skip to main content
10.1145/3102071.3102080acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding mario: an evaluation of design metrics for platformers

Published:14 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Evaluating the output of content generators is still one of the key open research challenges in Procedural Content Generation (PCG). This paper presents a collection of metrics for evaluating the quality of platform game levels, and analyzes how well these metrics are able to capture the human-perceived difficulty, visual aesthetics and enjoyment of these levels. We show empirically, in the context of Infinite Mario Bros (IMB), that some of the proposed metrics yield correlation values with human ratings that are near empirical upper bounds derived from a human inter-rater agreement study. We also show that a simple linear regression model using a subset of our metrics as input features is able to substantially outperform a previous approach that uses a neural network for predicting human-perceived difficulty, visual aesthetics, and enjoyment in IMB levels.

References

  1. M. Bauerly and Y. Liu. 2006. Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 8 (2006), 670--682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alessandro Canossa and Gillian Smith. 2015. Towards a Procedural Evaluation Technique: Metrics for Level Design. Proceedings of FDG (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Steve Dahlskog and Julian Togelius. 2013. Patterns as objectives for level generation. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Steve Dahlskog, Julian Togelius, and Mark J. Nelson. 2014. Linear levels through n-grams. In Proceedings of the 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Matthew Guzdial and Mark O. Riedl. 2015. Toward Game Level Generation from Gameplay Videos. In Proceedings of the FDG workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Guzdial, N. Sturtevant, and B. Li. 2016. Deep Static and Dynamic Level Analysis: A Study on Infinite Mario. In Proceedings of the 3rd Experimental AI in Games Workshop. 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. P. E. Hart, N.J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael. 1968. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC-4(2) (1968), 100--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Britton Horn, Steve Dahlskog, Noor Shaker, Gillian Smith, and Julian Togelius. 2014. A comparative evaluation of procedural level generators in the mario ai framework. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. R. H Mariño, W. M. P. Reis, and L. H. S. Lelis. 2015. An Empirical Evaluation of Evaluation Metrics of Procedurally Generated Mario Levels. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. R. H. Marino and L. H. S. Lelis. 2016. A Computational Model based on Symmetry for Generating Visually Pleasing Maps of Platform Games. In Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. D. C. L. Ngo, A. Samsudin, and R. Abdullah. 2000. Aesthetic measures for assessing graphic screens. J. Inf. Sci. Eng 16, 1 (2000), 97--116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David Chek Ling Ngo, Lian Seng Teo, and John G Byrne. 2003. Modelling interface aesthetics. Information Sciences 152 (2003), 25--46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Christopher Pedersen, Julian Togelius, and Georgios N Yannakakis. 2010. Modeling player experience for content creation. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 2, 1 (2010), 54--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Paolo Piselli, Mark Claypool, and James Doyle. 2009. Relating cognitive models of computer games to user evaluations of entertainment.. In FDG, Jim Whitehead and R. Michael Young (Eds.). ACM, 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. W. M. P. Reis, L. H. S. Lelis, and Y. Gal. 2015. Human Computation for Procedural Content Generation in Platform Games. In Conference of Computational Intelligence and Games. IEEE, 99--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Santiago Londoño and Olana Missura. 2015. Graph Grammars for Super Mario Bros Levels. In Proceedings of the Procedural Content Generation Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Noor Shaker and Moahamed Abou-Zleikha. 2014. Alone We Can Do So Little, Together We Can Do So Much: A Combinatorial Approach for Generating Game Content. In Proceedings of AIIDE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. N. Shaker, M. Nicolau, G. N. Yannakakis, J. Togelius, and M. O'Neill. 2012. Evolving levels for Super Mario Bros using grammatical evolution. In Conference of Comp. Intell. and Games. IEEE, 304--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. G. Smith, M. Treanor, J. Whitehead, M. Mateas, M. Treanor, J. March, and M. Cha. 2011. Launchpad: A Rhythm-Based Level Generation for 2D Platformers. IEEE Transactions on Computing Intelligence and AI in Games 3, 1 (2011), 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Gillian Smith and Jim Whitehead. 2010. Analyzing the expressive range of a level generator. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games. ACM, 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gillian Smith, Jim Whitehead, and Michael Mateas. 2010. Tanagra: A mixed-initiative level design tool. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, 209--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sam Snodgrass and Santiago Ontanon. 2016. Learning to Generate Video Game Maps Using Markov Models. IEEE TCIAIG (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Adam Summerville and Michael Mateas. 2016. Super Mario as a String: Platformer Level Generation Via LSTMs. In To Appear In Proceedings of the First International Conference of DiGRA and FDG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Adam Summerville, Shweta Philip, and Michael Mateas. 2015. MCMCTS PCG 4 SMB: Monte Carlo Tree Search to Guide Platformer Level Generation. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. R. Tibshirani. 1994. Regression Shrinkage and Selection Via the Lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 58 (1994), 267--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Christopher W Totten. 2014. An architectural approach to level design. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. R. M. Yerkes and J. D. Dodson. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18 (1908), 459--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Understanding mario: an evaluation of design metrics for platformers

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            FDG '17: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
            August 2017
            545 pages
            ISBN:9781450353199
            DOI:10.1145/3102071

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            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 the author(s) 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: 14 August 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            FDG '17 Paper Acceptance Rate36of89submissions,40%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader