unforum

[C_Brennan]

Where Reality Ends and That Other Reality Begins...

[GunslingerGulp]

Personally I think it is important to have a place where you can just take a step back from the actual game and discuss your thoughts freely, like for example what the PMs want to accomplish with certain puzzle or to what lengths are they willing to go. e.g. Do I need to take a train or just wait for an email.. that sort of thing.
I also agree that some people tend to blur the line and that's fine, everyone should get as involved as they like, but at least for me it's important to separate the game, no matter how good, from reality.

[GuyP]

The more we write games into the real-world, the more grey areas there'll be regarding the ingameness of various story elements. I think it's an interesting trend and one that I hope continues, if only to challenge player behaviour and drive it in a more realistic direction. Obviously, caution is advised on everyone's part.

However, I absolutely don't see Unfiction as part of this trend, and while I'm sure there might be PM's who regard it as bleeding-edge to consider Unfiction in-game, I'd find them deeply naïve and disrespectful.

If PM's want to blur lines, that's cool, but they need to draw their own, and not smudge ours.

(Didn't see your edit there, chap, so I didn't intend those comments to be directly aimed at you, at least in tone.)

[imbri]

Go figure, I have an opinion on this

First, a disclaimer of sorts, my opinion is not that of a player, but of a Puppet Master and someone that gets into this debate nearly daily with game designers, theorists, and artists outside of the ARG community. That sometimes makes me a bit intense amongst you all where this topic is concerned...

When this matter, inevitably, comes up in my discussions on ARG, I would quote bits of Jane's A Real Little Game presentation. In fact, I've quoted or paraphrased her so often that my friends at school tease me for being a rabid fan girl. (stupid friends... I'm just a fan girl, my rabies test came back negative!) Yet, over time, many of her ideas in that paper have stuck with me and, in some ways, taken on a life of their own. So, if you've read that presentation, you'll likely recognize some of the thoughts. If you haven't read it, but are interested in this subject, it is a very good read and available on her site (www.avantgame.com). It doesn't deal with in game and out of game as much as it does the idea of player belief. Which, I think, is the heart of the matter because I don't think that we're asking as much about the blurring of the lines but about player belief and disbelief. While similar, I think that they're slightly different issues.

As you've all heard me before, I believe that the setup at IU actually increases the boundaries of the game world by requiring a player to consistently check themselves (and their belief) on what is and is not "in game". Because of that, it is no more possible for a player on IU to become "fully immersed" as it is for a player on UF that has the safe boundaries of a completely out of game board. This is, in my opinion, a very good thing.

Despite some saying that they want to experience "The Game", players in all genres, including ARG, search for and push the boundaries as a way to reinforce the line between the real and the fictional. As such, I think that if those that say they want to live "The Game" truly thought about it, very few of them would really want that experience. Instead, they want to feel as if they are experiencing it and they want to be able to enjoy and relate that experience while they are participating in it. We must remember, "The Game" is a singular experience, there is no sharing and relating. ARGs are highly communal and, not only does that provide a forum for relating the experience, it provides another area where one can reaffirm the boundaries.

That leads to the latching on to the "This Is Not A Game" mantra. We (players) like to believe that it's not a game. We want to live to that ideal. But, each time we say it, we are just reinforcing the idea that it is actually a game. In addition to providing a reinforcement of the boundary, it also provides a rallying cry to reaffirm the community and to relate to others in the community.

As for your claim of those not able to distinguish between the reality and the alternate reality, as a friend so aptly put a similar argument this weekend, "That's insanity." The pun is intended and, despite what you say, I have not come across an earnest claim of a player not understanding the difference between the game and the real world. Though, having debated this issue at length with fellow students and respected professors, I do admit that I am concerned by that thought and, moreso, by their thinking that thought.

The more that I read articles in the main stream press, such as the PCGamer article, that stress "mass amounts of confusion" and make claims that players don't understand the boundaries between what is real and what is not, the more frustrated that I become. It furthers that myth which some people take as far as some sort of prelude to what has been called the Ender's Game Scenario. This causes concern amongst game theorists as well as the media and, while I can understand their concerns, it can be quite frustrating to repeatedly have to assure them that this is just not occurring. I have yet to meet or talk with a player that has a mass amount of confusion (aside from the natural confusion of working through a puzzle or organizing a plot scenario… both done in a very "out of game" fashion). I have yet to see a game played out in a manner that is truly and complete immersive (in the you have no clue what is a game and what is real type of sense of the word).

Yet, it's a catch-22 of sorts. We use the phrase to reinforce the boundary between the fiction and the real. It works on so many levels. Yet, it is misused and misunderstood by the media and that just provides fodder for concern over how far these games go. As Phaedra and I discussed at length in UF one night, we are so aware of and conscious of the game boundaries that there is, essentially, less to be concerned about with an ARG than in, say, a large 3D virtual world. Those working to create realistic 3D environments for use in large virtual worlds or augmented reality are, essentially blurring the lines between the real and the virtual. By accepting and understanding that ARG players have dealt with those very issues and the ways in which they have dealt with them should be of great interest to them. ack! I'm slipping into a presentation that I did on this subject and becoming all frustrated.... at the end of the presentation, the first words out of the professor's mouth (a great guy who works in 3D environments) were "but we can just turn it off…" Don't even get me started! Coincidentally, along with mentioning the confusion that players face, the PCGamer article expressed something about not being able to switch it off… grrr! Anyway, back to the topic at hand…

I don't have an issue with games referring to ARG community sites. However it needs to be done in a realistic fashion. If it's not, it's just a badly played device used to point new players to the player resources or, worse, a badly designed game. Perplex City is a great example of this being done well. Despite the annoyingly narcissistic nature of the press listings, they have affectively provided a focal point to look to for the boundaries between the game and fictional worlds. In addition, they have outright stated who the game designers are, providing another resource for players to understand more fully that it is just a game.

I do have an issue with games invading player space, such as characters posting on known out of game forums. Such devices continue to confirm the boundaries because it causes players to discuss the issue. Yet, my real problem, is that it can serve to add to the concern mentioned by various scholars and theorists as well as those in the media who don't want to invest in the liability. That can cause problems for the growth of the genre in the long wrong run and, actually, counter the Puppet Master's original intent.

[Sin Vraal]

whoa

[C_Brennan]

1. Ok, Imbri posted, the rest of you can go home. (Just kidding, keep thoughts coming in.)

2. Thank God Sin, I was getting all scared when I came back after reading all of Imbri's post and saw you had posted and I got the "Dear God he better not have written something as equally long." I feel ok now. Lol.

3. If you were referring to my original post, Imbri, I should have made myself clear, I was referring to the things such as players being confused as to who was a player and who was not, in areas such as The Perplex City Sentinel, in which some people were discussing if some of the letters from Earth were from real people or not, and the Stolen A3 forums with Worry, as people were wondering if Worry was a player or a character. I didn't intend it to mean that anyone would confuse one of our realities for reality because that would be the definition of insanity. My apologies, I should have made that clearer. And I did read that report, Imbri, thanks.

Um... as you people were... I'm enjoying reading the many thoughts.

[GuyP]

OK, I scrapped my original post because it was a little longwinded, but I suddenly feel a little less self-conscious about that

The blurring of lines is a product of the trend towards games justifying their existance within out world. The Beast, for instance, provided no justification as to how we were reading a version of the internet from hundreds of years in the future, not to mention calling up security guards in their world. ILB on the other hand, despite setting it's central audio drama hundreds of years into the future, also dedicated a non-trivial amount of content to setting up how we were able to listen to the story.

It's often said that ARGs are really created by both the PM's and the players, and that holds true for 'realism' too. If we want to see games get more PM's make games more realistic and to blur the lines, then the player community needs to respect that by playing more realistically. If we trod more cautiously when interacting with characters (as we would if we were conducting a real life investigation), it wouldn't be so much of an issue - but when people send throwaway emails along the lines of "[you are] an insolent child whos mindless prattle [is] achieving nothing" it makes me nervous that civillians may get caught in the crossfire.

I used to think it was ridiculous to suggest that participants might lose their grip on what's real and what's a game, but little things nag at me these days that make it not inconceivable... mainly witnessing the symptoms of paradoila at work in the forums. Still, I like to think that everyone has the common sense to realise that the harassment or worse of anyone is very clearly not part of any game.

That said, Art Of The Heist is set entirely in our world and is involving plenty of interaction and real-world stuff, and that seems to be working amazingly. So what do I know?

It's almost like this: This Is Not A Game. Hence, everyone in it is OOG (as there's no "game" to be in.) Therefore, treat everyone like they're a real life person... respectfully. That's the kind of player mentality before we can blur the lines much more, I think. But while players are finding people of dubious ingameness, and then people start posting "I've got a friend at Cambridge uni who's going back up on monday, maybe he could scout out [HIS HOME AND WORK ADDRESS]?" - use your smarts, PM's!

And again, don't mess with the UF.

[imbri]

Are you guys implying that my post might be a bit verbose?

as ozy would say, SUCK IT!



And Colin, I was only partially responding to you in that bit. The post was really just addressing some of general statements that I hear outside of the UF/ARG community. I just took advantage of your lead to do it, so thanks! I needed that.

- b

[C_Brennan]

No... I didn't imply it was verbose... I implied that... um... wait.. wait.. look, a bird! *Runs away*

No, I really can't imply it was verbose... I do the same thing... Yep... definetly guilty...

And, ok, just wondering. I didn't know, and I didn't want to be unclear. Heh. Um... if you ever need another release.. um... look me up. I live here. Lol. See the logo up there? Yeah, my bed is behind it. Lol!

[colin]

[imbri]

[Alzheimers]

Just to be a voice of dissent,

I would have to say that the concept of being an invisible spectator in an Alternate Reality experience is paradoxical at best. In order to participate in what we would believe to be a Reality, even as a "mildly curious bystander", you still have to take a role in the universe that's being presented.

I think the perception is that the unparticipating observer is like the audience hiding behind a 4th wall in a stage production, or watching through an invisible 3rd person camera like TV. I believe this philosophy totally defeats the purpose of creating a plausable, believeable universe for the ARG to take place in.

If you, and by that I mean the general audience the "performance" is produced for, don't consider yourselves to be a part of the same universe as the characters then how can we truly consider it an ARG? If you are unwilling to put yourself, even just as the "mildly curious bystander", into the reality that's being presented, how is the story being told any different than any other form of non-interactive entertainment? If you sit really really close to the TV, it can almost, sort of, in a way, feel like you're sitting in the same room with the characters. But if you reach out, all you hit is glass. In an ARG, if you reach out, you should (metaphysically) be able to "touch" that character as if you were sitting in the same room.

But, now I'm going to switch gears for just one moment, and startle everyone by trying to narrowly avoid contradicting myself. Despite this call for players to behave as if they were actually experiencing the events of the "Alternity" (woo, did I just coin a word?) along with the characters, there needs to be a place separate and nonexistant to the Alternity for the players to congregate. The community aspect of our genre demands that players have a way to communicate in a way that doesn't have any effect towards in-game events. Especially when ARG projects are expected to be vast and insurmountable by an individual, without the space to escape to from the Alternity there's no way to guarantee that the mindshare can remain uncorrupted by in-game forces.

For example, let's assume that the Pious Flea from ILB had found Unfiction. We know of its ability to mimic other entities and establish communication lines as if it were the original to send it's corruptive messages. How could we then trust anyone? How could we come together as a community, if there was always the suspicion that we might be spied upon by an In-game character? How are we supposed to develop the bonds that only come from a shared experience, when we're too busy questioning the motives of everyone around us?

So to sum up: it's illogical to say you're part of an Alternate Reality experience if you're unwilling to accept becoming a part of that reality. It's also dangerous for an Alternity to ignore the separation of Game and TINAG. If an actor in a shakespearian play starts jumping up and down yelling "This is not an act!" at the audience, it only makes the performance that much harder to believe.

The harder you try to argue something is real, the more unreal it becomes.

[Katsurame]

Personally, I always thought of ARGs as one giant OOG RolePlay. I think that puppetmasters should think OOG when creating, or it seems too contrived.

[catherwood]

I'll have more to add in a minute. I'm still reading the whole thread, but wanted to blurt out a quick comment on this:

[Phaedra]