MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414836500 · doi:10.1145/3748612

Democratizing Game Modding with GenAI: A Case Study of StarCharM, a Stardew Valley Character Maker

2025· article· en· W4414836500 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Zand Miralvand, Mohammad Ronagh Nikghalb, Mohammad Darandeh, Анна Хан, Ian Arawjo, Jinghui Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsModCharacter (mathematics)Component (thermodynamics)GotoOriginality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Game modding offers unique and personalized gaming experiences, but the technical complexity of creating mods often limits participation to skilled users. We envision a future where every player can create personalized mods for their games. To explore this space, we designed StarCharM, a GenAI-based non-player character (NPC) creator for Stardew Valley. Our tool enables players to iteratively create new NPC mods, requiring minimal user input while allowing for fine-grained adjustments through user control. We conducted a user study with ten Stardew Valley players who had varied mod usage experiences to understand the impacts of StarCharM and provide insights into how GenAI tools may reshape modding, particularly in NPC creation. Participants expressed excitement in bringing their character ideas to life, although they noted challenges in generating rich content to fulfill complex visions. While they believed GenAI tools like StarCharM can foster a more diverse modding community, some voiced concerns about diminished originality and community engagement that may come with such technology. Our findings provided implications and guidelines for the future of GenAI-powered modding tools and co-creative modding practices.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207