Educational games can foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and motivation, yet instructors often find it difficult to design games that reliably achieve specific learning outcomes. Existing authoring environments reduce the need for programming expertise, but they do not eliminate the underlying challenges of educational game design, and they can leave non-expert designers reliant on opaque suggestions from AI systems. We designed a controlled natural language framework-based web tool that positions language as the primary interface for LLM-assisted educational game design. In the tool, users and an LLM assistant collaboratively develop a structured language that maps pedagogy to gameplay through four linked components. We argue that, by making pedagogical intent explicit and editable in the interface, the tool has the potential to lower design barriers for non-expert designers, preserves human agency in critical decisions, and enables alignment and reflections between pedagogy and gameplay during and after co-creation.
Figures & tables
Grammatical elements
Teaching language
Game language
Adverb
Specifies performance requirements for the targeted ability.
⟶
Rules and parameters that configure difficulty and success conditions.
Verbs
Expresses the targeted teaching ability as an observable action.
⟶
Game mechanics that define the primary player action and interaction pattern.
Nouns
Denotes the focal teaching concept or content domain.
⟶
Content models and in-game artifacts that instantiate the concept.
Adjectives
Characterizes the learning context, realism level, and instructional tone.
⟶
Aesthetic and contextual profiles that define the game world and framing.
Table 1. Mapping between teaching language and game language in the educational game design framework.
Figure 1. The Requirement Extraction Components in the Tool. Instructors answers questions asked by AI around the defined grammatical elements on the right and co-author the requirement document on the left.
Figure 2. The Language Translation Components (Partially) in the Tool. Instructors explore AI-generated gameplay translations of their teaching language. They can edit, regenerate, or write their own translations during the process. The interface uses color mapping to link corresponding grammatical elements in the teaching language and the game language.
Figure 3. The Language Development Components (Partially) in the Tool. Instructors can further edit and refine the generated game-concept sentence with AI. They can also click the Zoom In buttons to have the AI generate a descriptive paragraph and pseudocode for the game’s procedures.
We introduce GamEDAI, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that transforms instructor-provided questions into fully playable, pedagogically grounded educational games validated through formal mechanic contracts. Built on phase-based LangGraph sub-graphs, deterministic Quality Gates, and structured Pydantic schemas, GamEDAI supports two template families encompassing 15 interaction mechanics across spatial reasoning, procedural execution, and higher-order Bloom's Taxonomy objectives. Evaluated on 200 questions spanning five subject domains, the system achieves a 90% validation pass rate, 98.3% schema compliance, and 73% token reduction over ReAct agents (∼73,500 →∼19,900 tokens/game) at $0.46 per game. Within this model configuration, these results suggest that phase-bounded architectural structure correlates more strongly with alignment quality than prompting strategy alone. Our demonstration lets attendees generate Bloom's-aligned games from natural language in under 60 seconds, inspect Quality Gate outputs at each pipeline phase, and browse a curated library of 50 games spanning all 15 mechanic types.
Game UI design requires consistent visual assets across rarity tiers yet remains a predominantly manual process. We present GameUIAgent, an LLM-powered agentic framework that translates natural language descriptions into editable Figma designs via a Design Spec JSON intermediate representation. A six-stage neuro-symbolic pipeline combines LLM generation, deterministic post-processing, and a Vision-Language Model (VLM)-guided Reflection Controller (RC) for iterative self-correction with guaranteed non-regressive quality. Evaluated across 110 test cases, three LLMs, and three UI templates, cross-model analysis establishes a game-domain failure taxonomy (rarity-dependent degradation; visual emptiness) and uncovers two key empirical findings. A Quality Ceiling Effect (Pearson r=-0.96, p<0.01) suggests that RC improvement is bounded by headroom below a quality threshold -- a visual-domain counterpart to test-time compute scaling laws. A Rendering-Evaluation Fidelity Principle reveals that partial rendering enhancements paradoxically degrade VLM evaluation by amplifying structural defects. Together, these results establish foundational principles for LLM-driven visual generation agents in game production.
Wei Zeng, Fengwei An, Zhen Liu +1
School of Microelectronics, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen, China · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China · School of Marxism, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
AI-powered gameplay support agents hold promise for game-based learning, yet grounding generative models in structured game data remains an open challenge. We present PEARL (Parallel Education Agent for Reflection and Learning), a dual-component Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system that combines semantic knowledge retrieval with structural board-state matching to deliver contextualized scaffolding in Parallel, a puzzle game for learning parallel programming. PEARL operates on two input streams (natural language queries and board topology), retrieving both conceptual explanations of gameplay moves and peer-generated board states as evidence: capabilities unavailable to a standard Large Language Model (LLM) with game state access alone. In a qualitative evaluation (N=10) comparing PEARL against an existing community-based Open Player Model (OPM) visualization system, participants preferred the visualization system on perceived usefulness and reported higher frustration with PEARL; five of ten minimized or abandoned the AI tool during play. Proactive delivery, generic responses, and trust deficits drove disengagement, while a subset of four participants found PEARL's grounded explanations complementary to visualization in specific contexts where they initiated the interaction. We position PEARL as a deployed design probe whose failure modes inform a concrete design agenda for AI gameplay support, captured as seven open problems for the community.
Jiahong Li, Sai Siddartha Maram, Atieh Kashani +6
University of California Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, USA · University of Central Florida Orlando, USA · IT University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark