Celtx Conference Call Wrap-Up

[Ron Toland]

From my notes on the Celtx Conference call, here's a few of the
questions they had for us (and the answers we gave):

1) Is there a standard list of metadata tags (e.g., actor, character,
prop, scene, set, etc.) for game writing?
--No. We could borrow some from film, though, and come up with a list
unique to us. We'll still need to be able to customize the metadata
tags for each project/studio, though.

2) Is there a standard way of handling branching dialogue?
--No. We pointed them toward the NWN toolset for an example of *one*
way to handle it.

3) How are the scheduling requirements for game writing usually
represented/tracked?
--2 ways: there's a Production Schedule that usually follows a
specification like SCRUM, and a Film-like Schedule for motion-capture
work and voice-acting work.

4) What would be a good starting feature for Celtx to work on?
--Branching dialogue. Since Celtx already has tools for working with
screenplays (that we could adapt to use for cut-scenes) and audio
plays (that we could adapt for voice acting work), Branching Dialogue
is the most unique format for game writing.

5) What kind of support is the IGDA giving us?
--The SIG is fully behind us. The IGDA will probably be fully behind
us when we "go public" with this. Small studios and contract writers
will definitely be interested, along with game writing teachers and
students. A useful tool that these groups adopt will pressure the
larger studios to also adopt it.

6) What is the technical comfort level of game writers?
--Above average for writers, since we have to most of our work on,
with, and for, computers.

Stephen and Corvus: Does that capture (some of) it accurately?

To the group at large: Were those good answers? What did we miss?
Thoughts on developing a set of standard industry terms or what to
(and when we should) take this to the IGDA?

[Corvus Elrod]

That matches my notes/memory. It was a very promising call, indeed!

--Corvus

[Jeff]

Hey guys,

Thanks a ton for applying the time and energy to get this going, and
great job with Celtx. Some comments on the Q&A stuff:

> 1) Is there a standard list of metadata tags (e.g., actor, character,
> prop, scene, set, etc.) for game writing?

We could probably come up with 80% of them if we tried. Do they need
it? The most important thing is customization.

> 3) How are the scheduling requirements for game writing usually
> represented/tracked?

It's basic project management but with no industry standard. The key
is in integration tools/APIs/import-export rather than a set format.
If they stick with basic project elements like project / sub-project /
task / owner / resource / time / budget / start date / end date /
percent complete / etc. they'll be fine; it might be good to add SCRUM
process terms like backlog, feature, and sprint as these are
relatively common.

> 4) What would be a good starting feature for Celtx to work on?
> --Branching dialogue. Since Celtx already has tools for working with
> screenplays (that we could adapt to use for cut-scenes) and audio
> plays (that we could adapt for voice acting work), Branching Dialogue
> is the most unique format for game writing.

I'm still not sure I agree on this one. Certainly branching dialogue
is unique to game writing, but it's far from being pervasive. I
haven't seen a casual game that uses it, most mobile platforms (DS,
PSP, phones) don't have the sophistication, and even big-budget AAA
efforts don't require it for a lot of games and genres. Every studio
that needs it has developed a way to do it.

I agree that branching dialogue is cool and sexy and a great marketing
selling point for the final product. But if they end up creating a
tool that is their base product plus branching dialogue, I don't know
if it's really going to be useful. There are other elements of the
writing part of the game development chain that (at least for my
projects) would have more value.

On the other hand, I can live with being overruled on this one :-)

> 5) What kind of support is the IGDA giving us?

Do they mean moral, marketing, or financial support? They can have all
the moral support they want, whatever marketing support we can give
them, and probably zero dollars. Our marketing support would come in
the form of the mailing list writers plus any sort of promotion we
might do at the trade shows. If I end up running the booth at Austin
(as I foolishly volunteered), I'd be more than happy to talk it up,
hand out brochures, give demos, etc. All of this might have to be
checked with the guidelines of the IGDA, of course.

> 6) What is the technical comfort level of game writers?

We're a bunch of renaissance thinkers with incredible intellectual
depth and we live sixteen hours a day in front of our computers.
Technology cowers in fear when we enter the room.

Thanks again,

Jeff

[Coray Seifert]

I agree that #4 should not be branching dialog, for the reasons Jeff listed. It's also probably a pretty high-spec feature, so I would imagine that would be best saved for the second iteration. For now, I vote for getting a really solid scriptwriting tool that focuses on things every game writer needs: multiformat import/export (database driven).

As for IGDA support. We'll definitely be able to provide a very significant marketing and grassroots PR support. We'll most likely be able to provide logistic support (hosting, webspace, announcement space, etc.). There is also a chance that we could provide some funding from the SIG funding pool that is set to be approved in the very near future. That last one is not a definite, but something that may be available to us in the future.

Great work guys! Sorry I missed the call, but this project is definitely in good hands!

Cheers,

- C

[Roane Beard]

Jeff makes an interesting point about number four. I can safely say that not only would I use the dialogue tool, it's the only tool available to me not part of a NWN toolset. So for those of use using branching dialogue, having an open source tool that supports it would be of immense value.

On the other hand, I would also use scriptwriting software with robust import/export abilities. The big difference for me is that I can work around that one; trying to write branching dialogue without a branching dialogue tool is another matter.

Maybe that's something that should go on the next survey? Which tool would be of the most use to the most writers?

-Roane

--
___________
Roane Beard
Staff Writer
Meteor Games

[Ron Toland]

Just to clarify: Celtx didn't seem to be asking for the one, most
important, feature for any software work, just a place for them to
start thinking about our unique game writing problems. IMHO, a
branching dialogue editor that *couldn't* handle imports/exports is
only half as useful.

We'll definitely do an in-depth feature-ranking survey with the SIG
before sending Celtx a list of "must have" features.

Ron

[Drew McGee]

Ok, so where do we go from here? I'm no good with sitting on my hands
and waiting. Since my "aspirant" post, I've been wanting to gather
industry verbiage from the veterans in this group and begin compiling
a list of terms. I would like to suggest a survey (since we got good
response from the first) asking for terms used on a day-to-day basis.
This can start broad and we can narrow our scope, or compartmentalize,
as we go (ie dialogue terms, plot, cut-scene direction, etc.). It may
be useful for all involved to download Celtx and peruse a bit of their
terminology tool to get an idea of what we're looking for. More than
likely, a lot of what the script writing industry uses can be used by
us and in these cases, it would seem wiser to assimilate, rather than
stand-out for the sake of being unique.

So, who wants to head up the creation of such a survey (*anxiously
looking toward those involved in the creation of our recent survey)?

Thanks,
Drew

[Corvus Elrod]

It's awesome that you're eager to forge ahead, Drew! I think we're
waiting to hear back from Celtx before we take our next step. If we
don't hear back from them by early next week, I suggest we decide on
our next step anyway and forge ahead.

Stephen? Have they gotten back to you yet?

--Corvus

[Ron Toland]

I agree with Corvus. If we don't hear from Celtx today, let's keep
moving on our own.

A survey for a list of industry terms sounds like a good step to
take. To parallel the features list survey we did, perhaps we should
generate as many terms as we can on our own, and then survey the SIG
for approval and any terms we missed? Drew, would you like to go
ahead and start a separate topic to compile the list?

Ron

On Jun 13, 8:33 am, "Corvus Elrod" <corvus.el...@zakelro.com> wrote:
> It's awesome that you're eager to forge ahead, Drew! I think we're
> waiting to hear back from Celtx before we take our next step. If we
> don't hear back from them by early next week, I suggest we decide on
> our next step anyway and forge ahead.
>
> Stephen? Have they gotten back to you yet?
>
> --Corvus
>

[Drew McGee]

No problem. The discussion will be titled, "Initial Compilation of
Industry Terms".

Drew

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

Whoa knelly! Calm down. Celtx contacted me back, they want to set up another call. It will probably be for Monday. They are "sending me their thoughts" sometime today.

We don't need more surveys at this point. Let's wait until we are ready for it.

Patience is a virtue, this has all been moving very quickly, I imagine it will slow rather than speed up! That said I appreciate the enthusiasm and momentum!

Stephen

Ron Toland wrote:

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

Celtx just got back to us, here is the email they sent:

"Thanks again for the call on Wednesday.  Greg and I were left with a good appreciation for the industry's big need for a universal standard tool for game writing.  Needless to say, we'd love to get involved and spearhead its development.  We chatted it out around the office and quickly realized that given the unique needs and nature of game writing/development the process of creating this tool would be quite a bit more involved than, for example, simply bolting a new game writing editor onto Celtx.  Rather, it's apparent the process would start with Celtx core technology, features and functionality but grow quickly into the creation of a separate stand alone industry-standard application specific to the needs of professional game writers and developers.

This of course introduces a whole range of new factors and issues, including industry up-front buy-in and support, IGDA sanctioning and support, underwriting costs of development, and, of course, an agreeable development plan and timeline.    All of which would need to be in place from the outset to make this work.  Admittedly, not so much a grassroots approach, but a much more likely successful path for developing an application that achieves industry wide acceptance and usage, which is essentially what we'd all like to see happen.

You might want to send it around your group and discuss and we can pick it up from there on Monday."

Looks like we off to a great start!

Stephen


Stephen E. Dinehart wrote:

[Ron Toland]

Thanks for posting this, Stephen. Sounds like they've got a good
grasp on how deep and unique some of our problems are.

It also sounds like we need to pitch this to IGDA to get their
approval/backing. Are we ready to do that? Would this be something we
need more survey data for?

Ron

[Coray Seifert]

I would say that we have all the information we need to pitch it to the Writers SIG, since they're the ones stamping their name on it.

Good stuff all!

- C

[Stephen E. Dinehart]

Happy Monday all,

Coray, can you be more detailed in your request?

I thought the survey was a pretty good "pitch" and I'd say we got an overwhelming hands up on most of the features.

Once we have some additional discussion, I am ready to setup another call with Celtx.

What does everyone else think?

Best,

Stephen

Coray Seifert wrote:

[Coray Seifert]

That sounds good. I was just replying to Ron's question ("It also sounds like we need to pitch this to IGDA to get their approval/backing.  Are we ready to do that? Would this be something we need more survey data for?") that we probably already have enough data from our initial survey (which I agree was super successful) to make a proposal to the IGDA Writers SIG, which is the group that is endorsing this initiative.

Are we going to poll the writers SIG to try to determine the priority order of the features we discussed?

Cheers,

- C