Michael Steffen

Thesis Defense

While I do feel the presentation of my thesis went well, I feel that at least a good portion of my faculty didn't fully understand what I was pitching. Some notes:

People Got Too Hung Up On The Prototype

I feel as if too many people assumed that what they saw in the prototype was exactly what they'd see in my thesis. Some answers to specific objections:

"This looks like something from ten years ago" - I threw the prototype together in a short 3 months. I was hoping that there would be some excitement as to how quickly I was able to try ONE POSSIBILITY for interaction.

"You say the sequences are not branching narrative, but that's exactly what they are." - Only in the prototype. As I stated in my pitch, the thesis-version sequences will be far more dynamic, each one being something akin to Facade, which used the concept of AI agents with pre-programmed behaviors & agendas, though not a specific A to B to C path through the scene. Of course, Facade was quite an undertaking, so Telmahre sequences will, at best, be Facade-lite.

"You say that sequences are driven by drama, but I felt none in what you just showed us. I don't care about the character or about what I'm supposed to do." - I wrote the script for the prototype over a singe weekend. A large part of my investigation this summer will be to determine what creates good drama in a scene, and how to apply this to an interactive scene.

Defense of the Frank Daniel Screenplay Structure

Several doubts were expressed as to how beneficial the Daniel structure was to interactive narrative. The strongest-ringing objection was that it's "too binary" (i.e. only 2 possible endings to each sequence).

Drama is binary. When broken down to its simplest level, drama consists of a series of character choices: The character is trying to accomplish a large goal--this is the Main Tension. Each of the character's attempts to achieve that goal is a smaller tension. And it can be broken down even further to specific moments in the scene. Dramatic choices are not binary (there can be many possible ways to achieve a goal), but once a character commits to a particular means of achieving his or her goal, there are only TWO possible outcomes: either the character got what she wanted by those means, or she didn't.

(Example: Will Jenna be able to win Tom back by surprising him at work? The answer will be either yes or no.)

It's Too Much Like Myst

I won't deny that it's very Myst-like. But why not? I know I'm dealing with a built-in prejudice against the Myst series, but let's face it: even though its popularity has declined over the years, IT'S STILL AROUND! Myst 4 (Fall 2004) won several awards, and Myst 5 is slated to come out this fall.

What if it turns out all I am trying to do is improve upon Myst? What if I'm not out to revolutionize interactive narrative but merely to evolve it? So what?

Comments I Agreed With

There were a few comments that I found really helpful:

"The problem of how dynamic the choices are goes away if it is a public installation, rather than a for-home-use game." - A very good point. I have always held a fascination with Location-Based Entertainment (especially Disneyland), and so this is not out of the question--might even be fun. Thank you Mr. Naimark!

"A lot can be done with video nowadays that couldn't be done ten years ago." - I completely agree. Once you are able to bring video into a 3D environment, a new realm of possibilities opens up. Thank you Mr. Lew!

If you got this far, please comment!