| Literature DB >> 34177127 |
Abstract
The use of games in daily life, especially in education, has been in an incline during the COVID-2019 pandemic. Thus, game-based learning environments have caused an increase in the need of game contents, but generation of the game contents and levels is a time-consuming and costly process. Generated game contents and levels should be balanced, dense, aesthetic and reachable. Also, the time as well as the costs spent should be decreased. In order to overcome this problem, automatic and intelligent game content and level generation methods have emerged, and procedural content generation (PCG) is the most popular one of these methods. Artificial intelligence techniques are used for procedural game level generation instead of traditional methods. In this study, bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process-genetic algorithm (FAHP-GA) methods were used to generate procedural game levels. This proposed hybrid system was used in a developed educational game as a case study to create game levels. The performance of the proposed study was compared to the other multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, and also further statistical analyses were investigated. The results showed that the BiLSTM-based FAHP-GA method can be used for procedural game level generation effectively.Entities:
Keywords: Bilstm; Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; Game level generation; Genetic algorithm
Year: 2021 PMID: 34177127 PMCID: PMC8214389 DOI: 10.1007/s00521-021-06180-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Comput Appl ISSN: 0941-0643 Impact factor: 5.102
Sub-criteria of proposed FAHP-GA method
| Sub-criteria of MC1 | Sub-criteria of MC2 | Sub-criteria of MC3 |
|---|---|---|
| SC1: Very easy | SC6: Very few | SC11: Very few |
| SC2: Easy | SC7: Few | SC12: Few |
| SC3: Medium | SC8: Medium | SC13: Medium |
| SC4: Difficult | SC9: Several | SC14: Several |
| SC5: Very difficult | SC10: Many | SC15: Many |
Crisp and TFN value scale for the proposed study [68]
| Linguistic variables | Crisp | TFNs | Reciprocal of TFNs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equally preferred | 1 | 1, 1, 1 | 1, 1, 1 |
| Moderately preferred | 3 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 |
| Strongly preferred | 5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 |
| Very strongly preferred | 7 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| Extremely preferred | 9 | 3.5, 4, 4.5 | 0.222, 0.25, 0.285 |
Fig. 1Intersection point "d" between two fuzzy numbers M1 and M2 [58]
Fig. 2Encoded game level properties as chromosome
Question difficulty criterion (MC1) comparison matrix SCM1
| SC1 | SC2 | SC3 | SC4 | SC5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC1 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 | 0.222, 0.25, 0.285 |
| SC2 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| SC3 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| SC4 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 |
| SC5 | 3.5, 4, 4.5 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 |
Obstacle count criterion (MC2) comparison matrix SCM2
| SC6 | SC7 | SC8 | SC9 | SC10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC6 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 | 0.222, 0.25, 0.285 |
| SC7 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| SC8 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| SC9 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 |
| SC10 | 3.5, 4, 4.5 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 |
Coin count criterion (MC3) comparison matrix SCM3
| SC11 | SC12 | SC13 | SC14 | SC15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC11 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 | 0.222, 0.25, 0.285 |
| SC12 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| SC13 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.285, 0.333, 0.4 |
| SC14 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 |
| SC15 | 3.5, 4, 4.5 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 2.5, 3, 3.5 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 |
Fig. 3BiLSTM schema [75]
Values of the sub-criteria according to the intervals of the difference
| MC1 values for next level | MC2 values for next level | MC3 values for next level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-criteria value (Pa) | Interval | Sub-criteria value (Pb) | Interval | Sub-criteria value (Pc) | Interval |
| Very easy | (−1)–(−0.67) | Very few (4) | (−1)–(−0.67) | Very few (4) | (−1)–(−0.67) |
| Easy | (−0.66)–(−0.34) | Few (8) | (−0.66)–(−0.34) | Few (8) | (−0.66)–(−0.34) |
| Medium | (−0.33)–(0.33) | Medium (12) | (−0.33)–(0.33) | Medium (12) | (−0.33)–(0.33) |
| Difficult | (0.34)–(0.66) | Several (16) | (0.34)–(0.66) | Several (16) | (0.34)–(0.66) |
| Very difficult | (0.67)–(1) | Many (20) | (0.67)–(1) | Many (20) | (0.67)–(1) |
Main criteria comparison matrix as TFNs
| MC1 | MC2 | MC3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MC1 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1.5, 2, 2.5 |
| MC2 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 |
| MC3 | 0.4, 0.5, 0.66 | 0.66, 1, 1.5 | 1, 1, 1 |
Fig. 4The fitness values of the generated game level properties according to the FAHP-GA hybrid model
Fig. 5The FAHP-GA criteria weights for each game level
Fig. 6Computational metrics results for generated levels
Fig. 7Diversity of the level (obstacles) in the educational case study game a Low density, high negative distance b High density, low negative distance
Comparison of the generated game levels according to the 18 students
| Levels | Difficulty | Visual aesthetics | Enjoyment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | Medium | Difficult | Low | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | |
| 1 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 9 |
| 2 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 13 |
| 3 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 14 |
| 4 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 14 |
| 5 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 12 |
| 6 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 12 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 10 |
| 8 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 14 |
| 9 | 5 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 11 |
| 10 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| 11 | 3 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 12 |
| 12 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 11 |
| 13 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| 14 | 2 | 3 | 13 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 8 | 3 | 7 |
| 15 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 13 |
| 16 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 11 |
| 17 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 2 | 11 |
| 18 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 13 |
| 19 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 13 |
| 20 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| Mean | 5.33 | 2.38 | 12.27 | 2.27 | 3.38 | 14.33 | 4.61 | 2.77 | 12.61 |
| (%) | 26.66 | 11.94 | 61.38 | 11.38 | 16.94 | 71.66 | 23.05 | 13.88 | 63.05 |
Comparison of the BiLSTM results with other methods
| Prediction method | Prediction (actual value is 1260) | Error (%) |
|---|---|---|
| BiLSTM | 1264.83 | 0.383 |
| LSTM | 1275.32 | 1.215 |
| ANN | 1276.04 | 1.273 |
| SVR | 1230.75 | 2.321 |
| DTR | 1233.18 | 2.128 |
| RFR | 1241.60 | 1.460 |