[arg_discuss] Is it important for designers to play

[Michael Andersen]

I think that, ideally, most (if not all) ARGs should allow for people like
developers who are short on time to play in a way that at least gives a
taste for the level of immersion and interaction that more hardcore players
experience.  It's how you hook people in to *get* more involved in the
games, and it's how you realistically reach an audience.  So no -- I'm not
saying that developers should commit hours a day to playing ARGs.  But it
shouldn't be too hard to fit a few hours of play in every week, or to settle
down and really get into a game when you're between projects.

The examples of games I chose were carefully chosen to provide examples
where you're not just "playing a mini-game" -- with *Chain Factor*, playing
the "mini-game" was the core storytelling element, as it was used to
discover the secret error messages and shape which ending the game took.
 With *Must Love Robots*, interacting with the simple-to-understand Subway
task had meaning within the game's narrative while still giving you
something fun to do.

So what can you learn by playing with the time at your disposal?  You can
experience the game as the majority of your players do -- casually, and
without delving too deeply into the rich game experiences you're creating.
 These aren't necessarily the players who will be posting on Unfiction or
other discussion forums to give you direct feedback about what's working and
what isn't.  But these *are* the people you need to expand the player base
-- it's a lot easier to find someone willing to give ARGs a try given a few
hours of spare time.  By using your spare time to play for yourselves, you
can gain a perspective on what works that you can't get by looking at
metrics or talking with other designers.  And if you're questioning whether
the majority of players that only dedicate a couple of hours a week are
engaging in "play," that IS something you should worry about.

Furthermore, it's a lot easier to observe changing trends in gameplay by
playing ARGs:  the audience that currently plays ARGs isn't the same as the
one that was playing when I entered the space, and in many ways the
audiences have fractured.  People who love webseries-style ARGs have
different ways of interacting, conversing, and playing as opposed to the
group of gamers who tend to gravitate to Cloverfield-like games. And while
someone else can describe those differences to you or you can read through
discussion forums to engage in cultural anthropology, you'll miss a lot of
the nuance if you don't experience it unfiltered.  Brooke, in your interview
with Lance at the Workbook project, you told him that "an accessible
transmedia experience connects with the audience on their terms, where they
already are, with tools that they’re already using, and in ways that they
already understand."  What better way to know your audience than to play
with them?  Consider it an ARGish icebreaker.

Moving away from the argument that "playing will help your game design" I
think it's a sign of respect to your fellow developers to take a little time
out of your admittedly busy lives to experience some of the projects they're
slaving away creating.  Having someone say "wow I thought that was really
cool" means a lot more when you've personally experienced it, as opposed to
saying it after reading a post-game synopsis or reading an article about it.
 One of the things that made the conversation on the netcast between Steve
and Yomi so meaningful last night was that Steve *played the game* and got
to experience *Breathe* firsthand.



On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:00 AM, <arg_discuss-request at igda.org> wrote:


> Send ARG_Discuss mailing list submissions to

>        arg_discuss at igda.org

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

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

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>        arg_discuss-request at igda.org

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

>        arg_discuss-owner at igda.org

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of ARG_Discuss digest..."

>

> Today's Topics:

>

>   1. Is it important for designers to play? (Brooke Thompson)

>

>

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: Brooke Thompson <brooke at giantmice.com>

> To: Discussion list of the IGDA ARG SIG <arg_discuss at igda.org>

> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:23:46 -0400

> Subject: [arg_discuss] Is it important for designers to play?

> Michael Anderson¹s post on ARGNet has me curious... Are you playing an

> alternate reality game? What was the last one you played? Do you think it¹s

> important to play?

>

> Here¹s the post if you missed it:

>

> http://www.argn.com/2010/06/a_call_to_action_for_alternate_reality_game_deve

> lopers_play_args

>

> I commented there, with the gist of it being that I don¹t always know how

> to

> answer the question.. What do you mean ³play²? A full experience? A few

> minutes playing a mini-game? And if I¹m just spending a few minutes playing

> a mini-game, is that actually telling me anything about the overall

> experience, etc.

>

> I think it¹s important to play and to understand the player experience, but

> I¹m not entirely sure that it¹s necessary to play a number of ARGs to get

> that. It certainly helps, but is it necessary? Can we gain a similar

> understanding elsewhere or, even, from behind the curtain watching it all

> unfold?

>

> What are your thoughts?

>

>

> Brooke Thompson

> Transmedia Storyteller            ARGFest Chair

> http://www.giantmice.com       http://www.argfest.com

>

> email: brooke at giantmice.com

> mobile: 321.277.7613

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> ARG_Discuss mailing list

> ARG_Discuss at igda.org

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

>

>