IEEE Introduces Mario Level-Generation Competition

bgweber writes "Last year, the IEEE conference on Computational Intelligence and Games hosted a competition to determine who could write the best AI for playing Mario levels (YouTube video). This year, the conference has expanded the competition to include a track on level generation as well, where the goal is to generate new levels online procedurally. Submitting an entry is as easy as implementing a Java interface that performs procedural content generation. The implications of this competition are techniques for greatly increasing the replayability of games, since each gameplay session could present new levels to the player."

Comments

Done

[gpf2]

Congratulations adventurer! Your quest is at an end for you have reached the home of NetHack.

Re:Done

[game kid]

Diablo II (and possibly the original Diablo) does this as well in single player.

Quoth the 'pedia,

Diablo is highly re-playable due to its randomly generated level layouts, monsters, and items. In addition, in single-player mode there are only three core quests as the rest of them are drawn from several pools, making it impossible to complete every quest in one playthrough of the game. Either way, only the last two quests are compulsory. Given this arrangement, no two playthroughs of the game are ever exactly alike.

So it's possibly not "possibly". The quoted section is unsourced, though, so it possibly is "possibly". I'll possibly never know unless I play the game or study modal logic.

Re:Done

[twidarkling]

For some games randomly generated levels work, but for a lot of games it just means un-inspired bland levels most of the time.

I'd go so far as to say randomly generated levels don't work for *most* games. The problem with no level being human-crafted, and there being infinite variation is that, ironically, all the levels start feeling same-y. The big "watch it work" example is usually Diablo I/II. I admit, I probably played those for hundreds of hours *each.* But in doing so, basically developed a sixth sense in the basics of how levels were created. In any randomly generated area, I could, with about 80% accuracy, find both the exit and any waypoint straight away. No false turns, no fleshing out the mini-map, nothing. A procedurally generated environment in a platformer needs to play it even safer, so as to not create any areas that are literally beyond the capabilities of the player. With added limitations come fewer options, so how many times would you need to play in order to start recognizing "okay, two pipes is followed by a pit with an elevator I need to ride up to get on top of a block-cliff." Once you start recognizing individual elements, then it really doesn't matter how the level's put together, and it stops being fun any more, just like a human-designed level that was put together, only now if you run a course you really liked, you probably won't have an option to replay it.

Asshole Mario

[cosm]

I fear the day when the singularity occurs and we peons are forced to play machine generated levels like this this for the amusement of our robotic overlords.

feel kind of dumb

[michaelbuddy]

As a non-programmer, this statement is a little intimidating:

"Submitting an entry is as easy as implementing a Java interface that performs procedural content generation."

WTF am I supposed to do with this? I only clicked to this post because I like mario.

Re:feel kind of dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-programmer . . . WTF am I supposed to do with this?

Wallow in your inadequacies and marvel in the brilliance of others with time, talent, (and possibly training).

That's what I'm planning on doing.

Re:feel kind of dumb

[oldhack]

Hehe, don't you wish you majored in EE? ;-) Pay sucks, lifestyle blows, but... actually, not much but there.

Re:feel kind of dumb

[b4k3d b34nz]

That's ok, nobody feels smart implementing a Java interface

Mod +5, Troll

Problems...

[Darkness404]

Randomly generated dungeons are fine and generally fun because the entire point is to explore. Randomly generated Mario levels are going to be more frustrating than anything else because the AI is going to have very little knowledge of difficulty let alone themes and re-playability.

The entire point of Mario is consistent levels with well timed jumps to reach secrets. I'm not sure if I want levels generated by computers. 50 quality levels are better than 100 AI generated levels.

Re:Problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

Randomly generated dungeons are fine and generally fun because the entire point is to explore. Randomly generated Mario levels are going to be more frustrating than anything else because the AI is going to have very little knowledge of difficulty let alone themes and re-playability.

Umm...I think you might be missing the point of this track of competition. It is a given that haphazard Mario levels would not be fun to plan. Developing algorithms that randomly create fun levels is a difficult problem. Test players will play these levels and rank them. Chances are, there will be some generators that consistently create fun levels, while others will consistently create boring levels. It may be difficult to anticipate the subjective tastes of the testers, but that just adds to the challenge.

Random Levels

[LoudMusic]

I've been saying this for years! Random level generation in first person shooters, racers, and platformers doesn't seem terribly complex to me. Why hasn't anyone introduced this into a game yet?

To expand on it, random levels in first person shooters could also be changing during game play so that the 'round' never resets and the game continues endlessly. Any time a zone is unoccupied it could be redrawn. Or divide the map into a grid and randomly load the grid spaces with pre-designed sections, then when a section is free of players load a new section. The map will be constantly changing and the environment will be challenging. I believe this would effectively eliminate campers who memorize the best spots on maps and just hang out there the whole game.

Re:Random Levels

[Ark42]

1991, Sega - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_Jam_and_Earl

Re:Random Levels

[ultranova]

In the case of first person shooters and online gaming, people often gravitate to a select few maps.

When you're starting, you don't know any maps and will simply play what everyone else is playing. And once you've become familiar with these maps, you prefer them, because playing an unfamiliar one would put you at a disadvantage compared to playing a familiar one.

Switching up levels on the fly can be interesting for certain situations but disruptive in games that have high replay value with select few and well known maps.

Making every play happen in a different level is a great idea precisely because it disrupts tactics that take advantage of level bugs, such as camping next to respawn points. It also adds new gameplay elements, such as exploration, which in turn makes a fast but weak scout a viable character, and ambushes, because you can't just memorize every possible location.

Besides, changing the focus from route learning a coreography into quickly adapting to new situations is hardly going to make the game have less replay value. And, for that matter, why do you think that games like Mario have so many different levels, rather than just repeat a few with more enemies? It's precisely because it's fun to encounter something you haven't before. It's the premise such small franchises as Fallout, GTA and Elder Scrolls are built on. Seems to be working just fine for them.