It might be balanced, but is it actually good? An Empirical Evaluation of Game Level Balancing
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper explores the empirical evaluation of game level balancing, investigating whether "balanced" game levels are actually perceived as enjoyable or good by players.
- The study involves a survey-based approach, where participants provide feedback on various game levels to assess their perceived balance and quality.
- The research is supported by the Volkswagen Foundation as part of a project examining the consequences of artificial intelligence on urban societies.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers behind this study wanted to understand whether game levels that are considered "balanced" by designers are actually enjoyed and appreciated by the people who play them. Game designers often strive to create levels that are well-balanced, meaning they present an appropriate level of challenge and fairness for players. However, the researchers questioned whether this focus on balance necessarily translates to a more enjoyable gameplay experience.
To investigate this, the researchers conducted a survey where they asked people to play and evaluate various game levels. The participants were asked to provide their thoughts on how balanced the levels felt and how much they enjoyed playing them. This allowed the researchers to see if there was a relationship between a level's perceived balance and its overall quality or "goodness" from the player's perspective.
The study was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation as part of a larger project exploring the impacts of artificial intelligence on urban societies. While the specific connection to urban societies may not be immediately clear, the researchers likely wanted to understand how the principles of game design and player experience could have broader implications for how technology and AI are shaping our communities and daily lives.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents an empirical evaluation of game level balancing, exploring whether "balanced" game levels are perceived as enjoyable or good by players. The researchers conducted a survey-based study where participants played and provided feedback on various game levels.
The study design involved presenting participants with different game levels and asking them to rate the levels' perceived balance as well as their overall enjoyment or quality. This allowed the researchers to examine the relationship between a level's balance and how it was actually experienced by players.
The researchers hypothesized that while game designers often strive for balance in level design, this balance may not necessarily translate to a more positive player experience. By gathering empirical data through the survey, the study aimed to provide insights into the complex interplay between objective level balance and subjective player perceptions.
The findings of the study offer valuable implications for the game design community, suggesting that the traditional focus on balance may not be the sole determinant of a level's quality. The results highlight the importance of considering player preferences and experiences beyond just mathematical or algorithmic measures of balance.
Critical Analysis
The research presented in this paper offers a valuable empirical exploration of the relationship between game level balance and player enjoyment. By directly surveying participants on their perceptions of balance and overall quality, the study provides a nuanced understanding of how these factors interact in the context of game design.
One potential limitation of the study is the reliance on self-reported feedback from participants. While surveys can offer valuable insights, player experiences and preferences can be influenced by a variety of individual and contextual factors that may not be fully captured through this methodology. Supplementing the survey data with more objective metrics or observational data could strengthen the analysis.
Additionally, the paper does not provide much detail on the specific game levels used in the study or the criteria used to determine their "balance." Without a more comprehensive understanding of the stimuli, it can be difficult to fully contextualize the findings and draw broader conclusions about the relationship between balance and quality.
Despite these potential limitations, the study's central premise and findings are thought-provoking. The researchers rightly challenge the assumption that a focus on balance is the sole determinant of a successful game level. This aligns with a growing recognition in the game design community that player experience is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single metric.
Ultimately, this research encourages designers and researchers to approach game level design with a more holistic and player-centric perspective. By considering factors beyond just balance, such as aesthetics, narrative, and emotional engagement, the field of game design can continue to evolve and better serve the needs and preferences of players.
Conclusion
This research paper presents an important empirical investigation into the relationship between game level balance and player enjoyment. The study's key finding is that a focus on balance alone may not necessarily translate to levels that are perceived as high-quality or enjoyable by players.
The results challenge the conventional wisdom in game design that prioritizes balance as a primary objective. Instead, the researchers suggest that designers should consider a more comprehensive set of factors that contribute to a positive player experience, including aesthetics, narrative, and emotional engagement.
The implications of this study extend beyond the game design community, as the researchers position their work within the broader context of understanding the consequences of artificial intelligence on urban societies. While the specific connection may not be immediately clear, the principles of player-centric design and the balancing of multiple, sometimes competing, priorities are likely to have relevance for how technology and AI are shaping our communities and daily lives.
Overall, this research offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the complex and multifaceted nature of game design and player experience. By empirically evaluating the balance-quality relationship, the study encourages designers and researchers to think more holistically about the factors that make a game level truly "good."
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
It might be balanced, but is it actually good? An Empirical Evaluation of Game Level Balancing
Florian Rupp, Alessandro Puddu, Christian Becker-Asano, Kai Eckert
Achieving optimal balance in games is essential to their success, yet reliant on extensive manual work and playtesting. To facilitate this process, the Procedural Content Generation via Reinforcement Learning (PCGRL) framework has recently been effectively used to improve the balance of existing game levels. This approach, however, only assesses balance heuristically, neglecting actual human perception. For this reason, this work presents a survey to empirically evaluate the created content paired with human playtesting. Participants in four different scenarios are asked about their perception of changes made to the level both before and after balancing, and vice versa. Based on descriptive and statistical analysis, our findings indicate that the PCGRL-based balancing positively influences players' perceived balance for most scenarios, albeit with differences in aspects of the balancing between scenarios.
Read more7/17/2024
0
On the Evaluation of Procedural Level Generation Systems
Oliver Withington, Michael Cook, Laurissa Tokarchuk
The evaluation of procedural content generation (PCG) systems for generating video game levels is a complex and contested topic. Ideally, the field would have access to robust, generalisable and widely accepted evaluation approaches that can be used to compare novel PCG systems to prior work, but consensus on how to evaluate novel systems is currently limited. We argue that the field can benefit from a structured analysis of how procedural level generation systems can be evaluated, and how these techniques are currently used by researchers. This analysis can then be used to both inform on the current state of affairs, and to provide data to justify changes to this practice. This work aims to provide this by first developing a novel taxonomy of PCG evaluation approaches, and then presenting the results of a survey of recent work in the field through the lens of this taxonomy. The results of this survey highlight several important weaknesses in current practice which we argue could be substantially mitigated by 1) promoting use of evaluation free system descriptions where appropriate, 2) promoting the development of diverse research frameworks, 3) promoting reuse of code and methodology wherever possible.
Read more4/30/2024
0
PCGRL+: Scaling, Control and Generalization in Reinforcement Learning Level Generators
Sam Earle, Zehua Jiang, Julian Togelius
Procedural Content Generation via Reinforcement Learning (PCGRL) has been introduced as a means by which controllable designer agents can be trained based only on a set of computable metrics acting as a proxy for the level's quality and key characteristics. While PCGRL offers a unique set of affordances for game designers, it is constrained by the compute-intensive process of training RL agents, and has so far been limited to generating relatively small levels. To address this issue of scale, we implement several PCGRL environments in Jax so that all aspects of learning and simulation happen in parallel on the GPU, resulting in faster environment simulation; removing the CPU-GPU transfer of information bottleneck during RL training; and ultimately resulting in significantly improved training speed. We replicate several key results from prior works in this new framework, letting models train for much longer than previously studied, and evaluating their behavior after 1 billion timesteps. Aiming for greater control for human designers, we introduce randomized level sizes and frozen pinpoints of pivotal game tiles as further ways of countering overfitting. To test the generalization ability of learned generators, we evaluate models on large, out-of-distribution map sizes, and find that partial observation sizes learn more robust design strategies.
Read more8/23/2024
🛸
0
GEEvo: Game Economy Generation and Balancing with Evolutionary Algorithms
Florian Rupp, Kai Eckert
Game economy design significantly shapes the player experience and progression speed. Modern game economies are becoming increasingly complex and can be very sensitive to even minor numerical adjustments, which may have an unexpected impact on the overall gaming experience. Consequently, thorough manual testing and fine-tuning during development are essential. Unlike existing works that address algorithmic balancing for specific games or genres, this work adopts a more abstract approach, focusing on game balancing through its economy, detached from a specific game. We propose GEEvo (Game Economy Evolution), a framework to generate graph-based game economies and balancing both, newly generated or existing economies. GEEvo uses a two-step approach where evolutionary algorithms are used to first generate an economy and then balance it based on specified objectives, such as generated resources or damage dealt over time. We define different objectives by differently parameterizing the fitness function using data from multiple simulation runs of the economy. To support this, we define a lightweight and flexible game economy simulation framework. Our method is tested and benchmarked with various balancing objectives on a generated dataset, and we conduct a case study evaluating damage balancing for two fictional economies of two popular game character classes.
Read more4/30/2024