[arg_discuss] TOW: almost 8 years after the Beast, which is your favourite ARG and why?

[mj williams]

Strong Agree!
As someone whose worked for both digital ad agencies as a creative  
seeking to sell games in, and as a producer/designer for a  
broadcaster, I'm afraid to say something of a consensus has emerged.  
ARGs - as recent history has defined them - aren't right; that they  
haven't worked. That, dare I say it, they're dead...

You know, I wonder if ARGs have served their purpose. Maybe they've  
just been something really interesting on the way?
  They've introduced the idea of a very explicit sort of game play,  
that requires high engagement from its participants and unites  
gameplay and storyteling in a whole new way, but they really aren't  
for everyone. They've been part of an explosion of how and where and  
why we play games and given rise to some sterling moments, but is it  
maybe a onetime only?
On the plus side, what anyone holding a jar with money in it now knows  
is that games can mean anything - not that you can just badge a  
penguin-lobbing game clone with your brand and say you made a game.  
There is so much more you can do.

Something Andrea said really cut through: the fact that she has  
struggled to play any ARG since the Beast clairifed my own experience:  
I spent one afternoon absolutely lost, completely *in heaven*,  
wandering through the BWP. The way people talk about the Beast (which  
I missed) It sounds like the same thing: we all had one singularly  
powerful opening experience into the idea of game-and-story in  
combination.
Anything I've engaged with since just hasn't done it in the same way,  
sad to say (but props for trying to We tell stories, World without Oil  
and Cloverfield)

So maybe it was all about seeing the idea for the first time and  
comprehending how much fun play, undefined, can be.




--

mj williams
			| www.bushofgoats.com
			| mj_williams at mac.com
			| +44(0)7971 004821






On 14 Jan 2009, at 16:40, Mike Monello wrote:


> On 1/14/09 11:24 AM, "Andrea Phillips" <andrhia at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> But hey, if you have a client coming to you asking you for ANY

> creative work -- an ad campaign, a sculpture, whatever -- you'll be

> having a similar conversation.

>

> If the client is coming to you then you have no issue at all! But if  

> your work is being lumped into the commonly accepted definition of  

> "ARG" then you'll only get clients coming to you who want an "ARG"  

> and the truth is, most clients don't need an ARG at all.

>

> Put it this way - if a client thinks they know what an ARG is, based  

> on the commonly accepted definition, and they don't think they need  

> an ARG, then why do they pick up the phone and call you, or agree to  

> a meeting with you, if all your work is, in their minds, painted by  

> that ARG brush?

>

> This is what I see when I read posts like Dan's explaining why they  

> don't call themselves ARG creators, or why Brian prefers Experience  

> Design, and why I'm perfectly happy to have most Campfire's  

> narrative projects be perceived as "not-ARGs" even if they hit all  

> but 1 or 2 of the major touchpoints that people consider to be ARGs.

>

> It's easy to move someone to your side in a conversation, but it's  

> getting to that conversation that is affected by the definition and  

> meaning of the term, whether your funding comes from clients or  

> investors or anyone else.

>

> ---

> Mike Monello

> Partner, Campfire

> 62 White Street, 3E

> New York, NY 10013

> 212-612-9600

> http://www.campfirenyc.com

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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