skip to main content
10.1145/1814256.1814267acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespcgamesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Polymorph: dynamic difficulty adjustment through level generation

Published:18 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Players begin games at different skill levels and develop their skill at different rates so that even the best-designed games are uninterestingly easy for some players and frustratingly difficult for others. A proposed answer to this challenge is Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (DDA), a general category of approaches that alter games during play, in response to player performance. However, nearly all these techniques are focused on basic parameter tweaking, while the difficulty of many games is connected to aspects that are more challenging to adjust dynamically, such as level design. Further, most DDA techniques are based on designer intuition, which may not reflect actual play patterns. Responding to these challenges, we present Polymorph, which employs techniques from level generation and machine learning to understand game component difficulty and player skill, dynamically constructing a 2D platformer game with continually-appropriate challenge. We believe this will create a play experience that is unique because the changes are both personalized and structural, while also providing an example of a promising new research and development approach.

References

  1. Blizzard Entertainment 1997. Diablo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth, M. 2009. The AI Systems of Left 4 Dead. Keynote, Fifth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (AIIDE '09). Stanford, CA. October 14--16, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., and Hoffman, S. 2004. Improving player choices. Gamasutra (March 2004). http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040310/fullerton_01.s html. Online Feb. 1, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Herbrich, R., Graepel, T., and Obermayer, K. 2000. Large Margin Rank Boundaries for Ordinal Regression. Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, 115--132, Liu Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 (Valencia, Spain, June 15--17, 2005). ACE '05, vol. 265. ACM, New York, NY, 429--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Juul, J. 2009. Fear of Failing? The Many Meanings of Difficulty in Video Games. The Video Game Theory Reader 2, B. Perron and M. Wolf, Ed. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kazemi, D. 2008. Metrics and Dynamic Difficulty in Ritual's SiN Episodes. OrbusGameWorks.com. http://orbusgameworks.com/blog/article/70/metrics-and-dynamic-difficulty-in-rituals-sin-episodes-part-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nintendo 1985. Super Mario Bros.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Nitsche, M., Ashmore, C., Hankinson, W., Fitzpatrick, R., Kelly, J., and Margenau, K. 2006. Designing Procedural Game Spaces: A Case Study. In Proceedings of FuturePlay 2006. London, Ontario. October 10--12, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pedersen, C., Togelius, J., and Yannakakis, G. 2009. Modeling Player Experience in Super Mario Bros. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, September 07--10, 2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Persson, M. Infinite Mario Bros.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Phillips, B. 2009. Staying Power: Rethinking Feedback to Keep Players in the Game. Gamasutra.com. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4171/staying_power _rethinking_feedback_.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Ritual Entertainment 1998. SiN Episodes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, G., Treanor, M., Whitehead, J., Mateas, M. 2009. Rhythm-Based Level Generation for 2D Platformers. Proceedings of the 2009 Int'l Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (Orlando, FL, USA, April 26--30, 2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Togelius, J., De Nardi, R., and Lucas, S. 2007. Towards automatic personalised content creation for racing games. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (2007).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Togelius, J., Yannakakis, G., Stanley, K., and Browne, C. 2010. Search-based Procedural Content Generation. To be presented at Evostar (Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, April 07--09, 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Toy, M. and Wichman, G. 1980. Rogue.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Valve Software. 2008. Left 4 Dead.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yu, D. 2009. Spelunky.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Polymorph: dynamic difficulty adjustment through level 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
            PCGames '10: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games
            June 2010
            67 pages
            ISBN:9781450300230
            DOI:10.1145/1814256

            Copyright © 2010 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 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: 18 June 2010

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate13of15submissions,87%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader