unforum

[imbri]

Do ARGs need to change things up in order to work?

[DrBunker]

Agreed, it is an interesting point. The problem is (also mentioned in the Steorn thread) that in order to actually ascertain whether something is an ARG you would need to directly question the Spec.

As they couldn't deny this outright wouldn't it remove some of the "mystery" by getting such a straightforward answer?

[rowan]

Re: Do ARGs need to change things up in order to work?

[Phaedra]

Well, I did once ask Sean Stewart if he thought the Beast would work if they did it today, and got a "that's really too complicated of a question to answer concisely" reply.

Basically, I think some things needed to evolve (and are). There's less secrecy as to who the PMs of a game are, in general, with the big commercial games. It makes me a little nostalgic for not knowing who they were in ILB, but then again, you can hardly blame them. When you're 42 or GMD or whoever and have a proven track record, why not use your reputation to help your game?

But in general, I think the basic concept behind ARGs is timeless -- as Imbri noted, the currently running ARGs all look completely different, yet there's enough in common that we can recognize them as ARGs. Twenty or fifty years down the road, people may look at some of the stuff we currently think is necessary for ARGs and wonder, "why did they do that?" but I think the basic idea will still be the same.

We're still in the early stages, and there are a lot of new things to try, but that doesn't mean the concept itself will be massively altered as PMs refine their techniques and break new ground.

[PhiloticVoid]

I'm am 100% for games that make players question whether or not it's really a game. It's always been my view that ARGs were supposed to be looked at as real, and only known to be a game at the very end. If anyone here has seen "The Game", I think you know what I'm talking about.

TINAG can be a double-edged sword, though. As you said, players who aren't familiar with the concept of ARGs can become angry at being "duped" into playing a game. Having something they accepted as reality suddenly turned into a game can be a very upsetting experience.

Of course, if a PM wants to avoid that, he or she can simply keep their ARG within the pre-set ARG community. However, then the PM must rely on players suspending their disbelief, which ultimately goes against the whole idea of TINAG.

I think, and this will seem very controversial, that the best way for a PM to make his game completely realistic would be to conceal his identity and maintain anonymity within the community. That means that you'd have never heard of them, so any speculating on who the PM is would all be a farse. Now for the controversial part: For a PM to make his game doubtlessly real, he would need to treat Unfiction as IG.

Yes, this goes against the rules of UF, but the rules apply to games, and we all know that PM's favorite phrase is "This is not a game."

[vpisteve]

[Phaedra]

[rose]

In-game

[Red Queen]

2c

[Frankdave]

Ok, to clarify my point a little. As I understand it, very few ARG start off by clearly declaring "this is a game", part of the excitement was finding out just what the hell was going on with that mysterious advert/broken website. My point is that to do the same thing today, a obviously broken website or such, would scream to experienced ARG players "THIS IS A GAME", so to keep people guessing they are doing something different. Saying "it wouldn't work" was a bad use of English on my part. I personally think if the game begining was something obvious it would lessen some people's enjoyment, but would not stop people playing. But that's just my 2 cents.

[PhiloticVoid]

It's my belief that if an ARG declares itself to be a game, then it's no longer an ARG.

[Giskard]

[Axys Denyed]

Re: 2c