skip to main content
10.1145/3235765.3235817acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Graph-based generation of action-adventure dungeon levels using answer set programming

Published:07 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The construction of dungeons in typical action-adventure computer games entails composing a complex arrangement of structural and temporal dependencies. It is not simple to generate dungeons with correct lock-and-key structures. In this paper we sketch a controllable approach to building graph-based models of acyclic dungeon levels via declarative constraint solving, that is capable of satisfying a range of hard gameplay and design constraints. We use a quantitative expressive range analysis to characterise the initial output of the system, present an example of the degree to which the output may be altered, and show a comparison with an alternate approach.

References

  1. Alexander Baldwin, Steve Dahlskog, Jose M. Font, and Johan Holmberg. 2017. Towards Pattern-based Mixed-initiative Dungeon Generation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 74, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mark Brown. 2017. How my Boss Key dungeon graphs work. (August 2017). https://www.patreon.com/posts/how-my-boss-key-13801754 Accessed: 2018-06-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Eric Butler, Adam M Smith, Yun-En Liu, and Zoran Popovic. 2013. A mixed-initiative tool for designing level progressions in games. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 377--386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Kate Compton, Adam Smith, and Michael Mateas. 2012. Anza island: Novel gameplay using ASP. In Proceedings of the The third workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games. ACM, 13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Michael Cook, Jeremy Gow, and Simon Colton. 2016. Danesh: Helping bridge the gap between procedural generators and their output. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Joris Dormans. 2010. Adventures in level design: generating missions and spaces for action adventure games. In Proceedings of the 2010 workshop on procedural content generation in games. ACM, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Joris Dormans. 2011. Level design as model transformation: a strategy for automated content generation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Joris Dormans. 2017. Cyclic Generation. In Procedural Generation in Game Design. CRC Press, 83--96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel Foreman-Mackey. 2016. corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python. The Journal of Open Source Software 24 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Norbert Heijne and Sander Bakkes. 2017. Procedural Zelda: APCG Environment for Player Experience Research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 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
  12. Daniël Karavolos, Anders Bouwer, and Rafael Bidarra. 2015. Mixed-Initiative Design of Game Levels: Integrating Mission and Space into Level Generation.. In FDG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rebecca Lavender. 2016. The Zelda Dungeon Generator: Adopting Generative Grammars to Create Levels for Action-Adventure Games. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mark J Nelson and Adam M Smith. 2016. ASP with applications to mazes and levels. In Procedural Content Generation in Games. Springer, 143--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Xenija Neufeld, Sanaz Mostaghim, and Diego Perez-Liebana. 2015. Procedural level generation with Answer Set Programming for General Video Game playing. In Computer Science and Electronic Engineering Conference (CEEC), 2015 7th. IEEE, 207--212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Anthony J Smith and Joanna J Bryson. 2014. A logical approach to building dungeons: Answer Set Programming for hierarchical procedural content generation in roguelike games. In Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Convention of the AISB.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Adam M. Smith, Erik Andersen, Michael Mateas, and Zoran Popović. 2012. A Case Study of Expressively Constrainable Level Design Automation Tools for a Puzzle Game. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 156--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Adam M Smith and Michael Mateas. 2011. Answer set programming for procedural content generation: A design space approach. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 3, 3 (2011), 187--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Adam J Summerville, Morteza Behrooz, Michael Mateas, and Arnav Jhala. 2015. The learning of zelda: Data-driven learning of level topology. In Proceedings of the FDG workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Valtchan Valtchanov and Joseph Alexander Brown. 2012. Evolving dungeon crawler levels with relative placement. In Proceedings of the Fifth International C* Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering. ACM, 27--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Roland Van der Linden, Ricardo Lopes, and Rafael Bidarra. 2013. Designing procedurally generated levels. In Proceedings of the the second workshop on Artificial Intelligence in the Game Design Process.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Roland van der Linden, Ricardo Lopes, and Rafael Bidarra. 2014. Procedural generation of dungeons. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 6, 1 (2014), 78--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Graph-based generation of action-adventure dungeon levels using answer set programming

        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 '18: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
          August 2018
          503 pages

          Copyright © 2018 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: 7 August 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          FDG '18 Paper Acceptance Rate39of95submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader