[arg_discuss] the umbrella (was RE: arg list)

[Brian Clark]

There were no promises of ponies?!?

I guess to me, it feels like your logic assumes the net output is
"attributes for each ARG" and what I'm suggesting is grouping "similar ones
together" and then having the messy debate about what those groupings say.
I'm not discounting the benefits of having a database of projects, just that
it begs the question "what goes in and what doesn't" and we know what
kissing that buzzsaw is like.

-----Original Message-----
From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On
Behalf Of Brooke Thompson
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG
Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] the umbrella (was RE: arg list)

So, it sounds like you want the end user to have greater control with  
how they're grouped (based on their gut and not on some computer  
algorithm or aggregated tags or what have you).

The challenge here is the number of experiences - if we're looking at  
the "umbrella" and trying to figure things out from there, we're  
probably looking at a base of somewhere near ~1k experiences that  
could be grouped. I'm basing that on the idea that the ARGdb wiki  
contains ~150 games and is probably missing twice that - and those are  
all games that will be fairly closely bunched under some sort of ARG  
like label. Once you throw in the related sorts of things (such as  
Ruby's Bequest, sf0, etc) we're looking at many times that. So, in  
order to avoid making assumptions on games, you need to either greatly  
reduce the number of games (to those which you've got enough  
information on to make an informed judgment) or greatly increase the  
number of people that have input on the system.

Both approaches have their merits, but I'd be more inclined to go with  
more people and more input than less.  At that point, you're looking  
at scales, user created tags, or (perhaps ideally) a combination of  
the two.

(and suddenly I feel like I'm back in school working on my thesis...)




On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Brian Clark wrote:


> I get that, Brooke ... here's my fear: when you ask people to rate on

> particular scales, the scales end up being the construct. I think  

> what I'm

> suggesting starts more subjective: your gut knows (for you) what  

> projects

> kind of go together. Having a body of info on those is great and  

> certainly

> facilitates. But the question "what do you call this clump versus that

> clump" comes after the intuitive arrangement, rather than being the

> construct of the scales.

>

> Close to mind mapping yes, Wendy, but I guess it is the proximity to  

> each

> other I'm suggesting might be insightful, rather than just "are  

> connected

> by". Hi! Here's this rough skeleton of projects and a list of ten  

> others ...

> where would you put them on this visual chart so that projects that  

> are more

> like each other are closer together than they are with ones that are  

> more

> different?

>

> I could imagine at the database end, that might look like "mean  

> distance"

> and standard deviation for each project to each project. My gut  

> thinks if we

> did that with enough people and transposed the results into one big  

> chart,

> we'd find that MOST people's graphs were fairly similar, and that  

> the places

> where there was the most diversity might look like important  

> conceptual

> differences.

>

> Can I get a pony too, while we're at it?

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org 

> ] On

> Behalf Of Brooke Thompson

> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 2:29 PM

> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] the umbrella (was RE: arg list)

>

> I don't know of any of the existing bits and pieces, but I know that

> there was a pen & paper effort at this during ARGfest SF and there are

> bits and pieces from that on unfiction. Based on that work and

> thinking of the discussion of Sean Stacey's Chaotic Fiction, I believe

> the way to go about it would be a system that let people rate

> experience on several scales and then aggregates that data into a  

> chart.

>

> If you just want to have an index card where people can throw context

> down on things - the argdb wiki would work for that... just add more

> bullet points under each game. The difficulty, of course, is in

> actually seeing and relating the games to each other as they're in an

> alphabetical list. However, that information could be put into the

> ARGdb database and then visualized in some manner - it would, of

> course, need to be standardized in some way to actually work.

>

> All that said, if someone wants to create such a system or manner, I'd

> gladly give some smart programmer sort access to the ARGdb site &

> database to help facilitate such a project. I mean we might as well

> take advantage of the information that we've already gathered. I think

> it would be relatively trivial to add a bit onto each game page that

> would let visitors rank the game on various things (such as

> interactivity, platform types, etc) and from that several different

> charts could be created for a variety of uses.

>

>

>

>

> On Apr 3, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Brian Clark wrote:

>

>> Forking this off of "the arg list" discussion, but can't keep my

>> fingers out

>> of the semantical. Making lists and timelines and databases is

>> great, but it

>> immediately begs the definition question: what counts as an element

>> and what

>> doesn't is intrinsic in the discussion.

>>

>> Personally, I'm past the point of worrying about the semantic

>> parsing of

>> ARG. I'm far more interested in the concept of the meta-definition,

>> the

>> umbrella that contains the most stuff that most people thing are

>> "ish" and

>> how we label that across the whole variety.

>>

>> I wonder if we wouldn't be served to think about that, and see if we

>> can let

>> descriptive taxonomy guide the definition. If could envision the

>> "ultimate

>> solution" the physical equivalent would be -- write down each ARG on

>> a card,

>> and tape them up to the wall in a way where "more alike" are closer

>> to each

>> in location than "more different" projects are. Go ahead and throw

>> as much

>> context as necessary on the cards. Where are the clots of similar

>> projects

>> and what are their defining traits (and thus, what else is "near" to

>> them)?

>> Which of the clots fall into "ARG" category, how many into

>> "significantly

>> ARG-like" and how many into the "tends not to be high-related to

>> ARGness"?

>>

>> Then I think, "there's a dissertation worth of dialog" to make that

>> happen,

>> even with the right tool. Does any of the existing efforts (wiki on

>> through)

>> potentially serve as platform adaptable to that kind of "clustering"

>> approach?

>>

>>

>>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org

>> ] On

>> Behalf Of Steve Peters

>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:26 PM

>> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

>> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] arg list

>>

>> It seems to me we're trying to reinvent the wheel here, to a certain

>> extent.

>> While the main interface to ARGDB was never really finished, there is

>> already a WIKI there that is a really good start. I think it would

>> be much

>> more valuable to have actual WIKI space that can give detailed

>> information

>> about an ARG than to just have a spreadsheet somewhere.

>>

>> Anyway, the framework's there at http://wiki.argdb.com. It should be

>> pretty

>> simple to just start editing away and insert info about the games

>> we've

>> worked on. It'd be nice if someone came up with a standard credit/

>> info box

>> format for each game, but beyond that, folks can just start editing

>> away!

>>

>> And if there's anyone with programming chops, take a look at the

>> main ARGDB

>> interface. It's a really good start and if finished would basically

>> be an

>> IMDB for ARGs if anyone wanted to take it on. :)

>>

>> Steve

>>

>>

>> --------------------

>> Steve Peters

>> Founder, No Mimes Media

>> http://www.nomimes.com

>> mobile: 818.422.4898

>> steve at nomimes.com

>> twitter: vpisteve

>> 34.183042,-118.281252

>>

>>

>> On 4/3/09 9:08 AM, "Wendy Despain" <wendeth at wendydespain.com> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Well, I decided not to add the projects I've been involved in,

>>> because

>>> although I call them ARGs, nobody else can agree on what to call

>>> them.

>>> They resemble the Lost Experience and Regenesis the most, I suppose.

>>>

>>> But they happened prior to 2001, and it seemed inappropriate to put

>>> them first on this list ordered by date.

>>>

>>> What agony this kind of list-building is!

>>>

>>> Wendy Despain

>>> quantumcontent.com

>>>

>>>

>>> On Fri, April 3, 2009 9:03 am, Brian Clark wrote:

>>>>> I don't know, and it's probably a matter of semantics, whether

>>>>> you want to distinguish "ARG" from "ARE".

>>>>

>>>> We've done such a great job of answering the "what is an ARG"

>>>> question

>>>> that

>>>> we're totally qualified to add "what is an ARE" and "how is an ARE

>>>> different

>>>> than ARG" to the pile.

>>>>

>>>> My personal opinion, we lack an umbrella term. Makes it hard for me

>>>> parse

>>>> out meaning in statements like:

>>>>

>>>>> one could argue "games" like Cloverfield were AREs as well

>>>>

>>>> I think that starts to overextend the ARE label as I understand it.

>>>> There

>>>> was the "hope by the fans" of an E at the end of the AR (which in

>>>> this

>>>> case

>>>> was just F.)

>>>>

>>>> But I can imagine some umbrella that would contain it.

>>>>

>>>> -----Original Message-----

>>>> From: arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org

>>>> [mailto:arg_discuss-bounces at igda.org] On

>>>> Behalf Of David Flor

>>>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:54 AM

>>>> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG

>>>> Subject: Re: [arg_discuss] arg list

>>>>

>>>> Added the ones I was involved with or are directly familiar with

>>>> (White Island, for example), as well as went through and edited  

>>>> some

>>>> that I was very familiar with as a player.

>>>>

>>>> I don't know, and it's probably a matter of semantics, whether you

>>>> want to distinguish "ARG" from "ARE". The Lost Experience was

>>>> self-labeled as an "ARE", and one could argue "games" like

>>>> Cloverfield

>>>> were AREs as well.

>>>>

>>>> And do you want to list ARGs that have been announced but not

>>>> launched

>>>> yet, such as our own "Rachel's Walk"?

>>>>

>>>> Tnx & Rgds...

>>>> David Flor

>>>> Darklight Interactive

>>>> "Omne ignotum pro magnifico"

>>>>

>>>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:04 AM,  <marcus.helm at gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> I've shared a document with you called "arg list":

>>>>>

>>>>

>>

>

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pE0znztln2kmQruQyplrzeA&inv=arg_discu

>>>> ss at igda.org

>>>>>

>>>>> It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To

>>>>> open

>>>>> this

>>>>> document, just click the link above.

>>>>>

>>>>> As mentioned earlier this week, I have begun compiling spreadsheet

>>>>> of

>>>>> ARG's towards getting a listing of the all the brands that have

>>>>> worked

>>>>> with ARGs as well as a listing of independent ARG's for ARGology.

>>>>> Its attached here as an Excel spreadsheet and is very much in the

>>>>> draft

>>>>> stage.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I urge one and all to cast an eye over it, correct mistakes and

>>>>> fill

>>>>> any missing info including the many games that I appologise for  

>>>>> not

>>>>> including already. Im also open to persuasion about what

>>>>> constituties

>>>>> and ARG as there are likely to be some contentious inclusions.

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> 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

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Wendy Despain

>>> quantumcontent.com

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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