unforum

[vpisteve]

ARG vs. Gameshow

[jamesi]

game show

[vpisteve]

/me has a sudden urge for a Corona and a Quiznos with Vanna White.

[Ozy_y2k]

While I think you're right in your analysis, Steve, I also suspect that most savvy producers of this new proto-entertainment genre (whether it falls on the "ARG" side of the tracks or on the "game show" side) will quickly learn that tactics like those you suggest, which work on a basis of EXclusion and DISqualification of potential players rather than the opposite, will fail miserably in this milleu.

And I don't believe that because I think "we" (meaning the current flagbearers of the ARG/immersive community, when and wherever it should choose to gather) necessarily have dibs on declaring all games of this sort "cooperative" rather than "competitive", either. Rather, I base my assumption on a quirky little fact of psychology and communication theory -- namely, that the very same anonymity that drives people to indiscriminately flame each other to all high hell over the net when they would barely peep at each other in a face to face encounter paradoxically also makes it EASIER, not harder, for people to feel "compelled" to share information rather than withholding it. Look at some of the so-called "competitive" puzzle boards out there, like Quest4treasure.co.uk. While they at least pay lip service to the concept of "everyone needs to solve the puzzle on his/her own", you will also see NUMEROUS members of that community repeating variations on the same theme, which can be loosely translated as "If you're really stuck, PM me and I'll STILL share the answer with you."

Whyfore is this so? Well, either everyone really IS more altruistic about sharing info than we cynics like to believe, or everyone actually gets some sort of utilitarian good out of sharing information that they wouldn't necessarily get from keeping it to themselves. My theory is the latter, because, without either ACTUAL information to share, or at least the ability to PROJECT an illusion that you are or are willing to become a contributing member to some sort of societal subset online, you run the risk of becoming, essentially, a nonentity. A zero. Indistinguishable from the ether. Unlike in physical encounters, where your "there-ness" is established in any circumstance solely by the fact of your physical existence which can be visually verified by others, on the 'Net, if you don't speak up SOMEHOW, no one knows that you exist. Since most people (yes, even some of us self-proclaimed "misanthropes" out there) prefer a status of acknowledged existence to one of completely unacknowledged anonymity, many of them will speak up, and agree to cooperate with each other in game-solving, as a mechanism to forge, not only COMMUNITY, but IDENTITY. Thus the "overcoming the lurker" phenomenon, which eventually drives folks into leaping feetfirst into forging chatboards and forums and websites with likeminded individuals, on a much more tenuous, trusting, and sudden basis than they might if they were called on to form an impromptu team in real life.

(While this phenomenon is PECULIAR to Net-based gameplay, it has antecedents in real life as well. Ask yourself, for example, why collective "social" games are promoted more heavily in schools than solitary sports, or why most casinos you go to seem to have more, and more exciting, activity clustered around the blackjack and craps tables than around the slot machines.)

Therefore, in order to succeed, I would argue that any game which uses the 'Net as its primary or even as a secondary launching pad needs to recognize this overweening psychological phenomenon of the cooperative impulse as part and parcel of the 'Net experience, and needs to PLAY to it, rather than attempting to short-circuit it. Those who don't recognize the value of promoting cooperative play on the Net will soon find themselves with essentially losing models of game play, which is guaranteed -- after the initial novelty wears off -- to net them neither sustained interest from game-players nor a sustanable economic model to keep their games functioning.

O

[catherwood]

I said the same sort of thing to Danny of Timehunt. He was bemoaning the existence of message boards where members help one another, because his business model was based on the concept of individuals playing alone and going to sponsors' websites for hints.

I told him that he should instead *embrace* the notion of a message board and install one on the Timehunt site. There he could monitor the spoilers and keep people where they could be continually reminded of those "Hint Hosts", rather than drifting off to home brew boards where they work cooperatively.

These sorts of games simply have to be a part of the web culture, if they are going to reside on the web. And they have the opportunity to help create a new kind of community if they so choose.