[arg_discuss] we are obsolete (RE: Copycat warning overalternative reality games)

[Ivan Askwith]

Immersive experiences, maybe?

I think a lot of words we often use to refine descriptions of what  
we're doing end up being too specific to describe the entire field.

To name just a few common examples: entertainment, game, narrative,  
interactive, participatory, cross-platform, transmedia. All of these  
are often pivotal descriptors for what we've been grouping as ARGs,  
but none are inescapable.

Entertainment comes the closest, because when these experiences aren't  
entertaining, they rarely go anywhere.  Even projects that clearly  
classify as educational tend to entertain while imparting knowledge or  
skill training.

Depending on your definition, "participatory" might also describe most  
of them -- but if there's no active role for the "player/user" aside  
from finding scattered elements and "reading" them as a gestalt  
narrative, then even "participatory" and "interactive" can be slightly  
misleading.

I think Mike's observation is important -- painting is a distinct term  
aside from pointillism, classical, abstract, and so on.  It describes  
the medium more broadly.  But what we refer to as ARGs are hard to  
even neatly classify as a "medium," so much as a logic or meta-level  
approach to using existing media and platforms to create specific,  
immersive experiences.

Are we being over-reductive if we try to pin the form down too far?   
Maybe it's comparable to painting (which leans toward a notion of  
'authorship') or reading (which emphasizes the role of the  
'receiver'), or maybe it's comparable to conversation (which gives  
equal importance to the roles of all parties).

I don't have answers either... But I do think it's an interesting  
problem, even if it's one that can get trapped and mired in semantic  
debates.



> I think the name should not attempt to describe the experience, but  

> perhaps just a surface description of the canvas.

>

> "Painting" describes the tool used to create it - paint, not the  

> experience of seeing it, the size, or any of the other changeable  

> aspects.

>

> Same goes for "book" or "movie" or "photograph" or "game". Even when  

> you start to drill down - board game, video game, party game, etc.,  

> you still never describe the experience of the thing, only some of  

> the accoutrements or tactics, if you will.

>

> Branding something an ARG or a PEE excludes possibilities rather  

> than embracing them. I look at a name like ARG, and I think of it  

> the same way I think of "Platformer" or First Person Shooter" --  

> it's one specific type of [blank].

>

> So what the hell is a [blank]?

>

> I have only questions, no answers!  ;)

>

> -Mike

>

>

> On 10/9/08 2:08 PM, "Andrea Phillips" <andrhia at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Steve Peters <scpeters at gmail.com>  

> wrote:

>> At this point, we've been referring to them as Participatory  

>> Entertainment

>> Experiences...

>>

>

> Wow, and I didn't think we could come up with a worse acronym if  

> we'd tried!

>

>

> --

> Andrea Phillips

> http://www.deusexmachinatio.com

> Words * Culture * Interaction

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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

>

>

>

> ---

> Mike Monello

> Partner, Campfire

> http://www.campfirenyc.com

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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