Podcast appearances and mentions of nick fortugno

This week on the show we gather the Review Crew to chat about our various Spooky Season and Autumnal Escapades. Nick Fortugno, Blake Weil, Katrina Lat, Laura Hess, and Patrick McLean join host Noah Nelson as we go coast to coast over to London, and into the wilds of VR in search of chills and thrills.SHOW NOTESThe Next Stage Immersive SummitDenver Immersive InvitationalBeetlejuice Beetlejuice: The Afterlife ExperienceJimmy Fallon's TonightmaresHouse of Exquisite Corpse IV: SuperstitionsPhantom PeakShadow Traffic (Lost Horizon Night Market)You Can't Scare Me Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Nick Fortugno, The Director of Gaming Pathways at City College of New York, slips into the host chair to interview an artist he's collaborated with for years now: filmmaker and Director of Columbia University's Digital Storytelling Lab Lance Weiler, whose critically acclaimed immersive storytelling experience Where There's Smoke is currently running at ArtYard in Frenchtown, New Jersey through Oct. 1st with an upcoming artist talk on September 30th.Nick and Lance have been working together for a long time now, and we thought it would be a unique opportunity to play with the NoPro format and have artistic collaborators take a deep dive into a piece of work. We're pretty happy with how it turned out!SHOW NOTESWhere There's Smoke at ARTYardWhere There's Smoke Artist Talk (Sep. 30)Gaming Pathways at City College of New YorkReview Rundown for 8.8.23American Dreams Are Just Out of Reach in Stunning ‘Port of Entry' (The NoPro Review)CALL SHEET AUGUST 2023This week No Proscenium is brought to you by SEE TICKETS, which has proudly supported thousands of clients across the globe in areas as diverse as historic attractions like Stonehenge, immersive theater like The Burnt City, and important cultural touchstones like LA Pride. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week a very special VERY LONG episode of the podcast featuring guest host Mikhael Tara Garver, Head of Culture House Immersive and Director of Immersive Experience for the Star Wars: Galactic Starcruiser who is here to interview myself, Kathryn Yu, Graham Wetterhahn, Jessica Creane, and Nick Fortugno my shipmates for the absolutely incredible surprise trip to Walt Disney World in Orlando to head aboard the Galactic Starcruiser that Graham and Kathryn organized for us, and that a whole lot of people contributed to.The conversation that follows dips between talking about our characters to inside baseball stuff about immersive and back again. It is deeply nerdy in every sense of the word. It's also unlike anything we've done before. SHOW NOTESCALL SHEET JULY 2023My Star Wars SagaWaking Up With The ForceRegarding RoseOur coverage of the Starcruiser is brought to you by Agile Lens, bringing XR and theatre together for over a decade, and After Hours Theatre Company, producers of the Los Angeles Immersive Invitational, with additional support from listeners like you.  Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the FuturePerfect Podcast where we talk with compelling people breaking new ground in art, media, and entertainment. This podcast is produced by FuturePerfect Studio, an extended reality studio creating immersive experiences for global audiences. Episodes are released every two weeks, visit our website futureperfect.studio for more details.The text version of this interview has been edited for length and clarity. Find the full audio version above or in your favorite podcast app.For episode 005, Wayne Ashley interviews Nick Fortugno, co-founder of the New York-based game studio Playmatics and designer of numerous digital and non-digital projects, including board games, collectible card games, large-scale social games, and theater.INTRODUCTION AND ROLEPLAYINGHey Nick, thanks for joining us. I'm really excited to dig into some of your background, ideas, projects, and particularly your alternative vision for a future of theater. I see you as a catalyst, a kind of cultural interlocutor making links across different forms of knowledge and practice, and the work you've done really attests to this. You've designed video and board games as well as outdoor public games. You're the co-founder of Playmatics, a New York game studio and the lead designer on many theater works, including Frankenstein AI and The Raven. And of course, one of the lead creators of the blockbuster mobile game Diner Dash. But first I want to go back a bit. Your cousin introduced you to roleplaying when you were quite young and you ran your first game of Dungeons and Dragons at six years old. Is it too much to assume that roleplaying is one of the most critical activities for you, if not a central organizing practice leaking into everything you do? Give us a sense of how roleplaying has activated much of your thinking and practice.Nick Fortugno: I think a central organizing principle is like a good way of thinking about it. It doesn't inform all of my work in a literal sense, but it's the heart of how I think about aesthetics. In Dungeons and Dragons, essentially what you do is you tell stories with other people and you use a rule system to adjudicate disagreement. You have a lot of “I hit you”—“no you didn't” stuff in roleplaying so you need rules to deal with that. When you're storytelling in that system and you're the person responsible for making the story, you don't story-tell the way you do in other forms where you have an idea of the story in your head and you're figuring out how to implement it in a way that will affect the audience. Instead, the players or the protagonists are interacting with you and they're changing it constantly. And so you don't know where the story is going. You have ideas of where you could go, you have ideas of what you might want to happen, but you're really in this collaborative process. And so this idea of improvising and using systems to generate things and being responsive to the interactions of other people is very much at the heart of my work. It's how I teach, how I think about storytelling centrally, and it informs a lot of my aesthetics. So yeah I would not be the person I was today if my cousin Joey didn't teach me D&D (Dungeons and Dragons) in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.DESIGN THINKINGYou're also a prolific researcher, not only of games, but of literature, theme parks, new technologies, and performance. I'm thinking about a previous discussion we had where in one breath you mentioned cultural forms that most people would never bring together in the same conversation. The list is long, but indulge me here: the British theater company Gob Squad, Galaxy's Edge at Disneyland, Harry Potter hotel, the theater collective The Wooster Group, the blockbuster event Sleep No More, the novels of Joyce and Pynchon, Evermore Park in Utah, and the epic video game Elden Ring. This cluster excites me because it's how we think as well, across these kinds of groupings. You also use this concept of affordances to enable you to think systematically across all these activities. Can you say more about that?NF: Affordance is a concept from design thinking, Donald Norman really popularized it. It's the idea that a form has features about it that lead to certain kinds of use. There are things that are intuitive in a way, or natural in a way, that come from a form. If I put a handle in a certain place, you hold the handle and that changes your use of the device. That idea that the forms start speaking to certain kinds of use cases is very central to thinking about interactive design. Because when you're a designer in those spaces you make the affordances. You don't tell users what to do. You give them something and you have them do it. That's why it's interactive. It's not like a roller coaster where I strap myself in and I just ride the rails that were put out in front of me. It's more like a theme park where there's just a bunch of stuff. But I don't go wandering off into the most boring part of the theme park. I go towards the lights, I go towards the sound, I go towards the interactive things. The design of those things that attract me, the things that challenge me, the obstacles and the rewards, all of that stuff moves me around in those spaces. This is central to the way I think about my practice.LITERATURE, PLAY AND AMBIGUITYYou have a BA in graduate study and literature. In our previous conversation, you noted an overlapping relationship between post-war American literature and the kinds of interactive narratives found in gaming. Do I have that right?In our other podcasts I've been really interested in what brings disparate people to these emerging hybrid media spaces. They come from film, dance, theater, visual art, and gaming. I think you're the first person in our podcast series making connections between Pynchon and James Joyce with interactive gaming structures. I'm curious about how you came to make these connections.NF: When I got interested in literature I was drawn to postwar postmodernist approaches to writing, like I'm thinking fifties, sixties, and seventies. But really you could stretch it from a Borgesian and Joycean and Steinean space up through the modern day. There's still authors like Ali Smith doing stuff like this. But when you look at like things like Pynchon and Nabokov in particular, their works start becoming a little bit obsessed with interpretation. Interpretation becomes the center of the novel. The novels become games about interpretations. There are other authors in that space who are really breaking down the sense of what you're supposed to consume from the story because they are, in a meta way, thinking about the fact that you're interpreting them. Whether it's Crying of Lot 49 asking you to think about what communication systems are and then challenging you on how we interpret conspiracies. And that's also all over Foucault's Pendulum. Or a book like Lolita, which is basically laughing in your face about your attempts to understand it. Or Pale Fire for that matter, which I think is an even deeper experiment. What you see over and over again is this idea that the novel is a game that the reader is playing with the novelist. It's not a puzzle. You're not going to get the answer out of it. That's not the point. And certainly postmodern poetry and people like Asbury would argue that if you got one meaning out of a poem, you didn't really read the poem anyway. The work becomes something that you as the audience have some ownership of because it is open to you and because it's an ambiguous object that you have to work with. That's what got me. I was already, just from roleplaying, very used to the idea that I participate in stories and that they come from this relationship with me and the text.So I don't like talking about interactive narrative. I think that's a bad phrase because I I'm always interacting with story. That's not new, what's new is the types of affordances of interaction that I get from stories, and what the possibilities for changing those stories are, and how much the story is a fixed thing that I encounter, and how much the story is flexible to my input. To me, the literature study was partly just giving me an outlet for stories and a place where stories can actually be quite experimental because when you just write it's cheap to make crazy worlds. It's the same amount of ink to write a crazy world as it is to write a realistic one. You can go very far with literature in a way that would be harder to do in film because you have to shoot all that stuff. The drive of novels from the modernist period on has been a drive towards more and more stylistic experimentation and that has been really engaging to me because you start seeing it as almost a formal thing. You can look at it like a structure and then you can see that the structure is doing something. Joyce's Ulysses is an excellent example of that. Each chapter is written stylistically and formally different. There are chapters that are dialogues, there are chapters where the stream of consciousness changes radically, there are chapters that drift, and that's part of the narrative. If you go back to the Oulipo experimentation that Calvino and other French and Italian authors were doing, they were literally creating that whole idea of branching trees. You start to see that there are patterns of structures of story that we can start to establish.That's the approach I take to this question of rhetoric. Exploration is a set of tropes, and branching is a set of tropes. It's similar, whether you're branching in a YouTube video or branching in a choose your own adventure, or branching in a game like Until Dawn. The branching is similar, it has similar tropes. So we can look at it structurally and say, well, what does the structure do? How do the choices in the design of the structure change things independent of content. And then what is the intersection between the content and the structure?DYNAMIC STRUCTURES AND GAMESIt's interesting to note how the strategies found in avant-garde and experimental literature have leaked into, or have become one of the dominant ways of constructing narrative within popular culture, video games, and even marketing. What was on the periphery has, in a sense, moved to the center and become part of the entertainment industry.NF: I think so because as you start moving into more dynamic and particularly digitally dynamic work it starts to have to be structural. Although that spills back into the analog, especially as internet of things (IOT) becomes very reduced in size and cost and technology starts coming back into the real world. You start seeing this there too.I'm riffing a lot on arguments in a book called Expressive Processing by Noah Wardrip-Fruin. If I make a piece of work that changes with every user and produces a different outcome, then the output of that work is not really an analysis of that work. If the work has a hundred thousand possibilities, one possibility is such a small segment of what it could be. That it gives me information as a user, but I can't really critique the work from that perspective. I have to look at the structure because it's procedural, it's not predetermined. And I think as we start moving into works that are like that, and since computers enable us to do that, that's what computers are good at is that kind of dynamic procedural, then we start to see that structural analysis and system design become more and more important. As it does, and we see the affordances that has, we can start pulling those affordances into other forms where we see similar audience relationships. So I don't think: does theater need this? Does film need this? Does installation need this? No, It doesn't need it. You can make good art without it, and obviously we have made thousands of years of good art without it, but the possibilities of the art change when you start seeing those things. That's why I think it's starting to permeate. Digital games are a very big industry and there's been a lot of really interesting storytelling in them. I don't think all people who study this stuff know that because it's locked a bit behind barriers of picking up a PlayStation 4 controller and trying to get through it. Shadow of Colossus, for example, is one of the most important digital works ever made. But not many people experience it because it's a really hard digital game. And it has to be hard. That's part of its aesthetic. But I think that the people who have bridged this are starting to see that you can inherit things from those forms into these other spaces. That's just changing the way we think and then you start to see work in the world that is just more procedural. Work that does just become more dynamic in its nature. Then you end up with stuff like LARP (Live action role-playing) where, you can't make LARP the way you make theater because I don't know what the players are gonna do. So my scripts in LARP can't be like a theater script, it doesn't make sense. I need a structure that will support 40 people running around doing random things.PARTICIPATORY EXPERIENCES DRIVEN BY TECHNOLOGYThis brings me to theater, particularly two participatory theatrical installations that you co-created. First, Frankenstein AI: a monster made by many which was an AI powered immersive experience that premiered at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival. And The Raven, which was performed as part of the Lincoln Center's New York Film Festival in 2019. Tell us what audiences might have experienced when they participated in Frankenstein AI and what was the genesis of that work?NF: Frankenstein AI has had a couple of different forms. Its original form was a small audience immersive experience where you came into a room and you interacted with another audience member at a surface computer that was like built into a table. It was formulated as an artificial intelligence asking you questions about what it was like to be human and you're sort of marking values on the table using a physical computing device that looked like an ouija board. That information was sent to an actual AI that was in a cloud which was used as the seed to determine a mood that the AI had. And then when you finished that exercise, you were brought into a room that was mapped with projections and IOT procedurally played drums and you would have a chance to talk to the artificial intelligence. The artificial intelligence would generate a question and then it would be delivered in text to speech to the audience in the room. And then the audience in the room would direct the docent to type a question into a typewriter and that would be sent back to the AI. This was all formulated where there's this AI that's been created, it has escaped into the internet and it is trying to understand what it is and what humanity is. And it's using the narrative of Frankenstein as this thing that was created that doesn't understand its role as a seed to understand where it's going. The whole thing was essentially a meditation on two things. One is this question of what is AI and what should we be worried about AI? These were the conversations that I had with Lance Weiler and Rachel Eve Ginsburg who were the co-creators of that project. My big argument was that everyone worries about Terminator, but what we should really be worried about is Kafka. AI is not a monster that takes us over. AI is a thing that doesn't understand us and then just acts procedurally in ways we don't understand.This is around the time that Microsoft had released an AI that became wildly racist and we were thinking about what it meant that we're teaching AI and how could we make a piece that gets people to reflect on the idea that we're engaged with artificial intelligence in the world? We are training it and we are going to teach the AI what it does. So if that's the case, what is our responsibility? The whole piece was kind of a meditation on that process. I did the creative technology design on that and some of the interactive narrative design of the sequencing of it. I'm very proud of that piece personally, because it was the first piece of creative technology that I ever actually showed in an exhibit. I worked on the technology that connected all of devices. So it meant that when the AI changed mood, the projections changed, and the drums changed and it pulled the AI's response and then fed that into the speech to text and delivered it into the room. So I basically did the technology that connected the surface tables to the AI, to the projectors, and to the drums. This was a topic of research I've had for a long time about how technology could be used to create these like kind of seamless connections between things. You didn't see anything happen, you just asked a question and suddenly the projections and drums changed. I call that seamless technology—technology that doesn't have clear lines where it connects. I think that could be a kind of magic and that was important to me. What did you learn from producing Frankenstein AI that changed your approaches when you then began to develop The Raven? How does The Raven work as an experience that grew from or built upon your previous work?NF: The Raven was an immersive performance where we allowed an audience into The American Irish Historical Society where they experienced a magically real story of Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven. The center of the technology of the piece was that every user had a lantern that they carried around with them. The lantern was an IOT device that was reading beacons in the space and connected to a central system. The audience also had a set of headphones that were playing audio for them. So most of the audio that was present in the piece came from the headset that was being played based on where they were and based on a character they picked at the beginning of the piece. Everyone was sort of playing a performer in the piece. The performer Ava Lee Scott, who was playing Poe and co-wrote the piece, was moving through the space as Poe meditating with these characters. But you, as the audience, were one of the people that Poe knew from his life or his creations. What Lance Weiler and I carried from Frankenstein AI was this idea that we could create a central technology system that was guiding all these users without having to have actors on top of those users moving them around. And that the storytelling could really be based on their decisions, because it was in part based on where you went and what you encountered. The other thing that Frankenstein AI taught me, in a real sense, was that these technologies could be stable. The work had a server system, that's how it ran, it was a server that was running on a small piece of technology called the Raspberry Pi. We turned it on and on the first day when we were running it we just didn't turn it off. We wanted to see if it would stay up overnight. And then we didn't turn it off for two full weeks. It just ran nonstop for two weeks and it never broke. We never had to restart it. So that taught me these things can be made battle ready. We brought a similar kind of technology to The Raven. There were obviously different technical constraints to The Raven and there were different bugs we were facing, but we went through a similar process of creating a central system that guided the narrative. If we do that right and we have the right affordances to connect to the audience that can take the place of a bunch of docents, a bunch of rules, a bunch of structures, and people can just explore. Then through that exploration they can find story. I should say that we worked with pretty robust technologies on that project. We were in partnership with Microsoft and we were using pretty heavy Azure servers and things like that, but it was not for heavy lifting stuff. It was for reliability of the delivery of the material. And then we built this gigantic XML file that was the branching script of the entire piece so that we knew where people were. We could time lights and sound cues and things like that.THE LIMITS OF THEATERWhat I find compelling about both of these projects is their capacity to posit alternative models for theater's future. They either directly or implicitly suggest that theater needs to be remediated or fixed. For the purposes of this discussion, can I make that assertion?NF: Yeah, I will also defend traditional theater, but… [laughs]That's good [laughs], but what is it about certain kinds of theater that need to be remediated and how are your explorations accomplishing this? I'm very careful to say alternative models and I'm not asking you to generalize. I think from our audience's perspective, people are going to ask: what's wrong with the kind of theater that I do? And why do I need these other systems? Why do I need to even consider these technologies? All these kinds of questions are implied, for better or worse, in the kind of work that you're proposing and the kind of exciting research that you're carrying out.NF: First of all, there's just aesthetic possibilities that are very hard to create in a linear format like theater. Guilt is hard to create in an audience. Triumph is hard to create in an audience because they don't do anything. You can get to shame, but there's types of shame you can't get to. So there's aesthetics that become possible just when someone is culpable and when someone has the ability to achieve. That becomes kind of interesting. Games have lots of emotions attached to victory and failure that can be leveraged in all sorts of interesting and weird ways. There are pieces like The Privilege of Escape, which was an escape room that was a meditation on systemic bias. That's an interesting example of a piece where the designer was trying to use the affordances of games to demonstrate a problem in the world. And games typically do that. There's just pure emotions that are inaccessible to linear media. I think because there aren't affordances for the audience to access them, despite the diversity of emotions that these forms can create. The second possibility is, it's a question of how you want to engage with your audience. As an artist, I don't really like telling people stories, that doesn't really engage me.You're the second person we've interviewed who has talked disparagingly about stories and storytelling. Say more about that.NF: I don't mind being blunt about this. I'm not that interested in my biology. I'm not that interested in my history. I don't find those things that interesting. I don't think I have a vision of storytelling that's so powerful that some muse came to me uniquely and now the word of heaven is coming through my body or something. And this isn't to knock people who do that, there are geniuses who make that work, but that's not how I create and that's not what I do. What I want is to play with you. I want to be able to engage with you and you know, catch the ball you throw and throw it back. And this isn't altruistic just to be really clear, I mean I like doing that with people, but it's also really fun to catch a bunch of balls coming at you in crazy directions and keep the whole thing on track. There's an artistry to that. That's what running an RPG is, it's like throwing track in front of a moving train. So I think that's really powerful and you get things that you would never get otherwise. Similarly, if you jam you get something that you would never get when you compose. The improvisation and the participation of other people leads you to create something new and you can do that with audiences. And you can do that with audiences in ways that don't make crappy, thin, gray, over-democratized work. Because I'm not saying that's not a problem, if you just let everybody come in and cook in the kitchen then you get no food or you get bland food or inedible stuff. Structures make it possible for people to participate in ways that are meaningful, but controlled, that fit within the aesthetic. So people understand what kinds of creations are possible in this space. And that is a whole set of techniques that then allows audiences to come in completely ignorant of what you're doing and then tell a story that they helped make that is still in the aesthetic you wanted. There's a magic to that that I think is really powerful. It opens up whole new kinds of forms and it's a different way of engaging with the world for the audience and I think that's powerful because we haven't really seen it before. There are some experiences like that, but they tend to be very high demand on the creativity or they tend to be gate-kept or they're high skill-based. And what immersive theater can do that I think is unique and independent of digital games and LARPs, is that they can be approachable. I can show up and not really know much and still participate. And I think that's a space that's really powerful. And then the third beat that I just have to mention all the time is that tickets are very expensive to these things. They charge a lot of money to get people into those things. I think that there's opportunity, from a business perspective, if you can figure out the scaling. You're seeing pieces like Particle Ink in Las Vegas which is a piece with projection mapping and dance where they're starting to figure out how to grow the audiences in ways that don't hurt the piece. You start looking at genuine business models for keeping those things up. What are other business models that can keep dancers, actors, and set designers involved? Because none of those people are going away in immersive theater, we need all of those people. We need them the same way we need them in other forms. It's a parallel skill if not an identical skill right. So we're not telling actors they're out of work. We had actors in The Raven, the actor was the center of The Raven in a lot of ways, but the actor was supplemented by all of these other things to create a new form where people can explore and make choices and feel directly engaged.NEW FORMS OF PEDAGOGYGiven this technologically seamless environment within which performance might take place, do you see the training of actors taking a different path? Or different ways for how writers produce scripts? Do we need new kinds of training for scenographers, sound and lighting designers that will accommodate and respond to these ideas and new approaches to performance? NF: Well acting, for example, in these kinds of cases, has a lot more improvisation in it. It's much more deeply based in that kind of improvisation, but it's also a lot about vulnerability. This is something that I'm just going to riff off of a writer and actor that I know Char Simpson would talk about. Char was part of the Blackout Haunted House for many years and talks very much about how they created vulnerability and that the creation of vulnerability was really important. That becomes a different way of thinking about acting. But also the idea that an audience member might ask you your favorite color and you need an answer that seems natural. That's a more roleplaying kind of acting than I think some actors are trained in, of course some actors are good at that. You don't know what's going to happen so you can't write a script the way you would normally write a script. It has to have some variation in it. You have to think about it more like story, like world building. I think directing changes because I don't know when we're gonna hit a specific moment or I don't know what perspective I'm gonna be coming from in a specific moment. So I have to think differently about that too. And you see that in digital games which will sometimes have cut scenes that are very film-like, but they'll also have scenes where users can walk around and watch what's happening. Which is why when we talk about VR we talk more about immersive theater because the viewpoint is not singular, it is a multiple viewpoint environment. So I'm thinking about it more from that perspective. Theater in the round is also relevant here. Again, that's not a new form, but it solved this problem. So maybe VR should look at theater in the round and then learn some lessons for how you keep an audience's attention in a broad space. And in fact, we're getting that big, we could think about station-based theater where people are really just drifting over a whole plaza and engaged in an experience. Are these forms going to change acting, writing, directing and set design? Sure, of course they are because the affordances of the audience are going be different and that's going to lead to different outputs. But it's not like we made up all this stuff just because the technology came along. We had happenings, we had station-based theater, we had rituals.I'm thinking about the Ramlila which I participated in India many decades ago in Varanasi. This is a month-long event that is played out over the entire city in which the inhabitants take on all the various roles. The city performs and becomes an immersive ritual and religious space. So there are absolutely precedences that are centuries old that we can draw upon. I'm thinking about how the pedagogical needs of theater will continue to change in response to these new forms that are becoming more and more central to our lives.NF: Yeah I teach immersive and dynamic narrative and I teach it in the way that we've been talking about. I teach it in this very broad, cut-across-media way. Media does not matter for the purpose of the class, that's not what it's about. It's about the tropes that the media use and how those things relate. And then you see this in disciplines like narratology where people are really coming at narrative from lots of different directions and trying to figure out how stories get told.Another point that's just very important to me is in the intersection of these forms. Because you're not going to get immersive theater from theater alone. There's a bunch of pieces that theater doesn't really know about like interaction design and a sort of multiple viewpoint about the pacing for that kind of stuff. Games understand that, but games don't understand what theater's good at. Games don't understand how you create scenes or understand how you create dramatic power, and games don't understand the value of liveness, frankly. Some of that we can get from LARPs, but LARPs aren't theater either. So it really is in the intersection of all of these fields.I think more of this is happening. You're seeing escape rooms get more theatrical. I think it's too slow, like way too slow. We could have gotten to where we are five years ago and we could be five years ahead of where we are right now. But you're starting to see some of that thinking happen. You're starting to see immersive pieces that are bringing some game elements into them. You can have conversations with people about VR where you talk about digital games and they don't scoff. This focuses again on the ideas of interaction and affordance and how those relate to storytelling that changes the orbit of everything. And then the skills that people have been learning, like the acting, writing, directing, set design, costuming, they all have a place. They're all going to be there, they're just going to circle around a different sun. And that sun is this audience member who can change what you do. That's different.Nick, thanks for all of the conversations we've had. I look forward to working with you. I think you're a really important thinker and maker, and your experiments and research bring a lot of insight into the future of performance.NF: Thank you, I appreciate that there are people like you that are thinking about these problems and working in these problems. Like with your own wonderful work and that podcasts like this exist to have these conversations. I look forward to a really bright future because there's other people like you in it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit futureperfect.substack.com

We wrap up our Tribeca Immersive 2022 coverage with this gathering of the Review Crew: NYC correspondent Edward Mylechreest is joined by special guest Nick Fortugno who makes his Review Crew debut both of whom were on-site at Tribeca this year. Hosted by NoPro Podcast host Noah Nelson, who held down the fort on the at-home portion of Tribeca.In this episode:This is Not A Ceremony [3:00]Plasticsapiens [7:52]Please Believe Me [10:35]Intravene [16:25]Iago [28:22]Emerging Radiance [36:40]Reach You [43:46]Evolver [48:38]Our Complete Tribeca Immersive Coverage:2022 Festival DiaryPodcast Interview: This Is Not A CeremonyPodcast Interview: Tribeca Immersive's Ana BrzezinskaPodcast Interviews: Intravene & Mescaform HillCreator Spotlight: Q&A Interviews with Five Projects Get bonus content on Patreon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nick Fortugno is an entrepreneur, interactive narrative designer, and game designer based in New York City. He is a founder and principal of Playmatics, a game development company that has created a variety of digital and real-world experiences for organizations including Pro Publica, Red Bull, AMC (such as the CableFAX award-winning Breaking Bad: The Interrogation), Disney, American Museum of Natural History, the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent. Nick has taught game design and interactive narrative design for 15 years at institutions such as Columbia University and the Parsons School of Design and has participated in the construction of game design and immersive storytelling curriculum. You'll likely want to listen to this episode more than once with topics spanning: - Nick's professional journey from intern to Founder & CCO - The top two lessons Nick learned while keeping his company afloat when other competitors failed - The game-changing principles of game design he's picked up over the course of his career - Failing up in game design: making and breaking - MDA as an approach to game design and how he utilizes this technique - What Nick looks for when hiring game designers and producers: what's taught in school vs. what needs to be cultivated - AI in the gaming technology forecast For more resources head to www.playmakerspodcast.com

The famed game designer joins Mark, Erica, and Brian to discuss fundamental questions about gaming and what makes a casual game. We touch on everything from crosswords to Super Meat Boy. For more, visit prettymuchpop.com. Hear bonus content for this episode at patreon.com/prettymuchpop. This podcast is part of the Partially Examined Life network and is curated by openculture.com. Sponsor: Visit sunbasket.com/pretty and use promo code pretty to get $35 off healthy, delicious meal deliveries.

The famed game designer joins Mark, Erica, and Brian to discuss fundamental questions about gaming and what makes a casual game. We touch on everything from crosswords to Super Meat Boy. For more, visit prettymuchpop.com. Hear bonus content for this episode at patreon.com/prettymuchpop. This podcast is part of the Partially Examined Life network and is curated by openculture.com. Sponsor: Visit sunbasket.com/pretty and use promo code pretty to get $35 off healthy, delicious meal deliveries.

Nick Fortugno is interested in making games for those of us who aren't gamers. Why? Because once you consent to entering an immersive narrative world, you are stepping outside the reality you inhabit and opening up the possibility of exploring new ways of being and of relating to yourself, ideas, others and the world. What else allows you to do that?? Among many things, Nick is one of the founders of Come Out and Play, a festival that turns cities into playgrounds. We talk about physical psychology as a tool for designing bodies for specific emotional outcomes and how urban designers have to choose between designing for what's comfortable for humans vs. what is good for the social fabric of humanity (

A Dinner with Frankenstein AI had its world premiere at IDFA earlier this month. Over the course of two intimate evenings A Dinner with Frankenstein dug deeply into the tensions between human and machine in an immersive, multi­sensory environment that mixed food, conversation and artificial intelligence. This interactive dinner experience is created by pioneers in storytelling and technology Lance Weiler, Rachel Ginsberg and Nick Fortugno, and presented in cooperation with the National Theatre's Immersive Storytelling Studio and IDFA DocLab. A multi-year research project, Frankenstein AI challenges commonly dystopian narratives around artificial intelligence, and seeks to provoke and broaden conversation around the trajectory of this rapidly emerging technology. Beginning with the Sundance Film Festival this past January and over the course of next two years, we'll invite the public into our process as collaborators through an evolving series of activations and experiences both online and off, that will traverse immersive theatre, browser-based interactions, community design, and other performative and experiential media. Developed and produced in collaboration with the Columbia University School of the Arts' Digital Storytelling Lab, Frankenstein AI: a monster made by many is a creative system– a network of projects around a central narrative – designed to provoke exploration around possible shared futures for artificial intelligence. For more information please visit [Frankenstein AI][1] [1]: http://frankenstein.ai Preview A Dinner with Frankenstein AI had its world premiere at IDFA earlier this month. Over the course of two intimate evenings A Dinner with Frankenstein dug deeply into the tensions between human and machine in an immersive, multi­sensory environment that mixed food, conversation and artificial intelligence. This interactive dinner experience is created by pioneers in storytelling and technology Lance Weiler, Rachel Ginsberg and Nick Fortugno, and presented in cooperation with the National Theatre's Immersive Storytelling Studio and IDFA DocLab. A multi-year research project, Frankenstein AI challenges commonly dystopian narratives around artificial intelligence, and seeks to provoke and broaden conversation around the trajectory of this rapidly emerging technology. Beginning with the Sundance Film Festival this past January and over the course of next two years, we'll invite the public into our process as collaborators through an evolving series of activations and experiences both online and off, that will traverse immersive theatre, browser-based interactions, community design, and other performative and experiential media. Developed and produced in collaboration with the Columbia University School of the Arts' Digital Storytelling Lab, Frankenstein AI: a monster made by many is a creative system– a network of projects around a central narrative – designed to provoke exploration around possible shared futures for artificial intelligence. For more information please visit http://Frankenstein AI

Even 200 years after its publication, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein still resonates. This brilliant story is a powerful metaphor for our collective anxieties about technology and its capacity to escape our control. Artificial intelligence activates those fears maybe more than any other technology ever has. So, what might happen if we invited AI to dinner? In this episode of Sandbox Lance Weiler, Rachel Ginsberg and Nick Fortugno sit down to discuss A Dinner with Frankenstein and share their experience of collaborating with a machine.

Nick Fortugno (interactive narrative designer/co-founder Playmatics) and Lance Weiler (storyteller/director Columbia DSL) sit down for a candid convo about Frankenstein AI. This marks the first in a series of discussions that will pull back the curtain on the next iteration of the project entitled, "A Dinner with Frankenstein AI." Topics covered include conversational design, prototyping challenges and preparation for an upcoming world premiere at IDFA in Amsterdam. For more on Dinner with Frankenstein AI challenge visit - https://medium.com/columbia-dsl/dinner-with-frankenstein-ai-global-challenge-design-brief-102801deca0d Interested in exploring new forms and functions of storytelling and emergent technology? The Columbia University School of the Arts' Digital Storytelling Lab has a new global prototyping community. http://columbiadsl.mn.co/

Nick Fortugno is recognized around the world as a leading game designer, narrative and story expert as well as an entrepreneur of digital and real-world games. The chief creative officer of Playmatics joins the podcast to discuss his upcoming presentation at Revolutionary Learning 2016: Storytelling for Learning. Resources

Audio File:  Download MP3Transcript: An Interview with Margaret Wallace Co-founder and CEO, Playmatics. Date: November 27, 2007 NCWIT Interview with Margaret Wallace BIO: Margaret Wallace is the Co-Founder and CEO of Playmatics. And former CEO of RebelMonkey a New York-based game development studio focusing on casual games. Before Rebel Monkey, Margaret co-founded and was CEO of Skunk Studios. Prior to the establishment of Skunk Studios, Ms. Wallace produced and designed games at Shockwave.com, including Shockwave Tetris, and contributed to Mattel's Planet Hot Wheels. She also created CD-ROM and online content for Mindscape Entertainment (then also encompassing SSI & RedOrb Games) and at a start-up called PF Magic, makers of the "virtual pets" game series, Dogz and Catz, a brand currently published by Ubisoft. Ms. Wallace was recently named in Next Generation as one of the Game Industry's 100 Most Influential Women of 2006. She serves on the Steering Committee for the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) Casual Games Special Interest Group. Ms. Wallace was a Co-Editor of the 2006 IGDA Casual Games White Paper and a member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences (IADAS). Ms. Wallace holds a B.S. in Communication from Boston University and an M.A. in Communication from the University of Massachusetts/Amherst. Lucy Sanders: Hi, everybody. This is Lucy Sanders and I am the CEO of the National Center for Women and Information Technology or NCWIT. This is one in a series of podcast interviews that we are doing with women who have started IT companies. They have given us some fabulous stories and wonderful advice along the way. This is another one today with Margaret Wallace. With me are Lee Kennedy, Tricalyx Co‑founder and also Director of NCWIT. Welcome, Lee. Lee Kennedy: Thanks, Lucy. It is great to be here. Lucy: And also Larry Nelson of w3w3 Internet radio and king of technology in Colorado, the voice of technology in Colorado. Larry, welcome. Larry Nelson: Thank you. I'll settle for Lord Nelson. Lucy: Lord Nelson. Absolutely. So, Larry, why don't you say a bit about w3w3. Larry: Well, we're a web‑based Internet radio show. We started in '96 and in 1998 I predicted the Internet would die. But, anyhow we got past all of that, and in the meantime we host many wonderful business shows. We're all business. We have a high tech bent, and I have to tell you this series that we've started here so far with NCWIT has been absolutely extraordinary. We get great feedback from business leaders, business owners as well as even young people who are listening. Lucy: Well, they are going to love the interview we have today with Margaret Wallace who is the Co‑founder and CEO of Rebel Monkey. I have to tell you I just love the name of this company. When you go to Margaret's site and you read things like this: We're about fun times for all, so stay tuned for exciting announcements. I thought that was just wonderful. Before Rebel Monkey Margaret was Co‑founder and CEO of Skunk Studios in San Francisco. So tell us a bit about your new company, Rebel Monkey. It was just launched this year in the casual gaming space. Margaret Wallace: My pleasure, and hi to everyone. It is a pleasure to be here. I'll give you some background on Rebel Monkey. We are, as you said, a casual game development house. That means we focus on video games that are for the rest of us, the people who don't have eight hours a day to spend learning how to use our controllers or don't feel like hooking up a Playstation or an Xbox although casual games do appear on those platforms. We make games that hopefully will reach the widest audience possible. At least, initially, casual games are distributed on the Internet, but you'll find them, as I mentioned, on mobile phones and other causal platforms. Rebel Monkey is a company that has been around since the beginning of 2007 so we're a brand new company. I have co‑founded Rebel Monkey with a gentleman named Nick Fortugno, and Nick is probably best known as being the lead designer on the blockbuster mega hit, Diner Dash. Diner Dash is a really fun, downloadable game which focuses on the life and times of a women named Flo. She is the heroine in the game, and you play the game to build her restaurant empire. For some reason that game just ignited the imagination of casual game players everywhere, so Nick Fortugno has really enjoyed a lot of attention and success because of that title. I met him about five or six years ago, and we just realized we had a lot in common in terms of our vision for the casual game market and for video games in general. That's how Rebel Monkey was formed. Rebel Monkey is located in the center of Manhattan. We are located in the neighborhood of Chelsea in Manhattan, and we are still pretty small. We are still under about 10 people, and we are hiring, by the way. Lucy: Let's go. I'm ready to move to New York. Margaret: Yeah. Yeah. It's been really fun and, as you said, our focus is on casual games. Right now, the casual game market is typically defined as being predominantly female, predominantly women in their 30s and 40s and 50s although men and college students and kids and people of all ages do play casual games. It's just a matter of how you categorize them. Lucy: With that kind of customer dynamics, do you do anything different with the game designs or how does that feed into what you do? Margaret: Making a casual game is very different from making regular console or hard core games. The audience of casual games isn't going to have many hours to spend learning how to play their title, and so with that in mind everything that you need to show a player in terms of how to play has to happen within the first 30 seconds of trying the game. Also, the kinds of controls you use in casual games have to be a lot simpler than if you think of a Playstation controller that has all of these different buttons and shoulder buttons and X and A. With a casual game you are pretty much relegated, at least for the PC, to your left mouse button, and so it really gives the designer a lot of structure for what they can do in terms of designing the game. Some people might think it is limiting, but actually I think it lets you focus on what kind of entertainment experience you can give to the audience and giving them the best entertainment experience possible. What else is different about casual games? The themes of casual games are much different than what you would find in what people think of as your typical video game. We expect when we make a casual game that not only are adult women going to play and adult men but their children and their grandchildren and their nieces and their nephews. Really, when you are designing a casual game you have to keep the broadest audience in mind possible. That means you wouldn't really want a lot of blood, guts and gore or a lot of excessive violence, any kind of theme that might be considered a little too adult might veer into the R‑rated territory. Those kinds of things really have not shown themselves to be successful within the casual game marketplace. I love making casual games because the duration of casual game play is much shorter and quicker bursts of entertainment. The themes that you focus on are really just kind of fun and unique and not simply relegated to dungeons and dragons and wizards and stuff like that. The themes are very acceptable, very much in tune with what's happening in pop culture, and I really enjoy the fact that I can make video games that a grandmother could play with her grandchildren and feel OK about it. Lucy: And that's really important, I think, that the casual gaming space is not just entrepreneurial but very high tech which gets us to our first question around technology and how you first got into technology, Margaret. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Margaret: Sure thing. It's a really good question. I grew up in a household where my father was always bringing little gadgets home to play with them. When video cameras first came out he was one of the first people that anyone knew who had a video camera, so I think my interest in technology started from when I was a child. Then, when I went to college I was a communication major, and I studied the social and passive mass media on culture. So, I was a communication/anthropology kind of major. When I was undergrad I studied the attack of new technology on society and how people use technology and to what end. Specifically, technology in everyday life was something that always fascinated me. So this is going to completely date me but when I was undergraduate, for example, I helped conduct primary research as a research assistant for a book called "The Social and Cultural Aspects of VCR Use". That was a hot topic way back when, studying the VCR and VHS. And I also wrote an undergraduate thesis on how people were using ATM machines. I went to college as an undergrad in the 80s, and ATM machines were relatively new back then. It was this new thing around, in terms of how people access their money. Instead of going to a human teller they would use an ATM machine and I just found that endlessly fascinating. I think from that point on I always was interested in how technology gets integrated into everyday life and how that transforms personal and also social experiences. Lucy: Well, you know, I think Larry still uses his Betamax. Don't you, Larry? Larry: Well, I guess it's a seven 1/2 inch floppy disc. Lucy: OK. So, Margaret, you have to tell us how you decided to be an entrepreneur and why you like it so much. Margaret: You know that's a really great question. And I was speaking recently to a group of MBA students about this very topic. I think that fundamentally when you as a person have a passion that is just bubbling up inside you; that you just can't contain your enthusiasm and you just feel that you have this incredible calling to pursue something, I think that is a sign ‑ the beginnings of where at least my entrepreneurial ship came from. As I mentioned, I started in games industry about 10 years ago, back in the day just as the dot com boom was growing. I started at a little company called PF Magic. PF Magic made the first ever virtual pets, Dogz and Catz. Later a product called Oddballz. And for some strange slips of fate I ended up working for this start‑up called Pet Magic. I think that was the first time I saw how a start‑up environment worked and how much fun it is to just put your heart and soul into something you really believe in. Back then at PF Magic, when we worked on those virtual pets, we really believed in them. We loved those little critters that lived on your desktop. We would have knock‑down, drag‑out arguments on the big questions of life. You know, should they live or die? Should they be allowed to breathe? I was just like, this is where I belong. This is the world I want to be. Software development really just, it's just a whole ‑‑ it gives you everything at your disposal. Whereas people who make film, for example, they have to assemble a cast. They have to find a scriptwriter. You need that to a certain extent when you're doing software. At least in my eyes it was more achievable ‑ the forum for which I could see my inventions and my creative aspirations take life. Subsequently after Pet Magic, I had an opportunity to work at a few other start‑ups. I was at a company called Shockwave.com, in its early days. Just being on the West Coast in the Bay area in the middle of the dot com boom, seeing things work really well, seeing things fail just miserably. Just being part of that and being part of the excitement of having a passion and seeing it to fruition, and living and breathing it every day and every night. It's so much more fulfilling as a personal choice and as a way to live my life than almost anything I had ever done before. I guess, to kind of circle back to the beginning of your question, what inspired me to take the entrepreneurial route? I would say, it was that burning passion, part of me might be an inventor. I really love coming up with inventions and seeing them implemented from start to finish. Larry: Over the years with all the different things that you have done, I'm sure there have been many people that have been important to you, that have made a big deal of difference, have been the mentor and so on. If you were to pick out one person, and I know that's tough, but it you could pick out one person who was your most important mentor, a turning point in your life, who would that be? Margaret: Oh, that's a great question. I keep saying that, but you guys are asking really thought‑provoking questions and really difficult questions. So thanks a lot, Larry. To pick one person... OK, off the top of my head, I would go back to my teachers. And if I had to pick one teacher I would say it was a professor I had as an undergraduate in college. Her name was Julia Dobrow, and she, at the time, was a professor at Boston University. And for some reason, I don't know why, sheer luck perhaps, she really kind of took me under her wing. Now at the time, I was interested in being an academic. I was going to teach media culture in society. That was my thing. New technology was a focus. She basically had me help her conduct research for her book, so I just got to learn so much about communication, intercultural communication, because she dealt with themes of that. She also dealt with themes of the impact of new technology. I just think that she opened my world in terms of, I don't want to say taking myself seriously because I always took myself seriously, but I think she helped give me focus. I think she helped give shape to my aspirations. And I really do have to credit her with giving me that extra shot I needed to focus like a laser beam, as another person in my life used to say. Lucy: But you can't mention, because Larry said you can only mention one. Margaret: Exactly. Note my self control. Lucy: Yeah, very admirable. Well, teachers are really, really important. A very important influence and it sounds like this one, in particular, was for you. Along the way, in addition to having mentors and people who have influenced you, you have probably also had some tough choices to make. Some things I think you may have mentioned earlier, companies that either wildly succeeded or failed miserably. What is the toughest thing you have had to do in your career so far, Margaret? Margaret: OK, can I give you two answers for that? Larry: Well... Margaret: Or just one? Lucy: Yes, of course you can give us two. Margaret: OK, I think the toughest thing that I had to learn in my career was to develop patience. I grew up on the East Coast, where people will say what they think without really thinking. I believe early on, when I started in the industry, if I felt impatience about how quickly we might have been progressing on a project or if I saw one of the start‑ups I was a part of, maybe going down a path that maybe didn't seem to make sense. Look, eighty percent of your audience does this, why are we focusing on the twenty percent that don't really care. You know, those types of questions. I think when I started off, in video games in particular, I was this brash and brazen twenty‑something year old. I would not mince words. And so I would just say, well it's so obvious we should do this and this. I have learned the art, I think, of patience and diplomacy, in the sense of everybody needs to be heard. That's what makes a strong team. At the end of the day, the strong leaders are the ones that can guide the team or make the decisions at the end of the day. But really everyone's opinion is valid, which I always believed, but just my impatience. Do we have to go through this? Do we have to go over this? Time's wasting. I've kind of cooled my jets a little bit on that front. It's been very beneficial. And then closely related to that, or somewhat related to that in terms of it being tough, is just knowing when you need to cut your losses. If there is ever a path that you take in your career, or a project that you take on, or business decision you make. Every business decision counts. Even the smallest ones in six months to a year's time can come back to haunt you for better or for worse. So there are times you want to make the best decisions, but there are times you are not going to make the best decision. And really coming to terms with that as soon as possible and acting on cutting your losses or rectifying something that may not be going as you planned, as soon as you can, rather than letting something fester, which I think can be death to any start‑up. There's no room for festering. So there goes that impatience again. [laughs] Lucy: It's clear you've learned a lot, being in a number of start‑ups over the years. I'm sure you can give some good advice to people that are just thinking about getting into a start‑up or being an entrepreneur. So if you were sitting here with a young group of people, what would you advise them? Margaret: In terms of giving advice to younger people, who are interested in either beginning their own startup or joining a startup, it really depends on who that person is, what they are looking for and whether they are starting something from scratch or joining something that is already happening. I think that if you know that you are an entrepreneur early on and my route to being an entrepreneur was a lot more circuitous than that I think then the best thing to do is first of all try to get out there and meet as many people as you possibly can. There is no one in the industry that you are interested in who isn't worth talking to, at least, once. And it's just amazing. I'm sure you guys have had this experience, too. You will meet somebody randomly at a conference or on a project, and two years down the line you run into them. Three years down the line you see that person again. Ten years down the lines you still see that person. You both have done different things in your lives, but the people you meet along the way will be the people you encounter over and over. So, I think the most important thing is get out there and meet people. Talk to people. Be a good listener and specifically for women I would say women who feel they have that entrepreneurial spirit need to ‑ I don't mean to stereotype but ‑ evangelize themselves and not be shy about putting themselves out there because you are only going to get noticed insofar as you speak up. In a lot of ways ‑ be a good listener if you are planning to join a startup and you are at the very beginning of your career. Find out all you can about them before you work with them. You don't want to spend two or three years of your life working for something that has no future. Really just try to take every opportunity and really think about what's good for you. Don't feel compelled to act on an opportunity because you are worried another opportunity won't come your way. Ask questions and learn everything you can. I think that's what I did starting out as an entrepreneur with these different startups, and I just absorbed the culture and I learned everything I could by hook and by crook and maybe even despite myself. At the end of the day that all kind of meshed together, and I draw from those experiences on a daily basis. I can say that for sure in running this company and my past company. Larry: Well, networking or whatever we want to call it, is really critical. That is a fact. One of the things I can't help but think about is here you have gone through all of these different things. You've got this new company now called Rebel Monkey. How do you bring about balance to your personal and your professional lives? Margaret: The balance thing, I would say that I give you a lot of entrepreneurs who don't bring that balance into their lives. And I would admit for me I go through phases where I will keep in mind that it's good to take a breather because when you own your own company the work just never ends. You could work at five o'clock in the morning. You could work at two o'clock in the afternoon. There is always something to do. And there is always something to think about and there is always something to address or fix or pay attention to. When I am at my best in terms of keeping that balance because really if an entrepreneur becomes too myopic and too entrenched in their company and they don't get out and they don't see the world and they don't talk to people and they don't go to the movies, they are not going to be very good at running their business because they are just going to be a mess. So, when I am really treating myself well and my business well at the same time, I am doing things like I'll go to the gym; I'll go to yoga. I have a lot of friends who are around me that I can draw on for support. I have other fellow entrepreneurs who are at different stages of their own startup experience that I can hang out with and commiserate with. One thing I have had to learn not to do is ‑ and I'm not very good at it ‑ I try not to turn on the computer and check my email at two o'clock in the morning. I was doing just that this morning, so I didn't really succeed this time. But, it's always a matter of just remembering that the world isn't going to end if I take a four hour break or I take a Saturday and I go on a road trip, for example, or I go to a spa. I love going to spas! Lucy: Yeah that spa thing! I really liked what you have to say there around treating yourself well and things going better for the business when you can. In fact, it's been a theme of these interviews that people seldom have balance every day. It's more of an integration. It's more of a phase type of thing as well. Larry: We're actually going to take a train to a spa right after this interview. Lucy: We are! We're going to the spa? Good! That is my kind of interview where we go to the spa. I also thought that some of your remarks that every business decision counts, even the little ones. If you think about it that way, it's only obvious that you're going to make some mistakes. I thought that that was especially good wisdom. So, Margaret, this really leads us to our last question around your future. You've accomplished a lot so far, a lot of wisdom, a lot of great casual games and critters. Virtual critters that have personalities. And don't tell us if you've killed them off or not we don't want to know. What's next for you? You've already achieved a lot. Why don't you tell us what's down the road a bit for you? Margaret: Well, what is next for me and for Rebel Monkey? My heart and soul is basically poured to rebel monkey right now and I have so much enthusiasm for what we're going to be accomplishing as a company. Again, the work environment here is just a great work environment. The people we have hired ‑ we had some bumps along the way because this is a brand new studio ‑ the people are great. So I want to keep the environment and the culture here at Rebel Monkey as positive as it seems to have always been so far. I have a great business partner, Nick Fortuno. Not that we don't challenge each other, it not that we don't disagree at times but our competencies complement each other so well and our vision for Casual Games is so much in sync. I want to maintain that. We're going to be coming out with some brand new titles at the end of the year. Everything that Rebel Monkey makes, just by the way that sets us apart a little more than your average video game developer. We own everything we make. We don't do any work for hire. We don't do any contract work. We don't work with the larger brands because we don't own them. So the brands that we work with are our babies, for lack of a better word, our pets. As a company, we've made our mark in downloadable games for a specific audience and I think we're going to be looking to expand our audience to other age groups because they're out there. They're already playing Casual Games and I don't think there's enough content that's been made to serve them. So we're going to be completely expanding our presence with these newer audiences and exploring other kinds of business models that are out there in addition to the try before you buy model which is what you see with downloadable games. If you like it, you pay 20 bucks to own it forever. I think there is a lot of exciting stuff that I see happening in Asia and Korea around multiplayer gaming. That's pretty exciting. So I think that if Rebel Monkey came up with an impromptu tagline it would be 'Evolution of casual games.' I really think that's where my co‑founder, Nick, and I really want to put our focus. We want to evolve casual games to the next level. We want to expand the audience and we want to make some blockbuster brands for people to enjoy with their families and with their friends. Larry: Lucy and Lee, you two really pulled together some fantastic heroes for the National Centre for Women and Information Technology Series. This is just fantastic! Lucy: It's wonderful. Margaret it has been fantastic. It's been really interesting to hear I didn't know as much about casual games as I thought I knew. So now I know a lot more. It's been really interesting! Lee: I'm ready to go download some and play them. Lucy: Me too! Larry: Well take a train and get there! Margaret, I want to thank you so much for joining us today. And by the way, listeners out there pass this interview along to others that you think would be interested because they can download it as a podcast at w3w3.com. And of course it's hosted at www.ncweb.org. That's it. Tune in and thank you for joining us. Lee: Thank you Margaret. Lucy: Thank you Margaret. Margaret: Thank you everybody! Series: Entrepreneurial HeroesInterviewee: Margaret WallaceInterview Summary: Margaret Wallace grew up in a "gadget" household, and as an undergraduate she studied the intersection of technology and culture. Release Date: November 27, 2007Interview Subject: Margaret WallaceInterviewer(s): Lucy Sanders, Larry Nelson, Lee KennedyDuration: 25:10