This framework evaluates personality-driven dialogue in game NPCs, highlighting effectiveness in conveying personality traits.
Personality-driven dialogue generation is essential for creating believable non-player characters (NPCs) in games. This study aims to (1) generate short NPC-like dialogue conditioned on predefined personality traits and (2) quantitatively evaluate whether the generated dialogue accurately reflects those traits. To achieve this, we propose a framework based on the OCEAN personality model for both controlled dialogue generation and systematic evaluation of personality consistency. We construct 32 personality configurations and generate responses to five scenario-based prompts using three models: Zephyr-7b, OpenChat-3.5-0106, and an Ollama-based OpenLLaMA-3B model. Personality consistency is evaluated using two complementary approaches: classification-based metrics (precision, recall, and F1-score) and score-based aggregation that measures alignment with intended personality traits. In addition, stability is introduced to quantify variability across multiple generated responses. The results suggest that the proposed framework supports a more structured comparison between high- and low-trait configurations within this controlled automated evaluation setting. OpenChat showed the highest performance in the automated evaluation, with F1-scores of 0.893 (high-trait) and 0.900 (low-trait), and the highest aggregated score of 340.94. Zephyr demonstrated strong stability (8.21) and consistent controllability, while the Ollama-based model showed lower consistency (F1: 0.715/0.743, score: 286.99) but substantially faster generation (0.57 s per response). Human validation on a representative subset supported the broad model-level tendency that OpenChat and Zephyr conveyed personality cues more clearly than Ollama, while the difference between OpenChat and Zephyr was less clear in human judgments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sasaki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: