Democratizing Interactive Filmmaking: A No-Code Solution for Arts Students

This paper, by Conor McKeown of the University of Stirling, addresses a practical barrier in teaching interactive filmmaking: the scarcity of free, accessible software that lets arts students build branching film experiences without programming skills. The author observes that students currently must learn intermediate coding, rely on workarounds in other software, or pay for costly programs, a problem compounded by tight university budgets and the frequent coding anxiety of students from arts and humanities backgrounds. The central proposal is a modified version of the open-source Twine storytelling tool, provisionally named TwineForge, offering a largely drag-and-drop interface for uploading video, adding choices, setting variables, previewing content, and viewing a story map, with output either exported as code or compiled into a playable Twine story via Tweego.

The paper situates this work within scholarly debate on interactivity in film, drawing on the differing views of Mark J. P. Wolf and Bernard Perron, and within a recent resurgence of interactive and full-motion-video (FMV) films and games. It argues that this revival has been hampered by the disappearance of several dedicated authoring tools and the shift of remaining platforms toward costly enterprise or subscription models, with options such as Klynt and Korsakow priced at roughly $300 to $500 and Charles Engine at about €36.79. Existing branching tools like Ren'Py and Twine, while capable, often require local servers or code, which the author sees as a barrier for non-technical learners.

Evidence offered for the approach is largely anecdotal and drawn from the author's own teaching. Students with dyslexia reported a clear preference for the visual interface, which the author takes as evidence of real demand for drag-and-drop tools. The paper acknowledges limitations, including issues arising from the Harlowe macro syntax used as the project's base, and indicates that a future version may move away from Harlowe. No formal user study, sample size, or quantitative evaluation is reported, so the claims about accessibility remain preliminary, though the prototype is presented as a foundation that could grow across semesters.