[arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

[Brian Clark]

>How do you envision that we come up with a set of core values

>for this group?


That's a tough one, and I certainly don't have any authoritative answers.
Perhaps it helps to go back to the stated mission "to facilitate the sharing
of their knowledge and promotion of ARG's to mainstream games developers"
and ask ourselves how we can get to that point by embracing the other part
of the mission to "bring together a wide spectrum of experts in the
state-of-the-art of the ARG genre"?

For example, a brainstorming session on what we imagine the biggest
misconceptions other game developers have about the ARG genre might be an
interesting starting point. From that, we could try to develop short and
concise answers that also provide the springboard into deeper explorations
in individual whitepapers.

Another example might be the dangerous but necessary task to come up with
some kind of definition of ARG as a genre (in its most inclusive sense) and
from that come up with examples from other areas of game design that grapple
with similar issues (for example, collective activity in ARGs and how that
is similar or different from collective activity in MMOs).

These also seem like the kind of activities that could be open and
inclusive: a topic like business models or production techniques would
probably always rely on a smaller set of the group than the bigger questions
of evangelizing the genre.


Brian



-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of despain at quantumcontent.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:22 PM
To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG
Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] whitepaper:wiki, next version

1) I think it's a great idea to produce several whitepapers instead of
one huge one.

2) I also think the wiki is a great start to a different editorial
process. But I'm generally a fan of wikis (in the right context) so my
opinion may be colored. I'd be open to a different method, but I think
the one we already tried put too much work on one person's shoulders.
We can share the process more, I think, and make it less painful all
around. It was a learning experience, certainly.

3) How do you envision that we come up with a set of core values for
this group? In some ways, I think collaborating on whitepapers would
give us a context to discover our differences and work together on
concensus. I also think we can use the existing whitepaper as a
jumping-off point. Sometimes it's easier to edit than to create out of
thin air. I do think this list needs to find its identity somehow.

Wendy Despain
quantumcontent.com




> 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

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/arg_discuss

>



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