Abstract
Modern adaptive games require nuanced player understanding, yet most models use simplified 5-10 category taxonomies that fail to capture diversity. Behavioral clustering cannot distinguish players with different motivations who act similarly. We present a systematic evaluation of multi-modal classification at scale, combining behavioral telemetry with semantic context to support 36 player profiles. Using 19,413 gameplay sessions from an AI-controlled text-based RPG, we compared behavioral-only baselines with multi-modal approaches that integrate action sequences and semantic descriptions. Traditional clustering achieved only 10% accuracy for 36-category classification, limited by semantic conflation where opposite actions produced identical features. Our multi-modal LSTM processing action-text pairs improved accuracy to 21%, showing both potential and limits of non-conversational data. Analysis by behavioral complexity revealed that non-neutral profiles reached 42% accuracy (15x above random), while neutral profiles dropped to 25% (9x above random). Identical actions such as "help the merchant" cannot reveal whether a player is neutral or strategically waiting. Without access to reasoning, even multi-modal models struggle, though above-baseline results confirm a meaningful signal. Since prediction beyond 20 categories remains unexplored, our findings establish benchmarks for complex player modeling. Behavioral data alone plateaus near 10% for 36 categories, while multi-modal integration enables 25%. For designers, this shows that personality-based adaptation requires conversational interaction, as predefined choices cannot capture intent. Our evaluation at 36-category scale offers guidance for building adaptive games that better understand their players.