Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

BiLSTM and dynamic fuzzy AHP-GA method for procedural game level generation

  • S.I. : Neuro, fuzzy and their hybridization
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of games in daily life, especially in education, has been in an incline during the COVID-2019 pandemic. Thus, game-based learning environments have caused an increase in the need of game contents, but generation of the game contents and levels is a time-consuming and costly process. Generated game contents and levels should be balanced, dense, aesthetic and reachable. Also, the time as well as the costs spent should be decreased. In order to overcome this problem, automatic and intelligent game content and level generation methods have emerged, and procedural content generation (PCG) is the most popular one of these methods. Artificial intelligence techniques are used for procedural game level generation instead of traditional methods. In this study, bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-genetic algorithm (FAHP-GA) methods were used to generate procedural game levels. This proposed hybrid system was used in a developed educational game as a case study to create game levels. The performance of the proposed study was compared to the other multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, and also further statistical analyses were investigated. The results showed that the BiLSTM-based FAHP-GA method can be used for procedural game level generation effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. King DL, Delfabbro PH, Billieux J, Potenza MN (2020) Problematic online gaming and the COVID-19 pandemic. J Behav Addict 9(2):184–186

    Google Scholar 

  2. Huizenga JC, Ten Dam GTM, Voogt JM, Admiraal WF (2017) Teacher perceptions of the value of game-based learning in secondary education. Comput Educ 110:105–115

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kriz WC (2020) Gaming in the time of COVID-19. Simul Gaming 51(4):403–410

    Google Scholar 

  4. Laato S, Islam AN, Laine TH (2020) Did location-based games motivate players to socialize during COVID-19? Telemat Inform 54:101458

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hwa SP (2018) Pedagogical change in mathematics learning: harnessing the power of digital game-based learning. J Educ Technol Soc 21(4):259–276

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen SY, Chang YM (2020) The impacts of real competition and virtual competition in digital game-based learning. Comput Hum Behav 104:106171

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chen CH, Shih CC, Law V (2020) The effects of competition in digital game-based learning (DGBL): a meta-analysis. Educ Technol Res Dev 68(4):1855–1873

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heng LC, Said MNHM (2020) Effects of digital game-based learning apps based on Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning in mathematics for primary school students. Innov Teach Learn J 4(1):65–78

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yeh YT, Hung HT, Hsu YJ (2017) Digital game-based learning for improving students' academic achievement, learning motivation, and willingness to communicate in an English course. In: IEEE 6th international congress on advanced applied informatics, pp 560–563

  10. Hussein MH, Ow SH, Cheong LS, Thong MK, Ebrahim NA (2019) Effects of digital game-based learning on elementary science learning: a systematic review. IEEE Access 7:62465–62478

    Google Scholar 

  11. Huizenga J, Admiraal W, Ten Dam G, Voogt J (2019) Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: students’ immersion, game activities, team performance and learning outcomes. Comput Hum Behav 99:137–143

    Google Scholar 

  12. Erhel S, Jamet E (2013) Digital game-based learning: impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Comput Educ 67:156–167

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chen CH, Law V (2016) Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Comput Hum Behav 55:1201–1212

    Google Scholar 

  14. Liao CW, Chen CH, Shih SJ (2019) The interactivity of video and collaboration for learning achievement, intrinsic motivation, cognitive load, and behavior patterns in a digital game-based learning environment. Comput Educ 133:43–55

    Google Scholar 

  15. Behnamnia N, Kamsin A, Ismail MAB, Hayati A (2020) The effective components of creativity in digital game-based learning among young children: a case study. Child Youth Serv Rev 116:105227

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yeh YC, Chang HL, Chen SY (2019) Mindful learning: a mediator of mastery experience during digital creativity game based learning among elementary school students. Comput Educ 132:63–75

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hamari J, Shernoff DJ, Rowe E, Coller B, Asbell-Clarke J, Edwards T (2016) Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Comput Hum Behav 54:170–179

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chang CC, Liang C, Chou PN, Lin GY (2017) Is game-based learning better in flow experience and various types of cognitive load than non-game-based learning? Perspective from multimedia and media richness. Comput Hum Behav 71:218–227

    Google Scholar 

  19. Denham AR (2019) Using the PCaRD digital game-based learning model of instruction in the middle school mathematics classroom: a case study. Br J Educ Technol 50(1):415–427

    Google Scholar 

  20. Breien FS, Wasson B (2020) Narrative categorization in digital game-based learning: engagement, motivation and learning. Br J Educ Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. All A, Plovie B, Castellar EPN, Van Looy J (2017) Pre-test influences on the effectiveness of digital-game based learning: a case study of a fire safety game. Comput Educ 114:24–37

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yang JC, Chen SY (2020) An investigation of game behavior in the context of digital game-based learning: an individual difference perspective. Comput Hum Behav 112:106432

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kiili K (2005) Digital game-based learning: towards an experiential gaming model. Internet High Educ 8(1):13–24

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hafis M, Tolle H, Supianto AA (2019) A literature review of empirical evidence on procedural content generation in game-related implementation. J Inf Technol Comput Sci 4(3):308–328

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tang S, Hanneghan M (2011) Game content model: an ontology for documenting serious game design. In: IEEE developments in e-systems engineering, pp 431–436

  26. Gagné RM, Gagné RM (1985) Conditions of learning and theory of instruction. Holt, Rinehartand Winston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Zafar A, Mujtaba H, Beg MO (2020) Search-based procedural content generation for GVG-LG. Appl Soft Comput 86:105909

    Google Scholar 

  28. Adrian DFH, Luisa SGCA (2013) An approach to level design using procedural content generation and difficulty curves. In: IEEE conference on computational intelligence in games, pp 1–8

  29. Summerville A, Snodgrass S, Guzdial M, Holmgård C, Hoover AK, Isaksen A, Togelius J (2018) Procedural content generation via machine learning (PCGML). IEEE Trans Games 10(3):257–270

    Google Scholar 

  30. Barriga NA (2019) A short introduction to procedural content generation algorithms for video games. Int J Artif Intell Tools 28(02):1930001

    Google Scholar 

  31. Togelius J, Champandard AJ, Lanzi PL, Mateas M, Paiva A, Preuss M, Stanley KO (2013) Procedural content generation: goals, challenges and actionable steps. In: Togelius J et al (ed) Artificial and computational intelligence in games. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany, pp 61–75

  32. Togelius J, Schmidhuber J (2008) An experiment in automatic game design. In: IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and games, pp 111–118

  33. Sorenson N, Pasquier P (2010) Towards a generic framework for automated video game level creation. In: European conference on the applications of evolutionary computation, pp 131–140

  34. Togelius J, Preuss M, Yannakakis GN (2010) Towards multi objective procedural map generation. In: Proceedings of the 2010 workshop on procedural content generation in games, pp 1–8

  35. Togelius J, Yannakakis GN, Stanley KO, Browne C (2011) Search-based procedural content generation: a taxonomy and survey. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 3(3):172–186

    Google Scholar 

  36. Risi S, Togelius J (2020) Increasing generality in machine learning through procedural content generation. Nat Mach Intell 2:428–436

    Google Scholar 

  37. Jain R, Isaksen A, Holmgård C, Togelius J (2016) Autoencoders for level generation, repair, and recognition. In: Proceedings of the ICCC workshop on computational creativity and games, pp 1–9

  38. Summerville A, Mateas M (2016) Supermario as a string: platformer level generation via lstms.

  39. Volz V, Schrum J, Liu J, Lucas SM, Smith A, Risi S (2018) Evolving mario levels in the latent space of a deep convolutional generative adversarial network. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pp 221–228

  40. Karavolos D, Liapis A, Yannakakis GN (2019) A multi-faceted surrogate model for search-based procedural content generation. IEEE Trans Games. https://doi.org/10.1109/TG.2019.2931044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith AM, Mateas M (2011) Answer set programming for procedural content generation: a design space approach. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 3(3):187–200

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gravina D, Khalifa A, Liapis A, Togelius J, Yannakakis GN (2019) Procedural content generation through quality diversity. In: IEEE conference on games, pp 1–8

  43. Hooshyar D, Yousefi M, Wang M, Lim H (2018) A data-driven procedural content generation approach for educational games. J Comput Assist Learn 34(6):731–739

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pedersen C, Togelius J, Yannakakis GN (2010) Modeling player experience for content creation. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 2(1):54–67

    Google Scholar 

  45. Alessi SM, Trollip SR (2001) Multimedia for learning: methods and development. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  46. Li G, Kou G, Peng Y (2016) A group decision making model for integrating heterogeneous information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cy-S 48:982–992

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang H, Kou G, Peng Y (2019) Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations. Eur J Oper Res 277:964–980

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Kou G, Yang P, Peng Y, Xiao F, Chen Y, Alsaadi FE (2020) Evaluation of feature selection methods for text classification with small datasets using multiple criteria decision-making methods. Appl Soft Comput 86:105836

    Google Scholar 

  49. Yu CS (2002) A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems. Comput Oper Res 29:1969–2001

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Deng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Int J Approx Reas 21:215–231

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zhou X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Chan FT, Ishizaka A (2018) A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP. Ann Oper Res 271:1045–1066

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Beskese A, Sen T (2013) A fuzzy multi attribute approach to help measure quality of online classifieds systems. J Mult Valued Log Soft Comput 20:121–141

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ruan D (2004) Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey. Int Prod Econ 87:171–184

    Google Scholar 

  54. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17:233–247

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheng AC, Chen CJ, Chen CY (2008) A fuzzy multiple criteria comparison of technology forecasting methods for predicting the new materials development. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75:131–141

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mangla SK, Govindan K, Luthra S (2017) Prioritizing the barriers to achieve sustainable consumption and production trends in supply chains using fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. J Clean Prod 151:509–525

    Google Scholar 

  57. İnce M, Yiğit T, Işik AH (2020) A novel hybrid fuzzy AHP-GA method for test sheet question selection. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 19(02):629–647

    Google Scholar 

  58. Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Mach Learn 3:95–99

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wang YZ (2003) Using genetic algorithm methods to solve course scheduling problems. Exp Syst Appl 25:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  61. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading Menlo Park

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Ince M, Yigit T, Isik AH (2019) A hybrid AHP-GA method for metadata based learning object evaluation. Neural Comput Appl 31(1):671–681

    Google Scholar 

  63. Yeh J, Kreng B, Lin C (2001) A consensus approach for synthesizing the elements of comparison matrix in the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Syst Sci 32:1353–1363

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Pendharkar P (2003) Characterization of aggregate fuzzy membership functions using Saaty’s eigen value approach. Comput Oper Res 30:199–212

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Lin C, Wang W, Yu W (2008) Improving AHP for construction with an adaptive AHP approach (A3). Autom Constr 17:180–187

    Google Scholar 

  66. Terano T, Ishino Y (1996) Knowledge acquisition from questionnaire data using simulated breeding and inductive learning methods. Exp Syst Appl 11:507–518

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ding L, Yue Y, Ahmet K, Jackson M, Parkin R (2005) Global optimization of a feature-based process sequence using GA and ANN techniques. Int J Prod Res 43:3247–3272

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Ince M, Isik AH, Yigit T (2016) Multi-Criteria approach to learning object selection through fuzzy AHP. J Mult Valued Log Soft Comput 27:47–62

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  69. Chan FT, Kumar N, Tiwari MK, Lau HC, Choy KL (2008) Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach. Int J Prod Res 46:3825–3857

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Deng L, Yu D (2014) Deep learning: methods and applications. Found Trends Signal Process 7(3–4):197–387

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  71. Salamon J, Bello JP (2017) Deep convolutional neural networks and data augmentation for environmental sound classification. IEEE Signal Process Lett 24(3):279–283

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bengio Y, Simard P, Frasconi P (1994) Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(2):157–166

    Google Scholar 

  73. Yildirim Ö (2018) A novel wavelet sequence based on deep bidirectional LSTM network model for ECG signal classification. Comput Biol Med 96:189–202

    Google Scholar 

  74. Graves A, Schmidhuber J (2005) Framewise phoneme classification with bidirectional LSTM and other neural network architectures. Neural Netw 18(5–6):602–610

    Google Scholar 

  75. Cui Z, Ke R, Pu Z, Wang Y (2018) Deep bidirectional and unidirectional LSTM recurrent neural network for network-wide traffic speed prediction.

  76. Kiperwasser E, Goldberg Y (2016) Simple and accurate dependency parsing using bidirectional LSTM feature representations. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist 4:313–327

    Google Scholar 

  77. Mariño JR, Reis WM, Lelis LH (2015) An empirical evaluation of evaluation metrics of procedurally generated Mario levels. In: Eleventh artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment conference, pp 44–50

  78. Summerville A, Mariño JR, Snodgrass S, Ontañón S, Lelis LH (2017) Understanding mario: an evaluation of design metrics for platformers. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the foundations of digital games, pp 1–10

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Cunur West Campus, Isparta, 32200, Turkey

    Murat İnce

Authors
  1. Murat İnce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat İnce.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

İnce, M. BiLSTM and dynamic fuzzy AHP-GA method for procedural game level generation. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 9761–9773 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06180-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06180-7

Keywords