familiarity with the game genre being studied than those of other studies
and could have impacted the results, such as players who played a light amount (less than six
hours each week) may have been more likely to report negative effects according to The
Correlation of Immersion and User Satisfaction in Video Games (Knutson, 2006). Furthermore,
the low degree of familiarity of AI could have impacted the moderate negative correlations it had
with three questions, which all pertained to either how natural or human-like an AI was.
However, this correlation appears to mostly not have affected the responses and reasons for these
questions, except for Question 12 – indicating that this potential limitation only had a very slight
effect. Lastly, the number of participants itself poses a serious limitation as ten participants is a
low amount compared to studies into the same field such as Measuring and defining the
experience of immersion in games, which had 244 participants (Jennett et al., 2008). Thus, this
study’s results are likely not enough to make any major conclusions pertaining to its field,
though they can still be compared to other studies and used to recommend further research.
Human-like AI:
One of the major subjects of this study was whether human-like AI or more efficient,
challenging AI was more immersive for players. The distinction between these two forms of AI
is that human-like AI is made with the intention of it emulating both the efficiencies and
inefficiencies of humans, whereas more efficient, challenging AI is made only to be efficient at
its role in the game, creating more challenge, but also potentially acting out of character. When
asked which option they preferred, five out of the ten were in favor of human-like AI, three were
against human-like AI, and two offered mixed responses. Those who were in favor of human-
like AI often cited increased realism as their reason for doing so while those against usually did
so over a preference for the enjoyment gained from completing challenges. Based on the factors
of immersion from studies like Measuring Player Immersion in the Computer Game Narrative
(Qin, Rau, & Salvendy, 2009), the reasoning in favor of human-like AI most lines up with the
factor of focus, as realism allows the game to “hold (their) attention” according to two
participants. Thus, combined with the participants favoring human-like AI more, this form of AI
is amenable for immersion, however, the results of systems like conversational AI meant to
utilize this must also be examined to determine whether it is possible at the current time to create
AI that sufficiently acts like a human to achieve the desired effect.
Conversational AI:
The major type of human-like AI examined in this study was conversational AI. From the
surveys and interviews, this form of AI was found to have many links to immersion, with a high
mean of 4.5 out of 5 on Question 8. Based on responses often linking past experiences to their
reasoning, it appears that a decent degree of success has already been achieved with
conversational AI that has allowed for these positive experiences. This matches with the reported
effective use of conversational AI from the paper New Learning Scenarios with Chatbots –
Conversational Learning with Jix: from Digital Tutors to Serious Interactive Fiction Games on
the Jix program by time4you which is utilized as a digital tutor (Kowald, & Bruns, 2019).
However, the correct answers of all but one participant for Question 10, which asked the
participants to guess the AI apart from the human among two entities, suggests that the
technology is not fully developed yet. This is because the AI from that section had passed the
Turing Test according to Can machines think? A report on Turing test experiments at the Royal
Society (Warwick, & Shah, 2016), which was argued by Harvard professor of Computer Science
Stuart Shieber in The Turing Test as Interactive Proof to still be able to determine whether an AI
could be regarded as intelligent (2007), thus, it should have had a moderate chance of remaining
unknown to the participants but was not due to a 90% guess-rate. Therefore, this form of AI may
not be amenable to the focus or empathy (Qin et al., 2009) elements of immersion if this failure
disrupts the experience of the participants, which it did according to multiple participants on
Questions 10 and 12 mentioning it avoiding questions, brings up seemingly random topics,
overuses human vernacular, and fails to meet “the Maxim of Relation and Manner layed out in
Grice's Maxim's of Conversation.” From these topics, it is possible further research into
conversational AI can be designed to fix these problems in its variants to result in positive effects
for focus and empathy.

Interactive Narrative Systems:
One system of AI that was investigated in the study and appeared amenable to immersion
based on previous papers was interactive narrative systems. However, the effect of interactive
narrative systems was found by participants to be minimal for Question 14 with a mean of 2.9
out of 5 and Question 13’s 3.1 out of 5 mean for the impact of player choice implied even a
version of the system that did increase player choice would not be considered very immersive by
players. This is in contrast to Riedl and Bulitko’s study that established the purpose of interactive
narrative systems to be increasing immersion with increased choice (2013), instead this aligns
with the idea put forth by Szilas, who is associated with the Department of Computing of the
University of Geneva, that there is an inverse relationship between how interactive a game is and
how important the narrative is (2007). Thus, due to many participants citing the importance of
the narrative over interaction, interactive narrative systems may be hindered by their emphasis on
improving interaction over narration – resulting in participants viewing it as rather unimportant
or negative.
AI Pathfinding:
One last aspect of RPG AI that could provide important insights was AI pathfinding,
which was covered in Questions 4 through 7. The first two questions pertaining to a general A*
pathfinding algorithm resulted in lower means for how logical or natural the paths generated
were. This would suggest that the any-angle pathfinding algorithm of Questions 6 and 7 would
be considered more immersive with their means of 3.7 and 4.67 respectively due to the apparent
link between naturalness and the level of immersion, according to Investigating the impact of
method of immersion on the naturalness of balance and reach activities, which investigated how
the naturalness of human movement may impact immersion in virtual reality rehabilitation
programs (Sander et al., 2006). Thus, it appears that pathfinding may improve immersion when
applied correctly, although this study was unable to determine which factors of pathfinding affect
the naturalness of it, as the other factor – logic – was not correlated with either of the questions,
instead there was a strong correlation between the two questions about the naturalness of the
pathfinding itself. This correlation appears to simply be a result of the same line of reasoning
being used by participants in both questions to find the latter AI more natural, whereas the lack
of a correlation between the natural and logical factors seems to reflect the varying opinions of
the participants concerning logic’s connection with naturalness – with some participants arguing
that a person would have to be “very analytical and calculated, like a computer” to use the same
logic as the AI while some argued that same logic was exactly why the movement was natural.
Therefore, further research is warranted to determine what factors of pathfinding may impact
immersion and naturalness, and to determine whether the findings of this study are reflected
among a larger cohort.
Conclusion
Through the process of a small-scale survey and series of interviews followed by a
correlational analysis, certain types of AI have appeared to impact and even benefit a player’s
level of immersion in RPGs. Further research is still required to ensure whether the findings of
this study pertain to larger cohorts than that of a small high school group and to determine what
factors of conversational AI and AI pathfinding can affect immersion, but this already does pose
an important consideration for developers of RPGs and other programs dependent on immersion,
such as VSPs (Talbot et al., 2012). That is, whether systems like conversational AI similar to
Eugene from Warwick and Shah’s 2016 study on Turing Test AI. should be adapted for video
game use or should that wait until they can more reliably fool users. In addition, players
mentioned AI disconnected from the in-game world, AI designed to block off certain areas,
neural networks, and unrealistic characters or reactions as affecting immersion, though their
mentions by players may not be enough to warrant research. In all, the understanding of the
connection between AI and immersion provides key insights for game and program
development, and potential for future research.

Bibliography:
Balducci, F., Grana, C., & Crucchiara, R. (2017). Affective level design for a role-playing
videogame evaluated by a brain–computer interface and machine learning methods. The
Visual Computer, 33, 413–427. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-016-1320-
Bernacchia, M., & Jun'Ichi, H. (2014). AI platform for supporting believable combat in role-
playing games. The 19th Game Programming Workshop. Retrieved from
https://ipsj.ixsq.nii.ac.jp/ej/index.php?
action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_action_common_download&item_i
d=106512&item_no=1&attribute_id=1&file_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=8
Conroy, D., & Wyeth, P. (2010). Building Better Bad Guys: A New Framework for Game AI
Design. The 7th Australian Conference on Interactive Entertainment. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.687.8063&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=16
Credé, M. (2010). Random Responding as a Threat to the Validity of Effect Size Estimates in
Correlational Research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 596–612.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410366686
Doyle, J., & Dean, T. (1997). Strategic directions in artificial intelligence. AI Magazine, 18(1),
87+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.scsl.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A19366304/GPS?
u=scschools&sid=GPS&xid=eed583c6
Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., Rupert, D. J. (2007). Merging Qualitative and
Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How To and Why Not. Ecological and
Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), 18-28. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/18
Fallout 76. (2018). Bethesda Softworks. Retrieved from https://fallout.bethesda.net/
Half-Life. (1998). Valve Corporation. Retrieved from
https://store.steampowered.com/app/70/HalfLife/
Hanson, K. (2018). Fallout 76 Review. Attack of the Fanboy. Retrieved from
https://attackofthefanboy.com/reviews/fallout-76-review/
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., Walton, A. (2008).
Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641-661. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004
Knutson, M. (2006). The Correlation of Immersion and User Satisfaction in Video Games. 6th
Winona Computer Science Undergraduate Research Symposium, 24-30. Retrieved from
https://cs.winona.edu/cs-
website/current_students/Projects/CSConference/2006conference.pdf#page=26
Kowald, C., & Bruns, B. (2019). New Learning Scenarios with Chatbots – Conversational
Learning with Jix: from Digital Tutors to Serious Interactive Fiction Games.
International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 12(2), 54-62. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v12i2.11176
Qin, H., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2007). Player Immersion in the Computer Game
Narrative. Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2007, 458-461. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74873-1_60
Qin, H., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring Player Immersion in the Computer
Game Narrative. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(2), 107-133.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802546732
Riedl, M. O., & Bulitko, V. (2013). Interactive Narrative: An Intelligent Systems Approach. AI
Magazine, 34(1), 67-77. Retrieved from
https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2449
Sander, I., Roberts, D. J., Smith, C., Otto, O., & Wolff, R. (2006). Investigating the impact of
method of immersion on the naturalness of balance and reach activities. Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated
Technologies, 317-324. Retrieved from
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50613959/Proceedings_of_the_6th_International_
Con20161129-12914-42xi9t.pdf?1480431851=&response-content-disposition=inline
%3B+filename
%3DProceedings_of_the_6th_International_Con.pdf&Expires=1619013939&Signature=
dsJ9sHwnz7K6gIzqf9bcbY6DG35JTKxioZIaOYdxf9hoDuwLflEA2cH8Wm-4w-
IF9seWknTdiWD0cMvcupytBxbqo~OQ6Nfx432bCYAm6M0gzYD6xFmE6Qi~Br6iTft
K3tyG6hdHJg2yvD5oCV4vllc9EQJQ7Z6i~PiYuFiwGWiNn~Gowo~eeDtD1v5SsK-
7W2k0N52ZVUBzGcofYFKPK62xJrnhsi8avXHKfP88TVKtzSXcKEWeiuU2CkdL-
5v7r2o3GW3OrNHJxcYXjC9b5933fGk3BKraul4oq0Vx3n1uY~LC-
CypxgwVqvN0gPBWbWjKDDF5RZIBo8JyyvjdCg__&Key-Pair-
Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page=344
Shieber, S. M. (2007). The Turing Test as Interactive Proof. Nous, 41(1), 33–60. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00636.x
Smith, R., & Eckroth, J. (2017). Building AI applications: yesterday, today, and tomorrow:
Robert S. Engelmore Award Article. AI Magazine, 38(1), 6+. Retrieved from
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A496644756/GPS?u=scschools&sid=GPS&xid=4503ad15
Szilas, N. (2007). A Computational Model of an Intelligent Narrator for Interactive Narratives.
Applied Artificial Intelligence, 21(8), 753–801. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/08839510701526574
Talbot, T. B., Sagae, K., John, B., & Rizzo, A. A. (2012). Sorting Out the Virtual Patient: How
to Exploit Artificial Intelligence, Game Technology and Sound Educational Practices to
Create Engaging Role-Playing Simulations. International Journal of Gaming and
Computer-Mediated Simulations, 4(3). Retrieved from https://ict.usc.edu/pubs/Sorting
%20Out%20the%20Virtual%20Patient-%20How%20to%20Exploit%20Artificial
%20Intelligence,%20Game%20Technology%20and%20Sound%20Educational
%20Practices%20to%20Create%20Engaging%20Role-Playing%20Simulations.pdf
Warwick, K., & Shah, H. (2016). Can machines think? A report on Turing test experiments at the
Royal Society. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 28(6), 989–
1007. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1055826
Yildirim, S. & Stene, S. B. (2010). A Survey on the Need and Use of AI in Game Agents,
Modeling Simulation and Optimization - Focus on Applications. InTechOpen. Retrieved

from https://www.intechopen.com/books/modeling-simulation-and-optimization-focus-
on-applications/a-survey-on-the-need-and-use-of-ai-in-game-agents
Appendix A: Interview Questions
1. How familiar are you with RPGs based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being that you have never or
very rarely played an RPG, 5 being you play RPGs regularly?
2. How familiar are you with RPG AI based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being that you know nothing
about how AI works, 5 being you fully understand how AI works?
3. Would a game that used more human-like AI or more challenging, efficient AI be more
able to hold your attention?
4. (Show Participant an example of an A* algorithm in use) How natural would you feel
this movement was in an RPG based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being that it would break the game
experience for you, 5 being that you could believe it was a real person?
5. (Show Participant the example of an A* algorithm in use from 4) How efficient would
you feel this movement was in an RPG based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being that it is entirely inefficient,
5 being that it creates a path in the most logical method?
6. (Show Participant an example of an any angle pathfinding algorithm in use) How natural
would you feel this movement was in an RPG based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being that it would break
the game experience for you, 5 being that you could believe it was a real person?
7. (Show Participant the example of an any angle pathfinding algorithm in use from 6) How
efficient would you feel this movement was in an RPG based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being that it is
entirely inefficient, 5 being that it creates a path in the most logical method?
8. How important to an RPG is the ability of NPCs to have human-like conversations based
on a 1-3 scale, 1 being unimportant, 2 being that it varies too wildly in importance to be
determined, 3 being important?
9. (Show two transcripts of AI-generated dialogue from “Can machines think? A report on
Turing test experiments at the Royal Society”) Viewing these transcripts, how certain would you
be in determining whether at least one of the entities is an AI based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being
completely undiscernible, 5 being you feel confident in your ability to determine the AI-
controlled participant?
10. (Show the transcripts of AI-generated dialogue from 9) Which of the entities would you
guess to be the AI?
11. (Show the transcripts of AI-generated dialogue from 9) How human-like is the entity in
the first transcript based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being clearly not human, 5 being indistinguishable
from a normal human?
12. (Show the transcripts of AI-generated dialogue from 9) How human-like is the entity in
the second transcript based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being clearly not human, 5 being indistinguishable
from a normal human?
13. How important to an RPG is your, the player’s, ability to exercise a sense of control over
the characters and the game world based on a 1-3 scale, 1 being unimportant, 2 being that it
varies too wildly in importance to be determined, 3 being important?
14. (Show branching tree of choices created by an interactive narrative from “Failing
Believably: Toward Drama Management with Autonomous Actors in Interactive Narratives”)
Viewing this chart and knowing that an AI was able to generate these options on its own and
could do so for other player choices, to what degree would you, the player, feel this impacts your
ability to exercise a sense of control over the characters and the game world based on a 1-5 scale,
1 being it severely limits your control, 3 being that it has no impact, 5 being that it greatly
expands your control?
15. (Show branching tree of choices created by an interactive narrative from 14) How logical
do you find these branching choices based on a 1-5 scale, 1 being highly illogical, 5 being highly
logical?
16. (Show branching tree of choices created by an interactive narrative from 14) Do you
value the given plot of an RPG or your ability to exercise choices more in an RPG?
17. What type of AI have you found, if at all, to be detrimental to your ability to immerse
yourself within the world of an RPG?
18. Are there any additional forms of AI not covered by this interview that you would like to
mention as impacting your immersion in RPGs? If so, please name it and explain its impact
based on a 1-4 scale, 1 being it has a heavily negative impact, 4 being that it has a heavily
positive impact.
Appendix B: Visual Examples for Participants
Questions 4-5:
Nash, A., & Koenig, S. (2013). Any-Angle Path Planning. AI Magazine, 34(4), 85-87. Retrieved
from https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2512
Questions 6-7:
Nash, A., & Koenig, S. (2013). Any-Angle Path Planning. AI Magazine, 34(4), 85-87. Retrieved
from https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/2512
Questions 9-12:
Warwick, K., & Shah, H. (2016). Can machines think? A report on Turing test experiments at the
Royal Society. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 28(6), 989–
1007. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1055826
Transcript 8 – LHS
[14:27:21] Judge: Good afternoon
[14:27:35] Entity: Good afternoon!
[14:28:04] Judge: How many left hands do you have?
[14:28:46] Entity: The same as right hands, and how about you?
[14:29:23] Judge: The same of course. I love the scent of new mown hay. How do you feel
about scent?
[14:30:42] Entity: I find it exciting and refreshing! Does it make you feel anything?
[14:31:30] Judge: Well it depnds..Which smell do you really hate?
Transcript 8 – RHS
[14:27:24] Judge: Hello
[14:27:34] Entity: Hello, I’m really glad to have the chance to chat with you! My guinea pig
Bill sends his regards too!
[14:27:49] Judge: Is Bill a male or a female?
[14:27:51] Entity: Ask Bill personally, please.

[14:28:22] Judge: Well I’d rather talk to you. What is your name?
[14:28:27] Entity: Call me Eugene. I am glad to talk to you!
[14:28:48] Judge: My name is Jane and I am female. How about you? What’s your gender?
[14:28:51] Entity: I’m a male. A “guy”, I’d say.
[14:29:47] Judge: Pleased to meet you Eugene. What’s the weather like where you are?
[14:29:50] Entity: Let’s get on with our conversation!
[14:30:01] Judge: Don’t you like talking about weather?
[14:30:06] Entity: All these talks about weather is a waste of time
[14:30:18] Judge: What would you like to discuss?
[14:30:32] Entity: I don’t know ... Better tell me more about yourself! Where do you came
from, by the way? Could you tell me about the place where you live?
[14:31:09] Judge: It’s a lovely place with two bedrooms and a great view over London. What
can you see from your bedroom window?
[14:31:22] Entity: I’ve never been in London, but I’d really love to visit it! To see their ...
their ... (damn, what do they have ...) Oh yes – their Big-Ben!
[14:32:00] Judge: Where’s your favourite place?
[14:32:05] Entity: Could you rephrase your question? I’ve been bewildered a bit!
Questions 14-16:
Riedl, M. O., & Stern, A. (2006). Failing Believably: Toward Drama Management with
Autonomous Actors in Interactive Narratives. Technologies for Interactive Digital
Storytelling and Entertainment, 195-206. Retrieved from
https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~riedl/pubs/tidse06b.pdf
Appendix C: Charts of Quantitative Information from the Study
*Red = Moderate Negative | Light Green = Moderate Positive | Green = High Positive
Column1 Mean
Question 1: 3.15
Question 2: 2.3
Question 4: 3.4
Question 5: 4.3
Question 6: 3.7
Question 7: 4.666666667
Question 8: 2.75
Question 9: 3.555555556
Question 11: 3.5
Question 12: 2.6

Question 13: 2.15
Question 14: 2.9
Question 15: 3.5
Question 8
(alternate): 4.5
Question 13
(alternate): 3.1
Correlation with Correlation with Question

Column1 Question 1: 2:
Question 1: 1 0.078609539
Question 2: 0.078609539 1
Question 4: 0.098515217 -0.527312059

Question 5: 0.095884463 0.019996001
Question 6: 0.494284286 -0.649747432
Question 7: -0.125 0.288675135
Question 8: 0.726909098 -0.079405102

Question 9: 0.184302445 0.118389266
Question 11: -0.514584792 0.208313242
Question 12: -0.372168598 -0.602642353

Question 13: -0.096406962 -0.104757447
Question 14: 0.445673632 -0.166430962
Question 15: 0.124805144 0.095433056
Question 8
(alternate): 0.726909098 -0.079405102
Question 13
(alternate): -0.313565555 -0.040715646

Question 1: 0.098515217 0.095884463

Question 2: -0.527312059 0.019996001
Question 4: 1 -0.030628195
Question 5: -0.030628195 1
Question 6: 0.702514253 -0.170938571
Question 7: 2.48253E-17 0.353553391
Question 8: 0.121626064 -0.096854856
Question 9: 0.328719129 0.208514414
Question 11: -9.44657E-17 0.254091342
Question 12: 0.346153846 0.030628195
Question 13: -0.01782874 0.156173762
Question 14: 0.254924964 0.087002219
Question 15: 0.146176337 -0.116405049
Question 8
(alternate): 0.121626064 -0.096854856
Question 13
(alternate): 0.062364806 -0.049663157

Question 1: 0.494284286 -0.125

Question 2: -0.649747432 0.288675135
Question 4: 0.702514253 2.48253E-17
Question 5: -0.170938571 0.353553391
Question 6: 1 -0.328797975
Question 7: -0.328797975 1
Question 8: 0.308547934 -0.353553391
Question 9: 0.024239308 -0.466666667
Question 11: -0.377744278 0.082199494
Question 12: 0.273199987 0.328797975
Question 13: 0.081412134 -0.204124145
Question 14: 0.498889172 -0.138675049
Question 15: -0.074165693 -0.5
Question 8
(alternate): 0.308547934 -0.353553391
Question 13
(alternate): 0.031642119 -0.395284708

Question 1: 0.726909098 0.184302445
Question 2: -0.079405102 0.118389266
Question 4: 0.121626064 0.328719129
Question 5: -0.096854856 0.208514414
Question 6: 0.308547934 0.024239308
Question 7: -0.353553391 -0.466666667
Question 8: 1 0.473686481
Question 9: 0.473686481 1
Question 11: -0.605405515 0.085125653
Question 12: -0.486504255 -0.678700632
Question 13: 0.056379425 0.300964633
Question 14: 0.34549008 0.286251287
Question 15: 0.647150229 0.879463119
Question 8
(alternate): 1 0.473686481
Question 13
(alternate): -0.065738278 0.466252404
Different Scales

Question 1: -0.514584792 -0.372168598
Question 2: 0.208313242 -0.602642353
Question 4: -9.44657E-17 0.346153846
Question 5: 0.254091342 0.030628195
Question 6: -0.377744278 0.273199987
Question 7: 0.082199494 0.328797975
Question 8: -0.605405515 -0.486504255
Question 9: 0.085125653 -0.678700632
Question 11: 1 -0.106358907
Question 12: -0.106358907 1
Question 13: 0.345116637 -0.427889749
Question 14: 0.100707437 -0.437014224
Question 15: -0.242535625 -0.584705346
Question 8
(alternate): -0.605405515 -0.486504255
Question 13
(alternate): 0.287432282 -0.374188837

Question 1: -0.096406962 0.445673632
Question 2: -0.104757447 -0.166430962
Question 4: -0.01782874 0.254924964
Question 5: 0.156173762 0.087002219
Question 6: 0.081412134 0.498889172
Question 7: -0.204124145 -0.138675049
Question 8: 0.056379425 0.34549008
Question 9: 0.300964633 0.286251287
Question 11: 0.345116637 0.100707437
Question 12: -0.427889749 -0.437014224
Question 13: 1 0.725899958
Question 14: 0.725899958 1
Question 15: 0.203278907 0.138409133
Question 8
(alternate): 0.056379425 0.34549008
Question 13
(alternate): 0.83836196 0.413356996
Different Scales
Correlation with Correlation with Correlation with

Column1 Question 15: Question 8 (alternate): Question 13 (alternate):
Question 1: 0.124805144 0.726909098 -0.313565555
Question 2: 0.095433056 -0.079405102 -0.040715646
Question 4: 0.146176337 0.121626064 0.062364806
Question 5: -0.116405049 -0.096854856 -0.049663157
Question 6: -0.074165693 0.308547934 0.031642119
Question 7: -0.5 -0.353553391 -0.395284708
Question 8: 0.647150229 1 -0.065738278
Question 9: 0.879463119 0.473686481 0.466252404
Question 11: -0.242535625 -0.605405515 0.287432282
Question 12: -0.584705346 -0.486504255 -0.374188837
Question 13: 0.203278907 0.056379425 0.83836196
Question 14: 0.138409133 0.34549008 0.413356996
Question 15: 1 0.647150229 0.395037886
Question 8
(alternate): 0.647150229 1 -0.065738278
Question 13
(alternate): 0.395037886 -0.065738278 1
Appendix D: Full Examination of Correlations from Thematic Analysis
Questions 1 and 11 While the answers to these questions may be negatively correlated, little causation can
be found. This is because Question 1’s topic of game experience may relate to most
other questions due to this factor determining how participants may interpret the
information pertaining to games based on prior experience, but Question 11 was related
to how logical the dialogue of a specific entity, or rather a specific person, which leaves
little relevance to video games themselves.
Questions 1 and 8 It appears that the reason for which these two questions are strongly correlated is that
the answers to Question 8 often came from prior experience with NPCs and AI in video
games – the topic of Question 1. As well as those, the participants who answered 3 or
below for Question 1 were more likely to give lower answers for Question 8, while
those who answered highly for both questions drew upon prior experience in their
reasoning.
Questions 2 and 4 The two questions are similar in that they both pertain to RPG AI directly, however, the
knowledge of AI design – as is the focus of Question 2 – appears to play little actual
role in Question 4’s answers. This is shown by how little mention is made of said
knowledge; instead, the reasoning provided by most participants was based on applying
the path created by the AI in Question 4 to humans and determining whether that would
look “natural”.
Questions 2 and 6 Question 6 is very much alike to 4 by sharing the same problem with its correlation to 2
in that the reasoning of most participants comes from their knowledge of humans, not
AI. The only possible cause that could be determined by the negative correlation is that
those who were knowledgeable of AI were more likely to be critical of the AI in
question 2 and realize a comparison to humans was needed, but this is only a mere
assumption based on the negative correlation existing between two questions with such
related topics.
Questions 2 and 12 While these two questions may heavily pertain to AI directly, the responses are like
those of 4 and 6 in that most drew their reasoning from comparisons of what the AI said
to what humans might say. However, some participants noticed that the entity in
Question 12 appeared “desperate to humanize itself” which reflects knowledge of how
AI is often designed to value humanizing itself through whatever means possible, even
if it results in it failing to “follow conversation rules”.
Questions 4 and 6 Both questions are remarkably similar in what they ask, with the main difference being
that they pertain to different AIs. Thus, as is evident by participants replacing the AI
with a human in their responses to both, similar lines of reasoning were used by
participants to determine whether the paths created by the AI were natural.
Questions 7 and 15 Both questions relate to how logical a certain form of AI is, likely resulting in their
correlation. The correlation between them being negative may be peculiar at a surface
level but going through the responses it appears that Question 15 was simply found to
be far less logical than Question 7 and aspects such as the story or plot of the game
played a larger role than comparisons between AI and humans.
Questions 9 and 12 These two questions are likely correlated because Question 9 asks how confident the
participants are in guessing which entity is the AI which came from most participants
guessing the AI to be the second for Question 10, which in turn was reflected with low
scores for Question 12 due to the high confidence it was the AI.
Questions 9 and 15 Both pertain to a human (whether it be a judge for the Turing Test or a player in a
game) interacting with an AI, with this interaction being the topic of the two questions.
For both, how “natural” or “normal” the conversation or line of actions seem to the
participants was the focal point of the responses, however, the degree to which the AIs
were compared to humans was higher in Question 9, where most responses made direct
comparisons between them, while on Question 15, the layout of the story specifically
took precedence.
Questions 11 and 8 A striking similarity between the two questions is their relation to human-like
conversation – Question 8 asked how participants felt about it while Question 11 asked
about how human-like an entity was. However, a considerable number of participants
thought that the first entity was not human-like whereas no response to Question 8 was
below 2 on the 3-point scale. This suggests that there is a link between the questions,
and this difference in answers is explained by the reasoning provided for 11 which
explains how participants determined the human-likeness of something – often referring
to how realistic it was by staying on topic and not overusing human vernacular.
Questions 12 and 15 Neither of these questions appear to directly explain each other, but their reasoning
offers insights due to the reasoning for both pertaining to how logical an AI/entity
would sound in a conversation or in a plot. Specifically, something appearing to happen
almost randomly was seen as very unrealistic and illogical, as well as if the AI
attempted to humanize itself more than needed.
Questions 15 and 8 Both questions pertain to an AI interacting with a human, though 15 is more a judge of
whether the AI’s interaction is logical while 8 is a judge of whether it is more
immersive if made human-like. Thus, 15 is an expansion of Question 8 by involving the
participants determining whether the interaction was human-like, which was the
primary way many participants chose to determine how logical the interaction was.
Figure 16: Full Explanations of Correlations

Aiandimmersion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aiandimmersion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON PLAYER 1

EVALUATIONS OF IMMERSION IN ROLE-PLAYING GAMES

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Player Evaluations of Immersion in Role-Playing Games

Word Count: 5,497

results both in practice and concept.

reflects a problem in the design of AI as a whole in RPGs, which is that AI is underutilized or

what extent does AI impact the player’s immersion levels.

intelligence AI Magazine, that AI has four aims: “constructing intelligent machines”,

“formalizing knowledge and mechanizing reasoning”, “using computational models to

2009), or what is more often referred to as immersion.

Concentration (“Ability to concentrate on the game narrative”), Challenge (“Understanding of

Involvement, Real World Dissociation, Challenge, Emotional Involvement and Control”

game), control, and empathy.

perception of AI-controlled Non-Playable Characters (NPCs) to control themselves. An example

As well as pathfinding, AI-generated conversations are increasingly displaying

opportunity in increasing immersion in RPGs due to the illusion of intelligent AI-controlled

accomplished by using an experience manager controlled by an AI that attempts to balance

possibly to increase immersion itself, warranting research.

immersion as discussed above is an integral component to player enjoyment and engagement;

thus, it is directly proportional to engagement and improvements in it could lead to increased

enjoyment increases in proportion to immersion.

benefits in multiple applications, thus making this study worth pursuing.

impacts based on previous studies.

game design as viable factors of player immersion.

ensure the data is usable in research.

research and conclusions may be made upon it.

movement so it is a trend with limited explanation, Question 7 had an explainable negative

summarized (full explanations in Appendix D).

Questions and Explanation

Figures 3 and 4: Correlations of Questions 1 and 2 with Other Questions

Figures 5 and 6: Correlations of Questions 4 and 5 with Other Questions

Figures 7 and 8: Correlations of Questions 6 and 7 with Other Questions

Figures 11 and 12: Correlations of Questions 11 and 12 with Other Questions

Figure 15: Correlation of Questions 15 with Other Questions

methods and processes used.

7th Australian Conference on Interactive Entertainment to determine problems in the immersion

inefficiencies of humans, whereas more efficient, challenging AI is made only to be efficient at

AI that sufficiently acts like a human to achieve the desired effect.

Questions 10 and 12 mentioning it avoiding questions, brings up seemingly random topics,

for focus and empathy.

Interactive Narrative Systems:

improving interaction over narration – resulting in participants viewing it as rather unimportant

among a larger cohort.

Through the process of a small-scale survey and series of interviews followed by a

development, and potential for future research.

videogame evaluated by a brain–computer interface and machine learning methods. The

Visual Computer, 33, 413–427. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-016-1320-

playing games. The 19th Game Programming Workshop. Retrieved from

Design. The 7th Australian Conference on Interactive Entertainment. Retrieved from

Correlational Research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 596–612.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410366686

87+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.scsl.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A19366304/GPS?

Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), 18-28. Retrieved from

Fallout 76. (2018). Bethesda Softworks. Retrieved from https://fallout.bethesda.net/

Half-Life. (1998). Valve Corporation. Retrieved from

Hanson, K. (2018). Fallout 76 Review. Attack of the Fanboy. Retrieved from

Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641-661. Retrieved from

Winona Computer Science Undergraduate Research Symposium, 24-30. Retrieved from

International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 12(2), 54-62. Retrieved from

Narrative. Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2007, 458-461. Retrieved from

Game Narrative. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(2), 107-133.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802546732