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:
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.
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.)
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?
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!
Short-Term:
April 7 or 10 – Meet with Kellee and see if we can come up with a model for the dramatic structure of the character scenes.
Weekend of April 8-10:
– Do one of these writing exercises:
1) Free-write on Tobias’ obsession, then write out a version of this and what the ractor witnesses of it in Act II, Seq. 1 as if it is due. Possibly meet with Ken for brainstorming help.
2) Free-write on what things the ractor should learn about each character (Tobias, Edana, Claude) in each of the three Act II sequences. Write out a list of key points for each scene and some possible endings.
– Add multi-path support to the Tantallon state machine and test with several video clips.
– Fix NavNode bugs.
April 12: Present the problem of the “climax sequence” (Act III) to Peggy’s class.
Week of April 11-14:
– Email Jess and Ken about art for the May 5th package.
– Contact SCFX (Again!) regarding Telmahre.
– Visit or email Joe Wallenstein regarding stage priority questions.
Weekend of April 15-17:
– Do the other Act II writing exercise you didn’t do last weekend, and/or work on some ideas for the climax sequence in Act III.
– Plan to meet with Jess one more time to run things by her that still allude you.
– Assemble the “Dinner With Tobias” prototype—get all video clips in there.
Week of April 18-21: Type up a first draft plan for the thesis pitch presentation.
Weekend of April 22-24:
– Revise thesis pitch outline and determine what is needed for presentation.
– Render and prep any artwork needed for the thesis pitch.
– If time, throw together the art for several NavNodes in the “Dinner With Tobias” prototype.
– Finalize “Dinner With Tobias” prototype.
April 25-27: Test “Dinner With Tobias” on ZML computers and tweak/debug as necessary so it runs on Thursday.
April 28: Pitch Telmahre to CTIN 548 class.
Week of April 30-May 4: Write/prepare thesis “paper goods.”
May 5: Turn in Thesis packet.
May 6 (Tentative): Go surfing!
Long-Term Schedule (Rough & Preliminary):
May (as per Jess’s availability) – Improv the major scenes and see what kinds of character tactics & variances we can find.
May 31 – Have detailed outlines of all scenes written, including first-draft floorplans/sketches.
June :
– Start thinking about & planning the optimal “Telmahre Version” of the Tantallon engine.
– Begin to get the telmahre.com website going.
June 30 – Complete first-draft versions of the screenplay. Don’t worry if the dialogue sucks at this point.
July 31:
– Production-ready screenplay.
– Solid production plan completed (Jess, Me, possibly Dan Burch) including locations list, crew requirements, etc.
– Telmahre.com officially launched (in time for SIGGRAPH)
Early August – Casting, finding crew, getting locations.
Mid-To-Late August – Begin Production (shooting of principal photography).
October 1 – Principal photography complete.
October-November 2005:
– Pick up Tantallon again and work hardcore on getting this ready to run Telmahre, including (perhaps) voice input.
– Secondary location photography.
– Determine which tech, art, and post-production tasks you will do personally; commission the rest.
– Find composer, begin discussing foley needs with sound designer (Elisa).
– Pass applicable footage to SCFX so they can begin working on.
December – One “art-and-foley free” scene completed and fully-functional.
January-February 2006 :
– Hit foley and music integration hardcore.
– Secondary locati
– Assemble all remaining scenes with actual footage and place-holder art.
March 1, 2006: Final artwork completed; functional alpha version with placeholder art & music.
March 2006: Integrate actual art, backdrops, music and foley.
April 1: Fully working beta.