MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186848537 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v2i1.18769

Automatic Story Generation for Computer Role-Playing Games

2006· article· en· W186848537 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis Onuczko, Duane Szafron, Jonathan Schaeffer, Maria Cutumisu, Jeff Siegel, Kevin Waugh, Allan Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScripting languageAdventureComputer sciencePlot (graphics)InteractivityProcess (computing)MultimediaComputer gameSimple (philosophy)Human–computer interactionWorld Wide WebProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scripting the plot in a computer role-playing game requires a large number of scripts that are difficult to track and maintain. Game adventures often have simple plots, called sub- quests, that are independent from the main plot. Sub-quests are important, as they add value to the open-world appeal of the game, but they still have to be scripted. We have created a prototype of a tool that helps by automatically producing design pattern specifications for sub-quests. The specifications can be entered into an existing tool, called ScriptEase, to generate scripting code for Neverwinter Nights adventures, without doing any manual scripting. The sub-quest patterns produced are logically consistent, ensuring the story can be completed by the player. The sub-quests are also designed to produce a better story by having the author adjust the amount of interactivity between the sub-quests. The entire process is done with little input from the author.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207