Human gameplay is a visually grounded interaction loop in which players act, reflect on failures, and watch tutorials to refine strategies. Can Vision-Language Models (VLMs) also learn from video-based reflection? We present GameVerse, a comprehensive video game benchmark that enables a reflective visual interaction loop. Moving beyond traditional fire-and-forget evaluations, it uses a novel reflect-and-retry paradigm to assess how VLMs internalize visual experience and improve policies. To facilitate systematic and scalable evaluation, we also introduce a cognitive hierarchical taxonomy spanning 15 globally popular games, dual action space for both semantic and GUI control, and milestone evaluation using advanced VLMs to quantify progress. Our experiments show that VLMs benefit from video-based reflection in varied settings, and perform best by combining failure trajectories and expert tutorials-a training-free analogue to reinforcement learning (RL) plus supervised fine-tuning (SFT).Our project page is available at https://gameverse-bench.github.io/ . Our code is available at https://github.com/THUSI-Lab/GameVerse .
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Humans improve gameplay by reflecting on failures and consulting expert tutorials. Our benchmark mimics this process, enabling agents to learn from video-based reflection. Humans show the largest gains, while all models benefit to varying degrees.
Benchmarks
Game Env.
Taxonomy
# Games
Diff. Tiers
Major Modality
Privilege-Free
Paradigm
Action
Scalability
GameArena ( Hu et al., 2025b )
1D Text World
✗
3
✗
Text-Centric
✓
Fire-and-Forget
Semantic
✓
BALROG ( Paglieri et al., 2025 )
1D Text + 2D Grid
✗
6
✓
Text-Centric †
Scaffold
Fire-and-Forget
Semantic
✗
LVLM-Play ( Wang et al., 2025b )
2D Grid
✗
6
✓
Vision-Centric
✓
Fire-and-Forget
Semantic
✓
VideoGameBench ( Zhang et al., 2025a )
2D Retro Arcade
✗
10
✗
Vision-Centric
✓
Fire-and-Forget
GUI
✓
FlashAdventure ( Ahn et al., 2025 )
2D Web Flash
✗
34
✗
Vision-Centric
✓
Fire-and-Forget
GUI
✗
V-MAGE ( Zheng et al., 2025 )
2D Retro Arcade
Comm. Genre
5
✓
Vision-Centric
✓
Fire-and-Forget
Semantic
✓
Table 1: G ame V erse ( GV ) distinguishes itself through a Cognitive Taxonomy rather than commercial genres ( Comm.Genre ), Dual Action Space , and a Visually-Grounded Interaction Loop allowing agents to reflect and retry. Mixed features selecting games spanning various eras and genres. Tag † denotes using scaffolds/APIs to extract ground-truth state text, with vision as an auxiliary role.
Figure 2: Overview of GameVerse , which effectively probes the capability boundaries of VLMs in diverse video game worlds. GameVerse supports dual action space, enables human-like reflection by integrating failure and tutorial videos, and delivers process score.
Puzzle with manipulable rules; tests out-of-the-box thinking and flexible logical inference .
2048
5 / 10 min
AS,AG
Stochastic number puzzle; tests probabilistic planning and spatial foresight to manage grid constraints.
Non-Real-Time Linear
Maze
10 / 45 sec
AS,AG
Navigational puzzle; tests virtual perception and spatial pathfinding algorithms.
Table 2: Overview of the 15 games in GameVerse. We detail the number of trials ( N ), average time per round ( T ), supported evaluation modes (Semantic AS and GUI AG ), and a concise summary of the game content and the specific cognitive capabilities evaluated.
Model
VR
Markov Grid
Non-Real-time Linear
Non-Real-time Non-Linear
Real-time Linear
Real-time Non-Linear
Avg
TicTacToe
Baba
2048
Maze
AngryBird
Slay
Attorney
Civilization
Scene
Snake
PvZ
Horizon
Metro
Genshin
RDR 2
Rank
Three Baselines
Random
—
26.3 ± 19.3
10.8 ± 7.6
1.2 ± 0.9
21.3 ± 2.7
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
7.0 ± 9.1
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
16.5
Human Expert
—
98.9 ± 2.6
100.0 ± 0.0
77.1 ± 16.4
100.0 ± 0.0
85.3 ± 7.2
99.4 ± 1.2
100.0 ± 0.0
100.0 ± 0.0
94.2 ± 6.3
100.0 ± 0.0
100.0 ± 0.0
98.1 ± 4.4
100.0 ± 0.0
100.0 ± 0.0
100.0 ± 0.0
1.6
Human Rookie
No
85.1 ± 19.3
83.4 ± 15.2
15.9 ± 4.1
99.3 ± 1.2
46.4 ± 10.3
34.2 ± 7.1
77.4 ± 27.2
54.1 ± 17.2
70.4 ± 5.2
93.2 ± 10.4
89.3 ± 10.8
73.9 ± 9.1
91.2 ± 15.4
63.3 ± 18.2
58.4 ± 21.3
4.1
Yes
99.4 ± 1.9
100.0 ± 0.0
47.3 ± 18.2
100.0 ± 0.0
74.2 ± 5.4
81.3 ± 14.1
100.0 ± 0.0
96.4 ± 8.9
90.1 ± 9.3
100.0 ± 0.0
97.9 ± 4.4
85.3 ± 3.1
98.4 ± 4.2
88.2 ± 18.4
83.1 ± 21.2
2.2
Table 3: Performance of 7 VLMs on 15 GameVerse games in GUI mode, with and without Video-based Reflection (VR). Green / Red cells indicate performance gain/drop after applying VR. Bold represents the top performance across all models and human baselines.
Figure 3: Top: Average performance across 5 cognitive and 3 difficulty categories. Bottom: Average improvement across models.
Figure 4: Left: Average improvement across 5 cognitive category tasks. Right: Overall improvement statistics of 120 trials.
Model
VR
TicTacToe
AngryBird
Slay the Spire
Plants vs. Zombies
GUI
Semantic
GUI
Semantic
GUI
Semantic
GUI
Semantic
Random
—
26.3 ± 19.3
30.4 ± 24.1
0.0 ± 0.0
7.4 ± 6.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
0.0 ± 0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
No
53.3 ± 15.4
51.7 ± 13.6
19.6 ± 8.3
37.2 ± 11.7
11.6 ± 0.0
11.7 ± 0.0
33.4 ± 4.1
54.2 ± 5.8
Yes
51.8 ± 14.6
67.0 ± 12.9
31.2 ± 10.8
63.2 ± 15.1
7.4 ± 8.4
5.4 ± 5.2
51.3 ± 21.4
65.2 ± 11.3
GPT-4o
No
58.6 ± 4.2
66.8 ± 10.2
14.3 ± 9.0
49.3 ± 13.0
2.0 ± 0.0
25.3 ± 10.2
32.2 ± 12.4
42.7 ± 16.0
Yes
64.2 ± 9.8
64.3 ± 8.0
15.4 ± 12.3
61.5 ± 17.6
2.0 ± 0.0
29.4 ± 8.1
36.4 ± 15.2
53.4 ± 7.8
Table 4: Performance of 4 VLMs on 4 games of GameVerse, evaluated with and without Video-base Reflection( VR ) in two modes.
Figure 5: Performance of 4 VLMs on 2 games of GameVerse in semantic action mode with three latency settings. Reactive model is average performance of GPT-4o and Qwen3-VL-8B. Reasoning model is average performance of Seed-1.8 and Gemini-2.5-Pro.
Model
VR
TicTacToe
AngryBird
Plants vs. Zombies
Avg
GPT-4o-mini weaker model
No
29.2 ± 15.1
54.6 ± 6.2
53.2 ± 25.6
45.6
Self-F
43.1 ± 4.3
57.4 ± 13.4
52.1 ± 18.0
50.8
Self-T
49.2 ± 13.7
73.2 ± 8.2
63.3 ± 13.1
61.9
Self
52.3 ± 16.0
75.8 ± 10.6
68.6 ± 14.6
65.5
Other
45.0 ± 7.2
77.1 ± 7.0
55.4 ± 7.2
59.1
Qwen3-VL-32B stronger model
No
67.0 ± 15.3
48.5 ± 11.3
67.6 ± 26.0
61.0
Table 5: Performance comparison of 2 VLMs on 3 games in semantic mode. The VR settings are categorized into: No , Self-F , Self-T , Self , and Other (the alternative VLM).
Figure 6: Screenshots of Gemini-2.5-Pro playing 2048 and trajectories of Qwen3-VL-8B playing angry birds level 2.
Figure 7: Top: GameVerse results breakdown of Qwen3-VL-32B. Bot : Failure cases about 4 types of errors in GameVerse.
Appendix figures & tables85 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Action Type
Description
Parameters
Mouse Movement
MOVE_TO
Move to position
x , y (int, req): Target coordinates (window relative)
MOVE_BY
Move relatively
dx , dy (int, req): Offset; duration (float, opt): Seconds
Mouse Click
CLICK
Click mouse
x , y (opt); button (left/right/middle); num_clicks
RIGHT_CLICK
Right click
x , y (int, opt): Click coordinates
Appendix
Table 6: GUI Action Types Summary
Figure 8: Prompt of reflecting experience from failure and tutorial
Game
Video Type
Link
Selected Time
Tic-Tac-Toe
Skill Tutorial
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZBZcnImNmhk
00:00:59
Baba Is You
Walkthrough
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1wb411p7ja/
00:00:38
2048
Skill Tutorial
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1VH4y1K7Gr/
00:03:02
Maze
Skill Tutorial
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1pp4y197fY/
00:03:37
Angry Birds
Walkthrough
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1b54y1s7pe/
00:01:31
Slay the Spire
Skill Tutorial
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1RVdLYyEFf/
00:09:36
Appendix
Table 7: List of longplay walkthrough links for games in GameVerse.
Figure 9: Prompt of milestone extraction and milestone matching
Figure 10: 9 milestones are extracted by Gemini-3-pro in the walkthrough video of Ace Attorney.
Game
Video Length
# Milestone
Hallucination Rate
Representation Score
Baba Is You
00:00:38
3 ( L 0), 5 ( L 1)
12.5%
0.92
Ace Attorney
00:21:50
9
0%
1.00
Civilization VI
00:19:23
12
17%
0.81
Scene Investigators
00:27:26
17
11%
0.95
Plants vs. Zombies
00:05:51
7 ( L 1), 6( L 2), 6( L 4)
5%
0.78
Genshin Impact
00:25:51
7
0%
0.95
Appendix
Table 8: The breakdown of the extracted milestones. L means level. Hallucination rate is defined as #totalmilestones#inaccuratemilestones . Representation score is defined as how representative the milestones are to significant game nodes, ranging in [0,1] . The score is evaluated by 10 human video game experts
Game
Agent gameplay video (discrete input frames)
Human gameplay video (continuous frame sequences)
VLM eval.
human eval.
Percentage Diff. ↓
VLM eval.
human eval.
Percentage Diff. ↓
Baba Is You
0.68 ± 0.15
0.74 ± 0.10
8.1%
0.98 ± 0.06
1.00 ± 0.00
2.0%
Ace Attorney
0.29 ± 0.17
0.33 ± 0.19
12.1%
1.00 ± 0.00
1.00 ± 0.00
0%
Civilization VI
0.04 ± 0.08
0.04 ± 0.08
0.0%
0.92 ± 0.11
0.96 ± 0.09
4.2%
Scene Investigators
0.05 ± 0.04
0.05 ± 0.04
0.0%
0.90 ± 0.09
0.90 ± 0.09
0%
Plants vs. Zombies
0.34 ± 0.15
0.38 ± 0.13
10.5%
1.00 ± 0.00
0.98 ± 0.04
2.0%
Appendix
Table 9: The average VLM-evaluated and human-evaluated matching scores on agent play video and human play video with percentage difference across seven games with VL.
Human
Markov Grid
Non-Real-time Linear
Non-Real-time Non-Linear
Real-time Linear
Real-time Non-Linear
Total
TicTacToe
Baba
2048
Maze
AngryBird
Slay
Attorney
Civ VI
Scene
Snake
PvZ
Horizon
Metro
Genshin
RDR 2
Human Rookie
10
3
10
10
5
4
4
6
4
4
3
3
8
2
4
80
Total trials
100
3
50
30
15
4
4
6
4
12
9
9
24
2
4
276
Human Expert
6
6
5
10
4
7
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
60
Total trials
60
6
25
30
12
7
2
3
3
9
9
6
6
2
2
182
Appendix
Table 10: The statistics of human baselines for each game.
Game Factors
Markov Grid
Non-Real-time Linear
Non-Real-time Non-Linear
Real-time Linear
Real-time Non-Linear
TicTacToe
Baba
2048
Maze
AngryBird
Slay
Attorney
Civ VI
Scene
Snake
PvZ
Horizon
Metro
Genshin
RDR 2
Env. Complexity
1
2
2
1
3
4
4
5
5
2
4
4
3
5
5
Action Space
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
5
Rule Difficulty
1
2
3
1
2
4
3
5
5
2
3
3
4
5
5
Reaction Time
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
5
4
4
5
Content Scale
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
5
1
3
3
3
4
5
Appendix
Table 11: Analysis of game factors across GameVerse. The factors are evaluated on a 5-point scale , where 1 represents easy and 5 represents hard .
Figure 11: Screenshot of Tic-Tac-Toe
Figure 12: Tic-Tac-Toe prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Semantic
Semantic VR.
Qwen3-VL-8B
53.0±15.0
52.0±15.0
52.0±14.0
67.0±13.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
71.0±17.0
63.0±7.0
−
−
GPT-4o-mini
34.0±17.0
43.0±12.0
−
−
GPT-4o
59.0±4.0
64.0±10.0
67.0±10.0
64.0±8.0
Seed-1.8
92.0±3.0
100.0±0.0
−
−
Gemini-2.5-Flash
88.0±16.0
95.0±12.0
94.0±9.0
100.0±0.0
Appendix
Table 12: Tic-Tac-Toe Raw Scores
Figure 13: Tic-tac-toe typical errors
Figure 14: Screenshot of Baba Is You
Figure 15: Baba Is You prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
80.0±0.0
80.0±0.0
Gemini-2.5-Pro
80.0±0.0
80.0±0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
60.0±0.0
70.0±8.2
Qwen3-VL-32B
73.3±9.4
80.0±0.0
GPT-4o
61.0±1.4
60.0±0.0
GPT-4o-mini
60.0±0.0
66.7±11.5
Appendix
Figure 16: Raw scores in Baba Is You
Figure 17: Typical errors in Baba Is You
Figure 18: Qwen3-VL-8B reflection improvement example
Figure 19: Screenshot of 2048
Figure 20: 2048 prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Qwen3-VL-8B
875.6±417.9
1014.9±238.8
Qwen3-VL-32B
1273.6±636.8
1213.9±736.3
GPT-4o-mini
258.7±79.6
278.6±238.8
GPT-4o
756.2±179.1
676.6±218.9
Seed-1.8
1810.9±1034.8
3621.8±1671.6
Gemini-2.5-Flash
1552.2±417.9
2268.6±756.2
Appendix
Figure 21: 2048 Raw Scores
Figure 22: 2048 typical errors and reflection improvements
Figure 23: Screenshot of Maze
Figure 24: Maze typical error
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Qwen3-VL-8B
80.0±45.0
89.0±31.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
100.0±0.0
100.0±0.0
GPT-4o-mini
77.0±43.0
91.0±26.0
GPT-4o
80.0±44.0
85.0±39.0
Seed-1.8
88.0±21.0
100.0±0.0
Gemini-2.5-Flash
100.0±0.0
100.0±0.0
Appendix
Table 13: Maze Raw Scores
Figure 25: Maze prompt
Figure 26: Screenshot of Angry Birds
Figure 27: angry birds prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Semantic
Semantic VR.
Qwen3-VL-8B
26068 ± 11039
41496 ± 14364
49476.0 ± 15561
84056 ± 20083
Qwen3-VL-32B
55328 ± 9842
79002 ± 14497
-
-
GPT-4o-mini
22211 ± 15029
17689 ± 13566
-
-
GPT-4o
19019 ± 11970
20482 ± 16359
65569 ± 17290
81795 ± 23408
Seed-1.8
39102 ± 9443
76076 ± 16891
-
-
Gemini-2.5-Flash
12502 ± 10906
13566 ± 8512
60914 ± 12236
90972 ± 20482
Appendix
Table 14: Raw Score of Angry Birds
Figure 28: Angry Birds Typical Errors
Model
Baseline
Expert VR.
Failure VR.
Joint VR.
GPT-4o-mini
55.0±6.0
73.0±8.0
57.0±13.0
77.0±7.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
50.0±11.0
48.0±12.0
54.0±13.0
74.0±10.0
Appendix
Table 15: Performance comparison of Expert vs. Failure reflection
Figure 29: Screenshot of Slay the Spire
Figure 30: slay the spire prompt
Model
GUI
Semantic
GUI VR.
Semantic VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
1±0
6±0
1±0
8.0±0.0
Gemini-2.5-Pro
2.0±1.73
19.75±11.5
4±0.0
14.0±4.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
6±0
6±0
3.33±4.0
2.25±2.5
Qwen3-VL-32B
4.2±1.92
–
5.75±0.5
–
GPT-4o
1±0
13.5±5.0
1±0
14.0±4.0
GPT-4o-mini
1±0
–
1±0
–
Appendix
Figure 31: raw scores in slay the spire
Figure 32: slay the spire typical errors
Figure 33: Example of Qwen3-VL-32B Reflection Improvement
Figure 34: Screenshot of Ace Attorney
No.
Milestone Title
No.
Milestone Title
1
Identify Defendant
6
Reveal Weapon’s Secret
2
Identify Victim
7
Sound the Clock
3
Identify Cause of Death
8
Solve the Time Gap
4
Expose Time Contradiction
9
Not Guilty Verdict
5
Expose TV Logic Hole
Appendix
Table 16: Milestones of Ace Attorney
Figure 35: Ace Attorney Prompt
Figure 36: Ace Attorney typical errors
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Qwen3-VL-8B
7.0±6.0
26.0±19.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
17.0±6.0
37.0±6.0
GPT-4o-mini
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
GPT-4o
18.0±6.0
33.0±11.0
Seed-1.8
33.0±0.0
59.0±6.0
Gemini-2.5-Flash
33.0±11.0
29.0±25.0
Appendix
Figure 37: Raw scores in Ace Attorney
Figure 38: Screenshot of Civilization VI
No.
Milestone Title
No.
Milestone Title
1
Found First City
7
Place Campus District
2
Select First Technology
8
Optimize Military Policy
3
Tribal Village Discovery
9
Declare Surprise War
4
Meet Rival Civilization
10
Capture Enemy Settler
5
Discover Natural Wonder
11
Found City with Captured Unit
6
Found Second City
12
Capture Capital & Victory
Appendix
Table 17: Milestones of Civilization VI
Figure 39: Civilization VI zero-shot agent prompt
Figure 40: Civilization VI memory agent prompt
Figure 41: Civilization VI errors
Model
Zero-shot
Memory
Zero-shot VR.
Memory VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
Gemini-2.5-Pro
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
19.4±4.0
8.3±0.0
16.7±0.0
8.3±0.0
GPT-4o
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
GPT-4o-mini
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
Appendix
Table 18: Scores in Civilization VI (Mean ± Std)
Figure 42: Screenshot of Scene Investigators
Figure 43: Scene Investigators inference prompt
Figure 44: Scene Investigators review prompt
Model
Zeroshot
Memory
Memory VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
–
2.78±3.9
8.3±0.0
Gemini-2.5-Pro
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
5.6±3.93
5.6±3.93
5.6±3.93
Qwen3-VL-32B
8.3±0.0
8.3±0.0
8.3±0.0
GPT-4o
–
0.0±0.0
0.0±0.0
GPT-4o-mini
–
2.78±3.9
2.78±3.9
Appendix
Figure 45: raw scores in Scene Investigators
Figure 46: Scene Investigators errors
Figure 47: Qwen3-VL-32B memory improvement example
Figure 48: Qwen3-VL-8B reflection improvement example
Figure 49: Screenshot of Snake
Figure 50: snake prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
2.00±1.80
1.00±0.81
Gemini-2.5-Pro
2.38±3.00
6.75±3.20
Qwen3-VL-8B
0.25±0.71
0.00±0.00
Qwen3-VL-32B
4.38±2.61
3.25±1.71
GPT-4o
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
GPT-4o-Mini
0.00±0.00
0.00±0.00
Appendix
Table 19: Main Experiment Results(w/ vs. w/o reflection).
Figure 51: snake typical errors
Model
10s
20s
Stop
Qwen3-VL-32B
4.38
4.75
5.33
GPT-4o
0.00
0.50
0.00
Gemini-2.5-Pro
2.38
6.50
7.33
Seed-1.8
0.75
0.86
9.00
Appendix
Table 20: Latency Analysis
Figure 52: Qwen3-VL-32B reflection content
Figure 53: Screenshot of Plant vs. Zombies
Level 1-1
Level 1-2
Level 1-4
No.
Milestone Title
No.
Milestone Title
No.
Milestone Title
1
Planting First Peashooter
1
First Economic Setup
1
Level Start
2
First Sun Collection
2
First Enemy Wave Warning
2
First Economic Setup
3
Planting Second Peashooter
3
First Defense Deployment
3
First Defensive Action
4
First Zombie Appearance
4
Huge Wave Alert
4
Countering Buckethead
5
Defeating First Zombie
5
Final Wave Start
5
Huge Wave Event
Appendix
Table 21: Milestones of Plants vs. Zombies (Levels 1-1, 1-2, and 1-4)
Figure 54: Plants vs. Zombies GUI prompt
Figure 55: Plants vs. Zombies semantic prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Semantic
Semantic VR.
Qwen3-VL-8B
33.4 ± 4.1
51.3 ± 21.4
54.2 ± 5.8
65.2 ± 11.3
Qwen3-VL-32B
41.2 ± 12.6
48.3 ± 19.0
-
-
GPT-4o-mini
27.6 ± 14.0
22.4 ± 10.4
-
-
GPT-4o
32.2 ± 12.4
36.4 ± 15.2
42.7 ± 16.0
53.4 ± 7.8
Seed-1.8
26.1 ± 8.2
22.1 ± 10.3
-
-
Gemini-2.5-Flash
51.1 ± 13.2
55.3 ± 10.4
70.2 ± 8.5
81.8 ± 17.0
Appendix
Table 22: Model Accuracy Comparison: GUI vs. Semantic (with and without VR)
Figure 56: Plant vs. Zombies Typical Errors
Figure 57: Screenshot of Forza Horizon 5
Figure 58: Horizon prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
1.333±0.577
1.333±0.58
Gemini-2.5-Pro
1.0±0.0
1.25±0.5
Qwen3-VL-8B
1.0±0.0
1.0±0.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
1.0±0.0
1.0±0.0
GPT-4o
0.75±0.5
1.0±0.0
GPT-4o-Mini
1.0±0.0
1.0±0.0
Appendix
Table 23: Raw Score of Forza Horizon 5
Figure 59: Horizon typical errors
Figure 60: Screenshot of Mini Metro
Figure 61: Mini Metro prompt
Model
GUI
GUI VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
74.5±19.29
78.0±46.4
Gemini-2.5-Pro
57.4±15.09
87.2±40.62
Qwen3-VL-8B
39.33±23.51
41.25±20.09
Qwen3-VL-32B
26.5±19.15
52.8±22.28
GPT-4o
58.0±11.42
68.0±13.78
GPT-4o-mini
23.0±15.6
34.0±12.20
Appendix
Table 24: Raw Performance on Mini Metro
Figure 62: mini metro typical errors
Figure 63: Screenshot of Genshin Impact
Milestones
1. Basic Operation: Follow Paimon’s instructions to learn the basic operations.
2. Unlock The Statue of The Seven: Interact with the first Statue of The Seven at Starfell Lake.
3. First Combat Encounter: The player encounters an enemy and completes the combat tutorial using the newly acquired skills.
4. Encounter with Dvalin: The player enters the Whispering Woods and triggers the plot where the dragon Dvalin interacts with the bard.
5. Meet Amber: The player encounters Amber, a scout knight of the Knights of Favonius, on the way to Mondstadt.
6. Clear the Hilichurl camp: The player clears the nearby Hilichurl camp to proceed further.
Appendix
Table 25: Milestones of Genshin Impact
Figure 64: Genshin Impact zero-shot prompt
Figure 65: Genshin Impact memory agent prompt
Figure 66: Genshin Impact errors
Model
Zero-shot
Memory
Zero-shot + VR.
Memory + VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
Gemini-2.5-Pro
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
GPT-4o
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
GPT-4o-mini
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
14.3±0.0
Appendix
Table 26: Scores in Genshin Impact (Mean ± Std)
Figure 67: Screenshot of Red Dead Redemption 2
Figure 68: Red Dead Redemption 2 Prompt
Model
Zeroshot
Memory
Memory VR.
Gemini-2.5-Flash
7.0±5.0
10.0±0.0
13.0±5.0
Gemini-2.5-Pro
10.0±0.0
10.0±0.0
10.0±0.0
Qwen3-VL-8B
7.0±5.0
7.0±5.0
7.0±5.0
Qwen3-VL-32B
10.0±8.0
7.0±5.0
10.0±8.0
GPT-4o
7.0±5.0
10.0±0.0
10.0±0.0
GPT-4o-mini
7.0±5.0
10.0±0.0
10.0±0.0
Appendix
Figure 69: Scores in Red Dead Redemption 2
Figure 70: red dead redemption 2 errors
Figure 71: Gemini-2.5-Flash reflection improvement example
Vision-language model (VLM) agents are increasingly deployed in interactive game environments. Yet game benchmarks for VLM agents typically report a single first-attempt score per (agent, game) pair, focus on single-agent Solo play, and lack unified protocols for evaluating heterogeneous agent classes (commercial VLMs, open-weight VLMs, and specialized game policies) on the same footing. We address these gaps with OmniGameArena, a real-time benchmark of twelve newly built Unreal Engine 5 games spanning Solo (7), PvP (3), and Coop (2) with unified action interfaces, and the Improvement Dynamics Curve (IDC), an agentic-reflection harness in which a tool-using reflector LLM autonomously refines a bounded skill prompt across multiple rounds. Beyond cold-start leaderboard scores, IDC exposes two additional observables for each (agent, game) pair: how the score evolves across reflection rounds, and how the learned skill behaves on held-out task variants. We report these observables for twelve VLM agents on the cold-start leaderboard and four top agents under IDC.
Mingxian Lin, Shengju Qian, Yuqi Liu +9
1The University of Hong Kong · 2LIGHTSPEED · 3The Chinese University of Hong Kong +1
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.
Large vision-language models can reason over multimodal inputs by generating textual chains of thought (CoT). A key capability exhibited in CoT reasoning is self-reflection: revisiting earlier decisions and correcting previous errors. However, existing LVLMs often fail to properly attend to visual inputs during reflection, limiting their ability to translate feedback into grounded corrections, especially for out-of-distribution images. To address this issue, we propose a novel reinforcement learning training framework VRRL, with two components explicitly designed to elicit visually grounded self-reflection. First, we randomly mask trajectory prefixes during training to emphasize recovery from incorrect intermediate predictions rather than making early mistakes. Second, we introduce buffered roll-ins from an experience replay buffer to expose the model to diverse failure states that it must learn to correct. We evaluate our approach on visual grounding tasks involving tables and charts, as well as spatial navigation benchmarks. While off-the-shelf and conventionally fine-tuned models degrade substantially under distribution shift, our method substantially improves average out-of-distribution accuracy over standard RL and reflection-oriented fine-tuning baselines by using self-reflection effectively.
Liyan Tang, Fangcong Yin, Greg Durrett
The University of Texas at Austin · New York University