unforum

[Rekidk]

[OPINION] Does an ARG make offensive subject matter personal

[catherwood]

As i read the comments section of that blog, the phrases that pop out at me say "It dawned on me this was a hoax" and "I am peeved mainly by the fact that I was lured in." They are mostly offended by the advertisement for the game or the manner of the rabbithole, not the game itself, because they didn't know from the first glimpse that it was a game at all. This kind of reaction has happened with games in the past -- Who Is Benjamin Stove comes to mind as a recent example -- when the "realism" begins before the disclaimers.

Television programs don't need to begin *every* show with a reminder that what you are about to watch is only fiction (although a few "ripped from the headlines" stories do add a disclaimer when the plotline treads too closely to reality), because we have had a generation to learn how TV works. In contrast, the internet is still young, and the notion of acting out stories on the internet is younger still. In time, people will learn how to deal with blurry lines, but maybe it will take a generation raised on ARGs before we reach that level of audience sophistication.

edit to add: The second type of backlash to an ARG happens when people realize it's all "just advertising", as if entertainment is further cheapened by being a promotion for a product or service. The CourtTV connection is revealed in their now-visible disclaimers, and people who were "tricked" into helping the SaveMyHusband woman are now also feeling "used" by marketers, moreso than if they had been "tricked" by an experimental art form.

[VQ.Wavecrest]

It's a bit unclear, only for the sake of the fact that people are so fickle.

Do I believe that SMY was wrong? No--but I have more experience with ARGs, and I knew this was a game.

I showed my brother this, and he wanted to know why the police weren't doing more to help this poor woman, etc., etc., etc. Once I explained it was a game, he was angry. I think that people don't like being "taken advantage of" or something similar--when they find out it's a game, they find any excuse to make up for their reasoning.

Do they make subject matter personal? I think that's up to the individual(s) looking at the ARG to decide. But if they don't like it, all they have to do is go to another website. Nobody's forcing them to play.

[sixsidedsquare]

Heh, I was thinking about making a topic similar to this one while listening to the netcast and their talk over this. It's an interesting topic, the curtain breaking disclaimer vs the greater realism of not having it (And most of what I'm saying here is basically restating catherwoods first paragraph).

Pretty much all people that are somewhat deep into arging seem to prefer the tight curtain and the strong TINAG (*side note 1 below), but this runs that major risk of things like what you mention here in SMH and, as catherwood mentioned, in WiBS. People don't like to be fooled into thinking something wrong and then feeling silly, and when it's for an 'advertisement' doubly so. It hits worst when people find something and in believing it's real, start to tell people and talk about it that way, only to discover they were 'tricked'.

However, (I'm a bit like a pendulum here) a blatant 'THIS IS NOT REAL' tag, or even subtle one for that matter, kind of kills something in a game. Most games do require a bit of a suspension of disbelief that shows you it is a game, and even the ones that don't (even just initially), the regular ARG crew will tear it apart till they hit the reality wall (**side note 2 below), and I have yet to see something that has been able to fully blur that line. The problem is that this only works for seasoned veterans of ARGing. Any trailheads going out that pull new people in can essentially deceive them. But (again but), without the deception it's hardly a rabbithole to tumble down.

I think the major issue is the nature of the trailhead and the content it leads to. One of that bloggers comments he made in response to people:

[ItWasntMeISwear]

p

[rose]

This isn't directly on ARGs, sorry. But earlier this week I went to a couple of talks at the Games for Change, which I suppose can be described as games that are designed to educate and help make social change, conference here in New York. A fundamental issue of Games for Change is dealing with a serious issue in a fictional world. Most other games are clearly games when you first encounter them, this question of identifying the game as a game seems to be unique to ARGs.

Still, questions may be raised as to the propriety of using games to address serious issues. Ian Bogost has a provocative discussion of Designing for Tragedy about a hack flash based game called V-Tech Rampage, where you can replay the murders at Virginia Tech in which he states

[ItWasntMeISwear]

p

[rose]

I think the existing V tech rampage game can be played on-line free from anywhere, I don't think it was a money making thing. (although the creator oddly demanded, and then withdrew his demand, for $3,000 to take it down.)

I guess what Ian is saying is that movies sometimes deal successfully with painful tragedy, maybe the game industry should consider making a worthwhile contribution in the same way. I don't think that money making was part of the equation. Most serious games don't seem to even attempt to make money.

The reason I brought this Ian's article was to address the question of whether ARGs can address serious issues, I think that they can. I think that Year Zero, in its own way, did take on some serious issues and dealt with them it a serious manner. (not that I agreed completely with the approach, but it didn't shy away from controversial topics.)

[ItWasntMeISwear]

p

[rose]

I think Ian's article explains why the VTEch game is a poorly designed game as compared to the Columbine game, which also raised controversy when it was released.

I don't know what the designer's intent was for the VTech game. I don't think he made any public statements about trying to raise awareness.

[Nightmare Tony]

Back to offensive subjects, sometimes they are parts of storylines and fiction. One game I played involved the death of a little girl. The PMs had to change it because it hurt the players so hard who really bonded with her. The same applies with some other games, if they were able to fit it within the plotline.

It is all about good storytelling, and sometimes life is hard and we lose the ones we love. It happened before in games and most certainly will again.