FW: [arg_discuss] Re: Communities and resources

[Colin Gehrig]

> D. Cook wrote:
> 
> Brian Clark wrote:
> >Increasingly, I have a harder time predicting (I guess)
> >what will be controversy inducing for the ARG community and find
myself
> >being more cautious in my contributions because of it :(
> 
> I completely agree with you on that.  I've had some of those
> "Uhhhhhhhhh... nothing, nevermind" moments myself.
> 
> I think part of the problem is that people are too focused on what
> games _should_ do and forego the great discussions about what games
> _could_ do.  The whole concept of ARG, IMO, is harmed if you try to
> define and label and quantify and pigeonhole.  ARGs should themselves
> be free (although player resources like Unfiction definitely benefit
> from restrictions, such as disallowing in-game posts).

I find that really interesting. It seems what is being said is that
there is a closed loop. Players expect certain things, and so you
deliver it to them as a PM, Which becomes a recurring,
self-strengthening pattern. If you don't your game may not be picked up
by any existing community. Ouch! :(

As Dee said this seems to stem from a focus on the *should* not the
*could*.


Another new question to the list: How would you feel about a website
that Reviewed ARGs? Almost every other form of entertainment has some
form of review. However ARGs suffer from having a curtain, and only
being played through once, hence a review is less practical because the
game can't be pre-viewed. Is there still merit in it? Would you be
willing to 'preview' part of your game to a reviewer? Does the idea of
receiving a score or mark for your game seem too scary, an unnecessary
risk?

  Thanks for the discussion so far,

     Colin