Fortunately this week was quieter on the assignment front and I was able to devote a large slab of time to working on the story.

Given the mystery and tech elements at play in the story, there’s a level of plot intricacy which requires a level of creative immersion; thus I find it more productive to work on the project in substantial blocks of time rather than incrementally.

As Type 1 Error is set in Melbourne, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on iconic Flinders Street Station, I feel that there’s a great opportunity to incorporate real locations into the story experience.

I have constructed a sequence where the protagonist is contacted by an anonymous source, who sends them a sound sample linked to an iconic Melbourne location (which is where they want the protagonist to meet them at a set time the following day).  The user is presented with five different locations, being able to listen to the soundscape at each of these and decide which one matches the sample the source has sent you.

Whilst this doesn’t translate to the user physically being in the real location (as we saw with Urban Codemakers, for example) it enhances the immersive experience by grounding the user in a real locale.  The aural dimension – namely the evocative and sometimes haunting sounds at locations such as the William Barak Bridge in East Melbourne – beautifully complements the mystery feel of the story.

Sam and I have started to consider how we might go about incorporating the very clear feedback we received from the panel during last week’s pitches.

Many of the points raised were of no great surprise.  For instance, we appreciate the need to incorporate more photos, sounds – and indeed, further transmedia engagement (i.e. videos, covert documents, etc.) in a bid to enhance the user’s engagement through a richer interface to break up the text-dominated mode of storytelling.

This may be as straightforward as incorporating stylistic photos to accompany the various slides in the story, although I’m really interested in mining the narrative for genuine ways to incorporate transmedia cum interactive elements into the experience.

Another key element we received feedback on was the tone of the project; namely, pushing the content and presentation more into iconic Noir territory.  While I would largely agree with this, my inclination is also to infuse the project with a sense of irony & humour and not make it straight-Noir, given the incongruity this might present given the very modern story of metadata collection.  On the other hand, this juxtaposition between the new (metadata) and old (noir) could work quite well; I suspect it comes down to a matter of taste, and my feeling is that a gentle sense of Noir-parody will work well to enliven the content.

This week, each group pitched their projects to a panel comprising staff from RMIT’s School of Media, as well as Dr Troy Innocent.

The older I get, the more I enjoy pitching as a way of distilling the core aspects and unique appeals of one’s work (in marketing parlance, its unique selling points).  I think a good pitch should be well-rehearsed, however there is value in leaving a little bit of room for ad-libbing, to ensure that one’s presentation maintains a sense of spontaneity.

I have had some experience pitching my own work in my previous studies.  One very important rule which I try to adhere to is to not pack too much detail into one’s presentation.  In my opinion, pitches should convey a flavour of the project, not the minutiae of the plot and the characters, and it is very important to remember that generally this will be the first time your audience will have heard about the project.

With some of the groups’ presentations, I found myself unclear of the overall plot/through-line of the story, whilst nonetheless recognising a lot of great ideas.  Perhaps the staccato feel of some of the projects were reflective of (a) the fact that several groups comprised four or five members, so the content of the speeches had to be divided and/or (b) the transmedia/multi-platform nature of the projects.  However, as discussed, the process of pitching is a great opportunity to distill the essence of a project, and some level of judicious  is very important.

Nevertheless, I was impressed by the breadth of ideas presented and the very individual nature of each of the projects being pitched.

This week, Troy Innocent from Swinburne University came to present on his work in constructing narrative-based games in real physical environments.  The main example of this which Troy presented was his project Urban Codemakers, which played out in Melbourne and Sydney.

Sam and I have been contemplating ways to incorporate a physical dimension to our project, as an ancillary aspect of the digital gameplay.  By contrast, Urban Codemakers is fundamentally physical-based, with the digital component being a secondary/supporting aspect to log players’ progress in the real-world.

I was struck by the complexity and contrivances of the narrative, and the fantasy elements which abstracted players’ objectives from the reality of their environments.  This isn’t a negative; more a matter of taste, and got me thinking that if one is going to situate a game in a real environment, then perhaps one can enhance the immersive aspects of the gameplay by adapting the narrative to extentuate the real, the normal, the ordinary of its physical surroundings.

This week everyone presented their case studies for Project Brief 1.  It was really interesting to hear the diverse range of media that had been chosen for the task – some choosing to deconstruct music, songs and albums.  It goes to show our natural tendency to read narrative across diverse media, including non-verbal form.

As for this week’s readings, I found that Jenkins’ piece provided a very digestible overview of transmedia.  Nevertheless, in practical terms, I feel a ‘take it or leave it’ approach to some of these theories about what does and does not constitute transmedia.  This is based on the fact that there seem to be a wealth of interpretations of what constitutes transmedia, and as such there is a great deal of room for subjective interpretation of what should represent a transmedia project.

Murray’s reading was also very interesting.  Meanwhile, I lost interest in Eco’s piece fairly quickly; not based on content, but on the author’s fairly verbose style.

Sam and I drafted 5 rules for our collaboration in the project:

(1) To keep in regular contact.
(2) To share the workload evenly.
(3) To complete work on time and to an expected standard.
(4) To approach the project in a professional manner, with the aim of pursuing the project beyond the classroom.
(5) To remain close to source material and achieve a level of realism within the narrative.
… As well as adhering to a smart-casual dress code in all meetings…

Post 2015. Metadata is collected on every Australian citizen to fight terrorism. To protect the people. Jump into the shoes of a journalist.  You get your first big break – you are approached by a government whistleblower who claims that a recent high profile terrorism conviction was a miscarriage of justice. The man convicted was innocent despite the overwhelming evidence in his metadata. He was present but not involved, like the thousands of other people who saw Flinders Street Station disappear.  But how could a law enacted to protect the Australian people be used to oppress them as this source suggests? Can the whistleblower be trusted or do they have a vendetta of their own? If the data doesn’t lie, who does?

You will be forced to choose on a course of action and follow your gut instincts.  Who should you believe?  Sifting through the data and documents collected will be daunting, but will it reveal the truth? The story will be explored through Twine and other digital documents.  Can you solve the mystery?