[arg_discuss] You're so Emo!

[Hugh Davies]

I for one am interested.

But for my own, I tend to be resigned to use ARG as an umbrella term.
Agreed, its far from ideal but im happy to let future generations look back
and consider what and indeed if a better definition is needed. After all:

Do video games all really use video?
How many players do you actually need to constitute an MMORPG?
Does answering these questions actually improve the game experiences, or
discussion or analysis of them?

Taking up Mikes previous comment:*

there are two issues mashed up here. One about what to call the thing that
we are making/enjoying/ that is an umbrella term and can accommodate many
different shapes/styles/genres underneath it, and the other is actually
defining what an Alternate Reality Game is. *

Well said. I see this as the same issues approached in different ways. Using
your book example Mike, we could we say:

1: What is a book?

2: How do we define a collection of written, printed, illustrated, or blank
sheets of paper, parchment, or other material, fastened together to hinge at
one side?

In this example, both questions answer eachother.

Ergo, are we just Emoing ourselves away the by haggling over what
constitutes an ARG?

After all, according to http://www.etymonline.com/ the history of the word
book is:
"beech" (cf. Ger. Buch "book" Buche "beech;" the notion being of beechwood
tablets on which runes were inscribed), but may be from the tree itself
(people still carve initials in them).Perhaps we just need to agree on a
very broad definition of an ARG so that we can exclude things such as The
Bible, Women by Charles Bukowski, and Watchmen - although im also prepared
to argue that the Bible and Watchmen could be considered part of the ARG
field. Im not familiar with Women by Charles Bukowski.

hugh





On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Michael Monello
<mmonello at campfirenyc.com>wrote:


> I think there are two issues mashed up here. One about what to call the

> thing that we are making/enjoying/ that is an umbrella term and can

> accommodate many different shapes/styles/genres underneath it, and the other

> is actually defining what an Alternate Reality Game is. I don't believe

> there is consensus on either, but I may be mistaken -- is there a definition

> of what an "Alternate Reality Game" is that I can use to measure whether

> something is one?

>

> As for the umbrella term, we all recognize what a book is. According to

> Wikipedia:

> "A book is a set or collection of written, printed, illustrated, or blank

> sheets, made of paper, parchment, or other material, usually fastened

> together to hinge at one side."

>

> Now, a book may be a graphic novel or trade paperback or horror anthology

> or poetry collection or romance, but there's no argument that it is a

> "book," and if I point to a car and say that it is a book, there is nothing

> to discuss, as I would clearly be wrong under the definition of what a book

> is.

>

> So, if "Alternate Reality Game" is the umbrella term, then are Eagle Eye,

> SF0, Top Secret Dance Off, Eldritch Errors, and Blair Witch Project all

> ARGs? I'm not looking for opinions, discussion, or debate on this, but

> whether they pass or fail the definition of an ARG, much the same way that

> we could all agree that The Bible, Women by Charles Bukowski, and Watchmen

> by Alan Moore are all books. (BTW, I've always wanted a reason to put the

> Bible and anything by Charles Bukowski on the same list) If there is a true

> definition then we should be able to point to any project and say, as a

> statement of fact, agree on whether they are ARGs or not. The discussions

> about whether one or the other is a comedy or poetry might be fuzzier, but

> there should be consensus on it being a "book." That, to me, is what I mean

> by an umbrella term, and my interest in one has absolutely nothing to do

> with needing to sell ARGs to clients as characterized by the ARGNetcast. I

> don't have any problem selli

>  ng what Campfire does to clients even in this down economy, so please

> don't assume I'm acting out of self-interest. I believe that an umbrella

> term would be helpful in capturing the full extent of what has been done in

> the past, and (much) more importantly, what can be done in the future.

> "Book" is not a restrictive term - it can have puzzles, it can be a game or

> treasure hunt, like Masquerade, or it can be blank. Does "Alternate Reality

> Game" pass that test?

>

> Now, I get that this is the IGDA here, and I understand this could be read

> as bristling against the term "game" but I'm not "anti-game," not even

> close. I'm questioning whether the umbrella term we are looking for should

> define it as a game or not, and the truth is, I go back and forth on it.

> Maybe not all the projects I listed above should be contained under the

> umbrella term, and maybe that would make settling on an umbrella term an

> easier task. I do think that if our umbrella term requires that it be a

> game, then we are talking about a genre and not an entirely new form of art

> or entertainment (although of course it can be art and they are hopefully

> all entertaining). And I also acknowledge that if the umbrella term does

> embrace all these non-game forms that ultimately THIS group is about

> discussing the "game" variety, but this is probably the largest list of

> people working in the space and I think it is a fair discussion to have

> here.

>

> That being said, I also don't want to hold the list hostage to this

> discussion. Truthfully, if no one on the list is interested in this topic

> then I'd rather talk it over with Brian over drinks at the bar than in front

> of disinterested spectators, so I won't engage in this discussion further

> unless the other, silent members of the list take part and push it further,

> one way or the other.

>

> Whew. I really don't generally get tied up in semantic discussions, as I am

> far from an academic, but I am interested in this for what it means to the

> burgeoning form. If Brian is right, and ARGs are Emo (and I think he is

> right), then ARGs are going to be marginalized like Emo, and all the other

> great stuff that doesn't fit the definition of ARGs and all the things you

> can do in the space will in the future will be seen as something else, not

> ARGs, and then ARGs and the people who champion them and define their work

> in that way will be marginalized into that genre ghetto. As the ARGNetcast

> folks noted, almost every company associated with commercial ARGs has

> already backed away from the term, and not because they don't like it but

> because that marginalization is already happening.

>

> Are we filmmakers or are we horror filmmakers? Are we storytellers or are

> we romance writers? Are we game designers or are we alternate reality game

> designers? What are we?

>

> This existential crisis brought to you by:

>

> Mike

>

> On 4/10/09 6:19 PM, "Brooke Thompson" <brooke at mirlandano.com> wrote:

>

> I've got to admit, that was one of the more enjoyable netcasts for me

> and my minds been going since. The Emo analogy is interesting and ties

> in with where my thoughts have been going... is ARG the umbrella term?

>

> And, the more personal... am I finally becoming ok with the idea of

> ARG being the umbrella? and, of course, the obsessive soul searching

> concerns of why I feel such a strong need to control this term when I

> usually prefer more fluid, dynamic, and organic things... is it a

> question of my identity, which I alluded to in the podcast by saying

> that I just want to know what it is that I do. So, perhaps Emo is the

> *perfect* analogy :)

>

>

>

> On Apr 10, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Brian Clark wrote:

>

> > So our discussions here boiled over into the ARGNetcast broadcast:

> >

> > http://www.argnetcast.com/2009/04/arg-netcast-episode-84-two-queens/

> >

> > And from there culminated into a declaration of my peevedness for baby

> > carrots:

> >

> > http://brianclarkslatestpeeve.com/

> >

> > It is a really smart discussion by some really smart people (the

> > netcast,

> > not the peeves), which makes me ask myself whether I'm sometimes

> > opaque

> > about the arguments I'm making (BABY CARROTS!) So inspired by ARGN,

> > I'd like

> > to offer up a more affirmative definition of what ARG is from my

> > point of

> > view.

> >

> > ARG is so Emo.

> >

> > A community of fans essentially labeled the work of a few bands Emo.

> > Then

> > they started pointing to new bands appearing and going, "Yup, that's

> > Emo."

> > Other bands were influenced by that, and proudly declared themselves

> > Emo.

> > Some of the artists labeled as Emo think the whole concept is complete

> > bullshit, many others identified with other musical influences than

> > Emo.

> > Each new artist in the general neighborhood influences the overall

> > dimensions of the definition, and each new work of those artists

> > revives the

> > debate. The longer time went, the more impossible it became to

> > define Emo at

> > all, as it fractured into personal definitions of "I like X. X is

> > Emo. I

> > like Y, therefore Y is Emo or Emoish".

> >

> > ARG is almost exactly like that.

> >

> > That's fine: that's the argument that ARG is a genre. Genres are

> > almost

> > always named after the fact by the community of fans.

> >

> > Some of us wish ARG was so indie, which is essentially a hope that

> > the label

> > (or replacement) was a movement instead of a genre. In the indie

> > film world,

> > there is a diversity of genres but a shared perspective and similar

> > methodology among filmmakers. Indie is how you get it done, not what

> > you get

> > done. Indie teaches each other, and supports a broad diversity of

> > equally

> > valid reasons for making work.

> >

> > One of the features of a movement is constant reinvention. The

> > debate, "What

> > is indie?" is a constant feature of that film community, "What is

> > ARG?" is a

> > constant debate here. That's a desired feature in a movement, versus

> > a genre

> > (where the question is "Is that an ARG?"), and the community of

> > people who

> > practice will always desire some "terms of art" to help us

> > communicate (so

> > labels and the debate about them are good.)

> >

> > During the netcast, they were critiqued by their IRC chat room that

> > they

> > were trying to find a term that would include "SF0, Top Secret Dance

> > Off and

> > Eldritch Errors." Or maybe it was Eagle Eye packed in there too. I

> > actually

> > think that is exactly the goal: as a practitioner I see more things in

> > common than different between them, even though Spacebass argued

> > only EE was

> > "technically an ARG" in that set. That works for me too ... I always

> > had to

> > accept the word of others which works in my portfolio were

> > "technically an

> > ARG" and rarely designed for it. So what is that broader category?

> >

> > Or maybe it's just Emo ... stretch the definition of ARG as genre

> > expectation changes?

> >

> > Maybe now they'll change my latest peeve to "Emo Finger Monkey"

> > (http://www.sonnyradio.com/fingermonkey1.jpg) instead of "Baby

> > Carrots"?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Brian

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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

>

>

>

> ---

> 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

>