Advertisement

Mixed-initiative content creation

  • Antonios Liapis
  • Gillian Smith
  • Noor Shaker
Chapter
Part of the Computational Synthesis and Creative Systems book series (CSACS)

Abstract

Algorithms can generate game content, but so can humans. And while PCG algorithms can generate some kinds of game content remarkably well and extremely quickly, some other types (and aspects) of game content are still best made by humans. Can we combine the advantages of procedural generation and human creation somehow? This chapter discusses mixed-initiative systems for PCG, where both humans and software have agency and co-create content. A small taxonomy is presented of different ways in which humans and algorithms can collaborate, and then three mixed-initiative PCG systems are discussed in some detail: Tanagra, Sentient Sketchbook, and Ropossum.

Keywords

Human User Human Designer Interactive Evolution Game Content Game Level 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Almeida, M.S.O., da Silva, F.S.C.: A systematic review of game design methods and tools. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Entertainment Computing, pp. 17–29 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biles, J.A.: GenJam: A genetic algorithm for generating jazz solos. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, pp. 131–137 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carbonell, J.R.: Mixed-initiative man-computer instructional dialogues. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1970)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardamone, L., Loiacono, D., Lanzi, P.L.: Interactive evolution for the procedural generation of tracks in a high-end racing game. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 395–402 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cho, S.B., Lee, J.Y.: Emotional image retrieval with interactive evolutionary computation. In: Advances in Soft Computing, pp. 57–66. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clune, J., Lipson, H.: Evolving three-dimensional objects with a generative encoding inspired by developmental biology. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 144–148 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawkins, R.: The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dipaola, S., Carlson, K., McCaig, G., Salevati, S., Sorenson, N.: Adaptation of an autonomous creative evolutionary system for real-world design application based on creative cognition. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Creativity (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebner, M., Reinhardt, M., Albert, J.: Evolution of vertex and pixel shaders. In: Genetic Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3447, pp. 261–270. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engelbart, D.C.: Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFOSR-3233 (1962)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gingold, C.: Miniature gardens & magic crayons: Games, spaces, & worlds. Master’s thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf, J.: Interactive evolutionary algorithms in design. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms, pp. 227–230 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hastings, E.J., Guha, R.K., Stanley, K.O.: Automatic content generation in the Galactic Arms Race video game. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 1(4), 245–263 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hoover, A.K., Szerlip, P.A., Stanley, K.O.: Interactively evolving harmonies through functional scaffolding. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsu, F.C., Chen, J.S.: A study on multi criteria decision making model: Interactive genetic algorithms approach. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 3, pp. 634–639 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kimbrough, S.O., Koehler, G.J., Lu, M.,Wood, D.H.: On a feasible-infeasible two-population (FI-2Pop) genetic algorithm for constrained optimization: Distance tracing and no free lunch. European Journal of Operational Research 190(2), 310–327 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liapis, A., Martínez, H.P., Togelius, J., Yannakakis, G.N.: Adaptive game level creation through rank-based interactive evolution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Alexopoulos, C., Lopes, P.: Can computers foster human users’ creativity? Theory and praxis of mixed-initiative co-creativity. Digital Culture & Education 8(2), 136–153 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Neuroevolutionary constrained optimization for content creation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games, pp. 71–78 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Adapting models of visual aesthetics for personalized content creation. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 4(3), 213–228 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Enhancements to constrained novelty search: Twopopulation novelty search for generating game content. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Sentient Sketchbook: Computer-aided game level authoring. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 213–220 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G.N., Togelius, J.: Towards a generic method of evaluating game levels. In: Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence for Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference, pp. 30–36 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Licklider, J.C.R.: Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics 1(1), 4–11 (1960)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mateas, M., Stern, A.: A behavior language for story-based believable agents. IEEE Intelligent Systems 17(4), 39–47 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCormack, J.: Interactive evolution of L-system grammars for computer graphics modelling. In: Complex Systems: From Biology to Computation, pp. 118–130. ISO Press (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Negroponte, N.: Soft Architecture Machines. MIT Press (1975)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nelson, M.J., Mateas, M.: A requirements analysis for videogame design support tools. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 137–144 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nojima, Y., Kojima, F., Kubota, N.: Trajectory generation for human-friendly behavior of partner robot using fuzzy evaluating interactive genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, pp. 114–116 (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Novick, D., Sutton, S.: What is mixed-initiative interaction? In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Models for Mixed Initiative Interaction (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmitz, M.: genoTyp, an experiment about genetic typography. In: Proceedings of Generative Art (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sch¨on, D.A.: Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design 3(3), 131–147 (1992)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Secretan, J., Beato, N., D’Ambrosio, D.B., Rodriguez, A., Campbell, A., Stanley, K.O.: Picbreeder: Evolving pictures collaboratively online. In: CHI ’08: Proceeding of the 26th SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1759–1768 (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shaker, M., Sarhan, M.H., Naameh, O.A., Shaker, N., Togelius, J.: Automatic generation and analysis of physics-based puzzle games. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games, pp. 1–8 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shaker, M., Shaker, N., Togelius, J.: Evolving playable content for Cut the Rope through a simulation-based approach. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp. 72–78 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shaker, M., Shaker, N., Togelius, J.: Ropossum: An authoring tool for designing, optimizing and solving Cut the Rope levels. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp. 215–216 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sims, K.: Artificial evolution for computer graphics. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH ’91, pp. 319–328 (1991)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sims, K.: Interactive evolution of dynamical systems. In: Towards a Practice of Autonomous Systems: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 171–178 (1992)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smelik, R.M., Tutenel, T., de Kraker, K.J., Bidarra, R.: Interactive creation of virtual worlds using procedural sketching. In: Proceedings of Eurographics, pp. 29–32 (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith, G., Whitehead, J., Mateas, M.: Tanagra: Reactive planning and constraint solving for mixed-initiative level design. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 3(3), 201–215 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stanley, K.O., Miikkulainen, R.: Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies. Evolutionary Computation 10(2), 99–127 (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sutherland, I.E.: Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. In: Proceedings of the Spring Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS ’63, pp. 329–346 (1963)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Takagi, H.: Active user intervention in an EC search. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Sciences, pp. 995–998 (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Takagi, H.: Interactive evolutionary computation: Fusion of the capabilities of EC optimization and human evaluation. Proceedings of the IEEE 89(9), 1275–1296 (2001)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    The Choco Team: Choco: An open source Java constraint programming library. In: 14th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tokui, N., Iba, H.: Music composition with interactive evolutionary computation. In: International Conference on Generative Art, pp. 219–226 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Digital GamesUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta
  2. 2.College of Arts, Media and DesignNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Architecture, Design and Media TechnologyAalborg University Copenhagen (AAU CPH)CopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations