Evaluating Virtual Game Design for Cultural Heritage Interpretation: An Exploratory Study on arkeOyun

Abstract

The interpretation of archaeological heritage encounters inherent challenges due to the fragmentation and contextual loss of the physical site. Virtual reality has emerged as an innovative medium for enhancing user engagement and promoting meaningful dissemination of culture. This exploratory study investigates the design and preliminary expert-based evaluation of arkeOyun, a virtual reality game created to better understand archaeological sites’ spatial and cultural significance, by sampling the Kültepe Archaeological Site. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of virtual game-based approaches in the dissemination of cultural heritage and user interaction, emphasising spatial clarity, narrative integration, and immersive engagement. Our study incorporates qualitative and quantitative methods, utilising concurrent think-aloud and heuristic evaluation with participants who were selected due to their expertise in heritage, design, and human–computer interaction domains. Participants engaged with arkeOyun via a head-mounted display, and their real-time comments and post-experience evaluations were systematically evaluated. Results indicate that although participants responded positively to the game’s immersive design, interface simplicity, and spatial organisation, notable deficiencies were seen in narrative coherence, emotional resonance, and multimodal feedback. Navigation and the presentation of informative content were seen as critical areas requiring improvement. The data triangulation revealed both consistent and varying assessments, highlighting the need for context-specific support, varied task structures, and emotionally compelling narratives for enhanced interpretation of cultural significance. The findings of our study illustrate the potential of virtual reality games as a medium for cultural heritage interpretation via arkeOyun. For experiences to evolve from immersive simulations to major interpretative platforms, it is vital to integrate narrative frameworks, multimodal scaffolding, and user-centred interaction tactics more deeply. The results of this exploratory pilot study present preliminary findings on integrating virtual reality games in archaeological heritage interpretation and contribute to further projects.

1. Introduction

The interpretation and preservation of cultural heritage, particularly archaeological sites, face unique challenges due to the diversity of their spatial, historical, and social contexts. Many of these sites incur physical degradation over time, resulting in the challenges to comprehend their historical importance for today’s visitors. This has encouraged research of advanced digital technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), as innovative tools for both visualising and enhancing interaction with historical content. By allowing users to explore reconstructed sites, VR media enables immersive and interactive experiences, giving people a more dynamic and contextual understanding of archaeological heritage. In particular, VR game-based learning offers effectiveness for interpreting spatial organisation and historical context. Furthermore, these technologies foster a more profound cultural engagement in addition to serving educational purposes. Recent research has increasingly adopted exploratory and immersive digital techniques to engage with cultural heritage. Efforts sampling exploratory and multimodal environments for user-led interpretation are represented by interpretive exploration of historical sites [1], VR-based digitisation models [2], and gamification experiences in VR [3]. Notably, exploratory works concentrating on immersive storytelling [1,4], enhanced spatial understanding [5,6], and rich user experiences [7,8] are examples of how virtual reality games engage users with archaeological content and spatial narratives. Along with these techniques, our study provides an exploratory model incorporating the visual, audio, and narrative modes.

Our primary objective is to investigate the potential of virtual reality games for interpreting archaeological heritage sites and define a framework for this approach. The specific aims of our research are to (1) interpret cultural content into a virtual reality game medium, (2) define the design principles of the VR game, and (3) assess its usability and educational impact through preliminary expert evaluations. Through the designed virtual reality game (arkeOyun), sampling the Kültepe Archaeological Site, we examined the potential of the framework we applied in line with the defined design criteria for understanding cultural heritage.

The following research questions guide the methodology we applied within the scope of our research are as follows:

• Which design elements are effective in designing virtual reality games to increase users’ interaction with archaeological heritage sites? (RQ.1)
• How can virtual reality games be used to interpret cultural heritage sites? (RQ.2)
• What preliminary conclusions about arkeOyun’s usability and playability can be drawn from the expert feedback? (RQ.3)

Our study addresses key challenges in heritage interpretation, including the presentation of archaeological sites, the visibility of heritage values, and the balance between providing information and fostering interaction. Given the open-ended and interpretive structure of the research questions, the present study is positioned as exploratory rather than confirmatory in nature. We employed a research pattern including qualitative and quantitative methods to gain early feedback from experts in cultural heritage, design, and human–computer interaction. The evaluation of the usability and playability of the developed VR game by employing expert-based feedback to refine the game design and enhance the user experience is within the scope of this research. The findings of this study contribute to current discussions in digital heritage interpretation by proposing a conceptual model that distinguishes between spatial representation and cultural interpretation in VR, offering insights into design strategies that foster narrative immersion and symbolic engagement.

2. Conceptual Framework

This section of our study presents the conceptual framework that informs the motivation behind the design of the VR game, arkeOyun, aimed at understanding spatial organisation in archaeological sites. The concept of game space is defined, and the challenges associated with interpreting cultural heritage are examined in the context of archaeological heritage, highlighting the opportunities that the game approach offers.

2.1. Game Space

A game comprises a set of structured conditions involving decision-makers, which are governed by rules within a designated space. These conditions reflect an artificial representation of everyday reality [9]. “Game space” refers to the environment in which the plot unfolds, shaping all player actions. The concept of game space not only defines the boundaries within which players operate [10] but also mediates the degree of freedom allowed, constrained by the game’s rules. Understanding a game thus requires a comprehensive interpretation of its rules, content, and environment [11], which collectively shape the player’s experience.

The spatiality of games draws on Lefebvre’s theoretical framework of space, which divides it into perceived, designed, and lived spaces. These dimensions, respectively, represent physical interaction, formal design, and symbolic meaning. According to Lefebvre, these spatial categories continuously intersect to shape the spatial experience of the player [12]. In games, this experience emerges from both the designed space and the player’s engagement with it, forming a dynamic and evolving spatial model [13]. As Nitsche further suggests, game spaces extend beyond visual elements as players construct fictional worlds within their imagination [14], thus enriching the interactive potential of the game environment.

Incorporating real-world elements into game spaces can enhance the player’s connection to virtual and tangible environments. Visual and auditory elements are instrumental in merging historical and modern contexts [15], thus enriching the player’s spatial experience. Additionally, location-based game mechanics foster exploration and engagement with physical spaces [16,17], enabling players to connect more with their surroundings. Malegiannaki and Daradoumis emphasise the pivotal role of narrative in fostering a deep and immersive relationship between players and the cultural content embedded in game spaces [18]. Moreover, blending virtual and real spaces offers an opportunity to enhance learning, especially in areas such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and information management [19].

A game space combines design and player interaction, blending virtual and physical realities. This evolving spatial model facilitates exploration and engagement, a powerful tool for learning and cultural interaction. By integrating real-world elements and narratives, game spaces offer immersive experiences that bridge virtual and tangible worlds, promoting both educational and cultural engagement.

2.2. Heritage Interpretation: Issues Concerning Archaeological Heritage Sites

Cultural heritage refers to the comprehensive knowledge related to tangible and intangible human activities, emphasising the imperative of its preservation [20]. Cultural heritage interpretation embodies efforts to foster communication between heritage and its audience, encompassing theoretical and practical approaches to presenting and preserving heritage for future generations [21]. Heritage interpretation functions as an interface for transmitting knowledge and values, allowing the target audience to engage in learning and appreciation [22,23], and is integral to conservation efforts. This process enhances emotional and intellectual engagement with heritage, creating a bridge between the past and contemporary society. Poria et al. emphasise that visitors’ personal and emotional connections are vital for achieving heritage appreciation [24].

Archaeological heritage, a subset of cultural heritage, is defined by the archaeological methods and interpretations through which its significance is revealed [25]. The social, aesthetic, and environmental contexts that once defined such sites have mainly vanished [26], necessitating contemporary strategies for their interpretation [27]. According to relevant regulations, the key challenges in archaeological interpretation include the presentation of archaeological remains, the visibility of heritage values, the balance between information and interpretation, and ensuring unrestricted access to heritage sites (See

Table 1. Challenges on archaeological heritage presentation and interpretation approaches.

Challenges	Description
social, aesthetic, and environmental contexts [26,27]	discontinuity/loss of the original context (physically and semantically)
presentation and comprehension [25,28]	struggle to understand the archaeological remains on-site, requiring modern methods.
balancing information and interpretation [21,28]	developing a balanced approach (neither overwhelming nor oversimplifying the information)
accessibility and physical barriers [21,30]	ensuring that archaeological sites are physically and digitally accessible to all visitors.
ineffectiveness of traditional methods [29]	interpretation methods (e.g., info. boards, reconstructions) fail to meet modern visitor needs.
integration of digital technologies [17,31]	insufficient integration of digitalization and visualisation into interpretation processes.
narration and comprehension of heritage value [32,33]	challenges in effectively conveying historical narratives beyond physical remains.
interactive and engaging platforms [24,33]	limitations of interactive platforms on facilitating emotional and intellectual connections.

) [21,25,28]. Conventional interpretation methods for cultural heritage include information boards, architectural reconstructions, and pathways. However, these approaches are ineffective in enhancing site legibility for modern visitors [29]. As the emphasis on integrating digital technology in the relevant ICOMOS Charter [21] indicates, it is a potential tool for designing approaches to interpret the elements that constitute the heritage value to the visitor.

Advanced information technologies are increasingly integral to addressing archaeological heritage sites’ specific presentation and dissemination challenges. Technologies such as digital documentation, visualisation, data management, and virtual replica creation provide new opportunities to enhance both the preservation and public accessibility of heritage [30]. These approaches enable a blending of virtual and physical experiences, allowing for the development of immersive environments that engage the public in innovative ways. Game-based methods for heritage interpretation, which are becoming increasingly popular [31], offer dynamic solutions for making archaeological remains more visible and accessible while supporting unrestricted access to heritage sites [16,34,35,36].

Beyond material challenges, such as representing heritage values related to its reality, it is crucial to convey the narratives that underpin archaeological heritage. As stated in related studies [32,33], game-based interpretation provides an immersive and interactive platform where users can engage with the layers of representation, presentation, and transmission, fostering a more profound mental connection to archaeological heritage. This interactive medium not only enhances user engagement but also supports the preservation of heritage values by encouraging a comprehensive understanding of the site’s architectural, cultural, and social significance [37,38,39].

Immersive technologies instigate several opportunities for cultural heritage conservation, including independent and contextual object interaction experiences beyond the physical environment [40,41], the virtual reproduction of cultural contexts, and enhanced navigational experiences within virtual reality settings [42,43], and offer a medium for the development of gamified virtual experiences [44,45]. The diversity and growing proliferation of studies within the related literature underscores its increasing popularity [31] and highlights the extensive possibilities offered by these technologies. The enhanced accessibility of such technologies ensures that designing interactions within the cultural heritage domain is both educational and meaningful. Our study aims to contribute to the related literature by providing a systematic approach to digital reconstruction, content gamification, and interaction design. While promoting an immersive and educational experience, our proposal offers a perspective that ensures a balanced emphasis on both tangible and intangible heritage.

3. Virtual Reality Game: arkeOyun

The challenges associated with interpreting and presenting archaeological heritage sites can be addressed by re-representing the events and conditions that constitute their cultural heritage value. In recent years, gaming has become a widely recognised and effective approach to interpreting, transferring, and presenting heritage, offering interactive and immersive solutions [31]. This section outlines the stages of design, and the user experience of the virtual reality game developed within the scope of the cultural heritage interpretation approach and presents a schematic design process. These stages include the digitalization and adaptation of the spatial and archaeological elements to the virtual game environment, the game design criteria, the integration of audio-visual stimuli, and the design of virtual interactions and user interface, respectively.

3.1. Sample Area

The virtual reality game presented in this study samples a real archaeological site. The Kültepe Archaeological Site (formerly known as Kaniš/Neša) in Kayseri, Turkey, is a case study to explore the virtual reality game central to this research, given its significant heritage values. These include the earliest written documents in Anatolia (cuneiform) [46] and its urban spatial organisation, reflecting an advanced urban culture [47]. The site is divided into two parts: the mount (Kaniš), which contains monumental buildings, and the lower town (Karum) [48]. This urban settlement features residential buildings interconnected by squares, streets, and courtyards [48,49]. Additionally, the cuneiform tablets, which are listed in UNESCO’s Memory of the World, provide invaluable insights into the owners of the residential buildings in Karum [50]) (Figure 1).

According to Özgüç, the settlement plan of Kaniš, an early example of traditional Anatolian urban planning, is shaped primarily by the street patterns, defined by the surfaces of the buildings and their relationship with the street [48]. The building typology, characterised by rectangular layouts and interconnected rooms, is a dominant feature of the site (Figure 2). These structures, which typically include semi-open passage spaces linked to the street, reflect broader patterns of Anatolian architecture [53]. The internal organisation of these spaces, shaped and reproduced by their users, is crucial in forming urban elements, such as neighbourhoods, squares, and streets. Archaeological findings, including stone ovens, hearths, cuneiform tablets, tomb remains, and stone floor coverings, provide valuable information about the functions of the dwellings. These findings suggest the presence of archives, living spaces, vertical circulation spaces, and shared open courtyards within the residential complexes [48,49].

The sample area is deconstructed in the virtual reality medium, using the SketchUp [54] and Unity Game Engine [55] programmes, prioritising pre-defined parameters reflecting its heritage value. These parameters are integrated into spatial design and game content design criteria. These elements, considered cultural components, are assessed under the following categories: spatial organisation, archaeological features, and archaeologist interpretations. Lefebvre’s framework [12] of perceived, designed, and lived spaces serves as a guideline for interpreting these elements of game content.

3.2. Cultural Content Interpretation

Our heritage interpretation approach, in which we create an interactive environment, meets heritage dissemination notions through educational engagement. Our design strategy incorporates immersing the user in the re-created virtual spatiality of archaeological sites. The proposed approach includes a framework for reconstructing and representing the site by highlighting its archaeological, architectural, and social aspects. As summarised in

Table 2. Cultural content interpretation framework and arkeOyun sample.

	Game Design Categories			arkeOyun
	Features	Structure	Integration
Spatial organisation	− spatial relations (streets; squares; residential complex; monuments)	− incorporation of realistic stimuli (e.g., textures, lighting) − physical interaction (site elements and features)	− reconstructing urban layout (with streets and squares) − presenting spatial dynamics interactively in the game. − structuring navigation and exploration tasks.	− digital reconstruction of the sample area − giving users unrestricted VR navigation − enable urban element interaction and exploration
Archaeological Features	− spatial artefacts/remains (architectural; archaeological)	− layered visual and auditory design (combining abstract and realistic representations) − formal design structure (derived from archaeological layouts)	− authentic reconstruction of artefacts − integrating features into gameplay as interactive elements (e.g., collection, placement)	− depiction with visual and auditory cues to enhance immersion (architectural remains) − providing interactive elements for discovering and analysing (cuneiform tablets)
Archaeologist Interpretations	− historical narratives − site interpretations − intangible heritage values	− design tasks that evoke historical context and facilitate critical engagement − representation of historical events through game missions − symbolic meanings and cultural significance	− embedding narratives in the game storyline − providing context through virtual guides and task prompts. − creating thematic challenges based on archaeological insights	− layers complete tasks based on historical narratives (e.g., locating a specific artefact or understanding urban layout) − virtual guides provide contextual storytelling to enrich the understanding of historical significance

, the cultural components are divided into three parts for relevant interpretations of in-game content. Following this framework, our cultural content interpretation strategy includes three categories. The first is spatial organisation, which is related to the spatiality of archaeological sites in a holistic presence. The second category is archaeological features, in which the physical aspects are evaluated, and the third is the cultural significance indicated by experts, which is categorised under archaeologist interpretations. Our approach includes the participation of experts actively working on the sample area to determine the elements evaluated under the third category. Each category is interpreted through three main steps guided by the gamifying strategy. The framework we developed includes sub-criteria for creating the game space that integrates real-life and virtual elements, as well as how to establish the game structure in this context.

The cultural contents categorised as spatial organisation, such as streets, squares, and residential complexes, are evaluated as the archaeological site’s spatial features (Figure 2). These historically significant components are integrated into gameplay using layered visual and auditory design, combining realistic stimuli with abstract representations. In addition, elements under the archaeological features category are presented interactively by incorporating authentic reconstruction principles, enabling players to collect and engage with historical artefacts meaningfully. Authentic reconstruction principles refer to reconstructing archaeological and historical sites or artefacts, aiming to preserve historical accuracy and cultural contexts by ensuring the reconstruction is as faithful to the original [27,56,57]. In parallel, intangible elements, categorised under archaeologist interpretations heading, such as urban dynamics and social interactions, are interpreted to deepen the cultural narrative. The game incorporates symbolic meanings, historical narratives, and site interpretations to enhance the player’s connection to the site. Through narrative-driven tasks and contextual exploration, players experience intangible cultural aspects, fostering a deeper appreciation of the heritage [58,59]. Our design approach prioritises cultural integrity and pedagogical goals, ensuring players engage with the archaeological site in an educational and culturally immersive manner. The game supports learning outcomes related to critical thinking, spatial analysis, and cultural awareness by integrating structured navigation, exploration tasks, and critical engagement game mechanics.

3.3. Spatial Design and Structure

3.3.1. Virtual Game Space Design

As an urban settlement, understanding the archaeological site’s architectural features—particularly the relationship between squares, streets, common areas, and rooms—can be challenging for visitors. Therefore, the interpretation of spatial functions through these features is critical. In studies conducted in real-world settings [60,61], virtual environments are employed to regulate spatial patterns within the simulation and provide a comprehensive record of user experiences. Based on this potential, a hypothetical virtual environment was developed to interpret the archaeological site’s spatial organisation.

The arkeOyun virtual game space consists of four streets, four squares, and twenty-one houses, categorised into five distinct housing types. The virtual environment incorporates visual and auditory stimuli to enhance user engagement and provide a multifaceted interpretative experience. The visual stimuli consist of two distinct layers: realistic and abstract representations. The realistic layer includes stone foundations, archaeological remains, and fragments of houses that form the core of spatial organisation, which are digitised versions of the archaeological site’s existing features. The abstract representation layer is generated by interpreting archaeological evidence; restitutive completions and vegetation are incorporated. In this layer, walls and floors are depicted as semi-transparent planes. Degraded colour differentiation in the floor coverings represents the distinction between open and closed and public and private spaces within the housing layout. For each different house typology—there are five in our case—we used colours defined through a tetradic colour scheme. Abstract representations of vegetation are characterised by distinct shapes for each street. Four different tree shapes correspond to the four streets, and additional vegetation is placed within open spaces, such as the courtyards of houses, squares, and streets (Figure 3).

3.3.2. Game Conditions and Rules

The arkeOyun virtual game is based on the MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics) framework that Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek [62] developed. Its primary goal is to promote the exploration of spatial organisation in archaeological sites and enhance players’ spatial knowledge acquisition. This design’s main motivation is facilitating player interaction with game content and improving their understanding of spatial elements. This section explains the rationale behind the game elements integrated into the design.

As a game mechanic, position awareness is incorporated, requiring players to recognise, understand, and learn about their environment [63]. This mechanic enhances the player’s comprehension of spatial organisation in archaeological heritage sites and supports the analysis of spatial relationships. Additionally, the game’s narrative integrates real-world references to deepen the player’s engagement with the game and establish a connection between the game content and reality [64,65]. Game dynamics are based on place awareness, which facilitates the interpretation of spatial and topological relationships [19]. These dynamics improve the readability of settlement plans in the virtual environment and enhance the understanding of spatial data [16,34]. Feedback on progress and level advancement, central aesthetic elements, play a critical role in enhancing player motivation [66]. These design elements stimulate the player’s sense of exploration and challenge, fostering a desire to engage with the game while raising awareness of content beyond the game [67,68,69].

Within this framework, the mail delivery narrative-driven game design—validated for real-world applicability in a previous study [70]—involves directing players to various addresses in the archaeological site. These tasks require players to understand their location and complete the assigned missions. The game instructions provide detailed information about the tasks and the locations, with cuneiform tablets representing archaeological finds and being placed in virtual environments. Players advance in the game based on the information provided in the task cards and achieve success at specific levels. We aim to improve the readability of the game space and incorporate triggers and stimuli to facilitate player engagement with the virtual environment. Accordingly, in arkeOyun, we implemented fundamental game elements such as mission-based progression, spatial tasks, and feedback cues. Although the advanced game mechanics, like cumulative achievement systems or scalable progression models, are not included, in the presented version, the primary focus is on exploratory navigation and interpretive interaction rather than competitive or reward-based engagement.

3.4. User Experience and Interaction

The designed virtual reality gaming experience is integrated with a head-mounted display. The home screen of the developed application consists of a logo, a progress bar, and three separate tabs: game controls, an introduction to the game, and information about the game. The game controls tab teaches users hand gestures such as movement, rotation, and recalling game objects. As Pittera et al. and Ariza et al. emphasise, this guidance is crucial for increasing user interaction in virtual reality environments [71,72]. The controls used throughout the game are defined as three different hand gestures (Figure 4). The game entry tab briefly summarises the game story and allows the game experience to begin with a loading screen. When the player clicks on the tab, they are immersed in the virtual game space. The game space is built on the player’s interaction with visual and auditory stimuli within the game space environment.

Enhancing the game with visual and auditory stimuli enables players to focus more within the virtual environment, facilitating fuller participation in the game [72,73,74]. Using visual and auditory stimuli in virtual reality environments accelerates users’ spatial learning processes and fosters a deep engagement with the game content [71]. In addition, interactive objects that provide haptic feedback can enhance the pedagogical impact of the game by positively contributing to users’ learning and exploration processes [73]. The haptic interaction, designed with this motivation, is based on objects. Throughout the game, these objects, designed as ‘cuneiform tablets’, are created to be searched for and found by the player in the surrounding environment and interacted with through tactile interaction.

In addition to these objects, the player is surrounded by visual stimuli related to objects, spatial elements, and vegetation, based on the shape and colour parameters detailed in the previous section. These visual stimuli are accompanied by auditory stimuli created with spatial sound effects that relate to the function of the current location, the user profile, and the intended use of the objects. Throughout the game experience, players are accompanied by a navigation aid that provides directions between their current location and the next task (Figure 4). The literature indicates that such aids improve players’ spatial awareness [75,76].

4. Methodology

Our study’s research design was carried out to explore a preliminary understanding of the potential use of arkeOyun to present and interpret archaeological heritage sites. The research was carried out in two phases: the design and implementation of arkeOyun, which was detailed in the previous section, and the process of its design presented step-by-step, followed by its initial evaluation through expert feedback. Based on its open-ended research objectives, multidisciplinary assessment framework, and emphasis on discovering interactional and interpretive potentials rather than testing technological components, the initial evaluation phase of our work characterises an exploratory study. Particularly in emerging technology environments where variables and frameworks are still developing in the literature on VR game applications in cultural heritage contexts [77,78], this framing aligns with exploratory research principles [79,80]. Our data collection strategy was twofold: collecting verbal feedback while experiencing the virtual reality game (arkeOyun) and post-experiment heuristic evaluations. This section details the experimental study, data collection, analysis, and correlations in sequence, followed by the presentation of the findings.

4.1. Participants and Experiment Design

The experimental approach employed in this study involves the participants engaging with the designed VR game. Seventeen participants (11 male, 6 female) who accepted verbal or written invitations participated in the experiment. The participants’ ages varied from 24 to 45 years (Mean = 31.47, SD = 5.80), and the years of experience in their respective industries ranged from 2 to 12 years (Mean = 6.41, SD = 2.62). The varied expertise areas highlight the study’s multidisciplinary approach, seeking to incorporate insights from architecture, game design, cultural heritage, human–computer interaction, and virtual reality to effectively address the research issues. Purposive sampling based on domain knowledge in cultural heritage, game design, and HCI helped to choose the participants. Furthermore, the participant pool was extended using professional references with a snowball sampling technique [81,82]. The noted gender discrepancy is admitted as a constraint of the research and was not deliberate.

All participants joined the experiments in a singular physical site (Erciyes University Dean of Research Building Office), where they received initial information on the experimental process. Before experiments, all participants were informed about the study objectives, the data collection process, and their right to withdraw at any time. Each participant signed an informed consent form in accordance with institutional ethical standards under the approval of the Erciyes University Ethics Committee. Participants were instructed to interact with the developed VR game (arkeOyun) with the Meta Quest Pro HMD [83] without any temporal limitations. During the experiment, participants were asked to articulate their experiences and orally express their thoughts, impressions, and interpretations in real time. After the game session, participants were asked to assess their experience using the provided scale. The average duration of each participant’s experiment was on average 26 min. The strategy for data collecting and analysis is outlined below.

4.2. Data Collection

We utilised a mixed-method approach [84], integrating qualitative and quantitative techniques to evaluate the usability and interpretative value of a virtual reality game designed for archaeological heritage interpretation. The data collection method relies on expert evaluations that provide verbal expressions, along with evaluation feedback obtained during and after the experiment. The qualitative data collection method is the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) protocol, while the quantitative method is the heuristic evaluation (HE) approach. These approaches are commonly employed for assessing game experience, as indicated by the relevant literature [85,86].

Ericsson describes the CTA technique as a dependable approach for real-time monitoring of cognitive processes by immediately recording participants’ opinions during task execution [87]. This method is a valuable instrument for reaching personal participants’ cognitive processes [88,89] and spotting usability problems and user experience difficulties [90]. This vital instrument depends on understanding the user’s perspective and assessing how well requirements and expectations are satisfied [91]. A step coding technique is used to evaluate the gathered CTA data. Nielsen defines heuristic assessment as an inspection utilising predefined principles and criteria that examine the ease of use given by the system to the user [92]. Heuristic assessment techniques are widely applied in human–computer interaction and game evaluation research [93,94].

After the game session, participants were invited to complete a heuristic evaluation questionnaire adapted from validated game usability frameworks proposed by Aker, Rızvanoğlu, and Bostan [93]. The questionnaire consisted of 14 items designed to assess key aspects of user experience, including interface clarity, responsiveness of feedback mechanisms, goal identification, control logic, and the integration of narrative elements. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement.

4.3. Data Analyses

Three connected phases combining quantitative and qualitative approaches were defined in the data analysis process. The qualitative data collected from the CTA protocol was analysed through thematic coding (first phase). The initial coding process was conducted by two researchers independently using NVivo 15 qualitative analysis software [95]. Manually coded as either positive or negative sentiments, participant expressions were evaluated under 10 pre-defined themes reflecting key components of the user experience. Semantic coherence and functional relevance helped each topic to be broken down into more particular sub-themes. For every theme, frequencies and sentiment ratios—positive/negative—were identified to support the interpretive study. To enhance reliability and transparency, Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [96] was calculated (κ = 0.72), indicating substantial agreement between coders.

Second, descriptive statistics—including measures of central tendency (mean, median) and variability (standard deviation)—were applied to the quantitative data collected via the heuristic evaluation questionnaire. Apart from evaluating item-level assessments, the study concentrated on spotting trends of user evaluation over the 14 heuristic dimensions. Participants’ domain-specific expertise—cultural heritage (CH), game design (GD), human–computer interaction (HCI), and immersive technology (VR)—then allowed responses to be broken out to investigate how disciplinary viewpoints affected usability assessments. This comparison perspective helped to clarify how professional background influenced evaluation criteria and focal areas.

A mixed-methods cross-analysis was performed to investigate the degree of convergence and divergence between the heuristic assessment and the CTA technique. The aim was to link the CTA analysis’s theme framework with the functional categories of the heuristics, thereby triangulating expert judgments across several approaches. This integrated method may identify areas of disagreement (e.g., task diversity, onboarding support) and consistent insights (e.g., interface simplicity, feedback clarity), thereby providing a comprehensive knowledge of the usability of the systems. Utilising both systematic evaluation and experience input, the alignment of these results also offers a domain-informed direction for enhancing virtual heritage game design.

5. Results

5.1. Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocol Evaluation

This study examined verbal expressions captured during the experiment to understand participants’ cognitive processes and decision-making techniques. We examined players’ cognitive participation and challenges through transcribed verbal data collected via CTA, thematically classified it into ten predefined categories, and coded it sentimentally (positive and negative). Each user expression aspect was individually coded as positive (satisfaction, clarity, or ease of use) or negative (conflict, difficulty, or unsatisfaction) and evaluated via themes (shown in

Table A1. Concurrent think-aloud protocol analyses.

Theme	Sub-Theme	PC	NC	TC	PF (%)	NF (%)
Control Usability		26	29	55	47.27	52.73
	Control Ease/Difficulty	12	15	27	44.44	55.56
	Perceivability/Comprehensibility	4	6	10	40.00	60.00
	Feedback System	5	5	10	50.00	50.00
	Overall Flow and Fluidity	3	2	5	60.00	40.00
	Consistency	2	1	3	66.67	33.33
Game Progression		11	12	23	47.83	52,17
	Narrative and Engagement	6	4	10	60.00	40.00
	Progression Mechanics	5	8	13	38.46	61.54
Haptic Feedback		2	6	8	25.00	75.00
Navigation		19	44	63	30.16	69.84
	Guidance	8	24	32	25.00	75.00
	Clarity	2	11	13	15.38	84.62
	Feedback and Confirmation	4	3	7	57.14	42.86
	Flow & Ease	5	1	6	83.33	16.67
	Challenge and Cognitive Load	0	5	5	0.00	100.00
Overall Engagement in the VR Environment		39	38	77	50.65	49.35
	Emotional Engagement	11	30	41	26.83	73.17
	Presence and Immersion	28	8	36	77.78	22.22
Physical Comfort and Motion		8	11	19	42.11	57.89
	Physical and Spatial Comfort	4	7	11	36.36	63.64
	Motion Fluidity and Visual Transitions	4	4	8	50.00	50.00
Spatial Movement and Orientation		18	23	41	43.90	56.10
	Directional Clarity and Wayfinding	9	14	23	39.13	60.87
	Spatial Cues and Environmental Differentiation	9	9	18	50.00	50.00
Stimuli		37	37	74	50.00	50.00
	Auditory Cues and Sound Design	11	10	21	52.38	47.62
	Multisensory Atmosphere	7	3	10	70.00	30.00
	Visual Cues and Lighting Stimuli	19	24	43	44.19	55.81
Task Completion		13	8	21	61.90	38.10
User Interface Design		25	46	71	35.21	64.79
	Informative Content and Progress Indicators	8	24	32	25.00	75.00
	Overall Interface Design	17	22	39	43.59	56.41

Abbreviations: PC = positive sentiment expression count; NC = negative sentiment expression count; TC = total expression count; PF = positive sentiment frequence; NF = negative sentiment frequence.

).

Emphasising the need for responsive and instructive interaction design, the control usability theme (expression count (C) = 55, 59.38% negative) revealed problems with control mechanisms (C = 27, 55.56% negative), the unclear interface, and the lack of visual clues (C = 10, 60% negative). Participants were split equally on game advancement, with 52.17% negative and 47.83% positive responses (C = 23). Because of repeated game tasks and flow, participants hated the advancement mechanics (C = 13, 61.54% negative). Another important input indicating wayfinding problems was the navigation theme (C = 63, 69,84% negative). The most often mentioned sub-theme was game environment direction (C= 36, 83.33% negative). Participants found it challenging to follow in-game navigational cues and locate reference points, suggesting the need for better visual or aural direction systems. On the other hand, the favourable evaluations reveal that gaming environment familiarity eases navigation and determines navigation flow and ease (C = 7, 71.43% positive). While the participants complimented game navigation, overall remarks demanded improved navigational cues and environmental clarity.

Under the theme of overall VR engagement, participant reflections on emotional and cognitive experiences are coded (C = 77, 50.65% positive, 49.35% negative), which indicated that the lack of narrative depth, emotional payoff, connectivity to the storyline, and backstory affected their emotional engagement (C = 41, 73.17% negative). Conversely, the study revealed that participants’ virtual presence (C = 36, 77.78% positive) with the provided sensory feedback and flexibility of movement enhanced the immersive experience, and participants considered the surroundings interesting. Physical comfort and motion theme includes (C = 19, 57.89% negative) participants’ comments on camera movements, motion control insensitivity, and inconsistent visual input (C = 11, 63.64% negative). Still, the data reveal fluid movement dynamics that, with modification, enhanced immersion. The spatial movement and orientation theme, including codes on navigating and comprehension of the virtual environment, produced balanced findings (C = 41, 43.90% positive, 56.10% negative). Participants valued historical interpretation (C = 18, 50% favourable) and reported trouble differentiating identical architectural features. Although free movement, movement diversity, and depth/distance estimation were assessed as limited, spatial scale balancing and teleportation smoothness were deemed to be good (C = 23, 60.87% negative).

Stimulus theme (C = 75, 50% negative/positive) codes sound, light, and multisensory integration, which influence VR participants’ navigation, task awareness, and emotional immersion. While lack of interaction input lowered clarity and continuity (C = 21, 52.28% positive), sound design enhanced spatial perception. Participants appreciated visual cues like contrast, architectural illumination, and glow effects. The visual element design was considered repetitious, vague, or inadequate for interaction (C = 43, 55.81% negative). With complementary visual and aural stimulation, the game space is considered a holistic environment (C = 10, 70% positive). With an overall game task completion score of C = 21, 61.9% positive, clear, well-structured tasks, game advancement, and location-based instruction immersion benefits were shown. Content clarity, counsel, and visual presentation feedback (C = 71, 64.79% negative) formed the focus of the user interface design topic. Unfavourably evaluated aspects included the lack of visible or aural job completion outputs, insufficient task progress indications, and the absence of historical information display (C = 32, 75% unfavourable). Participants repeatedly recommended including interactive explanations, informational panels, maps or compass tools, and large-scale teaching aids. Despite text legibility and lack of aid systems (C = 39, 56.41% negative), the interface design was judged positively for its simplicity, graphic design, and colour schemes.

The frequent negative comments on control usability point to the requirement of context-sensitive support and varying difficulty levels to enhance interaction. Although participants assessed the technical and spatial features of the VR environment favourably, emotional involvement and narrative satisfaction were not attained; thus, there was a need to include more complex storytelling elements to improve the emotional connection. The results of the navigation challenges point to the requirement for more visual and auditory cues to assist orientation. Although sensory components—visual and auditory as well as visual—were assessed favourably, the need for improvements in multimodal cues to maximise engagement is discussed. Although unfavourable comments addressed the problems of end-of-task feedback and repetitiveness, overall task completion was seen as simple and well-structured. Finally, even while the simple design of the interface was praised, task tracking and educational materials were advised to be more easily available.

5.2. Heuristic Evaluation

Participants’ heuristic evaluations indicated that the clear goals (Q.8: M = 4.70, SD = 0.47) and the identifying score/status and goal (Q.6: M = 4.82, SD = 0.39) are the most significant components of the game. These features were assessed as substantial contributors to the engagement and motivation during the gameplay. Participants, experts in the CH area, highlighted the significance of these features in effectively communicating cultural values. Furthermore, participants expertise in HCI emphasised the critical role of these features in improving user experience.

The results of standard conventions and natural mapping for controls (Q.7: M = 4.70, SD = 0.47) demonstrated a significant appreciation for the game’s intuitive control mechanisms. The feature encountered positive feedback from participants with expertise in HCI for its alignment with user expectations and facilitation of seamless interaction. The game’s ability to provide immediate feedback (Q.2: M = 4.35, SD = 0.49) was identified as another positive feature. This feature was assessed as a significant contributor to user engagement and satisfaction. The storytelling element (Q.14: M = 4.00, SD = 0.68) received positive feedback, with participants with expertise in CH highlighting its educational potential. Participants with expertise in GD suggested a more integrated narrative and gameplay to improve the overall experience. In addition, the persistent and immersive game world (Q.12: M = 4.35, SD = 0.49) was another strength. Participants returned positive evaluations on this feature and assessed its contribution to immersing players in the game environment as engaging. The balance of challenge, strategy, and pace (Q.10: M = 2.94, SD = 0.77) did not meet participant expectations. Similarly, the reward system (Q.9: M = 2.06, SD = 0.24) and tutorials or adjustable difficulty levels (Q.5: M = 2.23, SD = 0.75) were identified as features needing enhancement. Participants observed that the reward system was deficient in motivational components and failed to sufficiently acknowledge player effort or skill advancement. The heuristic evaluation results demonstrate that the game possesses favourable attributes, including intuitive controls, clear objectives, and an immersive design. Conversely, enhancements are necessary in reward systems, tutorial design, and task diversity (see

Table A2. Heuristic evaluation analysis.

Question	Mean (±Std)	Median	Positive (%) [4,5]	Negative (%) [1,2,3]	Participant Commentary	General Assessment	Expertise Area Correlation
Q1. Support of a variety of game styles	2.88 ± 0.90	3	35.29%	64.71%	Limited variety in gameplay styles; room for diversification.	A broader range of play styles should be included to cater to diverse preferences.	CH experts appreciated its cultural flexibility (M: 3.1), while GD experts found it restrictive (M: 2.5).
Q2. Game provides immediate feedback	4.35 ± 0.49	4	94.12%	5.88%	Strong feedback mechanisms; highly appreciated.	Immediate feedback was a standout feature for players.	HCI experts emphasised its usability benefits (M: 4.7).
Q3. Context-sensitive help	3.76 ± 0.83	4	76.47%	23.53%	Adequate, but some room for improvement in providing relevant support.	Could better anticipate player needs in real-time.	Feedback was consistent across groups; VR experts valued its immersion benefits (M: 4.0).
Q4. Non-intrusive interface	4.18 ± 0.66	4	88.24%	11.76%	Intuitive design well-received by participants.	Simplified UI allows players to focus on gameplay.	AD experts found it visually appealing (M: 4.5), while GD experts sought minor improvements (M: 4.0).
Q5. Quick involvement with tutorials and/or progressive or adjustable difficulty levels	2.23 ± 0.75	2	17.65%	82.35%	Onboarding process and difficulty adjustments need substantial improvement.	Many participants felt the game lacked intuitive onboarding.	CH experts struggled with the tutorial design (M: 2.0), whereas HCI experts suggested clearer difficulty indicators (M: 2.5).
Q6. Always being able to identify score/status and goal	4.82 ± 0.39	5	100.00%	0.00%	A key strength; all participants found this feature extremely effective.	The system is clear and helps players stay engaged.	Consistent high ratings across all areas.
Q7. Standard conventions and natural mapping for controls	4.70 ± 0.47	5	94.12%	5.88%	Participants strongly appreciated the control mechanisms.	The control system aligns well with player expectations.	HCI experts rated this aspect the highest (M: 4.9).
Q8. Clear goals	4.70 ± 0.47	5	94.12%	5.88%	Goal clarity was universally praised.	Participants felt the goals were well-defined and motivational.	CH experts highlighted the link between goals and heritage interpretation (M: 4.8).
Q9. Appropriate rewards for effort and skill development	2.06 ± 0.24	2	5.88%	94.12%	Participants found the reward system inadequate and unmotivating.	Revamping the reward system is crucial for engagement.	GD experts found this feature most lacking (Mean: 1.8), while HCI experts suggested alignment with progression (M: 2.3).
Q10. Challenge, strategy, and pace are in balance	2.94 ± 0.77	3	29.41%	70.59%	Game challenges and pacing require better alignment with player expectations.	Challenge levels should adapt more dynamically to user skill.	GD experts identified strategy imbalances (M: 2.7), while VR experts noted pacing issues (M: 2.8).
Q11. Fun gaming, without repetitive or boring tasks	2.53 ± 0.62	2	11.76%	88.24%	Repetitive tasks detracted significantly from the gaming experience.	More diverse and engaging tasks would improve enjoyment.	GD experts rated it the lowest (M: 2.2), indicating a need for creative diversity.
Q12. Persistent game world	4.35 ± 0.49	4	94.12%	5.88%	Persistent and immersive world design was highly valued.	The game world provides a strong foundation for engagement.	VR experts particularly valued the immersion aspect (M: 4.8).
Q13. Feeling in control	4.41 ± 0.51	4	94.12%	5.88%	Players felt confident and in control of their gameplay experience.	Effective control mechanisms enhance user confidence.	HCI experts emphasised this aspect’s importance (M: 4.6).
Q14. The game story supports the gameplay and is meaningful	4.00 ± 0.68	4	82.35%	17.65%	Narrative integration is strong, though further refinement is possible.	The story connects well with gameplay, enhancing engagement.	CH experts highlighted the educational potential (M: 4.2), while GD experts suggested deeper integration (M: 3.8).

Abbreviations. CH-A: Archaeology; CH-C: Cultural Heritage Studies; CH-I: Interpretation and Preservation; GD-M: Mechanics Design; GD-N: Narrative Design; GD-D: Digital Game Production; VR-I: Immersive Technologies; HCI-U: Usability Studies; HCI-I: Interaction Design; AD-U: Urban Planning; AD-S: Architectural Design; AD-A: Architectural Visualisation.

).

5.3. Correlation Evaluation

Evaluating correlations offers a comparison between the HE and the CTA. The aim is to find overlapping and different evaluations among fundamental subjects. Relating the HE questions with pertinent themes helped one to evaluate them. The task completion theme obtained good scores on HE for goal clarity and progress indicators (Q6, Q8), which matched the CTA data with a 61.9% positive sentiment. Concurrently, the stimulus theme was favourably assessed for matching user feedback and immersive utilisation of sensory signals (Q2, Q12). While HE results show the control intrusiveness and immediate feedback (Q2, Q7, Q13), CTA data suggested a more critical user perspective (52.73% negative), especially regarding feedback mechanism responsiveness. The control usability theme reflected partial accordance. This difference is reinforced by the HE rating for tutorial and difficulty adaptation (Q5).

The variances surfaced in areas including user interface design and navigation. CTA showed negative results (64.79%) despite strong HE scores for goal identification (Q4, Q6) and interface clarity. Parallel with HE results, CTA data show notable challenges in wayfinding and direction (69.84% negative). Likewise, although the CTA response revealed a lack of emotional connection and narrative depth, especially under the sub-theme of emotional engagement (73.17% unfavourable), the overall engagement theme was positively rated in terms of presence (Q12). The user interface design exposed agreement on visual simplicity (Q4) but differences in usability support. While CTA results (64.79% negative) concentrated issues relating to task guidance, historical information delivery, and interactive clarity, heuristic items identified the lack of assistive systems (Q5, Q9). Finally, the heuristic approach did not specifically evaluate haptic feedback and physical comfort and motion, which received essentially negative results in CTA (75% and 57.89%, respectively). These gaps highlight the need to extend professional evaluation instruments to include embodied and ergonomic features of virtual reality interaction.

The correlation evaluation shows significant incompatibilities in navigation, emotional depth, physical ergonomics, and contextual feedback while highlighting excellent agreement in key usability constructs—such as task organisation, objective clarity, and sensory immersion. These results suggest combining HE and CTA approaches to reach a more complete evaluation of user experience (

Table 3. Concurrent think-aloud and heuristic evaluation results in correlation.

	CTA		HE				Correlation Evaluation
Theme	P (%)	N (%)	I	(Mean ± Std)	P (%)	N (%)
Control Usability	47.27	52.73	Q2	4.35 ± 0.49	94.12	5.88	Controls and feedback are positively rated on HE and aligned with difficulty observations obtained from CTA. HE results indicate a focus on feedback issues.
			Q3	3.76 ± 0.83	76.47	23.53
			Q5	2.23 ± 0.75	17.65	82.35
			Q7	4.70 ± 0.47	94.12	5.88
Game Progression	47.83	52.17	Q1	2.88 ± 0.90	35.29	64.71	HE results indicate that the narrative is meaningful and needs more integration in which narrative, reward, and variety-related questions match CTA results.
			Q5	2.23 ± 0.75	17.65	82.35
			Q9	2.06 ± 0.24	5.88	94.12
			Q11	2.53 ± 0.62	11.76	88.24
Haptic Feedback	25.0	75.0	Not directly measured				Tactile feedback is not part of HE results, but lack of tactile response is noted strongly in CTA.
Navigation	30.16	69.84	Q4	4.18 ± 0.66	88.24	11.76	Interface clarity and spatial cues were strong according to HE but CTA reveals guidance problems.
			Q6	4.82 ± 0.39	100.00	0.00
			Q10	2.94 ± 0.77	29.41	70.59
			Q11	2.53 ± 0.62	11.76	88.24
Overall Engagement	50.65	49.35	Q1	2.88 ± 0.90	35.29	64.71	Engagement and immersion appear in both HE (Q12, Q14) and CTA, although in CTA, emotional gaps are an issue.
			Q12	4.35 ± 0.49	94.12	5.88
			Q14	4.00 ± 0.68	82.35	17.65
Physical Comfort and Motion	42.11	57.89	Not directly measured				Physical discomfort was mentioned in CTA, but HE did not include assessments of ergonomics or motion sickness.
Spatial Movement and Orientation	43.9	56.1	Q10	2.94 ± 0.77	29.41	70.59	HE results show an imbalance in the challenge, spatial clarity, and task variety and overlapping with CTA results reporting spatial confusion.
			Q11	2.53 ± 0.62	11.76	88.24
Stimuli	50.0	50.0	Q2	4.35 ± 0.49	94.12	5.88	HE sound and visual assessments resulted in positive CTA results with stimulus clarity aligned with feedback and immersion, but need for better multimodal interaction was mentioned.
			Q12	4.35 ± 0.49	94.12	5.88
Task Completion	61.9	38.1	Q6	4.82 ± 0.39	100.00	0.00	HE results with positives on clear goals and task awareness; CTA confirming well-structured tasks in parallel.
			Q8	4.70 ± 0.47	94.12	5.88
User Interface Design	35.21	64.79	Q3	3.76 ± 0.83	76.47	23.53	Interface clarity and spatial cues were strong according to HE but CTA reveals guidance problems.
			Q4	4.18 ± 0.66	88.24	11.76
			Q5	2.23 ± 0.75	17.65	82.35
			Q6	4.82 ± 0.39	100.00	0.00

Abbreviations: CTA = Concurrent think-aloud; HE = Heuristic evaluation; P = Positive; N = Negative; Std = Standard deviation; I = Indicator; Q = Question.

).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This exploratory study aimed to investigate the interpretive possibilities of a virtual reality game involving users with an archaeological heritage site, utilising a dual-method evaluation combining HE analysis with CTA. The design of arkeOyun was guided by the intention to interpret archaeological content into an interactive and spatially immersive experience. Results from both the CTA evaluation and HE methods revealed critical insights into the game’s interpretive capabilities.

The findings of this exploratory study demonstrate that specific design elements effectively improve user engagement in virtual reality heritage games. The arkeOyun VR game, developed as a strategy for analysing archaeological heritage sites to enhance user involvement, shows that clear task structuring, intuitive navigation, and spatial coherence significantly impact users’ heritage experience. The findings suggest that the heritage interpretation strategies emphasising spatial freedom, visual clarity, and task structure were the primary advantages of arkeOyun. Participants assessed their overall experience of the gamified virtual archaeological site as an immersive medium, highlighting the simpleness of navigation and the consistent spatial organisation (CTA PF: 61.9%; HE Q6–Q8: M > 4.70) as effective. The aforementioned results align with the earlier research, highlighting the importance of immersive spatial design and navigational freedom in enabling cognitive mapping and engagement in virtual reality [97,98,99]. This structured and goal-oriented spatial interpretation strategy caused users to feel in control and be able to move confidently through a planned virtual medium. In this respect, findings confirm the assumption that the design strategy we implemented in arkeOyun, based on Lefebvre’s concept of perceived space [12], can be effective in (re)presenting the spatial organisation of heritage areas. These features of our prototype enabled smooth navigation and meaningful engagement with the archaeological settings, which can be interpreted as design elements contributing to positive user interaction on archaeological heritage sites through VR gaming (RQ.1). These findings further underline the need for multimodal interaction for the interpretation of archaeological heritage. Although spatial cues and visual navigation were highly appreciated, participants’ remarks point to layers such as sound, tactile feedback, and narrative audio that can improve the experience of presence and meaning making inside the environment. This is consistent with earlier studies indicating that multimodal design components can boost immersion, emotional connection, and interpretive clarity in VR legacy applications [2,7,8,58,72]. Similar advantages in immersive cultural experiences have been shown by exploratory works [1,3,4] combining sensory modalities and narrative frameworks.

Interpreting cultural heritage through virtual mediums entails not only accurately representing physical spaces but also mediating meaning, narrative, and context to impact visitors’ understanding [100,101,102,103]. Drawing on prior studies in digital heritage and spatial theory concepts [12,100], this study deals with interpretation challenges via a three-dimensional conceptual framework combining symbolic affordances, spatial authenticity, and narrative engagement. This conceptual framework directly formed the design strategy of arkeOyun; thus, a digitally recreated method of the sample area is based on archaeological interpretations and results in order to maintain spatial and architectural integrity. User-centred interaction flows were also integrated to facilitate situated learning and exploration. Aiming first to test spatial orientation and usability, this phase of our prototype deliberately includes limited narrative elements and cultural symbolism. The results of this study reveal a clear difference between representation and interpretation (RQ.2). While participants complimented the virtual setting’s spatial coherence and authenticity, many noted a lack of emotional engagement, symbolic context, and historical narration (CTA-Informative information-:PF = 25%; HE:(Q5, Q9) < 2.23). These findings show that spatial logic is present, but lived experience and cultural meaning are not sufficiently developed. This can be explained by emphasising the role of symbolic and emotional engagement beyond mental representations alone [19,21], which Lefebvre pointed out with the concept of lived space [12]. Participant comments highlighting the sensation of a virtual reality simulation instead of a significant cultural occasion in the lack of embedded stories or guiding narratives further support this inference. The lack of such elements in the present iteration of arkeOyun reduced its interpretative performance. To transcend spatial representation toward meaningful interpretation, future development should thus prioritise narrative integration, symbolic layering, and multimodal storytelling strategies (e.g., voiceover guides, culturally embedded characters, and ritual experiences).

While playability describes enjoyment, engagement, and narrative flow [44,104,105], usability in the context of game and cultural heritage applications relates to the ease of user interaction with the components of the system. The embodied and immersive nature of the interaction results in these dimensions being firmly entwined throughout the VR medium. As the arkeOyun evaluation results showed a strong performance in interface clarity (Q6: M = 4.71), visual organisation (Q7: M = 4.76), and ease of navigation (Q8: M = 4.70), this indicates that the game’s mechanics and design were generally well appreciated. The results of the CTA evaluations strengthened this even more since positive sentiments were concentrated on task comprehension (PF = 18.6%) and spatial orientation (PF = 22.3%). These findings indicate that arkeOyun’s current version efficiently supports usability fundamentally (RQ.3). Still, areas requiring development are emotional engagement (CTA PF = 11.3%; HE Q14: M = 3.35), game flow (CTA PF = 9.4%; HE Q: M = 3.35), and feedback responsiveness (CTA PF = 12.1%; HE Q12: M = 3.47). Participants highlighted that the game lacked a dynamic rhythm and significant interaction cues, such as auditory effects or tactile responses, that help maintain motivation and engagement (RQ.3). These issues align with the research stressing the need for effective feedback and narrative pace in preserving immersion in virtual reality games [97,106,107].

The overall findings of our study reveal that future applications relating to VR game medium interpreting heritage should prioritise a more integrated design approach, blending accurate abstraction on spatial representation with narrative-driven tasks, symbolic artefacts, and effective feedback systems. Enhancing game flow, incorporating multimodal interaction, and enabling personalised progression could substantially increase interpretive depth and user engagement. The divergence between representation and interpretation, validated with this research, reveals the importance of balancing technical functionality with narrative and symbolic meaning in virtual heritage design.

Our study is limited by its single case focus and participant pool, and yet it offers a foundational framework for following development and testing. From a research perspective, expanding the participant pool, implementing longitudinal usage tracking, and contrasting interpretative impact across numerous user profiles could help to offer broader insights into how virtual games support cultural heritage interpretation. Additionally, the gender distribution among participants is acknowledged as a limitation that may influence interpretive perspectives. While arkeOyun includes basic game elements such as mission-based tasks and spatial navigation, advanced mechanics like varied achievement rewards and dynamic task branching are not implemented. The lack of these systems is another limitation of the current version of arkeOyun. This absence limits the game’s potential to go beyond interpretive interaction toward a fully gamified experience. Although foundational mechanics for interaction are present, sustaining long-term engagement in immersive environments requires more robust game structures. These features are planned for future phases of development, as they are essential for achieving the objective of our game design. Our exploratory study prioritised spatial representation and user interaction, and we did not integrate advanced multimodal technologies, including AI-driven narratives, location-based auditory signals, or speech recognition. This absence may lessen the possibility of encouraging more intense emotional and symbolic involvement. In future phases of arkeOyun, such technologies will be considered, as they positively affect users’ cognitive participation and emotional resonance, particularly important in negotiating symbolic and narrative-rich interpretations of heritage.

The findings of our study are exploratory and preliminary in nature. Thus, this paper provides initial insights rather than definitive responses. Future studies aiming at assessing the potential of VR games as a heritage interpretation approach should also take into account long-term and short-term user testing of non-expert audiences, the implementation of advanced game mechanics, and multi-modal technologies.