Advertisement

Scaling the Level of Difficulty in Single Player Video Games

  • Maria-Virginia Aponte
  • Guillaume Levieux
  • Stéphane Natkin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5709)

Abstract

In this this paper, we discuss the interest and the need to evaluate the difficulty of single player video games. We first show the importance of difficulty, drawing from semiotics to explain the link between tension-resolution cycles, and challenge with the player’s enjoyment. Then, we report related work on automatic gameplay analysis. We show through a simple experimentation that automatic video game analysis is both practicable and can lead to interesting results. We argue that automatic analysis tools are limited if they do not consider difficulty from the player point of view. The last section provides a player and Game Design oriented definition of the challenge and difficulty notions in games. As a consequence we derive the property that must fulfill a measurable definition of difficulty.

Keywords

video games challenge difficulty learning evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Boutros, D.: Difficulty is difficult: Designing for hard modes in games. Gamasutra (2008), http://www.gamasutra.com/ (last access 01/2009)
  2. 2.
    Adams, E.: The designer’s notebook: Difficulty modes and dynamic difficulty adjustment. Gamasutra (2008), http://www.gamasutra.com/ (last access 01/2009)
  3. 3.
    Juul, J.: The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. In: Copier, M., Raessens, J. (eds.) Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 30–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hunicke, R.: The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games. In: Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pp. 429–433 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eco, U.: L’oeuvre ouverte. Seuil (1965)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koster, R.: A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press, Scottsdale (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sweetser, P., Wyeth, P.: Gameflow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Comput. Entertain. 3(3), 3 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Hallam, J.: Towards optimizing entertainment in computer games. Applied Artificial Intelligence 21(10), 933–971 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial (March 1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Poels, K., Jurgelionis, A., Belotti, F.: Characterising and measuring user experiences in digital games. In: International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andrade, G., Ramalho, G., Santana, H., Corruble, V.: Extending reinforcement learning to provide dynamic game balancing. In: IJCAI 2005 Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games, pp. 7–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott, B.: Architecting a game ai. In: AI Game Programming Wisdom 1, Charles River Media, Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macleod, A.: Game design through self-play experiments. In: ACE 2005: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology, pp. 421–428. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirby, N.: Ai as gameplay analysis tool. In: Game Programming Wisdom 4. Course Technology, Cengage Learning, pp. 39–49 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bullen, T., Katchabaw, M.J., Dyer-Witheford, N.: Automating content analysis of video games. In: Canadian Game Studies Association (CGSA) Symposium (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Lankveld, G., Spronck, P., Rauterberg, M.: Difficulty scaling through incongruity. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference, Stanford, California, USA, October 22-24 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nantes, A., Brown, R., Maire, F.: A framework for the semi-automatic testing of video games. In: Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference. AAAI, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chan, B., Denzinger, J., Gates, D., Loose, K., Buchanan, J.: Evolutionary behavior testing of commercial computer games. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2004, June 2004, vol. 1, pp. 125–132 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spronck, P.: Evolving improved opponent intelligence. In: GAME-ON 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation, pp. 94–98 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laird, J.E.: Game developers magazine (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pittman, J.: The pac-man dossier. Gamasutra (2009), http://www.gamasutra.com/ (last access 01/2009)
  22. 22.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Hallam, J.: Evolving opponents for interesting interactive computer games. In: Animals to Animats 8: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB 2004), Santa Monica, CA, USA, pp. 499–508. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lucas, S.M.: Evolving a neural network location evaluator to play ms. pac-man. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games, CIG 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gallagher, M., Ledwich, M.: Evolving pac-man players: Can we learn from raw input? In: Computational Intelligence and Games, CIG (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bonet, J., Stauffer, C.: Learning to play pac-man using incremental reinforcement learning (2001), http://www.ai.mit.edu/-people/-stauffer/-Projects/-PacMan (accessed December 5, 2008)
  26. 26.
    Rosca, J.P.: Generality versus size in genetic programming. In: Genetic Programming 1996: Proceedings of the First Annual Conference, pp. 381–387. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gallagher, M., Ryan, A.: Learning to play pac-man: an evolutionary, rule-based approach. In: Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2003), vol. 4, pp. 2462–2469 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watkins, C.J.: Learning from Delayed Rewards. PhD thesis, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Natkin, S., Vega, L.: A petri net model for computer games analysis. Int. J. Intell. Games & Simulation 3(1), 37–44 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Natkin, S., Delocque-Fourcaud, A.M., Novak, E.: Video Games and Interactive Media: A Glimpse at New Digital Entertainment. AK Peters Ltd. (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Byrne, E.: Game Level Design. Game Development Series. Charles River Media (December 2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Juul, J.: Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria-Virginia Aponte
    • 1
  • Guillaume Levieux
    • 1
  • Stéphane Natkin
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches en Informatique du CNAM, Conservatoire National des Arts et MétiersParisFrance

Personalised recommendations