Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing game mechanics is challenging due to the need for intricate design and programming. Procedural Content Generation (PCG) is a prevalent aspect of modern video game development, enabling the generation of content via algorithms. Achieving the desired balance and player experience is a multifaceted challenge, with game mechanics playing a crucial role—requiring thorough testing, player feedback, and iterative refinement. This work explores automated approaches to mechanic generation and evaluation, drawing from Automated Game Design (AGD). I present methods for generating mechanics, reconstructing levels through level inpainting, and creating enemies that can only be defeated using newly generated mechanics. Comparative studies between reinforcement learning agents and traditional static agents such as A* show that RL facilitates more diverse and human-like mechanic discovery, while static methods remain more stable but less creative. Ongoing work integrates these techniques into environments where mechanics, levels, and enemies co-evolve, enabling richer evaluation of gameplay dynamics. To assess alignment between generated content and designer intent, I propose Design Impact Accuracy (DIA) as a metric to measure how effectively new mechanics are supported within AI-generated levels and enemies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".