FW: [arg_discuss] Re: Communities and resources

[Brooke Thompson]

> adam at mindcandydesign.com
> 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.
> >
> 
> 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.
> 

I think that previews are incredibly helpful and that is why we've seen so
many "pregames" as it's a way to allow the audience to preview the team and
what they might expect. I'm sure one of the purposes of the Perplex City
pregame was to help people get familiar with the team and what they could
expect from the experience. It also helped to build hype, familiarize the
team with some live play, and recruit additional team members.

Going back more than a few years, I remember when Dave Szulborski brought up
Chasing the Wish. Now, I hadn't played his Change Agents games, though I
peaked in on the one that ran shortly after Lockjaw and I had confidence in
Dave to follow through and try some unique things. Believing in the power of
getting players involved early on and wanting to show support, I promoted
that game rather obsessively on unfiction and elsewhere. 

Once the game came, I can't say that I enjoyed it - it was far too dependent
on private email conversations (or at least that's the impression that I had
of it). It was an experiment on Dave's part, especially the use of the "BTS
team", and an interesting one to watch play out. Now, had I had access to a
proper 'preview', would I have continued to pimp his game? I don't know, but
I would have been able to give a more honest assessment of it. That may have
served to bring in even more players, players that were looking for that
sort of interaction. Instead, I know many people faced frustration over the
vast quantities of reading loads of personal email dialogues, something
which they weren't expecting to have to do, and left the game shortly after
that level of game play appeared. Yet, for all that were frustrated, there
were others that loved that sort of interaction and, to this day, talk about
how much that game influenced them. Could he have provided me (then) or an
ARGN writer (now) with an exact play experience so that the game could have
been properly previewed and hyped? No, it was far too personal. However, he
could have more fully shared his plans allowing for that to happen on a more
'academic' level. 

(Dave, not picking on you there! It was just that it was a good example)

Now, on a completely different track, as one of the only people that I'm
aware of that has run the same games for different groups at different
times, I can say that, in my experience, they do play out similarly.
Admittedly, many considerations went into the game designs to allow them to
do that and a more open game might not have the same success. That's not to
say that there aren't surprises, because there always are, but, for the most
part, because it's a community game play experience, their behaviors can be
determined. While they may not struggle over the same plot points or
puzzles, they do tend to favor many of the same elements and play the game
in the same manner. Of course, I'm also providing the experience to a
specific audience and in a specific setting (work environment), so there is
some control that isn't available in a public open game where you may find
yourself attracting the goons from SomethingAwful in one run and, oh, I
dunno, some carefree happy innocent bunniesRcute club in the next. Though,
if you create a game that caters just to those two audiences and at separate
times, you scare me ;)

- Brooke