Tag: Development

Today I experienced the online, interactive, fiction work called Will Not Let Me Go.

It was the first project of the kind I experienced (that I can think of )- it was entirely story based, whereas most other interactive fiction media that I think of falls into the ‘open world’ category I discussed earlier, where a central narrative is lacking. It chronicled the musings and experiences of a man- Fred, with Alzheimer’s, and you (the player, or interactor) control his decisions and movements as if you are him. It is heartbreaking. The ‘game’ was made on Twine, online software for non-linear storytelling that I had never heard of but am so happy to have discovered. It is a ‘Choose your own adventure’ of sorts, but it feels wrong calling it that. You are lead through situations and make the consequent choices that Fred has to make.

The best way to describe it further is to quote a reviewer, Catacalypto- “Its mix of narrative voice and mechanics that support its story is exactly what I love in narrative design. From the opening indication that the story will remember your place, which fades out until only “remember” lingers, it’s a thoughtful and sometimes painful exploration of Alzheimer’s and dementia.” The way the words are presented and the way they disappear work in conjunction with the unreliable narrator to emphasise the sense of disorientation Alzheimer’s causes.  It’s a very effective piece of work.

In terms of the principles of New Media that I have discussed most in the past- Modularity and Variability, it is both of these, but just to a degree. While there are separate components of the project, they all need to be experienced within the project. They do not exist outside of the project. Furthermore, while there is variation in the options you may take and the consequent narrative you may form, there is a very strong and consistent theme communicated through the project that won’t really change between users.

It is similar to Jess and my project as it is a branching narrative, giving readers/users multiple options, which will then lead them to another scenario and another option and so forth. However, it is much more seamless. Jess and I are building ours on a blog- which, as a small-scale project is definitely okay, but it would be beautiful if it was built on Twine, which does not require any new tabs or pages refreshing. It all happens on the same webpage, allowing the narrative to be smooth and flowing. Having said that, I don’t know if Twine supports the videos, pictures, and links that we are putting in our blog narrative. Something to think about, at least.

Something I’d like to find or see more of is interactive narrative in video format, rather than just games or the heavily wordy experience of Will Not Let Me Go. On the New York University blog, Future of New Media (that I mentioned previously), there is an interesting article about interactive web video, and it touches on how they are different from interactive games. The author, Supreet Mahanti, explains how the main difference between interactive web video and games is that games still follow a linear narrative from the player’s perspective- they are still headed in the one direction. He stipulates that with the aid of hyperlinking, you can choose your own ending, giving “god-like control” to the viewer. I think it would be awesome to be able to watch a film and choose what direction it goes in. Of course, it’s very untraditional, but surely it would help so many people who complain about the endings of films? It would allow viewers to pick a storyline that resonates with them more than “slaving” over a narrative which they aren’t engaged in. 

Who knows? Maybe the Choose Your Own Adventure (that I seem to be obsessed with) will venture into movies.

 

Starting week four in Thinking In Fragments, we discussed Manovich’s principles of new media. I enjoyed this section of chapter one of The Language of New Media more than I did the first section. Of course, these principles can be seen in most if not all of the online media we consume, so it was consequently much easier content to get through than the history of media and media types. I say this with a great understanding that we must be familiar with the history of media as it has lead us to where we are today- everything in our lives (including media platforms and artifacts) is a product of what has come before.

The principles that I find to be most explicit in our consumption of new media are the qualities of Modular and Variable. These can be easily seen in most media content- we consume separate pieces of online media such as website pages, YouTube videos, Facebook photos, that exist both as individual items but also within a greater spectrum of content- a single recipe on a cooking blog, one YouTube video that is part of a series, and a Facebook photo that is in an album. But what pieces we consume are entirely different to others- everyone’s online experience is subjective and individual. I really like the idea that movement online is often multi-linear- there is not necessarily a beginning/middle/end, that people are just navigating their own unique path through the internet. To bring it back to the metaphor that we used in week one, of a massive web or tangled ball of string (something I mentioned briefly in my blog post, although I considered it more of an abyss)- it is like each individual web user is tugging at a loose end of the string, constantly pulling, and grasping new strings through knots and tangles.

Another conclusion that we came to in class is that for content to have the ability to be variable, it must first be modular. Modular content is the predecessor to variable experiences.

So, how do these principles relate to our current project?

As it is a ‘new media’ project, it is inherently numerical. It is modular in the sense that there are separate videos, pages, pictures and so on that can exist separately to the greater project. However, I question if we have somewhat failed on modularity as not each component of our project could be consumed as it’s own entity- some only make sense in the scheme of the project, but they are all accessible without experiencing the whole project. It is certainly variable, after all, it is not a linear/one-route-for-all project. It is not so variable that there are endless journeys through the project- there is only eight final destinations, but it is variable enough that people are having a unique experience.

In terms of content for our choose your own adventure, we have decided to go for somewhere between fiction and non-fiction. It is going to be an adventure around RMIT- giving the user the option of studying, meeting a friend, going to the library, going to a class etc, and showing them where to go and giving them extra information on services and areas. There won’t be infinite continuations but there will be enough that it’s worthwhile making it interactive.

In terms of deciding on content, I found this quote on the Future of New Media blog very interesting- “I wouldn’t take a regular, normal linear story and try to “interactivize” it. That won’t work.” This is to say, content needs to be specifically made for being interactive. We can’t make something interactive just for the sake of it, nor can we force interaction where it doesn’t belong.

Finally, I have been thinking more about the different styles of interaction within online content. This is something I touched on at the end of my first development post. I have deciphered in my mind two (of many, I’m sure) main categories of interaction. There is interaction without limits, and there is interaction with limits. Or more realistically, there is a spectrum, ranging between no limits and almost entirely limited. For example, Deprogrammed lies closer to the almost entirely limited end of the spectrum. You can only move forward and look around. You have barely any options. Our project will be somewhat less limited- there are options (but not that many) but you can also leave a comment on the blog and interact with the project that way if you wish. Projects that have no limit on interaction are definitely harder to think of because they’re harder to make. Something like The Sims lies on the open world, no limit to interaction end of the spectrum.

Anyway, we’re at the tail end of our project now. It seems thinking of the concept was one of the more difficult parts of completing the project, should be simple from here on out.

Kicking off week 3 of Thinking In Fragments, we had four people present their chosen MIT Docubase project and we had a discussion about each of their qualities.

All four projects had an interactive element, and the class discussion that evolved from these projects lead us to the question of, how does the element of interaction add meaning to the online documentary? Is it necessary?

In the case of the documentary mainly focusing on the Dutch undertaker, the interactive element of being able to switch between video tracks didn’t seem to make the experience any more meaningful. Upon further research, I found that this project was actually part of a much larger and expansive project detailing the impacts of Dutch colonialism. In the scheme of the larger documentary, this smaller project not only makes more sense but packs more punch. However, I believe that if it’s likely that people will access the project as an isolated documentary, there needs to be more context and more of a reason for people to interact with it.

We also asked the question of why is there more interactive non-fiction work online than there is fiction? Generally, non-fiction is easier to make in a non-linear and interactive format because the production does not need to be so meticulously planned and executed like the production of a fiction work often does. Non-fiction does not live in a carefully crafted and rigid world like fiction does. Non-fiction is more flexible and allows for more variance of form.

Jess and I discussed the different MIT Docubase projects that we had experienced. My chosen project was Deprogrammed, an interactive online documentary that is based on the spoken testimonies of three former cult and extremist group followers- an ex-jihadist, ex skin-head, and a former member of the Unification Church. It mainly covered why they joined, how it promised them power and an identity, and what they have done since leaving the cults/extremist groups. The user navigates a deserted landscape, with only the option to go forward and to look around. While the user is walking the voices of the three are heard, speaking of their experiences. You can also easily access a transcript of what they are saying, which is a lot longer than what is included in the documentary itself. There is also a history of the “brainwashing” and deprogramming, and a trailer of a feature-length documentary about deprogramming.

Jess’ chosen project was Highrise: Out My Window, an exhibition of people’s lives and homes inside high rises all over the world. The user can select a window from a highrise and is then given the chance to explore the home and its inhabitants through a 360 image. There is also extra content specifically about the inhabitants if you choose to view it.

We discussed and compared each of the projects qualities, ultimately leading us to the discovery that they were quite similar in many ways.

They are both interactive (user-controlled), immersive (sound and video, and you can control where you ‘look’ in the world), non-linear, multi-faceted (both include pictures, video, and text), and non-fiction. Deprogrammed worked as an interactive project because it emphasized the inescapable nature of the cult, ultimately making it a more immersive experience for the user. Out My Window was a non-linear project because the stories it told were separate stories, linked by the theme of the building but remained as separate parts that have no linear connection.

For both of these projects, the interactive element does not rely on the exchange of information or on the participation of the user- the ability to interact is inherently necessary for the project, but individual users interacting with the project do not contribute to the project.