PREFERFrom Player Experience
to Personalized Game Refinement

Qi Chai*Zhang Zheng*Lu YangZixun SunHao Wang

* Equal contribution

Explore the research

PREFER benchmarks how language models evaluate gameplay and develops persona-guided game refinement, using shared experience dimensions.

PREFER framework: game suite, persona-guided refinement, and model benchmarking
PREFER overview. Shared experience dimensions connect gameplay evaluation to persona-guided rule refinement. Revised games are implemented, checked, and playtested. Figure PDF ↗

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.

Read the abstract +

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

LLM Evaluation

How do models judge gameplay, where do their judgments differ, and how do these evaluations relate to the play they produce?

Evaluation protocol

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.

Shared evidence
Compare evaluators on the same recorded playthrough.
Separate assessments
Collect overall ratings (1–10) independently of the 12 experience scores (1–5).
Persona references
Use five simulated profiles to interpret differences in evaluation emphasis.

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.

Ordering of selected high, middle, and low rated games across five judges
Game rankings. The highest, middle, and lowest five games by pooled rating. Lines connect the same game across judges. Figure PDF ↗

Experience profiles

Similar rankings can reflect different evaluation emphases

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.

Experience-dimension correlations and relative similarity to five persona reference profiles
Model evaluation profiles. Left: associations between experience dimensions and overall ratings. Right: persona similarity shares, normalized across personas from 1 + correlation. Figure PDF ↗

Evaluation and produced play

Evaluation profiles 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 resemblance and adjusted endorsement of model-produced play across five models
Judging and playing. Centered rating agreement is compared with adjusted persona endorsement of model-produced play. Figure PDF ↗

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.

Explore model evaluations

Replay a recorded game and compare the scores and explanations from different evaluators.

Open the trajectory explorer
RECORDED PLAY
First observationTerminal feedback
Inspect this trajectory & its sources +

Recorded observation and legal actions

Score ranges on these examples

Part II

Persona-guided Game Refinement

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

Experience dimensions predict persona preferences on held-out games

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.

Persona experience profiles and held-out preference prediction error
Persona preferences. Top: dimension–rating associations on shared benchmark inputs. Bottom: prediction error on a separate persona-played dataset, with 95% confidence intervals. Figure PDF ↗

Refinement method

Translate preference targets into checked game revisions

  1. Choose a target

    Use the persona-specific predictor to select a feasible experience dimension and direction.

  2. Revise and implement

    Change a game mechanic and check the implementation against fixed function contracts.

  3. Playtest and select

    Accept candidates that meet the target-change and predicted-preference gates. Rejected candidates can inform a feedback revision.

Contract-guided implementation with local checks, joint checks, and evidence-guided code repair
Contract-guided implementation. Local checks test function behavior; joint checks test whether gameplay supplies the prerequisites. Failure traces identify the functions to repair. Figure PDF ↗

Refinement outcomes

Refined games receive higher mean post-play preference ratings

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%.

Mean post-play preference rating

Higher is better
Original games
2.927
Reflexion
2.787
PromptBreeder
2.740
Cardiverse
2.820
ReCode
3.053
PREFER
3.333
01234
Mean post-play preference ratings across methods.
View all refinement and implementation results +
Manuscript Table 2: Refinement and implementation outcomes
MethodPreferenceSuccess (%)Execution (%)EConPCon
Original games2.927————
Reflexion2.78783.3399.960.6566.514
PromptBreeder2.74073.3399.860.6705.407
Cardiverse2.82076.6799.520.6585.991
ReCode3.05383.3399.960.6596.648
PREFER3.33386.6799.960.6617.377

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.

Play the rule refinement

Crazy Eights: choose a persona and compare its rule revision with the original.

Open the playable comparison
Persona
Rules

Table history +

    Dimension evaluation

    TARGET PERSONA

    The Thrill Seeker

    Challenge fit2 → 3/5

    What the dimension evaluation changed

    Pilot feedback and recorded outcome +

    Challenge fit: 2 → 3. Post-play preference: 2 → 6.

    Inspect the pilot record ↗
    Evaluation record +Recorded results ↗

    Conclusion

    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.

    Resources