# Project Beyond: An Escape Room Game in Virtual Reality to Teach Building
Energy Simulations
††thanks: This work was supported by a grant from the Austrian Research
Promotion Agency (FFG) program Stadt der Zukunft, project number FO999887002.

Georg Arbesser-Rastburg1, Saeed Safikhani2, Matej Gustin3, Christina Hopfe4,
Gerald Schweiger5
Johanna Pirker  Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ludwig-Maximilians-
Universität München Munich, Germany
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

In recent years, Virtual Reality (VR) has found its way into different fields
besides pure entertainment. One of the topics that can benefit from the
immersive experience of VR is education. Furthermore, using game-based
approaches in education can increase user motivation and engagement.
Accordingly, in this paper, we designed and developed an immersive escape room
game in VR to teach building energy simulation topics. In the game, players
must solve puzzles like, for instance, assembling walls using different
materials. We use a player guidance system that combines educational content,
puzzles, and different types of hints to educate the players about parameters
that influence energy efficiency, structural resistance, and costs. To improve
user onboarding, we implemented a tutorial level to teach players general
interactions and locomotion.

To assess the user experience, we evaluate both the tutorial and the game with
an expert study with gaming and VR experts (n=11). The participants were asked
to play both the tutorial level and the escape room level and complete two
sets of post-questionnaires, one after the tutorial and one after the puzzle
level. The one after the tutorial level consisted of NASA-TLX and SUS
questionnaires, while after the escape room level we asked users to complete
the NASA-TLX, UESSF, and PXI questionnaires. The results indicate that the
onboarding level successfully provided good usability while maintaining a low
task load. On the other hand, the escape room level can provide an engaging,
visually appealing, and usable learning environment by arousing players’
curiosity through the gameplay. This environment can be extended in future
development stages with different educational contents from various fields.

###### Index Terms:

Virtual Reality, Escape Room, Gamification, Educational Game

††publicationid: pubid:  979-8-3503-5067-8/24/$31.00 ©2024 IEEE

##  I Introduction

Figure 1: An overview of the escape room in Project Beyond.

In recent years, an ever-growing interest in interactive, student-centered
approaches that shift from the classical paradigm of teacher-centered
education could be observed. Students now have different expectations
regarding educational methods, preferring to learn actively with an approach
that is based on making experiences rather than listening passively, after
having grown up in an ever more digital world [1].

Combining games with educational content is one way of meeting this demand for
interactivity. This is done to increase the learner’s engagement and
motivation by evoking emotions like enjoyment or accomplishment during
gameplay [2]. Such games are often called serious games. A serious game is a
game that not only aims to entertain the players but also tries to fulfill an
additional goal, such as educating them[3].

Numerous approaches to serious gaming have been taken in the past, for
instance, for medical training or architecture education. Studies have shown
that serious games for educational purposes positively influence user
engagement and cognitive abilities while helping the players keep a positive
attitude [4].

Escape room games are one possible approach to educational games. In an escape
room game, players must solve puzzles or complete tasks to reach a specific
goal, such as escaping the room where the game takes place within a specified
time limit [5]. Typically, this is a team-based activity where players
collaborate to find clues and solve puzzles.

While most escape rooms serve recreational purposes, they have also been
applied as a teaching tool in different fields, for instance, mathematics [6,
7], healthcare [8, 9], computer science [10, 11] or chemistry [12, 13],
allowing students to explore a specific topic interactively. In an educational
context, escape rooms are used to foster team collaboration, critical
thinking, and creativity and to create quasi-realistic scenarios while
providing fun to the players [14].

However, classical educational escape rooms have several limitations in
practice, as they require a (class-)room that has to be specifically prepared
for the escape room experience, which also leads to the need for a sufficient
budget and personnel [15]. Hence, a number of digital escape room games have
been developed to mitigate these issues. As previous studies have shown,
digital escape rooms can be a viable option to help students understand
scientific content [16, 17] while increasing their feeling of autonomy and
creativity [18].

A particular type of digital escape room uses virtual reality (VR) to immerse
players in the experience using Head Mounted Displays (HMD). In recent years,
VR devices have been used for various applications, from classic entertainment
and various industrial applications [19] to different educational approaches
[20]. In general, using VR for educational purposes has several advantages,
for instance, when training scenarios that are hard to replicate in the real
world or that are potentially dangerous. In addition, using VR with HMDs can
lead to increased motivation [21]. One niche in VR education is the
aforementioned use of digital escape room games. A few examples of such games
can be found in the literature.

In [22] an escape room game in VR is described that consists of mathematical,
pattern recognition, and combination puzzles. The study aimed to evaluate the
influence of teleportation on cybersickness. Another example is a two-player
VR game where players have to solve puzzles while being limited as to how they
can communicate with each other during the experience [23]. Not being able to
communicate via voice or text, players resorted to innovative methods of
communication, which led to increased user engagement. Kiruthika et al. [24]
describe a VR escape room game consisting of two levels (a seaport and a
palace), where users have to solve different memory and logic puzzles. A VR
escape room game described in [25] was developed for Samsung Gear VR and
contains three different logic puzzles that must be solved sequentially.

While the aforementioned games can be categorized as recreational escape room
games, some examples of educational escape room games can also be found. A VR
escape room game that can be played by individuals or by teams is presented in
[26]. Players must escape from an ancient tomb through several levels,
including learning material such as text, video, or audio. In the game
proposed in [27], students have to solve puzzles related to stereochemistry
while trying to join a fictional secret intelligence agency. The goal was to
foster the student’s knowledge of stereochemistry and the development of soft
skills. In [28], a VR escape room game is presented that deals with different
aspects of enzymes for biology education. Their results indicate that the game
increased short-term memory of the conveyed content compared to an educational
video while not improving long-term knowledge.

Another area that makes use of innovative interactive applications in an
educational context is civil engineering. For instance, [29] describe a game
that teaches students about calculating internal forces static determinate
systems. Whisker et al. showcase two VR environments, one used to display 4D
CAD models for educational purposes, the other being a virtual construction
project [30]. However, we could not find any escape room games for training
civil engineering students.

To close the gap between educational VR escape room games and civil
engineering, we present such a game in this paper (Section II). This game
targets civil engineering students and deals with the intricacies of building
energy simulations and wall constructions. Students must solve various puzzles
to escape a locked room. We use a carefully crafted player guidance system
that combines educational content, puzzles, and different types of hints to i)
provide educational context and information for the puzzles the players have
to solve, ii) describe important issues and pitfalls frequently encountered in
civil engineering education and iii) guide players through the escape room
experience step-by-step.

To evaluate our system’s usability, the resulting task load, and user
experience, we ran an expert study with a group of game developers and VR
experts (Section III). Finally, after presenting our findings and discussing
current limitations, we outline directions for future research (Section IV).

##  II The Project Beyond

To implement our educational content on building energy simulation in a
gamified environment, we developed an escape room game in VR. In the
beginning, players find themselves locked in a room and have to solve puzzles
related to building energy simulations and wall constructions. To leave the
room, they have to solve several quests that combine puzzles with educational
content to unlock the door’s four locks.

###  II-A Tackling Common Issues in Civil Engineering Education

Applying educational content learned through traditional lectures to real-
world scenarios can be challenging because of potential mistakes or
misunderstandings. The main story of our escape room game is inspired by
common issues that students report during their energy simulation education.
The following issues were frequently encountered during classes: forgetting to
consider a building’s location or orientation, incorrect wall layer assembly,
and mistakes related to wall layer properties. Based on these challenges, we
designed corresponding puzzles in the game. We expect that tackling these
issues in a gamified environment helps students understand the concepts deeper
and reduces their future design mistakes.

###  II-B Educational Concept

We rely on a close connection between visual and audio hints, quests, and
gadgets visualizing simulation results to educate players about the various
building and building energy simulation concepts in the game. The game is
structured into several quests, each dealing with one aspect, like considering
the correct time of day/month and location while planning a building or
correctly assembling different wall constructions.

We follow the same procedure for all topics included in the game: First, we
describe the general problem players must deal with and provide educational
context via visual hints and audio voice-over (e.g., the importance of a
building’s orientation). Next, players must find cues (e.g., a map detailing
the correct orientation). With this information, players can solve the quest
and are immediately notified via audio and visual feedback.

While setting the time of day/month and location mostly requires players to
find clues in the room and correctly use this information to proceed to the
next quest, assembling wall consturctions is a more complex procedure. Here,
players must balance several counter-acting simulation results and iteratively
optimize their wall construction. For instance, a wall with high structural
stability will cost more, while a wall with thinner insulation will lead to
lower costs but might show mold on the wall. This enables players to learn
about these connections and teaches them to carefully balance the individual
layers while getting constant feedback about their decisions and performance.

###  II-C Technology

We developed our VR experience in Unreal Engine 5 (UE)111www.unrealengine.com.
UE helped us to design a realistic environment to improve the sense of
presence in VR [31]. For the implementation of VR interactions, we used the
OpenXR plugin222https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.3/en-US/developing-for-head-
mounted-experiences-with-openxr-in-unreal-engine/ in UE to support a wide
range of VR devices (e.g., SteamVR, Oculus, and Windows Mixed Reality).

###  II-D Interaction and Locomotion

Based on the OpenXR API, we developed a custom VR character to support the
required functionality for our gameplay. This character supports two different
modes of locomotion in addition to physical movement: 1) Teleportation and 2)
Smooth Movement. User can freely choose between them according to their
preferences and gameplay. The teleportation system can reduce the possibility
of motion sickness, but might lead to disorientation. On the other hand,
smooth movement has less chance of disorientation and is easier to control,
but might cause higher motion sickness. In order to provide a comprehensive
set of gameplay elements, we implemented different interaction systems. The
main interactions in Project Beyond are "grab" and "placement". Grabbing items
can be done with one or two hands based on the object type leading to
different behaviors, such as item pick-up or object rotation. In addition to
the grab interaction, we introduced pressure-dependent and hover-interactable
objects. The pressure-dependent objects use UE’s physics constraints to
simulate a realistic behavior, but the hover-interactable object triggers the
interactions just by overlapping a trigger area.

###  II-E Tutorial Level

We implemented a dedicated tutorial level for players to get acquainted with
VR in general, locomotion, and possible interactions (see Fig. 2). This should
prevent new users from getting overwhelmed in the escape room by having to
find clues and solve puzzles while learning to move and interact in VR
simultaneously. We decided to separate the tutorial from the actual escape
room for two reasons:

  1. 1.

Some players might already be familiar with VR and might want to skip the
tutorial. Since the tutorial is separate, players can choose whether they want
to complete it or not.

  2. 2.

Players should only learn about locomotion and VR interactions in an abstract
manner. The tutorial should not give away any hints or influence the players
with regard to the escape room game in any way.

In the tutorial, we cover interactions for the locomotion system, grab,
physical touch, and rotatable objects. For each interaction, we use different
symbols, indicators, and controller schema. For example, we use footprint
symbols to indicate the path for smooth movement and a controller figure
highlighting the required button to move toward the path’s target location. To
simplify the procedure of level design for the onboarding level, we used
Procedural Content Generation (PCG)333https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.3/en-
US/procedural-content-generation–framework-in-unreal-engine/ in UE. PCG helps
to iterate through design ideas with ease and facilitates future level
extensions if needed.

Figure 2: Top view of the onboarding level with hints to learn different
interactions, e.g., golden footprints indicate smooth movement paths.

###  II-F Quest and Hint System

A guidance system was required to include educational content and describe
special interactions or machines in the room. Furthermore, players need to be
informed about their progress and receive feedback on whether they are on the
correct path. Considering these points, we developed a special quest and hint
system to guide players throughout the whole game. Each quest in the game may
contain several hints according to the task. The hints can be found in the
level as pieces of paper with text and a figure on them. As reading text in VR
can be difficult depending on the HMD’s quality, and therefore, reading a long
text is not practical in VR, we included a voice-over for each hint to
describe the hint in more detail. In addition, players may need to review
hints again after collecting them. To enable this, we implemented two devices
in the game to review previously found hints. A projector device projects the
content of a paper hint onto a curtain in a bigger size, which allows players
to repeat the hint and makes it easier to read. In addition, a cassette player
is attached to the player’s left hand and can repeat the voiceover
corresponding to the paper hint selected at the projector.

Hints are spawned when a quest gets activated. This allows us to closely link
the hints to the player’s progress and make sure that only relevant hints are
visible to the player. To indicate to the players when they complete a quest,
an audio/visual feedback system is used. When completing a smaller quest, a
short chime is played. When a more important quest is solved, i) a longer
sound is played, ii) the light in the room runs through a complete day/night
cycle with natural sunlight during the day and artificial light at night, and
iii) one lock of the door is unlocked.

###  II-G Room Structure and Machines

The escape room in Project Beyond can be divided into four main areas: 1) hint
review (projector), 2) building simulation desk, 3) wall assembly, and 4)
result visualizations. The projector area contains the projector and a curtain
to visualize the hints. The building simulation desk is the center area in the
game around which the main story is built (see Fig. ˜4). It consists of three
layers, of which the two lower ones can be rotated. Turning these layers can
change different parameters, such as time, month, or various simulation
settings, during the gameplay. Initially, a building is shown on the top
layer. Later in the game, this building is replaced with a representation of
an office room. In addition, there is a model of the sun to indicate the time
of day and the influence of sunlight on the room based on location, month, and
time. At a later stage in the game, when players create a wall section, they
can use the desk to assign the wall section to the office room. This
assignment leads to an energy simulation for the room, and users can see the
result as gadgets.

The wall section assembly consists of three devices: i) information center,
ii) section spawner, and iii) section assembly (left wall in Fig. 1). The
information center is responsible for displaying the order of wall layers for
a structural material type (masonry, reinforced concrete, or timber). Players
can spawn layers and set their thickness in the section spawner. Finally, they
can use the wall assembly device to assemble layers based on the required
layer order. The result of these three devices can then be converted into a
wall sample that can be assigned to the walls of the sample room.

The result visualization area is the ring around the building simulation desk
and contains placeholders for several gadgets. These gadgets visualize results
regarding the building energy simulation of the sample room and other
performance indicators related to the wall construction.

###  II-H Simulation API

The room model on the table is based on an office at Graz University of
Technology. Based on the players’ inputs, the room’s annual energy consumption
for heating and cooling is calculated. Since this calculation with regular
building energy simulation tools takes too long for an interactive game, a
machine learning model is employed instead. The model was trained with about
12,000 building energy simulation runs to enable a swift calculation for the
VR environment. The calculation was outsourced to a server that provides an
interface for starting calculations and retrieving simulation results. After
retrieving the results, several gadgets show an evaluation of the wall
construction and the simulation parameters.

Figure 3: The projector can be used to review the collected paper hints on a
bigger scale.

###  II-I Gadgets

To evaluate players’ choices regarding wall assembly, we implemented five
gadgets representing i) mold on the walls, ii) the walls’ U-value (rate of
heat transfer through the walls), iii) wall construction costs, iv) the wall’s
structural stability, and v) the room’s energy efficiency (see Fig. ˜5). The
mold gadget shows whether the wall is susceptible to mold using a rough
estimation based on the wall’s dew point calculation, from no mold to heavy
mold, by showing the mold visually on the wall and displaying text above the
wall section. The U-value indicator is a slider that shows the U-value in red
or green, depending on whether the value is in a pre-defined acceptable range.
The costs are calculated based on each layer’s thickness and material and are
represented with green, gold, and red coins (corresponding to cheap, medium-
cost, and expensive walls). The structural stability gadget demonstrates the
level of possible cracks in the wall section, from no cracks to complete
structural collapse. Structural stability is again estimated based on layer
thicknesses and materials. Finally, the energy efficiency gadget visualizes
the room’s overall energy efficiency based on the wall construction and
several additional parameters regarding the room’s operation and layout (i.e.,
using cooling, window shades, or changing the set point temperature as well as
the window’s U-value and solar heat gain coefficient). Energy efficiency is
shown with a rating from A+ to H on top and the room’s estimated energy
consumption as a slider.

Figure 4: The building simulation desk showing the applied wall materials on
the exterior walls of the simulation room.

##  III Evaluation

As a first step towards validating our game, we conducted a study with VR and
game development experts to evaluate the general usability of the onboarding
level and the game itself.

Figure 5: The simulation result gadgets (from left to right): mold, U-value,
costs, structural stability, and energy efficiency.

###  III-A Methodology

The study comprised one pre-questionnaire and two post-questionnaires, one
completed after the onboarding level (post-questionnaire I) and one after
playing the escape room game (post-questionnaire II). We split the evaluation
into two parts since we expected very different results between the two
levels, especially concerning task load. The questionnaires were provided via
a LimeSurvey instance. Eleven VR and gaming experts – bachelor, master, and
PhD computer science students – participated in the study.

Material: The pre-questionnaire contained only one question: "How much prior
experience do you have in VR environments?" where the participants were asked
to provide a short free text answer. Post-questionnaire I consisted of the
NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire [32] to measure the task load
while completing the tutorial and the System Usability Scale (SUS) [33] to
evaluate its usability. Post-questionnaire II comprised the NASA-TLX, User
Engagement Scale Short Form (UESSF) [34] to measure user engagement, and the
Player Experience Inventory (PXI) [35] to evaluate the player experience.

Setup: For running the virtual environment, we used a PC (Intel Core
i5-13600K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 3080 Ti) together with a Meta Quest
2444https://www.meta.com/at/en/quest/products/quest-2/ connected wirelessly
via Air Link555https://www.meta.com/en-gb/help/quest/articles/headsets-and-
accessories/oculus-link/connect-with-air-link/. The study took place in a room
with about 4m x 6m as a playable area. During the study, one or two
supervisors were in the room to help participants connect the HMD, start the
game, and guide them through the study. Supervisors could follow the
participants’ actions on a TV connected to the PC.

Procedure: We ran the study one participant at a time. We first verbally
introduced Project Beyond to the participants and provided a short written
description of key terminology related to building energy simulations and wall
structure. This was deemed necessary as the game is targeted at civil
engineering students who have basic domain knowledge. In contrast, the
computer scientists were mostly unfamiliar with specific terms, especially not
in English.

Figure 6: SUS results of the tutorial level.

After this introduction, the participants completed the pre-questionnaire and
played the complete tutorial level. During the tutorial, participants had to
follow four paths for smooth movement and two sections for teleportation
locomotion. Afterward, the participants could choose between either locomotion
system and had to complete two grabbing tasks, open two doors by pressing
buttons, rotate a wheel to lower a draw bridge, and lower a pickup onto a
vinyl record. This was followed by the participants completing post-
questionnaire I.

Next, the participants played the actual escape room. They were allowed to ask
for three hints from the supervisors during the game and were given about 45
minutes to play. Players followed the storyline from learning to use the
cassette player and hint projector through setting the correct building
orientation, time of day and month, and location to assembling one wall.
Participants were not asked to optimize the wall since this requires more
profound domain knowledge and was deemed too time-expensive for this study.
Finally, the participants were asked to complete post-questionnaire II.

###  III-B Results

The results of the SUS questionnaire (Fig. 6) show very good usability for the
tutorial level (AVG=84.3, SD=9.09). The average value for Q1 ("I think that I
would use this system frequently") is below the acceptable range. Verbal
feedback from the participants indicates that they did not believe they would
need to play the tutorial again, as the interactions were clear and easy for
them, which could explain this value. The result of Q8 ("I found the system
very cumbersome to use") shows a great spread in responses that could be due
to some participants misunderstanding the question.

The task load evaluation using NASA TLX questionnaires shows a very low
demanding experience in the onboarding level (Fig. 7). Furthermore, users
found themselves successful in fulfilling the tutorial tasks (AVG=1.55,
SD=1.97). The overall experience of the onboarding level was not frustrating
(AVG=2.09, SD=1.22), and they did not need extensive effort to finish this
level (AVG=2.27, SD=1.27). The outcome of this questionnaire for the main
puzzle level is totally different from the onboarding level. As we expected,
based on the features of an escape room game, players experienced a higher
mental demand (tutorial: AVG=2.45, SD=1.37; escape room: AVG=7.73, SD=1.42)
and effort (AVG=6.91, SD=0.94) to solve the puzzles. The average frustration
level in the escape room level is medium (AVG=5.00, SD=1.15). The temporal
demand was below the average (AVG=4.09, SD=2.21) as we did not consider any
time pressure for the gameplay. Although the interactions are similar to the
tutorial level, participants reported higher physical demand in the puzzle
level (tutorial: AVG=2.09, SD=1.04; escape room: AVG=4.45, SD=2.11), which
could be due to the longer duration of the experience. Finally, players did
not find themselves successful in solving puzzles of the escape-room level
(AVG=5.64, SD=2.16).

Figure 7: Comparison of NASA-TLX results of the tutorial and the escape room
levels. MD: Mental Demand, PD: Physical Demand, TD: Temporal Demand, OP:
Overall Performance: E: Effort, F: Frustration.

The user engagement questionnaire shows a high value of focused attention (FA:
AVG=71.2, SD=24.6). This value can be interpreted as feeling high absorption
in the interaction and losing track of time. The observed average value of
perceived usability is lower than the medium (PU: AVG=41.6, SD=26.7). This can
be interpreted as an acceptable degree of control and effort. The
attractiveness and visual appeal of the game are perceived very well and
accepted with very high values (AE: AVG=92.4, SD=10.9). The results show users
interested in the interactive tasks and willing to recommend the application
to others (RW: AVG=83.3, SD=15.3).

Figure 8: UESSF results of the escape room level.

Based on the results of the PXI questionnaires, players found the game
meaningful overall (Meaning: AVG=1.15, SD=1.23). Furthermore, the game was
highly successful in arousing the users’ curiosity (Curiosity: AVG=2.06,
SD=1.14). The mastery and autonomy items are slightly lower than the medium
value (Mastery: AVG=-0.2, SD=1.7, Autonomy: AVG=-0.06, SD=1.8). The immersion
and audio/visual presentation were perceived very well in the game with high
scores (Immersion: AVG=1.88, SD=1.3, Audio/Visual: AVG=2.55, SD=0.93). The
progress feedback was slightly above the medium score (Progress Feedback:
AVG=0.64, SD=1.57). Users reported that the challenges in the game were a bit
difficult to handle (Challenges: AVG=-0.12, SD=1.58). However, results show
that the game was mainly easy to control (Ease of Control: AVG=1.18, SD=1.65).
The goal of the game was grasped in general with an acceptable score (Goals
and Rules: AVG=0.97, SD=1.4), and players highly enjoyed the game (Game
Enjoyment: AVG=2.09, SD=0.99).

Figure 9: PXI results of the escape room level.

##  IV Discussion

In this study, we aim for two main goals when evaluating the functionality of
our VR environment and its player guidance and education system. First, we
want to determine whether our onboarding level can provide acceptable
usability while preserving a low task load. This is important to avoid
overwhelming users before entering the main game. Second, we are investigating
the user experience in our puzzle environment to figure out whether the game
can increase user engagement and curiosity to discover the educational content
of the game. In addition, we can analyze whether the game is visually
appealing and provides an acceptable immersive experience.

Implementing an onboarding level is an essential step in developing a game to
improve playability [36]. This level may be more crucial as players have less
experience with HMDs and VR. Based on Lewis’s benchmark for SUS [37],
participants found the onboarding level easy to use (with an above-average
benchmark). The simplicity of using the onboarding level is important as it is
the first environment that users encounter when they enter VR. Considering
that Project Beyond is an educational experience, learning the VR interactions
and manipulating the game is our second priority. Therefore, it is important
to provide an easy-to-follow and quick onboarding experience. The SUS results
show that our tutorial level was successful. Our participants reported that
they expect most people to learn to use the system very quickly, and they have
confidence in using the system (with an above-average benchmark).

In addition, we aimed to expose the participants to less demanding tasks in
the tutorial level. Based on the NASA TLX results, we can observe that our
onboarding level does not add extensive mental and physical demands. There was
no time pressure during the tutorial level, so the temporal demand was very
low. Additionally, without a high level of effort, they successfully
accomplished the onboarding level without being frustrated. On the other hand,
the escape room level is a challenging puzzle experience. Players must search,
analyze, and think to solve the game’s challenges. Accordingly, we observe
high mental demand and effort at this level. Even considering the same
interaction types in both levels, the physical demand is higher in the escape
room. This could be due to the longer gameplay duration.

Although the task load in the escape room level is relatively high, the user
experience results show positive participant feedback. The high value for
focused attention shows the potential of our environment to provide an
engaging experience. Players will lose track of time and might spend more time
in this environment, which can be beneficial for educational content.
Additionally, participants enjoy the environment due to the attractive design
and visual/auditory feedback.

###  IV-A Limitations & Future Work

The study we present in this paper has several limitations: i) The number of
participants was limited for the evaluation of this study. Extending the study
with more participants can improve our understanding of the advantages and
drawbacks of the environment. ii) We only considered VR and gaming experts as
participants in our study. An evaluation with civil engineering students could
lead to different results. iii) The study did not entail an evaluation of the
learning effect itself. This is an important next step to validating our
approach.

During the study, we realized that participants might enjoy a co-op experience
to reduce mental demand and frustration. To test this theory, we will design
an asymmetric co-op experience between VR and desktop clones of the game. This
way, each user has a different point of view and functionality, but they can
help each other to solve the puzzles.

This implementation, in general, has the potential to be extended to
additional educational topics. Comparing this system’s user experience and
learning outcome with different learning contents would be interesting.

###  IV-B Conclusion

In this study, we designed and developed an immersive escape room game in
Virtual Reality (VR). This gamified educational experience serves as a
learning path for building energy simulation topics. Our approach of combining
visual and audio hints with puzzles and educational content resulted in a
highly immersive experience. However, it has the potential to be extended to
other educational fields. The gameplay consists of a tutorial level to get
used to VR interaction and the main puzzle room. To evaluate the usability of
our implemented solution, we ran a user study with game development experts.
The results are promising in the case of user engagement and usability. The
evaluation shows that this VR game can increase user curiosity by providing a
meaningful puzzle environment. Despite these positive responses, we found the
task load relatively high for the escape room level. Extending the gameplay
with a co-op scenario might reduce this issue and improve the user experience.

## Author Contributions

Game logic, data visualization, user study, API integration: G. A.-R.; User
interactions, user experience, tutorial: S. S.; Room design: S. S. & G. A.-R.;
Building energy simulation, educational content: M. G. & C. H.; Machine
learning model, API: G. S.; Supervision: J. P., C. H. & G. S.; Story: All
authors.

## References

  * [1] D. G. Oblinger, “The Next Generation of Educational Engagement,” _Journal of Interactive Media in Education_ , vol. 2004, no. 1, p. 10, 5 2004.
  * [2] L. Bray, P. Antoniou, M. Nikolaidou, A. Fides-Valero, T. Roberts, O. Ahonen, S. Häyrinen, E. Campos-Díaz, and P. D. Bamidis, “Evaluation of the effectiveness of educational escape rooms within health professions education: A systematic review protocol,” _International Journal of Educational Research_ , vol. 117, p. 102123, 2023.
  * [3] R. Dörner, S. Göbel, W. Effelsberg, and J. Wiemeyer, _Serious Games Foundations, Concepts and Practice_ , 1st ed. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016.
  * [4] Y. Zhonggen, “A Meta-Analysis of Use of Serious Games in Education over a Decade,” _International Journal of Computer Games Technology_ , vol. 2019, pp. 1–8, 2 2019.
  * [5] S. Nicholson, “Peeking Behind the Locked Door: A Survey of Escape Room Facilities,” Tech. Rep., 2015.
  * [6] A. Fuentes-Cabrera, M. E. Parra-González, J. López-Belmonte, and A. Segura-Robles, “Learning Mathematics with Emerging Methodologies—The Escape Room as a Case Study,” _Mathematics_ , vol. 8, no. 9, p. 1586, 9 2020.
  * [7] N. Rosillo and N. Montes, “Escape Room Dual Mode Approach to Teach Maths during the COVID-19 Era,” _Mathematics 2021, Vol. 9, Page 2602_ , vol. 9, no. 20, p. 2602, 10 2021.
  * [8] J. Guckian, L. Eveson, and H. May, “The great escape? The rise of the escape room in medical education,” _Future Healthcare Journal_ , vol. 7, no. 2, p. 112, 6 2020.
  * [9] C. Friedrich, H. Teaford, A. Taubenheim, P. Boland, and B. Sick, “Escaping the professional silo: an escape room implemented in an interprofessional education curriculum,” _Journal of Interprofessional Care_ , vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 573–575, 9 2019.
  * [10] E. Beguin, S. Besnard, A. Cros, B. Joannes, O. Leclerc-Istria, A. Noel, N. Roels, F. Taleb, J. Thongphan, E. Alata, and V. Nicomette, “Computer-Security-Oriented Escape Room,” _IEEE Security & Privacy_, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 78–83, 7 2019.
  * [11] A. M. Ho, “Unlocking Ideas: Using Escape Room Puzzles in a Cryptography Classroom,” _PRIMUS_ , vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 835–847, 10 2018.
  * [12] S. Avargil, G. Shwartz, and Y. Zemel, “Educational Escape Room: Break Dalton’s Code and Escape!” _Journal of Chemical Education_ , vol. 98, no. 7, pp. 2313–2322, 7 2021.
  * [13] M. J. Vergne, J. D. Simmons, and R. S. Bowen, “Escape the Lab: An Interactive Escape-Room Game as a Laboratory Experiment,” _Journal of Chemical Education_ , vol. 96, no. 5, pp. 985–991, 5 2019.
  * [14] L. H. Taraldsen, F. O. Haara, M. S. Lysne, P. R. Jensen, and E. S. Jenssen, “A review on use of escape rooms in education – touching the void,” _Education Inquiry_ , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 169–184, 4 2022.
  * [15] P. Fotaris and T. Mastoras, “Escape Rooms for Learning: A Systematic Review,” in _Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Game Based Learning_. Odense, Denmark: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd., 10 2019, pp. 235–243.
  * [16] J. W. J. Ang, Y. N. A. Ng, and R. S. Liew, “Physical and Digital Educational Escape Room for Teaching Chemical Bonding,” _Journal of Chemical Education_ , vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 2849–2856, 9 2020.
  * [17] M. Monnot, S. Laborie, G. Hébrard, and N. Dietrich, “New approaches to adapt escape game activities to large audience in chemical engineering: Numeric supports and students’ participation,” _Education for Chemical Engineers_ , vol. 32, pp. 50–58, 7 2020.
  * [18] S. Pozo-Sánchez, G. Lampropoulos, and J. López-Belmonte, “Comparing Gamification Models in Higher Education Using Face-to-Face and Virtual Escape Rooms,” _Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research_ , vol. 11, no. 2, p. 307, 7 2022.
  * [19] L. Damiani, M. Demartini, G. Guizzi, R. Revetria, and F. Tonelli, “Augmented and virtual reality applications in industrial systems: A qualitative review towards the industry 4.0 era,” _IFAC-PapersOnLine_ , vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 624–630, 1 2018.
  * [20] J. Radianti, T. A. Majchrzak, J. Fromm, and I. Wohlgenannt, “A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda,” _Computers and Education_ , vol. 147, 4 2020.
  * [21] L. Freina and M. Ott, “A Literature Review on Immersive Virtual Reality in Education: State Of The Art and Perspectives,” _The international scientific conference elearning and software for education_ , vol. 1, 2015.
  * [22] S. Yeasmin and L. A. Albabtain, “Implementation of a Virtual Reality Escape Room Game,” in _2020 IEEE Graphics and Multimedia (GAME)_. IEEE, 11 2020, pp. 7–12.
  * [23] A. Ioannou, M. Lemonari, F. Liarokapis, and A. Aristidou, “Collaborative VR: Solving riddles in the concept of escape rooms,” in _International Conference on Interactive Media, Smart Systems and Emerging Technologies (IMET)_. Barcelona, Spain: The Eurographics Association, 10 2023.
  * [24] V. Kiruthika, M. Jagadeeswari, C. Prabha, V. Vaishnavi, and H. Sreejaa, “Virtual Reality Based Escape Room,” in _2022 International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies and Applications (ICACTA)_. Coimbatore, India: IEEE, 3 2022, pp. 1–5.
  * [25] D. David, Edwin, E. Arman, Hikari, N. Chandra, and N. Nadia, “Development of Escape Room Game using VR Technology,” _Procedia Computer Science_ , vol. 157, pp. 646–652, 2019.
  * [26] A. Staneva, T. Ivanova, K. Rasheva-Yordanova, and D. Borissova, “Gamification in Education: Building an Escape Room using VR Technologies,” in _2023 46th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO)_. Opatija, Croatia: IEEE, 5 2023, pp. 678–683.
  * [27] D. Elford, S. J. Lancaster, and G. A. Jones, “Stereoisomers, Not Stereo Enigmas: A Stereochemistry Escape Activity Incorporating Augmented and Immersive Virtual Reality,” _Journal of Chemical Education_ , vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 1691–1704, 5 2021.
  * [28] A. Christopoulos, S. Mystakidis, E. Cachafeiro, and M.-J. Laakso, “Escaping the cell: virtual reality escape rooms in biology education,” _Behaviour & Information Technology_, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1434–1451, 7 2023.
  * [29] M. Ebner and A. Holzinger, “Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering,” _Computers & Education_, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 873–890, 11 2007.
  * [30] V. Whisker, S. Yerrapathruni, J. Messner, and A. Baratta, “Using Virtual Reality To Improve Construction Engineering Education,” in _2003 Annual Conference Proceedings_. ASEE Conferences, 2003, pp. 1–8.
  * [31] V. Schwind, P. Knierim, N. Haas, and N. Henze, “Using Presence Questionnaires in Virtual Reality,” in _Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 5 2019, pp. 1–12.
  * [32] S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research,” in _Advances in Psychology_. North-Holland, 1 1988, vol. 52, no. C, pp. 139–183.
  * [33] J. Brooke, “SUS: A ’Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale,” in _Usability Evaluation In Industry_. CRC Press, 6 1996, pp. 207–212.
  * [34] H. L. O’Brien, P. Cairns, and M. Hall, “A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form,” _International Journal of Human-Computer Studies_ , vol. 112, pp. 28–39, 4 2018.
  * [35] V. V. Abeele, K. Spiel, L. Nacke, D. Johnson, and K. Gerling, “Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences,” _International Journal of Human-Computer Studies_ , vol. 135, p. 102370, 3 2020.
  * [36] S. Cao and F. Liu, “Learning to play: understanding in-game tutorials with a pilot study on implicit tutorials,” _Heliyon_ , vol. 8, no. 11, p. e11482, 11 2022.
  * [37] J. R. Lewis and J. Sauro, “Item Benchmarks for the System Usability Scale,” _Journal of Usability Studies_ , vol. 13, pp. 158–167, 2018.