![]() Many of these presentations are more hypothetical, and implemented as early prototypes, still far from being actual games. I guess that the presentations at the PCG workshop were clear examples of the proceduralist stance in game development, since the discussion of players seemed to be out of the question. On the other hand, there were presentations that dealt with the systems exclusively, not really dealing with why this approach was better for games apart from the pre-existing arguments efficiency in creating more content with smaller teams. Few of the presenters seemed to have used human players (more sophisticated and accessible AIs which you don't have to implement) to evaluate their systems. The workshop obviously had a technical focus, so when it came to talk about evaluating the systems, the discussion focused on how AI solvers / computer players were used to see if the game generated is consistent. ![]() What I found considerably absent was a discussion of human factors: are these games playable? How does PCG transform how we make games? How does it change how we play them? In general, the presentations focused on generating the game (including mine). Feeling a bit of the outsider in terms of background and methods, I also sensed the cultural differences between their approach and my own. ![]() Thus I had a kind audience for this humanist to present the paper I wrote with Alec Thomson ( now available online). Most of the other presenters were computer scientists, as well as my friends. This post originally appeared on Clara Fernández-Vara's blog Vagrant Cursor.Īt the end of May, I gave a presentation on the underlying systems and tools that we used to develop the games Symon and Stranded in Singapore at the Procedural Content Generation workshop during the Foundations of Digital Games Conference. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |