Advertisement

Challenges of IDN Research and Teaching

  • Hartmut KoenitzEmail author
  • Mirjam Palosaari Eladhari
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11869)

Abstract

In this paper, we react to developments that frame research in interactive digital narrative (IDN) as a field of study and potential future academic discipline. We take stock of the current situation, identify issues with perception and point out achievements. On that basis we identify five critical challenges, areas in need of attention in order to move the research field forward. In particular we discuss the dependency on legacy analytical frameworks (Groundhog Day), the lack of a shared vocabulary (Babylonian Confusion), the missing institutional memory of the field (Amnesia), the absence of established benchmarks (No Yardstick) and the overproduction of uncoordinated and quickly abandoned tools (Sisyphus). For each challenge area, we propose ways to address these challenges and enable increased collaboration in the field. Our paper has the aim to both provide orientation for newcomers to the field of IDN and to offer a basis for a discussion of future shared work.

References

  1. 1.
    Ardin website. http://ardin.online
  2. 2.
    Little Red Riding Hood Workshop: The Authoring Process in Interactive Storytelling. http://redcap.interactive-storytelling.de/
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Interactive storytelling, Wikipedia, page version id: 906128942, July 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org
  5. 5.
    42 Entertainment: I Love Bees. [Alternate Reality Game] (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aarseth, E.: A narrative theory of games. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games - FDG 2012, p. 129. ACM Press, New York, May 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282365
  7. 7.
    Ascott, R.: The Construction of Change. Cambridge Opinion (1964)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atkinson, B.: HyperCard (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bioware: Aurora Engine (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bioware: Neverwinter Nights. Infogrames/Atari MacSoft [Computer Game-Role Playing Game] (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blast Theory: Karen (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bordwell, D.: Three dimensions of film narrative. In: Poetics of Cinema (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santo, C.: Firewatch (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavazza, M., et al.: The IRIS network of excellence: integrating research in interactive storytelling. In: Spierling, U., Szilas, N. (eds.) ICIDS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5334, pp. 14–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89454-4_3. http://iris.scm.tees.ac.uk/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coover, R.: The End of Books. New York Times Literary Review (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Dufresne, D.: Fort McMoney (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duijn, M.: The Industry (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duijn, M., Wolting, F., Pallotta, T.: Last Hijack Interactive (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eladhari, M.P.: Re-tellings: the fourth layer of narrative as an instrument for critique. In: Rouse, R., Koenitz, H., Haahr, M. (eds.) ICIDS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11318, pp. 65–78. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Electronic Arts: Black & White. Lionhead Studios [Computer Game] (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evans, R., Short, E.: Versu—a simulationist storytelling system. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 6(2), 113–130 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TCIAIG.2013.2287297. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6648395/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fastermind Games: Icebound (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fernández-Vara, C.: Introduction to Game Analysis. Routledge, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garrett, E.: Telltale Games’ Cancelled Zombie Project Details Revealed by Former Employee, September 2018. https://dontfeedthegamers.com/telltale-games-cancelled-zombie-project/
  26. 26.
    Hendler, J.A.: Avoiding another AI winter. IEEE Intell. Syst. 23(2), 2–4 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Infinite Fall: Night in the Woods (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Inkle: 80 Days (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joyce, M.: Afternoon: a story. Eastgate Systems (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Klimas, C.: TWINE (2009). https://twinery.org
  31. 31.
    Koenitz, H.: Towards a specific theory of interactive digital narrative. In: Interactive Digital Narrative: History, Theory and Practice (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koenitz, H.: Thoughts on a discipline for the study of interactive digital narratives. In: Rouse, R., Koenitz, H., Haahr, M. (eds.) ICIDS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11318, pp. 36–49. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koenitz, H., Haahr, M., Ferri, G., Sezen, T.I.: Towards a shared vocabulary for interactive digital storytelling. In: Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment, pp. 293–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mateas, M., Stern, A.: Façade: an experiment in building a fully-realized interactive drama. In: Game Developers Conference, vol. 2, pp. 4–8 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCoy, J., Treanor, M., Samuel, B., Mateas, M., Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Prom Week: social physics as gameplay. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 319–321. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCoy, J., Treanor, M., Samuel, B., Wardrip, N., Mateas, M.: Comme il Faut: a system for authoring playable social models, pp. 158–163 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Montfort, N., et al.: 10 PRINT CHR \$(205.5+ RND (1));: GOTO 10. MIT Press (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Murray, J.H.: The pedagogy of cyberfiction: teaching a course on reading and writing interactive narrative. In: Barrett, E., Redmond, M. (eds.) Contextual Media, pp. 129–162. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=212279.212296
  39. 39.
    Murray, J.H.: Hamlet on the Holodeck. The Free Press (1997)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Murray, J.H.: Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Murray, J.H.: Research into interactive digital narrative: a kaleidoscopic view. In: Rouse, R., Koenitz, H., Haahr, M. (eds.) ICIDS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11318, pp. 3–17. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nelson, G.: Inform 7 (1993)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Night School Studio: Oxenfree (2016)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Penny, S.: The virtualization of art practice: body knowledge and the engineering worldview. Art J. 56(3), 30 (1997)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pope, L.: Papers, Please (2013)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pope, L.: The Return of the Obra Dinn (2018)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Quantic Dream: Heavy Rain [Video game] (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Quantic Dream: Detroit: Become Human (2018)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roberts, M.: Text Adventure Development System (TADS) (1988)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rosini, R.: Storybricks is no more - Rodolfo Rosini, May 2015. https://medium.com/@rodolfor/storybricks-is-no-more-f26b0980e62e
  51. 51.
    Ryan, J.: Grimes’ fairy tales: a 1960s story generator. In: Nunes, N., Oakley, I., Nisi, V. (eds.) ICIDS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10690, pp. 89–103. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71027-3_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shibolet, Y., Knoller, N., Koenitz, H.: A framework for classifying and describing authoring tools for interactive digital narrative. In: Rouse, R., Koenitz, H., Haahr, M. (eds.) ICIDS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11318, pp. 523–533. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Short, E.: Blood & Laurels. Linden Lab (2014)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Short, E.: Ultimate Quest. AKQA [Tweet-based text adventure] (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Szilas, N., Boggini, T., Axelrad, M., Petta, P., Rank, S.: Specification of an open architecture for interactive storytelling. In: Si, M., Thue, D., André, E., Lester, J.C., Tanenbaum, J., Zammitto, V. (eds.) ICIDS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7069, pp. 330–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25289-1_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Szilas, N., Couronnes, T.: IDtension: the simulation of narrative. In: 3rd Conference on Computational Semiotics for Games, pp. 106–107 (2003)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Telltale Games: The Walking Dead [Video game] (2012)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Telltale Games: The Wolf Among Us (2013)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    The Chinese Room: Dear Esther (2008)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    The Fullbright Company: Gone Home (2013)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    The Sims Studio: The Sims 3. Electronic Arts [Computer Game] (2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wallace, R.: A.L.I.C.E. (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity) (1995)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Digital media archaeology: interpreting computational processes. In: Huhtamo, E., Parikka, J. (eds.) Media Archaeology: Approaches, Applications, and Implications, pp. 302–322. University of California Press, Berkeley (2011)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weizenbaum, J.: ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9(1), 36–45 (1966).  https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=365153.365168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HKU University of the Arts UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Södertörn UniversityHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations