unforum

[krystyn]

My, Earth really is full of things!

Alzheimers, I can't speak to any of your efforts in any sort of educated way, but it occurs to me, reading your posts, and seeing the brunt of the discussion thus far, that a lot of us attempting to create and enjoy games are extreeeeeeeemely worried about the things used to make the game.

I think that's important, certainly, but what about the game itself?

Maybe it's cos I tend to think like an actor when I am writing stuff for games, but it's always about the character, first. Sure, I worry about whether a puzzle is solvable, or too easy or too hard, or in a sucky format, but what counts above and beyond that is ... how invested are your characters in their reality?

What do they really WANT? What is the MOTIVATION? What is the core of the story, the human yearning and seeking that drives people to kill and to hide and to fix and to destroy?

If you've got that firmly under control, and you stick to your guns, then I'd think it almost doesn't matter what your "stuff" looks like. Hell, design in Frontpage, for all we care! I mean, look at Dana's web skizzilz - I mean, holy CRAP, right? But you had three or four digital entities on that server that wanted what they wanted very very much, and would stop at nothing to get it. And even Dana got some gumption, once Aunt Margaret was threatened.

You tend to forget (for the moment) about broken payphones and preposition puzzles when there's red balloons to decipher, and you know exactly what those red balloons mean, and their significance.

You know what I mean?

[strife777]

In response:

1)

[Dorkmaster]

I tend to share Bill/Krystyn/vpisteve's views on a majority of these subjects... And please realize, when I present the following, it doesn't mean that I am COUNTERING you, just that I am stating the differences between this new breed of daily IM gaming, and what I feel to be true ARGs stand for:


1) AIM alienates all but one (or a couple in say an IRC chat) player(s). It is cool to be that person, or to be the contact to the world, and I don't think anyone (except poor tired, hdkl) would disagree. However, the problem is that ARG is by definition, a group-think... a effort that is supposed to take many minds to break. That's the fun. That you may not know a vignere cipher from your butt, but that you do know iambic pentameter, and that you can recognize patterns that someone else naturally wouldn't... Having a chat-based structure tends to limit that. I would also have to agree that reading reams and reams of chat transcript is also not my cup of tea as well... So that could just be me... Anyway, on to #2..

2) ARG, while not entirely so, must have a web presence... I know AIM is on the internet, but not in a public fashion. I don't know if you have to have more than one website to be an ARG, but I definitely would think you need at least one. The whole idea is that everyone can get involved. That is key. (perhaps you see my pattern evolving here)

3) while it is not defined as such, I think many of us players would agree that the fun of ARGing is that you are you! We pretended to be someone else to Melissa on the telephone, but that was because it was the only way she would trust us (which was an objective of the game, not the entirety of the game!). Otherwise, we were ourselves. That's cool. And I would stand so far out as to say that it should be part of the ARG definition, that you play as you, and how the story pulls YOU into it, is why it works or doesn't.

4) The key here is not that IM portions, or even a majority of IM-ing is bad, just that if it is the sole vehicle for movement of the game, it does not an ARG make.

5) Zeppelin Rules!

the end.

(edited to add #4, and move the very imporant old #4 to #5)

[Alzheimers]

[Dorkmaster]

Sorry to double-post, but I just wanted to add, that we're not using mutually exclusive terms here... Just because an ARG is Interactive Fiction, does not mean that Interactive Fiction will always be an ARG. I do not "think less" of these AIM-based games, just that they're not ARGs, in the true sense. I agree, that pr0n is just a series of games, not an ARG, and that story is needed to tie the two together. I also agree that story alone, does not a game make. I know there are occasional puzzles in the AIM games, usually in anagram and deciphering word puzzles, and that is why I will concede that these are indeed games, but they do not qualify as ARGs from the "traditional" standpoint. (Are we that old already, to be discussing traditional ARGs? Maybe not...) Anyway, for the rest, please refer to my previous posting...

Humbly yours (for a flat fee),
DM

[ScarpeGrosse]

I usually don't chime in on these things because I tend to get told to shuttie uppie as I'm an "oldie" and "opinionated" and an "admin", but oh well. I have resisted long enough ;D

I keep seeing a phrase pop up in this thread that bothers me: "It's already been done." This phrase is used as an arguement that since someone out there has already used phone calls/email/IM/websites/puzzles before, that suddenly, its passe and not innovative enough or not "new" enough to excite people to play ARGs.

I fail to see why reusing a method (such as email/phone calls/blogs) is such a bad thing. To me, the innovation of the ARG is not so much the TOOLS that are used, but rather the ways in which the tools are USED to define the universe of the story and the people within it. In my opinion, the concept of talking to characters on Skype just because "it hasn't been done before!" doesn't make that ARG or story more exciting. The story itself, and the world and universe in which that story is told is where the innovation and the creativity spark, and is where and how people get drawn in and involved in an ARG.

We tend to forget that just because we here at UF have been around and seen almost everything a game has to throw at you, that the ARGs now (such as Heist and Perplex City) that use the "traditional" methods aren't meant for us, per se, but to expand the use of ARG into the greater public. The new players that these games bring in haven't seen everything that we've seen - perhaps our seasoning has made us hyper-critical of tradition and the tried and true because we've seen both the wonderful and the horrid ways these devices can be used. We've seen so much that at this point, we're looking at the genre in very academic terms, searching out for that ARG of Perfection that will make us all giddy like school girls like the first ARG we ever played made us feel.

Yet, despite all of this marinating and seasoning I've gotten, I still get thrills when I see a good story. When something springs up from the mist that contains the things that I feel most define an ARG: A universe outside of my own to explore (this includes websites), well-developed characters (that i don't necessarily have to interact with), and a intriguing story that is well told (preferably with an air of mystery surrounding it). PMs can do all three of these things with limited means and within the confines of the more "traditional" methodologies - the key to a good ARG is not whipping out the newest toys, but to use what you've got on hand to be creative and innovative with the stories and their characters.

[krystyn]

Also, Scrappy has bling

[ScarpeGrosse]

[Alzheimers]

[vpisteve]

Scrappy's post prompts me to point out something important that's nobody every really talks about.

The reason that interaction through email/phone/etc. (even though they've been done) work is because the game is using our everyday, established vehicles of communication, which is exactly what makes it more immersive.

If we have to download a special application through which all the gameplay must pass through (such as Majestic did), then that lessens the immersion factor. Using the phone to call someone isn't old and hackneyed, rather it's a way to break into our real world, because we ALL USE PHONES. Get it? That's the alternate reality part, people. It's another reality that breaks into our everyday, real life, established realities.

Sure, if someone used skype, some of us would go, "Oooh, innovative!" but I'd strongly disagree. Why? Because not many people use skype in their everyday lives (yet), so I don't see it as an innovative breakthrough into our reality type of thing. Look at the things we do use: phones, text-messaging, email, television, radio, realworld interaction with people. These are the vehicles that are going to be most effective. When used to progress a good story, that is.

I think Dave S. explains this whole concept very well in his book. (I am not a shill).

[EDIT: To get back on topic, the challenge for any PM is knowing how to use these vehicles in a way that doesn't exclude the vast majority of players, at least for the critical bits of game/story advancement. That's what makes one-on-one communication so problematic, whether it's in IRC or the phone. These issues need to be addressed and taken into account for this aspect of the game to be successfully used.]

[imbri]

shill!


(more later, so much i agree and disagree... woo! i love that! good conversation y'all )

- b

[rose]

the story

[krystyn]

Just as real, live human beings are more than the sum of their labels, I think that characters, in order to really grip the imaginations of your players, need to be more than, "Tragicomic ice princess stalker with a dash of melodrama and a beanie cap with rounded ears."

Characters and stories that immerse people tend to be less like recipes, and more like a synaptic fury of passions and conflicts.

Treating 'em like formulas makes 'em look simpler and flatter. Less compelling, generally speaking.

[Alzheimers]

1.

[strife777]

Ahem.

"I'm just saying that just because it didn't work for you, it isn't fair to use that as a law for the trend in players."

I hate to break it to you, but your games don't define all ARG's. What you personally saw in reaction to your game, doesn't necessarily define the genre as a whole. I know you might find that hard to believe for whatever reason. Your personal server statistics aren't proof of how many players enjoy puzzles in their ARG's. Maybe your puzzles were imbalanced or just plain stunk, so people stayed away. Maybe your advertising or rabbit-hole wasn't wonderful. Then you focused on what you were good at, and people who enjoyed that type of thing moved in. Once people saw fun interaction, word spread, and people who liked that type of interaction moved in and your stats spiked. Its like a really really good pizza place trying to branch into being a full serve Italian resturant. Just because it doesn't fly and they don't get a lot of customers, doesn't mean everybody in the world doesn't like spaghetti or eating Italian food in a resturant.

[Edit] To sum up. You want an explanation to why interest spiked after switching to live interaction? Because the product was better than whatever else you were doing, and word of mouth spread that your interaction was fun. If you went a different route, say by using live video, or possibly really sexy puzzles...I'd be guessing you'd be seeing the same spike. Just because you were successful with the change, doesn't mean you know for sure what the problem was.

Oh, and furthermore, I really really don't see how you can make the assertion that only "old players" like puzzles, and the ratio of who likes puzzles to who doesn't lie in your server stats. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless your server has magical psychic internet trolls with purple boots, or has an alliance with the Care Bears.