A Progressive Approach to Content Generation

  • Mohammad Shaker
  • Noor ShakerEmail author
  • Julian Togelius
  • Mohamed Abou-Zleikha
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9028)


PCG approaches are commonly categorised as constructive, generate-and-test or search-based. Each of these approaches has itsdistinctive advantages and drawbacks. In this paper, we propose an approach to Content Generation (CG) – in particular level generation – that combines the advantages of constructive and search-based approaches thus providing a fast, flexible and reliable way of generating diverse content of high quality. In our framework, CG is seen from a new perspective which differentiates between two main aspects of the gameplay experience, namely the order of the in-game interactions and the associated level design. The framework first generates timelines following the search-based paradigm. Timelines are game-independent and they reflect the rhythmic feel of the levels. A progressive, constructive-based approach is then implemented to evaluate timelines by mapping them into level designs. The framework is applied for the generation of puzzles for the Cut the Rope game and the results in terms of performance, expressivity and controllability are characterised and discussed.


Game Design Progressive Approach Game Simulator Grammatical Evolution Game Session 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank ZeptoLab for giving us permission to use the original Cut The Rope graphical assets for research purposes. The research was supported in part by the Danish Research Agency, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation; project “PlayGALe” (1337-00172).


  1. 1.
    Togelius, J., Yannakakis, G.N., Stanley, K.O., Browne, C.: Search-based procedural content generation. In: Di Chio, C., Cagnoni, S., Cotta, C., Ebner, M., Ekárt, A., Esparcia-Alcazar, A.I., Goh, C.-K., Merelo, J.J., Neri, F., Preuß, M., Togelius, J., Yannakakis, G.N. (eds.) EvoApplicatons 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6024, pp. 141–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaker, N., Liapis, A., Togelius, J., Lopes, R., Bidarra, R.: Constructive generation methods for dungeons and levels. In: Shaker, N., Togelius, J., Nelson, M.J. (eds.) Procedural Content Generation in Games: A Textbook and an Overview of Current Research. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Preuss, M., Liapis, A., Togelius, J.: Searching for good and diverse game levels. In: 2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Neill, M., Ryan, C.: Grammatical evolution. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 5(4), 349–358 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hornby, G.S., Pollack, J.B.: The advantages of generative grammatical encodings for physical design. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 600–607. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrne, J., Fenton, M., Hemberg, E., McDermott, J., O’Neill, M., Shotton, E., Nally, C.: Combining structural analysis and multi-objective criteria for evolutionary architectural design. In: Di Chio, C., Brabazon, A., Di Caro, G.A., Drechsler, R., Farooq, M., Grahl, J., Greenfield, G., Prins, C., Romero, J., Squillero, G., Tarantino, E., Tettamanzi, A.G.B., Urquhart, N., Uyar, A.Ş. (eds.) EvoApplications 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6625, pp. 204–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Neill, M., Swafford, J.M., McDermott, J., Byrne, J., Brabazon, A., Shotton, E., McNally, C., Hemberg, M.: Shape grammars and grammatical evolution for evolutionary design. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1035–1042. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaker, N., Nicolau, M., Yannakakis, G., Togelius, J., O’Neill, M.: Evolving levels for super mario bros using grammatical evolution. In: IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), pp. 304–311 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shaker, N., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J., Nicolau, M., ONeill, M: Evolving personalized content for super mario bros using grammatical evolution (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Font, J., Mahlmann, T., Manrique, D., Togelius, J.: Towards the automatic generation of card games through grammar-guided genetic programming. In: FDG 2010, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaker, M., Sarhan, M.H., Al Naameh, O., Shaker, N., Togelius, J.: Automatic generation and analysis of physics-based puzzle games. In: 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Games (CIG), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaker, M., Shaker, N., Togelius, J.: Evolving playable content for cut the rope through a simulation-based approach. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Neill, M., Hemberg, E., Gilligan, C., Bartley, E., McDermott, J., Brabazon, A.: Geva: grammatical evolution in java. ACM SIGEVOlution 3(2), 17–22 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Shaker
    • 1
  • Noor Shaker
    • 2
    Email author
  • Julian Togelius
    • 3
  • Mohamed Abou-Zleikha
    • 4
  1. 1.Joseph Fourier UniversityGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.New York UniversityNew York CityUSA
  4. 4.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations