CHAPTER 5 User Experiment
5.4 Results
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 3. Narrative experience of users ID Narrative-Related
Activities
Self-Rank Storytelling Tools
1 low - mid Sometimes pen+paper, microblog,
speech, BBS
2 low - mid Sometimes blog, speech, photos/pictures
3 mid Rarely speech, photos/pictures
4 mid Sometimes pen+paper, text processor,
blog, speech, photos/pictures
5 high Frequently computer animation, speech,
photos/pictures
For the small scale of the pilot study and aim to collect qualitative data, we designed the user group to be as diversified as possible in narrative experience, major, and evenly
distributed in gender and age group among students in the campus.
5.4 Results
5.4.1. Pre-Test Survey Results & Analysis
Results
In the pretest we asked the users to select features or elements that are essential in interactive narratives and identify which elements could improve the narrative experience. They were
‧
also asked to select certain activities that they thought could be considered as an interactive narrative. The phrases that were chosen for each category and the count (number of users that associated the phrase to each category) are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Perception of interactive narratives
Count Essential Improves Experience
5 (none) Multimedia 2 A Good Story, Tangible Input, Physical
Feedback
VR Environment
1 Literary Theory, Characters, Audience, Plot Variations
Choice-Making, Tangible Input, Physical Feedback, Characters, Plot Variations, An Author
0 Gaming Devices, Multimedia, Mobile Device, Animations, Internet,
Computer, VR Environment
Literary Theory, Audience
The users were also asked to circle those activities that they would associate to interactive narratives. The phrases that were chosen and the count (number of users that associated the phrase to each category) are shown in Table 5.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 5. Activities that the users associate with interactive narrative Count What can be considered an interactive narrative?
5 (none)
4 MMORPG, Choose-your-own-adventure books 3 Video Games, Board Games, Live Call-In Shows 2 Line Chat
1 Facebook Sharing, Blogs, Ebooks, 3D Movies, Microblogging
0 Pop-up Children’s Books, TV Game Shows, Online Videos
Analysis
The results on this part of the experiment were much diversified, since we did not provide a definition of interactive narrative (and users were encouraged to answer based on their own preconceptions).
One observation we did make from the user’s perception of interactive narrative is that when asked which elements were essential to interactive narrative, their responses were diversified, indicating both the unfamiliarity of the phrase “interactive narrative” in their everyday lives and the space for individual interpretation concerning topics of narrative.
However, when discussing which phrases could improve the narrative experience, all five users agreed that “multimedia” could increase the experience. Other phrases including
“internet,” “visual/audio elements,” “gaming devices,” “mobile devices,” “animation,” and
‧
“computer” all received 3 or more votes. These phrases indicate a cluster of phrases that are often associated with the discourse level of the narrative. On the other hand, more people believed “tangible input,” “choice-making,” and “physical feedback” would improve the narrative experience, which points to the core concept of “interaction” in a narrative. We also noted that the users believed “an author,” “literary theory,” and “audience” were essential to interactive narratives.
In the second part of this survey, opinions were even more diverse when finding activities that could be considered as interactive narratives. One of the things we found interesting is when comparing the extremes (3-4 votes and 0-1 votes). The activities with the higher votes usually included some form of user participation that directly (and maybe immediately) changed the progression or outcome of the narrative, whereas those with lower votes, though included many elements from the “improve experience” part of the previous survey, often lacked direct user participation or choice-making. Another observation is that though social media has long been used for interactive storytelling applications (Pitzer 2010), it seems to be relatively novel and unrecognized in its role and capacity in the field.
Table 6. Comparison of high and low voted activities in relation to interactive narratives Count Internet / Social Media /
Gaming
Traditional Media / New Media
Video / TV / Personal Multimedia Content
3-4 MMORPG, Video Games,Board Games
Choose-your-own-adventure books
Live Call-In Shows
0-1 Facebook Sharing, Blogs, Microblogging
Pop-up Children’s Books, Ebooks, 3D Movies
TV Game Shows, Online Videos
‧
“narrative,” and Users 1 and 2 asked specifically for the definition of “interactive narrative.”
User 2 also commented that narrative is a very “personal” thing for everyone.
5.4.2. User Experiment Results & Analysis
Results
The users were asked to run the experiment in all four modes once before giving them the freedom to re-experience any mode they wanted. The cumulative number of unique fragments experienced by the users is indicated in Table 7.
Table 7. Number of cumulative fragments experienced by the user for each round
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5After finishing four modes, the user was asked if they wanted to re-experience any mode, if any of the storylines were still unclear or unexplored. Users 2, 3, and 4 expressed that they had seen all the storylines they wanted, and therefore stopped right after experiencing four modes. Both User 1 and User 5, who chose to re-experience another mode, selected Mode 3.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Analysis
When the user requested to finish the system experience part of the experiment, they would be asked casually whether they believe they had seen the whole story, and four of them acknowledged that they believe they had seen all the possible variations of the story (or they could imagine the rest of the unseen variations). Only User 3 mentioned that not all fragments were experienced, but did not want to explore the rest of the possibilities.
The thing to note at this stage is none of the users had actually seen all 13 possible fragments of the story.
5.4.3. Post-Survey and Discussion Results
Results User 1
Table 8. User 1’s ranking of the four modes on 7 indicators
Indicator Ranking of Four Modes
Immersiveness 1 > 3 > 4 > 2
Coherent 1 > [2,3,4]
Replay Value 3 > 4 > [1,2]
Presentation [2,3,4] > 1
Enjoyment 3 > 4 > 1 > 2
Creation 1 > 3 > 4 > 2
Personalization 3 > 4 > 1 > 2
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
During the experiment, User 1 expressed some annoyance in the speed of the animations and the lack of emotional feedback from the audio and character actions. She mentioned right after Mode 2 that the animation was much clearer than the text, but limited her imagination of the possible scenarios. After the four modes, she requested to retry Mode 3, and she read along with the narrator indicating that she was very familiar with the storyline already.
After the experiment, User 1 believed that the four modes were different stories: Mode 1 provided plenty of scenarios in her mind, Mode 2 was more like known fact, Mode 3 allowed decision-making and expectations of what would happen, but was annoying due to her curiosity to see all the possibilities but skip the repetitive scenarios, and Mode 4 was more structured and specific to find out the specific ending. She noted the similarities were that they had the same scenes and characters.
User 1 also expressed annoyance in Mode 4 when she knew the ending, but commented that it would be efficient for someone trying to create a narrative with a specific ending. She also mentioned that the system would be suitable for authors who wanted to focus on designing and simulating a main storyline. She concluded that the system provided a new point of view for her, and the structured branching makes the narrative direction very clear and easy to understand, and that the decision process made her feel like an author of the story.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
User 2
Table 9. User 2’s ranking of the four modes on 7 indicators
Indicator Ranking of Four Modes
Immersiveness 3 > 4 > 1 > 2
Coherent [2,3,4] > 1
Replay Value 3 > 2 > 4 > 1
Presentation 3 > [2,4] > 1
Enjoyment 3 > [2,4] > 1
Creation 3 > 2 > 4 > 1
Personalization 4 > [2,3] > 1
During the experiment, User 2 had very few comments. Just before Mode 1, he expressed some confusion in why he was required to draw the printed story randomly, and he laughed slightly when the dialog seemed a little strange. After Mode 2, he commented that he found the animated story “very clear.” After explaining the interaction menu in Mode 3, he commented that he was familiar with this method of interaction, being “very similar to video games.”
After the experiment, User 2 believed that all four stories were the same story, with identical backgrounds, cause of argument, and result in murder. He believes that Mode 3 has subtle differences on the plot, and the personalized result also provides more choices. He enjoyed Mode 3 most, and Mode 2 next to that, ranking it highest for all indicators except for personalization, for which he ranked Mode 4 the highest.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
He thought Mode 4 lacked imagination after knowing the result. But he commented that the system would help him a lot if he ever wanted to write an interactive story with its visual and audio elements, adding more interest. He concluded that using 3D interactive narratives to tell stories was cool and gives users more room for creation and imagination.
User 3
Table 10. User 3’s ranking of the four modes on 7 indicators
Indicator Ranking of Four Modes
Immersiveness [3,4] > 2 > 1
Coherent 2 > [3,4] > 1
Replay Value 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
Presentation 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
Enjoyment [4,3] > 2 > 1
Creation [1,3,4] > 2
Personalization 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
User 3 was very quiet throughout the experiment. In the post-survey he ranked Mode 2 as most coherent in the narrative and Mode 4 with highest replay value, presentation, and personalization.
He believed the four stories were a little similar in character and place, but to select the ending was different. He praised Mode 4 in the way that if he wanted to watch a happy
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
ending, then he could just sit back after selecting the ending without too much effort. He noted that the system would be helpful in creative writing with its branching narrative as compared to traditional linear narratives.
Finally, he mentions that the experiment shows that narratives are funnier when telling and watching when using the system, and gives him a feeling of control over the story.
User 4
Table 11. User 4’s ranking of the four modes on 7 indicators
Indicator Ranking of Four Modes
Immersiveness [3,4] > 2 > 1
Coherent 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
Replay Value [3,4] > 2 > 1
Presentation [3,4] > 2 > 1
Enjoyment 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
Creation 4 > 3 > 2 > 1
Personalization 4 > 3 > [1,2]
User 4 was very excited when she saw the animation, comparing it to the animation in
The Sims (2000). She had some doubt when deciding on a positive or negative ending in
Mode 4, believing that the definition of the two words is controversial from various points of view in the story.‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
After the experiment, she believed the four stories were different stories, though with the same beginnings and similar murder, the ending made most difference to her.
She enjoyed the personalization in Mode 4 and made her curious how the story would vary when selecting different endings. The system helped her imagine alternatives that were more interesting than the original.
She did not think her view towards narratives had changed, but the experiment encouraged her to add interactive elements when creating a story next time.
User 5
Table 12. User 5’s ranking of the four modes on 7 indicators
Indicator Ranking of Four Modes
Immersiveness 3 > 4 > [1,2]
Coherent 1 > [2,3,4]
Replay Value [3,4] > [1,2]
Presentation [2,3,4] > 1
Enjoyment 3 > 4 > 1 > 2
Creation [1,3,4] > 2
Personalization [3,4] > [1,2]
User 5 had answered that he frequently participated in story creation activities. During the experiment, he asked to re-experience Mode 3 after all four modes were finished.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
He commented that the four stories were different, though they had the same main structure. However he answered that the main difference was the possibility to make choices to affect the outcome. He also commented that Mode 3 made him curious of all the possibilities. When asked whether he would replay the story again if he knew there were still unknown fragments, would he experience it again, he answered positively.
He also commented on his interest in Mode 4, where he could make a choice on the ending and explore an unknown plotline. From the perspective of narrative creation, he would be interested in using the system and adding his own fragment to create a new storyline.
When asked about his view towards narrative after the experiment, User 5 said it changed his perspective in that he now views the same story from multiple points of view, and enjoys the interaction mechanism.
5.4.4. Conclusion on User Experiment
Through the user experiment, we gained feedback on the system and story. Despite the animation and camera presentation having much to improve on, the users commented on the beautiful scenes and characters, and enjoyed the interactive story.
As a pilot study, there are many aspects that require better design, including the questions in the surveys to compare the user’s perspectives before and after the experiment, controlling the variability between different modes to have a better comparison between the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
different modes, and also making more in-depth and personalized questionnaires. As User 2 had commented, narratives are very personal for each individual, and thus there is more to explore both on the system design and user experience.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 6
Conclusion and Future Work
Through the Theater platform, the audience breaks into the Fourth Wall—the concept of an imaginary wall between the audience and the stage proposed by French philosopher Denis Diderot—arriving on stage in an immersive and engaging storytelling experience.
6.1 Conclusion
The contributions of this work is to propose a creative framework for interactive storytelling creation, with a story structure designed based on narrative theory, flexible time and perspective arrangements of stories, personalized story generation mechanism, and real-time experience in a 3D environment. We demonstrate the potential of the framework using three story demos, and carry out a user evaluation to gain feedback on the overall system design and enhancements in the storytelling experience. Though we do not draw any definite conclusions from the user evaluation, the qualitative results have shown us the novelty of such a platform, and invoked many discussions on the topic of narratives, interaction, and creativity.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6.2 Applications for Future Work
6.2.1 Context-Aware Camera Planning
An important research question in 3D storytelling revolves around automated smart camera control. Cinematography plays a prominent role not only in presenting the scenario, but also telling the story, strongly influencing the psychological perception and interpretation of the story based on the selection of shots and camera positions (Bordwell 2012).
The story characteristic tags proposed in this work can convey contextual information that could be valuable for camera planning. Moreover, with the interplay of scenarios, character perspectives, and various time sequences, the complexity of finding suitable shots to express the time and spacial information increases significantly, but also poses many interesting challenges to smart camera planning.
6.2.2 Autonomous Character Animations
Currently, the system takes in a pre-authored XML scenario which specifies the character animation through high-level commands such as “go-to” or “look-at.” In the follow-up work we hope to address the issues of producing more realistic character animations for storytelling, believable character scene and action transitions, or semi-autonomous animation content based on the story development.
6.2.3 Graphical Authoring Tools
Creativity is a central issue to interactive narratives, but the creation of complex virtual narratives on multimedia platforms requires significant authoring effort as well as platform-specific technical knowledge and background. We envision that providing users with
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
a easy-to-use interface where they can create and simulate 3D interactive narratives with the least amount of technical difficulty would greatly boost creative output in the continuously developing topic of multimedia narratives.
6.2.4 Interactivity and Role of Audience
In interactive narratives, the line between the author and audience has been slightly blurred where there are possibilities of multiple intermediate authors and where the audience is also an author in their decision-making process. Thus the change in the role of the audience would be a highly interesting topic in communications and narrative theory. Another extended topic under the same idea is the design of interactivity within the story, to understand how much interaction is good, and how to design the complexity of decisions and user interactions to balance authorial control and user autonomy.
***
In the process of this work, the more we delved into the theory, literature, and design of interactive storytelling platforms, topics concerning the representation, understanding, and experience of narratives continued to be discovered. Being a preliminary step into the exploration of creative frameworks for personalized, expressive, and interactive narrative generation platforms, we look forward to the further exploration on the ever-fascinating interdisciplinary research of interactive narrative.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
References
Alexander, B. (2011). The New Digital Storytelling: Creating Narratives with New Media.
Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Barthes, R. (1977). The Death of the Author. Image / Music / Text. Trans. Stephen Heath, 142-7. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bordwell, D. (2012). The Viewer’s Share: Models of Mind in Explaining Films. Retrieved from http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/viewersshare.php
Brooks, K. M. (2007). Do story agents use rocking chairs? The theory and implementation of one model for computational narrative. Proceedings of the fourth ACM international
conference on Multimedia (MULTIMEDIA '96), 317-328. New York: ACM.
Cavazza, M., Donikian, S., Christie, M., Spierling, U., Szilas, N., Vorderer, P., Hartmann, T., Andre, E., Klimmt, C., Champagnat, R., Petta, P. & Olivier, P. (2008). The iris network of excellence: Integrating research in interactive storytelling. Proceedings of ICIDS
2008: LNCS.
Cavazza, M., Pizzi, D., Charles, Vogt, F. T. & Andre, E. (2009). Emotional input for character-based interactive storytelling. Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, 313-320.
Chang, Y.-T., Li, T.-Y., Chen, S.-C. & Christie, M. (2011, November). A Computer-aided System for Narrative Creation. The 2011 TERA International Conference on Education
(TICE 2011). Kaohsiung.
Chatman, S. (1980). Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Literary
criticism. Cornell University Press.
‧
Storytelling. Proceedings of 9th International Conference Computer Graphics,Imaging and Visualization.
Façade. (2005). Procedural Arts. (http://www.interactivestory.net/)
Fairclough , C. & Cunningham, P. (2003). A multiplayer case based story engine. GAME-ON.
FP7 Network of Excellence IRIS: Integrating Research in Interactive Storytelling (http://iris.scm.tees.ac.uk/).
Gervás, P., Díaz-agudo, B., Peinado, F., Hervás, R. (2005). Story Plot Generation based on CBR. In Journal of Knowledge Based Systems, vol. 18, 2-3.
Gervás, P., Lönneker-Rodman, B., Meister, J. C., Peinado, F. (2006). Narrative Models:
Narratology Meets Artificial Intelligence. In Basili, R., Lenci, A. (eds.) Proceedings of
Satellite Workshop: Toward Computational Models of Literary Analysis, 44-51.
Hartley, J. (Ed.) McWilliam, K. (Ed.). (2009, April). Story Circle: Digital Storytelling Around
the World. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lino, C., Christie, M., Lamarche, F., Schoeld, G. & Olivier, P. (2010). A real-time cinematography system for interactive 3d environments. Proceedings of SCA 2010.
Lönneker, B. (August 2005). Narratological Knowledge for Natural Language Generation. In
Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG
2005), 91-100.Lothe, J. (2000) Narrative in Fiction and Film. Oxford University Press.
Mateas, M., & Stern, A. (2002). A Behavior Language for Story-Based Believable Agents. In
Working notes of the Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Entertainment Symposium.
AAAI Spring Symposium Series: AAAI Press.
‧
Interactive Drama. Game Developer's Conference: Game Design Track.Montfort, N. (2007). Ordering Events in Interactive Fiction Narratives. In: Magerko, B.S., Riedl, M.O. (eds.) Intelligent Narrative Technologies, Papers from the 2007 AAAI Fall
Symposium. AAAI Technical Report, vol. FS-07-05, pp. 87–94. AAAI Press, Menlo Park,
California.Murray, J. (1998) Hamlet on the Holodeck. MIT Press.
Pitzer, A. (2010, February 12). Peggy Nelson on new media narratives: Every Twitter account is a character.
Nieman Storyboard.
Retrieved June 2013.(http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/2010/02/12/peggy-nelson-on-new-media-narratives-every-twitter-account-is-a-character/)
Porteous, J., Cavazza, M. & Charles, F. (2010). Narrative generation through characters' point of view. Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, 1297-1304.
Porteous, J., Teutenberg, J., Charles, F., & Cavazza, M. (2011). Controlling Narrative Time in Interactive Storytelling. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS ‘11), Taipei, Taiwan.
Prince, G. (1974). A Grammar of Stories: An Introduction, 16-37. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands.
Prince, G. (1991). A Dictionary of Narratology. Aldershot: Scholar Press.
Propp, V. A. (1928). Morphology of the Folktale. Publications of the American Folklore Society. University of Texas Press.
Riedl, M. O. (2009). Incorporating authorial intent into generative narrative systems. AAAI
Spring Symposium: Intelligent Narrative Technologies II, 91-94. AAAI.
‧
Roberts, D. L. & Isbell, C.L. (2008). A Survey and Qualitative Analysis of Recent Advances in Drama Management. International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications, 4(2):61-75.
Riedl, M. & León, C. (2008). Toward Vignette-Based Story Generation for Drama Management Systems. Workshop on Integrating Technologies for Interactive Stories -
2nd International Conference on INtelligent TEchnologies for interactive enterTAINment .
Ryan, M-L. (2006). Avatars of Story. U of Minnesota Press.
Schneider, O., Braun, N., Habinger, G. & Storytelling, D. (2003). Storylining suspense: An authoring environment for structuring non-linear interactive narratives. Proceedings of
WSCG 2003.
Si, M., Marsella, S. & Pynadath, D. (2009). Directorial control in a decision-theoretic framework for interactive narrative. Interactive Storytelling: LNCS, 221-233.
Spierling, U., Grasbon, D., Braun, N. & Iurgel, I. (2002, February). Setting the scene: playing digital director in interactive storytelling and creation. Computers & Graphics, 26(1), 31-44.
Spierling, U. & Homann, S. (2010). Exploring narrative interpretation and adaptation for interactive story creation. Proceedings of ICIDS 2010, 50-61.
Spierling, U., Weiß, S. A. & Müller, W. (2006). Towards accessible authoring tools for interactive storytelling. Proceedings of the Third international conference on
Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment (TIDSE'06),
169-180. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Swartout, W., Hill, R. W., Gratch, J., Johnson, W. L., Kyriakakis, C., Labore, C., Lindheim, R., Marsella, S. C., Miraglia, D., Moore, B., Morie, J., Rickel, J., Thiebaux, M., Tuch, L., Whitney, R. & Douglas, J. (2001, June). Toward the holodeck: Integrating graphics,
Swartout, W., Hill, R. W., Gratch, J., Johnson, W. L., Kyriakakis, C., Labore, C., Lindheim, R., Marsella, S. C., Miraglia, D., Moore, B., Morie, J., Rickel, J., Thiebaux, M., Tuch, L., Whitney, R. & Douglas, J. (2001, June). Toward the holodeck: Integrating graphics,