Game rankings
Models broadly agree on high- and low-rated games
With each judge held out in turn, the remaining judges define the high and low groups. Held-out pairwise agreement is 93.0–100%, while the ordering of individual games still varies.
PREFER benchmarks how language models evaluate gameplay and develops persona-guided game refinement, using shared experience dimensions.
Overall ratings hide differences in what evaluators value. PREFER uses 12 experience dimensions adapted from PXI and CORGIS to characterize model judgments. The same dimensions also provide measurable objectives for game refinement under different player preferences.
Understanding how large language models (LLMs) evaluate gameplay experience is important for using their feedback to guide game design. However, overall ratings alone provide limited insight into which aspects of experience are associated with these judgments and how they can inform concrete game changes. We introduce PREFER, a framework that uses a shared set of experience dimensions adapted from established psychometric questionnaires to benchmark how models evaluate gameplay and to guide persona-specific game refinement. Through these dimensions, we characterize the perspectives models offer as virtual playtesters by examining how their overall assessments relate to specific aspects of experience and to the gameplay they produce. To examine how the same dimensions can guide refinement for players with different preferences, we use personas to simulate distinct player profiles. For each persona, PREFER uses experience-preference relationships to select refinement objectives, revises game rules and their implementations, and playtests candidate games to assess experience changes and predicted preference gains. Experiments with five personas show that PREFER achieves 9.2% higher mean post-play preference ratings than the strongest evaluated baseline.
Part I
How do models judge gameplay, where do their judgments differ, and how do these evaluations relate to the play they produce?
Five models play a suite of 91 card games against random opponents. Neutral judges and persona references assess shared rules and trajectories, with actor identities hidden.
Game rankings
With each judge held out in turn, the remaining judges define the high and low groups. Held-out pairwise agreement is 93.0–100%, while the ordering of individual games still varies.
Experience profiles
Mastery has a positive association with ratings across models, with correlations of 0.41–0.57. Associations with immersion, challenge fit, and meaning vary. Persona references help describe these differences.
Evaluation and produced play
Across 91 games and 363 matched inputs, the correlation between rating-pattern similarity and relative endorsement of model-produced play is +0.046.
Evaluation finding. Overall rankings capture broad agreement. Experience profiles reveal differences in evaluation emphasis, while the comparison with produced play limits what those judgments tell us about a model as a player.
Replay a recorded game and compare the scores and explanations from different evaluators.
Part II
Can experience–preference relationships guide concrete rule changes that improve a target persona’s post-play rating?
The same experience dimensions now serve as refinement objectives. Preference predictors are validated on games played under each persona, and proposed revisions are checked through implementation tests and fresh playtests.
Preference prediction
Across 455 persona-played observations from 91 games, persona-specific predictors achieve 0.740 MAE, compared with 1.090 for the persona-mean baseline. Lower is better.
Refinement method
Use the persona-specific predictor to select a feasible experience dimension and direction.
Change a game mechanic and check the implementation against fixed function contracts.
Accept candidates that meet the target-change and predicted-preference gates. Rejected candidates can inform a feedback revision.
Refinement outcomes
Across 30 games and five personas, PREFER receives a mean rating of 3.333, compared with 3.053 for ReCode, the strongest evaluated baseline: a relative increase of 9.2%.
| Method | Preference | Success (%) | Execution (%) | ECon | PCon |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original games | 2.927 | — | — | — | — |
| Reflexion | 2.787 | 83.33 | 99.96 | 0.656 | 6.514 |
| PromptBreeder | 2.740 | 73.33 | 99.86 | 0.670 | 5.407 |
| Cardiverse | 2.820 | 76.67 | 99.52 | 0.658 | 5.991 |
| ReCode | 3.053 | 83.33 | 99.96 | 0.659 | 6.648 |
| PREFER | 3.333 | 86.67 | 99.96 | 0.661 | 7.377 |
Implementation success: runnable games. ECon: code–rulebook embedding similarity. PCon: play–rule consistency.
Refinement finding. Experience dimensions provide useful preference predictors and modification targets. The evaluated revisions improve mean preference, with gains varying across personas.
Crazy Eights: choose a persona and compare its rule revision with the original.
Challenge fit: 2 → 3. Post-play preference: 2 → 6.
Inspect the pilot record ↗The evaluation study characterizes model judgments beyond overall ratings and examines their relationship to produced play. The refinement study uses shared experience dimensions to predict persona preferences and guide executable rule changes. Together, they connect an analysis of virtual playtesters with a method for personalized game design.