[arg_discuss] ARGs as scams?

[despain at quantumcontent.com]

Beth Adele said:
> I do think a couple of key features differentiate ARGs from scams (and
> from books like THE DA VINCI CODE):
> - ARGs usually have a final curtain, at which point the PMs walk out on
> stage and take a bow. (And the PM's don't insist on the alternate
> reality being "real" reality.)

Who says the author is a "PM" and not a character?
And who says the game is over?

I actually have mixed feelings about the final curtain concept for ARGs,
but that's probably a different thread entirely.

> - ARGs have easily located groups of players who are fully aware of the
> ARG's fictional nature and will quickly explain the situation to
> newbies.

It's pretty easy to locate resources on the web and elsewhere - groups of
people who will tell newbies the Da Vinci Code is fiction. The only
difference I see is that with the Da Vinci Code these experts don't view
this whole thing as fun. They tend to be condescending when asked about
it, and take it personally when people want to play in that universe.

I thought it had something to do with the inclusion of religion in the Da
Vinci Code - but aparently the concept of cloning Jesus didn't bring with
it the same negative reaction.

> For these two reasons alone, I wouldn't want to call THE DA VINCI CODE
> an ARG. Brown claims his book is non-fiction, yes? He may be a scam
> artist or just a few pages short of a complete book, but he's not
> created an ARG, despite some similarities between the two.

He doesn't say his book is non-fiction. He says it's fiction, but is based
on certain "facts." But nobody else (and I mean _nobody_ else) agrees that
these facts are... well, factual. As an example, he says Da Vinci's most
famous painting of The Last Supper depicts Mary Magdalen in the group, and
that the Catholic church has just convinced everyone that the figure in
question is really male. You can look at the painting and see that's not
the case (and other paintings from the same time period and style, if
you're confused by the long hair).

You have to use your imagination and 'play along' with this kind of thing
in order to follow the narrative of his book.

At the back of the book, he even has a list of experts which he says he
consulted while writing the book. They don't support his wilder claims. So
in a way, he's pointing readers right to the expert players who will
inform them that this is all fiction.

But to make it look sinister, people are saying this looks like an
endorsement by all these people.

> I mean, the
> acronym itself is a give-away: Alternate Reality *Game*. If I insisted
> that "Candyland" was genuine cartography, my HMO might cover my
> psychiatric bills, but...
>
> Is this making sense?

Well, let's talk about what makes ARGs "games" and not narrative
experiences. Is it the mystery? the puzzles? Is all the rest of it just
fancy trappings for cryptograms and riddles?


> The article you linked to brings up a stickier issue, in my mind, and
> also makes me feel weary (so much paranoia!). It also reminds me of the
> "War of the Worlds" debacle (the first ARG, perhaps!). Obviously, ARGs

I think a case could be made.... (unless we flesh out your assertion above
that it has to be a game and not just a reality-bending experience.)

> need borders. In "i love bees," the randomly ringing pay phones required
> a code word before the listener could hear the audio snippet; a simple
> but effective way to prevent a curious stranger from being freaked out.

I think this is a good point - but we also, by definition - are blurring
those borders. How do we decide when to use our anti-aliasing tool on
reality? How far do we take it? Just far enough that we don't get
arrested? (Or get any of our players arrested?)

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com


> Any good examples of people failing to distinguish an ARGs fictionality?
>
> -Beth Adele
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARG_Discuss mailing list
> ARG_Discuss at igda.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss
>