[arg_discuss] Re: Communities and resources

[adam]

D. Cook wrote:

> Brooke has spoken about her disappointment on seeing people find a 
> trailhead and post a to-do list: "Ok, I whoised the sites, tried all the 
> email address combinations I could think of to see if there's an 
> autoresponder, set everything up on my automated program that checks for 
> site updates, so now what?"  Some of that stuff is smart to do, sure, 
> and tricks that older players are familiar with.  But we don't create 
> games so that people can check items off a list.  We do it to have fun 
> with them, or educate them, or both.  How can we engage the cynical ARG 
> player and make them as a child, wondering at the information on the 
> site rather than in the whois search?

I see this as ARG's succeeding at education. Given how many of the major 
ARG's (in terms of player numbers, press, etc) have been advertising 
campaigns, and the previous point about the blur between advertising and 
education, its surprising to me that "education" doesnt more regularly 
feature as a core part of people's decriptions of ARGs.

So, players have been trained to do a wide array of 
instant-gratification background checks. This is not a bad thing, it's 
just a reflection of the fact that players mature and grow personally 
over time, and the more they play these games the more directed their 
wonderings.

There are people who love painting-by-numbers, checklists, etc, who 
actually do not enjoy open-ended exploration. How much of the 
checklist-approach is cynicism, and how much is just individuals' desire 
for a static, comprehensible, predictable life? That facet in people can 
be a valuable part of the wider team of players collaborating in an ARG, 
so do they actually need to be "engaged" more?

Adam