The second version of the preprint Designing Stories from the Grave: Reviving the History of a City through Human Remains and Serious Games has been thoroughly revised.

Generally speaking, the language is now appropriate and terms are better defined. The parts of the article as a whole tie in better with each other. The topic of ethical presentation of human remains has been well developed and the limitations of the proposed method added.

The concerns I had raised have been answered fully and adequately.

Congratulations to the authors for the great project and interesting paper!

The preprint „Designing Stories from the Grave: Reviving the History of a City through Human Remains and Serious Games“ describes a project in its planning stage, which may be one reason, why it is in parts a bit vague. I would encourage the authors to give this more precise information in the beginning instead of “a work in progress” (WIP might also mean “we have been working on this for 10 years, but don’t feel done yet”), to make readers aware of this fact before reading the article.

The planned project is very promising and especially the methodology of framing the project in evaluations of the user VR/AR pre-knowledge and the experience gained by questionnaires will lead to interesting and valuable results.

In this light I would like to suggest a few topics to improve comprehension by the readers and level of reflection of the topic:

In the abstract preprint the authors state the aim of using serious game theory to broaden the audience and their immersion in story telling around cultural heritage. In my reading this is what the paper focuses on.

The introduction first focuses on dealing with human remains in an ethical way and then leads to serious games as an ecosystem within which human biographies my be narrated and which has positive outcomes on learning activities. The ECHOES project aims to use „immersive technologies“ (AR and VR) to ethically deal with human remains.

In the introduction it might be beneficial to discuss the concept of „immersion“, as the text as it is now seems to imply that immersion works „automatically“ in AR and VR environments and that these techniques are needed for a successful immersion. If one is not immersed in the AR/VR-milieu, one does not use the word “immersion” as a technical term and understands that there are different ways to become “immersed” in something. ;-)   Therefore a definition of the term “immersion” is needed here. I would also suggest adding the information on gamification (chapter 4.3) to the introduction to further explore why this approach has been taken.

The chapter 2 “Related work” starts with a strong statement about the intersection between CH and creative industries, which sadly lacks examples or citations. It seems a bit vague and would be strengthened by the inclusion of concrete examples.

Chapter 2.1 on the archaeology of Thessaloniki is very short and its broad statement about using GIS and databases does not add to the article. I also believe the word “diffuse” might be not the one intended. Maybe more detail on which data sources the reconstructions are based on would not go amiss.

Because of my own lack of expertise in the area of anthropology I cannot comment on this section. I just wonder what ”secular changes” in this context mean.

The chapter 2.3 on the creative industries in CH feels a bit rushed in the beginning. There is no introduction to who “the learners” might be. The definition of the target audience is very important for the development of outreach projects and should be done here as well.

In the following paragraph I have a few questions that might be due to my own ignorance:

Is it a fact, that narration on cultural assets usually only focuses on the description of its traits? Because this seems to me to be an a bit outdated take and newer applications (even audio guide tours in museums) are more encompassing in their design. Also, I would like to see a more clear take on “emotions and morals, which are the main motivations of people”. For me it is at the moment unclear, whether this refers to the modern users or the ancient people.

I am not sure, whether the authors differentiate between “narration” and “narrative” in this paragraph and would like to put forward that there is a difference, that is important for the understanding of the topic. Maybe some re-phrasing might clear this up.

The chapter “3 Methodology” is in parts very convincing in some parts lacking precision:

The questionnaire (3.1) approach sounds well designed and the sample size looks great. I am looking forward to a more detailed report of the study!

The phrase “thematic axes” hasn’t been discussed before and it is at this point not clear what is meant. The description of the first results of the questionnaire regarding AR and VR is a bit stilted, some re-wording might make it easier to read.

The introduction to the chapter “3.2 Game Scenarios and Reward System” reads a bit like an advertisement (“captivating”, “rich tapestry”), though the approach of the reward system underlying the project sounds sensible. It might tie in better with the article as a whole, if the topic of a reward system – linked to the gamification aspect – would be explained beforehand.

The chapter on AR environments has some wording that sounds a bit like taken from the grant proposal. I understand that this aspect is still being planned. Nonetheless: Could you focus here on HOW the tours will be informative? Will you provide walls of text, a narration of facts, is the information contained within a pop-up, does it appear automatically or on demand?

For the guided tours I would like to know at this point what kind of “past stories” are being discussed: are these fictional stories set in the past? Are these stories about researching the past? How is the archaeological evidence linked with the story you are creating here? How will users be able to interact with objects and characters? Can they talk to them, “pick them up”, move objects around in the virtual space and how are users encouraged to do certain things? Is there a difference between the serious game and the interactive tour? Or are these one and the same? (This might be too much for this paper here, but these questions come up when reading as it is now.)

The part on VR environments gives a well-rounded introduction to how the VR environments are designed. I have just a quibble with the phrase of an “accurate depiction of the past”. There is a bit of a debate about accuracy and authenticity in historic game development. As there is always an element of reconstruction involved, no depiction will be completely accurate and this should be acknowledged in an academic paper. Is there a way for the player to differentiate between the levels of certainty of the reconstructed world he is playing in?

The evaluation at the end (3.2.3) is an important part of the project and will the basis of an interesting and important contribution to the field, as there are not yet many studies who critically evaluate the success of their outreach project.

In chapter “4 Design and Development” again the wording is not always as analytical as could be for an academic paper (“bring to life”, “takes us back”). As mentioned before, the terms “accuracy” and “authenticity” need a bit of a discussion. 

Especially the chapter “4.2 Technologies” uses words that are a bit too evocative and too vague for an academic paper (“unparalleled level of engagement”, “visually stunning”). The VR and AR chapters talk about “realistic interaction” without explaining what this might entail and “intuitive controls”, which is a claim especially older tourists may contest. As above I would also like to see the topic of the reconstruction involved in “accurately depict decayed artifacts” to be addressed.

As stated before the part “4.3 Gamification” is an important chapter, which is closely related to the serious games aspect. In my opinion it would make sense to move it up to the introduction to better explain the general approach taken.

The discussion on the Metaverse is lacking in critical evaluation of the possibilities and the limitations at the moment (hardware, software, usability, prices in development?). I believe you are right about the possibilities in general, but it is surprising to read such a positive take on the Metaverse without one mention of the not quite as successful as envisioned project with the same name by Mark Zuckerberg. I know this is a different kind of project, but it plays in the same area and the distinction should be drawn.

After reading the conclusions I was reminded again of the ethical considerations around human remains, that are the topic framing the paper. Are the actual remains part of the story telling or are they completely “transformed” into the reconstructed avatars?

I also noticed: At the moment this framing topic is actually “not needed” for the paper – it could be cut, and the paper would still make sense as a paper about using AR/VR for outreach. I would suggest either integrating the topic a bit more or cutting it, as at the moment it seems a bit disconnected.

All in all this is a great project and I believe the paper will be a valuable contribution to the CAA proceedings. It just needs some work in clearing up misunderstandings due to wording (and in some cases there seem to be spelling mistakes). I would also suggest some more critical discussion or at least reference of critique of the mentioned concepts.

I hope this review was helpful.