[arg_discuss] Whitepaper:What do you want? (call for ideas)

[Brian Clark]

>Is there a reductive definition of what an ARG is that

>everyone can agree on?


That to me seems like the $100,000 question. I think the obvious descriptive
answer is that right now, no. There are labels that people understand, but I
think there are obvious efforts among different people to try on new
definitions. For example, there was a sizable published piece on the concept
of "chaotic fiction" (which I might have my own critiques of, but is
published work struggling with that same question.) If you asked Mike
Monello or I, we might be more biased towards reducing it down to immersive
narrative ... sometimes I mumble about the intersection of narrative and
gameplay, but that probably describes a lot of stuff that isn't even
"ARG-ish".

But the fact we all tend to use the phrase "ARG-ish" ... or include "time
wasters" inside the communities that scratch a similar but not identical
itch ... suggests that there is a reductionist definition lurking in there.

I bring this up sheerly as a historical comparison, not as a direct
suggestion. But back in the dark ages I was involved heavily in the
"multi-user dungeon" development community (MUDs) ... there was a social
upheaval in that community (as geeky as it sounds) because of the ultimate
dissatisfaction with that term. So, to this day, you'll hear people say it
means that or "mult-user dimension". Others branched away entirely and
thought of themselves as MOOs. All of that was very healthy, ultimately, for
that community ... it produced enough commonality that you could talk about
software and architecture but be applying it to slightly different things.
It was the primordial soup that eventually birthed MMOs (that in their
earliest precursors called themselves "Graphical MUDs" until yet another
label got created.)

I offer up that example more to suggest that it might even be acceptable to
have more than one answer to reductionist question. And it is probably also
okay to think of that as a spot on a moving line ... an agreed upon
convention that we know will continue to morph and change.

We're all comfortable with a little chaos here, right?



Brian


-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of Alex Fleetwood
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:25 AM
To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG
Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] Whitepaper:What do you want? (call for ideas)

Okay, as a SIG lurker I'm going to front up with a material
contribution to this discussion. My background is in theatre & film
and I'm working with a director in the UK on an installation theatre
ARG at the moment. I'm also interested in street games and attended
the Come Out And Play festival in October.

One of the things that really struck me at COaP was the absence of an
agreed language to describe these activities. There were as many
different terminologies as there were games. People's excitement about
their own spin on how play, narrative, collective action and game
design interact with each other seemed to preclude them from accepting
other definitions. Is there a reductive definition of what an ARG is
that everyone can agree on? And from that can you start to deduce
sub-categories of ARG? We, the ARG SIG, hold these truths to be
self-evident; an ARG is...

I'd also like a repository of articles organised along the lines of
the Game Design Reader (MIT Press, Salen/Zimmerman) that catalogue the
best writing on ARGs to date. I feel that the best any PM could do
this stage is to reflect upon their own work & leave it to others to
note the similarities & differences with other projects. I wouldn't
expect Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Sofia Coppola & Chris Cunningham to
reach detailed agreement about what makes a good feature film... I
played Perplex City for a while and I have a view on it but I wouldn't
advance it here - I'd rather wait until I've run something which
demonstrates my own take on this thrilling set of ideas and talk about
that.

Also, anyone who is interested in working with me on a London
COaP-style event next Spring please get in touch.

best wishes

Alex (alexfleetwood at gmail.com)

On 14/12/06, Colin Gehrig <colin at colin.com.au> wrote:

> Following on from some of the discussion on the whitepaper from Wendy

> and Brian, I'd like to have a poll of sorts. In the interest of

> producing a useable work product from this group I think it would be

> best to see what is needed.

>

> So: Tell me, what would your ultimate written reference/guide/whitepaper

> be? What should the topic be? Do you need it for a marketing pitch, or

> to get a grant, or something else? (Any other details i.e. "should be

> less than 10 pages"?) Tell me whatever the critical details are to you.

>

> Please reply to the list, or if you'd prefer, directly to my email

> address. From there I will try to compile the results (anonymously) into

> some sort of order and put it on the wiki. Hopefully that will provide a

> basis for the direction of future whitepapers.

>

> As a side benefit, hopefully this will show what people want from the

> SIG, and help in developing some core values.

>

>    I look forward to hearing your replies (yes all 160 of you),

>

>      -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