Do Vision Language Models Understand Human Engagement in Games?

arXiv:2603.18480v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Inferring human engagement from gameplay video is important for game design and player-experience research, yet it remains unclear whether vision--language models (VLMs) can infer such latent psychological states from visual cues alone. Using the GameVibe Few-Shot dataset across nine first-person shooter games, we evaluate three VLMs under six prompting strategies, including zero-shot prediction, theory-guided prompts grounded in Flow, GameFlow, Self-Determination Theory, and MDA, and retrieval-augmented prompting. We consider both pointwise engagement prediction and pairwise prediction of engagement change between consecutive windows. Results show that zero-shot VLM predictions are generally weak and often fail to outperform simple per-game majority-class baselines. Memory- or retrieval-augmented prompting improves pointwise prediction in some settings, whereas pairwise prediction remains consistently difficult across strategies. Theory-guided prompting alone does not reliably help and can instead reinforce surface-level shortcuts. These findings suggest a perception--understanding gap in current VLMs: although they can recognize visible gameplay cues, they still struggle to robustly infer human engagement across games.

Title:Do Vision Language Models Understand Human Engagement in Games?

Abstract:Inferring human engagement from gameplay video is important for game design and player-experience research, yet it remains unclear whether vision--language models (VLMs) can infer such latent psychological states from visual cues alone. Using the GameVibe Few-Shot dataset across nine first-person shooter games, we evaluate three VLMs under six prompting strategies, including zero-shot prediction, theory-guided prompts grounded in Flow, GameFlow, Self-Determination Theory, and MDA, and retrieval-augmented prompting. We consider both pointwise engagement prediction and pairwise prediction of engagement change between consecutive windows. Results show that zero-shot VLM predictions are generally weak and often fail to outperform simple per-game majority-class baselines. Memory- or retrieval-augmented prompting improves pointwise prediction in some settings, whereas pairwise prediction remains consistently difficult across strategies. Theory-guided prompting alone does not reliably help and can instead reinforce surface-level shortcuts. These findings suggest a perception--understanding gap in current VLMs: although they can recognize visible gameplay cues, they still struggle to robustly infer human engagement across games.

EMNLP 2026 Oral (2.6% acceptance)

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2603.18480 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2603.18480v2 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.18480 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Do Vision Language Models Understand Human Engagement in Games?

Related coverage