MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559991383

Close Reading Oblivion: Character Believability and Intelligent Personalization in Games

2009· article· en· W1559991383 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Glen Tanenbaum, Jim Bizzocchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)Reading (process)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)PersonalizationClass (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebLinguisticsHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates issues of character believability and intelligent personalization through a reading of the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Oblivion’s opening sequence simultaneously trains players in the function of the game, and allows them to customize their character class through the choices and actions they take. Oblivion makes an ambitious attempt at intelligent personalization in the character creation process. Its strategy is to track early gameplay decisions and “stereotype ” players into one of 21 possible classes. This approach has two advantages over a less adaptive system. First, it supports the illusion of the gameworld as a real world by embedding the process of character creation within a narrativised gameplay context. Second, the intelligent recommendation system responds to the player’s desire to believe that the game “knows ” something about her personality. This leads the players to conceptualize the system as an entity with autonomous, human-like knowledge. This paper considers ways in which Oblivion both succeeds and fails at mapping player behaviour to appropriate class assignments. It does so through the analysis of multiple replayings of the opening sequence, and the application of two theoretical lenses- character believability and intelligent personalization. The paper documents moments where the dialogue between player and game breaks down, and argues for alternative techniques to customize the play experience within the desires of the player.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207