Game Navigation Aids: Finding the Route After Help Ends

Reaching a destination leaves another question

Game navigation aids can show a player where to go while leaving open what they could do after the guidance disappears. Imagine an invented harbor game where a bright line leads from the dock to an archive. Following it delivers a parcel. Finding the archive again from the market is another task.

That second task changes the starting point. A player could remember the turn beside a red shed yet have trouble recognizing the archive from its other entrance. Before discussing whether guidance teaches a route, identify what the later journey will ask the player to do.

One experiment tested three kinds of guidance

Johanson and colleagues' 2023 paper reports 80 participants for an experiment's training and transfer analyses, and 70 for retention. Four days of training compared no aid, a visible trail and movement along a preset route while holding a key.

A line on the ground leaves steering with the player. Guided movement can leave them free to look around while the system follows the route. In the fictional harbor, those designs would offer different opportunities to notice the red shed or inspect the archive entrance. Finishing the delivery alone would not establish what either player noticed.

New starting points changed the comparison

Both assisted groups took less time and travelled less during training. On new routes without assistance the following day, both assisted-training groups were significantly slower and travelled farther than the group trained without aids.

For the harbor example, preserve the market starting point when comparing attempts. If a tester walks back toward the dock before heading to the archive, record that choice. It could reflect a route they recognize from the delivery. Reaching the right building after that detour supplies a different observation from immediately choosing a short path.

The later test reused familiar routes

A week later, trained routes were repeated unaided. Completion time did not differ significantly. Distance was significantly shorter for unassisted training than for guided movement.

Time and distance deserve their own entries in a test record. One harbor visitor might stop at every junction and then walk directly to the archive. Another could move continuously through a long detour. A similar arrival time could conceal those different journeys. A failed statistical comparison of time cannot establish that their routes or experiences were identical.

Keep the study's reporting limits visible

Reported group counts disagree by one person. Dropouts occurred. One older map and participants' own computers were used.

The harbor would need its own evaluation. Distinctive buildings, a different camera or changing destinations could alter the task. So could the reason for exploring: someone hunting for a collectible may deliberately leave the indicated route. Record the destination they were trying to reach before treating extra distance as a navigation error.

Choose the journey that needs support

A proposed harbor test could begin with a delivery from the dock and later ask for the archive from the market. Another could repeat the dock route after a delay. Keep those questions separate when planning which locations to show and which attempts to record. Count time spent viewing guidance alongside time spent moving.

Use a player's route and explanation to select the next change. Perhaps they recognize the archive but cannot locate the passage from the market. That gives a designer a specific junction to inspect. This is an original test proposal. The manuscript and dissertation record below trace the same research program, with the public discussion focused on its second experiment.

Keep exploring

FOLLOW THE SOURCE

Sources & further reading

Have a correction? Tell our editorial team.

✦ NICE. YOU LEARNED SOMETHING.