skip to main content
10.1145/2843043.2843478acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesaus-cswConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Modeling perceived difficulty in game levels

Published: 01 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

The recent interest in procedural content generation for video games has created the need to establish techniques for assessment of generated content. We present an investigation into the factors determining perceived difficulty in procedurally generated game levels. In doing so, an approach to identify relevant factors pertaining to player experience is established, which is subsequently used in the development of predictive difficulty models. In this paper, we apply our methodology to the genre of 2D platformers, presenting an investigation into factors related to difficulty, the development of a test-bed that can be used to collect the data, data collection and subsequent analysis. We investigate the contribution of the identified game and player metrics towards predicting difficulty using Multi-Layer Perceptron, J48 and Random Forest classifiers from WEKA. This work is presented as a preliminary investigation into modeling difficulty from procedural content. Significantly, this investigation provides a preliminary insight into metrics that can be used for developing a classification model for perceived difficulty.

References

[1]
Asteriadis, S., Shaker, N., Karpouzis, K., & Yannakakis, G. N. 2012. Towards player's affective and behavioral visual cues as drives to game adaptation. LREC Workshop on Multimodal Corpora for Machine Learning: 6--9. Print.
[2]
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. 1992. Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
[3]
Hunicke, R. 2005. The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM (June. 2005), 429--433.
[4]
Hunicke, R., & Chapman, V. 2004. AI for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games. In Challenges in Game Artificial Intelligence AAAI Workshop. (July. 2004), 91--96.
[5]
Jennings-Teats, M., Smith, G., & Wardrip-Fruin, N. 2010. Polymorph: dynamic difficulty adjustment through level generation. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games. (July, 2010), 11.
[6]
Koster, R. 2013. Theory of fun for game design. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.".
[7]
Kuang, A. 2012. Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (Doctoral dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic Institute).
[8]
Liu, C., Agrawal, P., Sarkar, N., & Chen, S. (2009). Dynamic difficulty adjustment in computer games through real-time anxiety-based affective feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 6, 506--529.
[9]
Marioai.org. 2012. Mario AI Championship 2012. Web. Retrieved from http://www.marioai.org, 15 (Sept. 2015).
[10]
Hall, M, Frank, E, Holmes, G, Pfahringer, B, Reutemann, P, Witten, I. 2009. The WEKA Data Mining Software: An Update. SIGKDD Explorations, 11, 1.
[11]
Pedersen, C., Togelius, J., & Yannakakis, G. N. 2009. Modeling player experience in Super Mario Bros. In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2009. CIG 2009. IEEE Symposium on, IEEE (September, 2009) 132--139.
[12]
Pedersen, C., Togelius, J., & Yannakakis, G. N. 2010. Modeling player experience for content creation. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, IEEE. 2, 1, 54--67.
[13]
Fairclough, M. P. 2005. Terragen Classic. Planetside Software.
[14]
Smith, G., Cha, M., & Whitehead, J. 2008. A framework for analysis of 2D platformer levels. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games, ACM (August, 2008) 75--80.
[15]
Visualization. 2010. Speedtree. Interactive Data.
[16]
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. 2005. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, CIE, 3, 3, 3.
[17]
Tan, C. H., Tan, K. C., & Tay, A. 2011. Dynamic game difficulty scaling using adaptive behavior-based AI. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, IEEE, 3, 4, 289--301.
[18]
Wheat, D., Masek, M., Hingston & Lam, P. C, 2015. Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment In 2D Platformers Through Agent-Based Procedural Level Generation. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Print.
[19]
Yannakakis, G. N., & Togelius, J. 2011. Experience-driven procedural content generation. Affective Computing, IEEE Transactions on, IEEE, 2, 3, 147--161.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ACSW '16: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference
February 2016
654 pages
ISBN:9781450340427
DOI:10.1145/2843043
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. 2D platformer
  2. difficulty modeling
  3. level generation
  4. procedural content generation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ACSW '16
ACSW '16: Australasian Computer Science Week
February 1 - 5, 2016
Canberra, Australia

Acceptance Rates

ACSW '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 77 of 172 submissions, 45%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 204 of 424 submissions, 48%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)54
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 03 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media