AI for Games in the Foundation Model Era
Survey organizes foundation-model AI for games into six roles and analyzes which capabilities transfer across playing, design, building, runtime adaptation, and testing.
A survey maps foundation-model and learned world-model research across the game lifecycle into six roles: playing/acting, modeling players and games, designing games, building/maintaining games, runtime generation/adaptation, and testing/evaluation. The authors identify cross-role connections such as trajectories training world models and design specifications driving executable implementations. Control schemes, rules, engine interfaces, state representations, and player contexts often remain setting-specific, so downstream claims require validation in the target setting. Evaluation is most standardized for bounded game playing, while persistent state, repeated revision, validated player modeling, and automated testing remain less established.
- Organizes game AI literature into six roles by immediate use of AI output
- Identifies cross-role connections: trajectories train world models, designs drive implementations
- Control schemes, engine interfaces, and player contexts remain setting-specific
- Evaluation weakest for persistent state, player modeling, runtime adaptation
Full article244 words · extracted from huggingface.co · click to collapse
Foundation models, alongside advances in learned game-world models, are reshaping AI across the game lifecycle. Beyond playing games, recent systems model players and game dynamics, support design and development, adapt player-facing experiences at runtime, and evaluate resulting artifacts. Yet these directions have evolved largely separately, obscuring which capabilities transfer across settings and which remain tied to particular games, engines, interfaces, or player populations. We organize the literature into six roles according to the immediate use of AI output: playing and acting; modeling players and games; designing games; building and maintaining games; generating and adapting at runtime; and testing and evaluating games. For each role, we examine what structure is supplied by the game or workflow, what AI learns or produces, which capabilities and artifacts transfer across settings and roles, and what evidence supports the claims. We identify cross-role connections: trajectories train world models, learned environments provide experience for agents, design specifications drive executable implementations, and play or testing feedback guides revision. However, control schemes, rules, engine interfaces, state representations, and player contexts often remain setting-specific, so downstream claims require validation in the target setting. Evaluation is most standardized for bounded game playing and selected learned environments, while persistent state in learned worlds, repeated software revision, validated player modeling, sustained runtime adaptation, and representative automated testing remain less established. The central challenge is to reuse or transfer outputs and capabilities across roles while re-establishing evidence for effectiveness in the game-specific contexts where they are used.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://huggingface.co/papers/2609.16679