## 6 Discussion  
Most participants (5/7) enjoyed the game and were positive towards a similar experience in the future. From the two participants that did not quite share this opinion, one excluded the audio factor from his reasoning and admitted a general dislike of puzzles. The other, even though he did not provide any explanation when asked, was critical throughout the discussion towards the quality of the game's audio recordings and not of the audio puzzle mechanic (Figure 6). His critical attitude may be connected with a more general stance exhibited by the whole group regarding high expectations of electronic games. However, most suggestions for game improvement were not related to audio-based gameplay but to video game conventions, such as countdowns, rewards, and narratives, more so in their visual form. This finding implies the impact of modern video game culture, as well as the ocularcentrism of the electronic game industry. It also indicates that players are not familiar with the act of playing only by means of the acoustic modality. There were two things that all participants agreed on: (1) the speech puzzles require players to fully concentrate on the acoustic properties of incoming audio, and (2) this challenge can be addressed by everyone regardless of their musical experience. The state of concentration has been frequently connected to AG experiences, not only in terms of a required condition for game progress but also as a skill that players  
Figure 5: Overview of participants’ feedback. Figure 6: Results regarding players’ enjoyment. can develop through the process [22]. Focusing on sound's learning affordances, [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON], among others, report increased attention and the exclusion of distractions, yet they argue that, however frequent, sound's use in learning environments deals with the literal conveyance of information, while neglecting the associative potential that would facilitate a deeper study of the learning material [52]. The participants in this research seemed to comprehend the multifaceted dimension of the game's audio content. They recognised and sought for other aspects of the audio content besides the meaning of speech, such as background stimuli, disturbances, pauses, repetitions, and stereo positioning. Afterwards, they discussed and criticised the perceived sound properties in detail. Moreover, they seemed appreciative of the fact that the game's mechanics relied solely upon their acoustic perception and not their musical knowledge. This instilled a feeling of justice in the experience, i.e., all players were equal, since all that was needed was to employ one's everyday listening skills. However, the authors see two sides in that condition. On the one hand, the exclusion of musical requirements can indeed provide a more open framework in terms of player address. On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that the winning team was comprised of the two participants who felt the most confident in their music and audio technology skills. The implied assumption that a stronger background in the music and audio technology fields results in better performance in audio puzzles needs to be thoroughly investigated in the future. However, it must also be noted that none of the teams lost their focus on the game goal. In fact, even Team Y, which had shown signs of frustration, was persistent enough to solve their second puzzle just before the end. Participants' commitment in the game process despite its increased difficulty may be accounted for by the familiarity of the human voice. Participants felt comfortable with, and in a stimulating way competitive against, the notion of a talking person. This is aligned with findings in the literature about the positive disposition of audio game players towards different in-game voices, because they felt like they were getting to know real people [26]. In terms of the employed listening modes (Figure 7), the fact that all teams solved the \"typing\" puzzle quite early is indicative of the importance of causal listening.