skip to main content
10.1145/3582437.3587213acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

“Generator’s Haunted”: A Brief, Spooky Account of Hauntological Effects in the Player Experience of Procedural Generation

Published:12 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Theories of the poetics of procedural generation attempt to explain the player experience of interacting with generators by describing the aesthetic or experiential qualities that generators can afford when they are deployed in particular ways. We propose that an underinvestigated aspect of procgen poetics—the experiential effects of the sequencing of generated artifacts—can be understood in terms of hauntology, a theory of textual interpretation that aims to account for the lingering effects of past texts (and their implied futures) on present ones. We briefly introduce hauntology, discuss a few examples of hauntological effects in player experiences of procgen, and gesture at implications for future technical work.

References

  1. Katherine Compton. 2019. Casual Creators: Defining a Genre of Autotelic Creativity Support Systems. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Michael Cook, Mirjam Eladhari, Andy Nealen, Mike Treanor, Eddy Boxerman, Alex Jaffe, Paul Sottosanti, and Steve Swink. 2016. PCG-based game design patterns. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03138 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jacques Derrida. 1994. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lindsay Grace. 2019. Hauntology, the Penumbra, and the Narratives of Play Experience. In 25th International Symposium of Electronic Art (ISEA), Gwangju, South Korea.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Christian Guckelsberger, Christoph Salge, Jeremy Gow, and Paul Cairns. 2017. Predicting player experience without the player: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 305–315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Isaac Karth. 2019. Preliminary poetics of procedural generation in games. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 4, 3 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Max Kreminski, Isaac Karth, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2022. Evaluating Mixed-Initiative Creative Interfaces via Expressive Range Coverage Analysis. In IUI Workshops. 34–45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Max Kreminski, Isaac Karth, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2019. Generators that read. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Max Kreminski and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2018. Gardening games: an alternative philosophy of PCG in games. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Antonios Liapis, Georgios N Yannakakis, Mark J Nelson, Mike Preuss, and Rafael Bidarra. 2018. Orchestrating game generation. IEEE Transactions on Games 11, 1 (2018), 48–68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Mark J Nelson, Swen E Gaudl, Simon Colton, and Sebastian Deterding. 2018. Curious users of casual creators. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Younès Rabii and Michael Cook. 2023. Why Oatmeal is Cheap: Kolmogorov Complexity and Procedural Generation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Gillian Smith. 2014. Understanding procedural content generation: a design-centric analysis of the role of PCG in games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 917–926.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Georgios N Yannakakis and Julian Togelius. 2011. Experience-driven procedural content generation. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 2, 3 (2011), 147–161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. “Generator’s Haunted”: A Brief, Spooky Account of Hauntological Effects in the Player Experience of Procedural Generation

      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 '23: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
        April 2023
        621 pages
        ISBN:9781450398558
        DOI:10.1145/3582437

        Copyright © 2023 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: 12 April 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)44
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format