[arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

[Brian Clark]

So I've been waiting to pop in some thoughts on this, but wanted to share a
few perspectives as someone with a vested interest in helping people
understand this genre. I offer them up as feedback and in no particular
order:

1. I think part of the danger here might be the attempt to make one
all-inclusive whitepaper and actually believing that we'll do a good job of
covering all of the bases. Perhaps it makes more sense for the SIG for us to
think of our task as requiring a series of more focused whitepapers, rather
than one long and inevitably incomplete document. I could imagine that the
first whitepaper might need to be "what is an ARG and what makes it
different from other media forms that people are familiar with?" I can
imagine another one just on business models. I can imagine another simply on
the mechanics of developing content for group consumption rather than
individual consumption, etc.

2. I think this group probably also needs to spend a bit of prep time
thinking about what the right process is for developing a/each whitepaper. I
know in the initial call for participants it was phrased as academic -- I
read it, and then discounted myself as a participant because I'm a
practitioner rather than an academic. Having a system for internal review
and comment and improvement also seems critical before things get released.

3. I think we have to find a way to embrace some shared set of core values
before any of the above really makes sense -- many of us approach ARGing
from different perspectives. In one sense, that diversity of viewpoints is a
strength of the genre (in the same way that two filmmakers might not agree
upon the mechanics of what makes a great film ... or two web publishers
might disagree on the mechanics of what makes a great online experience).
But, in another sense, a discipline without a core shared set of values
becomes too fragmented to build an effective external case.

Given the above ... does anyone else think that perhaps trying to polish the
existing draft hobbles us by skipping over some core essentials at building
a unity and shared mission from this group? One eats a watermelon one bite
at a time, rather than trying to stuff the whole thing in one's mouth.

Best,


Brian 

-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of Colin Gehrig
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:58 PM
To: 'Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG'
Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version


> -----Original Message-----

> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org

[mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Adam Martin

> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:50 PM

> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

> 

> Unfortunately, very little of that is constructive criticism, and much

> of it revolves around misunderstandings about the scope and basis of

> the paper. 

<snip>

> Adam


Interesting, I felt that most of it was worth considering. However I
don't know scope and basis for the paper. I looked back through this
email list to see if I could find what the objective was, but couldn't
see it. I read the paper, I couldn't see anything to say what it was.

Then, I thought, "hey wait, don't papers normally have that at the
start?", but I thought of Wendy's comments: "For one thing, a whitepaper
in the IGDA sense isn't an academic or scientific paper." Maybe I was
applying lofty academic standards to this lowly IGDA whitepaper. So I
googled "igda whitepaper". The first result was the 2006 Casual Games
White Paper, and on page 6:

A. Background and Purpose
B. Audience and Scope

I'm afraid I can't accept the argument that it revolves around
misunderstanding, and I'll add the lack of Purpose and Scope to the list
of specious claims that need to be corrected, thanks for pointing that
out.

-colin


_______________________________________________
ARG_Discuss mailing list
ARG_Discuss at igda.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss