FW: [arg_discuss] Re: Communities and resources

[adam]

despain at quantumcontent.com wrote:
> "Colin Gehrig" <colin at colin.com.au>
> 
>>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?
> 
> Then I wouldn't have a problem with someone putting up post-game critiques
> (we had high hopes but ultimately, I'd give it 3 out of 5 stars) in the
> same space as their preview. I'd hope that they critique the player
> performance as well as the design, though. This is ultimately a
> collaborative form of entertainment.
> 

Films, computer games etc you pay for up-front. Although a small 
percentage additionally have subscription models for ongoing play, the 
vast majority are still pay-once, suck-it-and-see.

Hence there is a huge need for reviews for the benefit of the general 
public who are not *allowed* to try before they buy.

ARGs do not currently use this business model, hence it seems there is 
comparitively little need for reviews (and even less so for previews). 
I'm not saying there is no value, just that it is orders of magnitude 
less than for other media.

Films, games, etc are also identical experiences whether or not anyone 
else has ever experienced them.

OTOH, as Wendy points out, ARGs are "ultimately a collaborative form of 
entertainment", and the experience is heavily dependent upon the 
community. Given that ARG designers can and do change the plot in 
reaction to players interaction with the characters and plot, adding or 
removing or modifying elements, we are dealing with something much less 
deterministic.

How much value is there in a review of a non-deterministic experience?

How deterministic are ARGs that are run multiple times? Are there any 
similarities in the way the game plays and is played on subsequent runs, 
is it broadly speaking the same, or is there a lot of variance even down 
to a fundamental level?

At the end of the day, I think reviews of ARG's just gone are extremely 
interesting and valuable, but previews have little merit. The best way I 
can see of reviewing or previewing an ARG is simply to review a major 
arc of story as it completes, giving readers a flavour of what it is 
like to play that game *right now*. They won't have long to decide to 
drop in and start playing too, but it's certainly the most accurate 
review they're ever going to get.

...which of course is what happens in forums every day whilst an ARG is 
going on and the word is being spread. Forum-based ARG-playing 
communities are a review-mill, constantly sampling and commenting on all 
aspects of the game and playability. Isn't that why we all follow UF et 
al so slavishly whilst our games are in progress? :)

Adam