  The evaluation of procedural content generation (PCG) systems for generating
video game levels is a complex and contested topic. Ideally, the field would
have access to robust, generalisable and widely accepted evaluation approaches
that can be used to compare novel PCG systems to prior work, but consensus on
how to evaluate novel systems is currently limited. We argue that the field can
benefit from a structured analysis of how procedural level generation systems
can be evaluated, and how these techniques are currently used by researchers.
This analysis can then be used to both inform on the current state of affairs,
and to provide data to justify changes to this practice. This work aims to
provide this by first developing a novel taxonomy of PCG evaluation approaches,
and then presenting the results of a survey of recent work in the field through
the lens of this taxonomy. The results of this survey highlight several
important weaknesses in current practice which we argue could be substantially
mitigated by 1) promoting use of evaluation free system descriptions where
appropriate, 2) promoting the development of diverse research frameworks, 3)
promoting reuse of code and methodology wherever possible.
