[arg_discuss] ARGs/Interactive Fiction

[Michael Monello]

Perhaps there is a more organic way to do this. I'm thinking about how  
time zones naturally divide up the television audience, yet by the end  
of the day all the zones are caught up and everyone can chat about the  
most recent episode.

In other words, you launch an ARG and the audience is divided up by  
when they join in, yet you don't have to necessarily start at episode 1.

A simple example: the first week, everyone who joins becomes "Group A."

Week 2 starts a new episode, and Group A plays through it, but  
everyone who joins in on it in week 2 becomes Group B. Group B has all  
the community tools of group A, but they are not mixed in with Group A  
in the game forums or the collaborative puzzles, which forces that  
group to organically form it's own culture for the game, independent  
of the culture developed by the more established Group A.

Each week, a new group. At the end of an episode, all the groups can  
discuss, because they are all at the same place in the story, but  
those in the newest groups don't have to contend with the experts who  
have been playing for a month when it comes to the actual game.

The groupings have to be completely organic and mostly behind the  
scenes, as ultimately everyone is essentially playing "live", which  
also allows you to have the events and non-repeatable elements that  
are so important to these games.

Allowing new groups of players to form their own cultures would  
eliminate many of the issues that ARG's face after launch, in my  
opinion. It's not joining a narrative in progress that is difficult --  
TV viewers do that all the time and bringing people up to speed on a  
narrative is easy -- it's trying to join a well-established and dense  
community that is steeped in historical experience that overwhelms and  
intimidates new people.

Best,

Michael Monello
Partner, Campfire
62 White Street, 3W
New York, NY 10013
212-612-9600
http://www.campfirenyc.com



On Jan 2, 2008, at 4:31 PM, John Evans wrote:


> Nice analogy, Ian. And another pillar to support my argument that

> finite automata should be taught in high school. ;)

>

> [snip]

>> IMHO any solution would have to put people in their own rooms, with

>> their own challenges and individual agency, while keeping the overall

>> collaborative feeling of the ARG. As Michael wrote, that is a radical

>> restructure of the mechanism of the ARG.

>

> So you'd need some "rooms" that everyone had to go through on their

> own. However, one of the great strengths of ARGs is the multiplayer/

> collaboration aspect, so you'd also need "rooms" within which everyone

> could congregate. Except that they're not really rooms, they're

> "events" or "states".

>

>> Maybe it isn't a coincidence that interactive fiction is also a genre

>> that has almost no direct monetization. But then again, that probably

>> pushes the analogy too far.

>

> Well, IF used to be monetized. I remember owning Wishbringer for the

> C128. Eventually it became "adventure games"...The point seems to be

> that you can sell interactive fiction as long as it has game-style

> graphics. I guess?

>

> http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=package&SubId=539&cc=US

>

> There's an interesting idea. What if an ARG had graphics the equal of

> a "standard" computer game, but was organized like an ARG?...I guess

> it would be Uru Live, I answered my own question.

>

> --John

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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