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

[Adam Martin]

Funnily enough, some people have revived the old debate recently on
the MUD-DEV mailing list about "what should we be calling Massively
Multiplayer Online Games, instead of "MMOGs"? That terminology sucks,
and is so unfair and restrictive and stupid!". Some nice ideas thrown
out, but not a single one of them will stick.

The problem is, it's NOT a definition, it's a "label". As is ARG. ARG
is actually quite good IMHO (considering how intrinsically bad it is),
because it often gets used as a (pronounceable) acronym, which at
least slightly makes it more label-like and less descriptive in
people's minds.

(and because it inspired this conversation, which I think has a lot of
good points raised already :))

Steve provided a great concrete example of the label issue:

2008/10/9 Steve Peters <scpeters at gmail.com>:

>

> Honestly, I'm not so much concerned about what I should call it as much as

> just doing it, at this point. Typically, clients and potential clients

> (whether marketing execs or purely creative partners) still need to be SHOWN

> what an "ARG" is, so the term is meaningless for them as well. Because it's

> something different. Every. Time. :)


Yep, it's meaningless. We don't need a meaningful term (they wouldn't
understand that anyway, until it's explained to them), we just need a
label that works.

There's 3 million hits for "arg game" on google, but that's enough to
make it a very useful label for now to carry on using - if only
because it makes what you do discoverable by the people who probably
want to find you (*especially* if they don't themselvs really
understand what these things-called-ARGs *really* are).

I've been through these naming debates before. I've tried really hard,
along with others, to no avail (although I believe we all ended up
slightly increasing our own understanding of the context and essence
of the things we were talking about). Usually, they come up with a
handful of nice ideas, but don't effect any meaningful change. The
weight of "pre-existing usage" is almost impossible to overcome - and
usually the debates focus on "fixing the definition", when the name
isn't actually a definition at all. IMHO.

Adam