[FLmutant]

I've been relatively quiet in this thread, even though I've been following it regularly. Because I'm an indie at heart, and the "grassroots" of ARGdom finding your voice is an important thing. And one I'm deeply interested in, but have been biding my time to pop in on.

Phaedra wrote:

Bob has read about Perplex City and ILB (I'm not trying to diss Art of the Heist here -- it's just that I don't think I've seen as much press on it) and wants to play an ARG. So Bob comes here, and looks at the active games...and picks something poorly designed and -- worse -- boring. And it melts down midway through.

This is a variation of the "not everyone should be allowed to publish on the internet." There are loads of crappy albums and crappy movies, but people keep making them and keep listening/watching them. And sometimes each year a few really amazing things emerge from the grassroots into broader consciousness. That's the marketplace of art. So you've got a microcosom issue: what do you do when the quantity of work of the genre is small and too much of it is crap?

It's not that I don't share your concern, but I'm telling you -- if my odds of walking out of Blockbuster with a good movie were as high as my odds of clicking on an ARG in a list at ARGN and getting an interesting one ... well ... um ... I'd actually have a Blockbuster membership or something.

Oh, and no diss taken.

Incitatus wrote:

The entire genre seems to be defined by promotional and advertizing means. The genre itself must be broken from this association....to expand and become firmly defined as a Gaming genre and not just a promotional tool.

Totally agree. And I can tell you that marketers totally don't buy that ARGs are good promotional vehicles, so you've got an ally in them.

We see ARGs as one type of "branded entertainment" ... which really means that an ARG is an entertainment format first and foremost. It can just also be branded, the same way "Wild Kingdom" got branded by Mutual of Omaha ... the point wasn't that "nature shows are really good selling insurance," after all. The point was that people actually enjoyed nature shows.

Marketing people will always be interested in anything that aggregates attention. That's why they are all over the other media as well, right? And that's why they end up playing surprising roles in supporting new genres.

SuperJerms wrote:

Corporate ARG's can't really afford to end up as flops if the current ARG-as-marketing is to continue ... ARG's are seen as viral marketing.

Oh, don't make it sound like it's a big trend! Only the really daring are even willing to consider the idea, and all of them know this falls into the "highly experimental" category. Trust me, even the other "viral marketers" (and oh how I despise that phrase, which is of course completely ironic since I'm also the President of the Viral & Buzz Marketing Association) think ARGs-as-marketing is a screw-ball concept, ILB not-withstanding. They get that something is there, but they don't necessarily get what it is.

The real frontier is getting different business models in place. ARGs, like any shared media experience, produces fans ... if they are done right. And anything that produces fans will always be of interest to marketers.

Phaedra wrote:

ARGs are an innovative and extremely clever method of advertising. Being used as an advertising vehicle allows them to have a *budget* to work with, allowing different types of innovation and getting exposure that most grassroots games can't pull off.

Maybe. You have to buy into a number of other assumptions, like what kind of advertising you're going for. I'm not sure ARGs are a particularly good way to generate sales, but I think they are a really interesting way to shape public perception of a brand. Larger budgets certainly bring additional opportunities for exploration, it changes the kind of stories you can tell. But it ain't honey and roses.

Wolf wrote:

Saying grassroots games diminish the ones backed by a million dollar Micro$quish contract is insulting. We've already proven money doesn't equal quality. Quality equals quality. Money is gravy. Period.

Can I offer up an AMEN from the choir? We have this same fight all the time in the film space, where I'm definitely in the "indie" camp (heck, half the team on this page is currently part of the team running an ARG.) We have tons of needling debates as an editorial staff on what counts as an independent film and what doesn't, usually to decide whether or not to include it in box office tallies for the rest of the indie film industry.

There are crappy indie films. There are crappy Hollywood films. There are amazing indie films. There are amazing Hollywood films. I love great films. I advocate great indie films.

But Wolf said it better. Quality is quality period. Creativity is king, money is gravy.

Incitatus wrote:

That also brings forth the question: Is there a corelation to making your game great by spending more time for less money to develop the game?

Money and time are the same thing, they are resources applied to a creative task. Money goes to enhance the team, to buy things it would take too long to make with elbow grease. So there is a correlation between applying your resources intelligently have having a great game, yes.

What's the old adage about "good, fast or cheap: pick two"?

Dorkmaster wrote:

Beyond this: I suggest all PMs submit to a blood test (you know, so we can screen your DNA to determine your potential for spelling errors), a drug test (so we can see how whacked-out your game will be [this is not always a bad thing, BTW]), as well as a personality profile that will be maintained by eHarmony.com. That way, we'll always know your intention, and if you're lying, your date will tell us the truth...

This seems like the smartest and most sensible solution to me. At least for those of team members that actually have blood (or a close approximate) to go with their personalities. But it's just spec that we actually date. And lie detectors are nearly useless on PMs.


Brian

[krystyn]

imonk gets special dispensation

[i_monk]

Phaedra wrote:

And, btw, here in this forum, you may ask what trout is and we won't roll our eyes at you."

What will I do for fun then?

[spaceboy]

Dorkmaster wrote:

(Once more, DM steps away from the podium as this time, fists raised in the air, as The Who's "We're Not Gonna Take It" blares in the distance)

The Who? Isn't that song by Twisted Sister?

/me goes back to his darkened corner.

[Dorkmaster]

SuperJerms wrote:

Another thing about newbie forums. The reason I joined UF was the intellect, respect, humor and civility everyone demonstrated while I lurked at the start of ILB. I would say that spacebass, shad0 and dorkmaster were key in that (though really it was everyone, including how you dealt with flamers and trolls, and using trout). After joining, varin, vpisteve, and spacebass all continued the encouraging responses.

It's an honor just to be mentioned! W00t! Thanks for the props!

Beyond this: I suggest all PMs submit to a blood test (you know, so we can screen your DNA to determine your potential for spelling errors), a drug test (so we can see how whacked-out your game will be [this is not always a bad thing, BTW]), as well as a personality profile that will be maintained by eHarmony.com. That way, we'll always know your intention, and if you're lying, your date will tell us the truth...

Seriously though... the idea of screening anything, or whatever is idiotic. I know lately I've been coming down kinda hard on stuff, and i don't mean to. I hope y'all know I'm never coming down on the person, just the idea (and I never come down on an idea without a full explanation of my reasoning too.) Ok, so back to topic: The idea of pre-game screening, a newbie forum, or any of the such, is just plain idotic. It presupposes that we (1) cannot police ourselves (2) all newbies need to be hand-held into the genre (3) that we don't have the time to properly help newbies (4) that we're egotistical megalomaniacs.

(1) I know the forums are growing seemingly exponentially, and it's difficult to get info on a casual basis. But that's the nature of things. You are free to always start your own board and do your own thing if you think you can do it better. If you wanna create some phpbb solution to the problem, present it to SpaceBass. Worst case scenario is that your idea is laughed off, and you jump from a building in shame. (Ok, so that wouldn't happen.... in public, anyway.) We (everyone, not just mods and admins of which I am not) already do a damn good job (we can always do better, but that was the case before the ARG explosion too) policing ourselves, maintaining the TOS, and informing noobs.

(2) Most newbies, like yourselves, are intelligent people, most likely over age 18, who only need a small pointer in the right direction, and would not only resent being hand-held via a noob-specific forum, but would also feel that they were being held in 2nd class position. (and if we did this, they would be right.)

(3) We DO have the time to help the noobs, all of us. That's MORE THAN HALF THE REASON THIS PLACE WORKS, PEOPLE!!! Why do you think I stayed, amongst my myriad of hyper-kinetic hobbies-du-jour? The community that took the time to slap my hand when I did wrong, and praised me when I did right, taught me that this was truly a community, not just a posting forum to be "heard". I was valued for my input from day one, even if that input was pure slop! I was told "please search" and "you may wanna check out the 10 commandments of ARG" and "here's where to find out about Vignere Ciphers" and such. I wasn't hand-held through the process, and I wasn't ignored. I was appropriately guided, and I found the rest myself. I felt honored to have people with forum status (400+ posts! Oh my!) take the time to reach out to me and say "hey, welcome. This is how we do things here." If we delegate this to a noob forum, we lose a huge aspect of respect and reality of how it felt when we first got here...

(4) It is egotistical to say that noobs deserve to go here and us l33t5 should go there. I feel no more explanation is necessary on this point. This is a place for EVERYONE with a genuine interest in ARG. 'Nuff Said.


Ok, so now that I'm done with my rant, I would AGAIN like to point out that I'm SO not slamming anyone specific here, AT ALL! I respect the fact that we're discussing this, as it is important to ensure we're truly servicing our "family" here... but I hate, detest, and outright loathe the idea of a newbie forum. I think we all are in agreement about the PM or game pre-screening thing. It's just too bureaucratic and not within the spirit of things at all, and should be cast right out.

Thank you for your time, peoples...

(Once more, DM steps away from the podium as this time, fists raised in the air, as The Who's "We're Not Gonna Take It" blares in the distance)

[Incitatus]

Wolf wrote:

Points made and taken. Incitatus--the spelling/grammar remark actually wasn't pointed at you. I've just seen WAY too many grassroots games that could have been better quality-wise had they looked at that angle.

Ok, my appologies again, took it the wrong way.
I agree, and actually saw it happening allot in PA2, thats why before I took the helm at one of my AIM aliases for the game, I installed trillian's spellchecker plugin.
So for those who played, if you saw a character type. stop. wait. then post a grammaticlly perfect line. That was me.

As phaedra says, it really shoots the realism and proffessionalism of the game in the foot.

cerulean wrote:

What we should have is an official ARG panel, the members of which would be democratically elected froods. Grassroots games would be assessed by the panel before the game launched. The game would be assessed for its likelihood of success. Factors such as overall strength of storyline, resources of the creators (personnel and finances), recruiting strategy, etc would be examined. If it was felt that the game would be extremely unlikely to succeed, the panel would point out the flaws to the game designers. Once the panel was happy, the ARG would be given an official stamp of approval which potential players could look for when choosing whether or not to play. Even without the panel's official tick, the designers could still launch the ARG if they really wanted to.

But you see, creation of such a panel publicly will not only hurt the realism of the games, dropping them down a level or two, but also introduces bias. Who's to say that a fair selection would be made? What the panel considers a poor game might actually end up as the next MC.

Plus as was previously stated by a few people, this adds unnessisary pressure on the Grassrooters, and subjucating them to a review panel, really... discourages.

Quote:

Newbies or (Noobes)

I think the formation of a newcommer section could really benifit. Coming into this world for the first time, it can easily be very confusing. I don't doubt many would want a general "What to do in case of absolute overwhelming confussion." section. I mean, I didn't even join Unfi until halfway through ILB, when I realized just what was going on here, and that this place wasn't just "The other guys working on the game".
A little clarity on ARGs and how to navigate them would improve the gameing experience for the newcommers, and hence increase the audience.
But in the Dennis Miller fashion: Thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Varin]

cerulean wrote:

What we should have is an official ARG panel, the members of which would be democratically elected froods. Grassroots games would be assessed by the panel before the game launched. ...snip... Once the panel was happy, the ARG would be given an official stamp of approval which potential players could look for when choosing whether or not to play.

Do you mean to say that the designers would *have* to submit it before launching, like a requirement? If that's what you mean, that's kinda scary

If what you meant to say was that there could be mentors available for up and coming designers if they wanted the help and advice, it wouldn't be so scary of a thought to me.

[Phaedra]

Wolf wrote:

Points made and taken. Incitatus--the spelling/grammar remark actually wasn't pointed at you. I've just seen WAY too many grassroots games that could have been better quality-wise had they looked at that angle.

Amen. Nothing screams "unprofessional" like:

"Our company can provide your's with quality life-extending product's."

Suspension of disbelief: shot to hell.

Have only had time to skim most of the above posts, unfortunately; I think this discussion is important, so perhaps we can avoid falling into the Pros and Cons of Grassroots discussion -- that's been done, and being done elsewhere, but I think the other issues being raised here are more important...?

[Wolf]

Points made and taken.

Incitatus--the spelling/grammar remark actually wasn't pointed at you. I've just seen WAY too many grassroots games that could have been better quality-wise had they looked at that angle.

[SuperJerms]

imbri wrote:

It's not grassroots games hurting it, it's people that do not properly develop their games (whether they have $$$ behind them or not) that are hurting it. ... Too many people go into this with only one strength (that of writer or that of game designer) and it shows... the games and stories are not fully fleshed out and they struggle, often to the point where they either stagnate or implode. That is bad for the genre and it isn't only grassroots games that have that difficulty. Games don't implode or stagnate just because of story or just because of game design. However, I do think that, frequently, it's because story telling and game design are not properly balanced and one suffers at the hands of the other. This is especially true when both aspects are weak but when one is far weaker than the other... the piece that's left just isn't strong enough to support both. A weak story cannot hold up a badly designed game just as a weak game cannot hold up a horrible story. ARGs need people that can make the story and they need people that can make the game. And, as Wolf pointed out, money can't do either... though I will say that it sure can help!

I gotta go with this answer (though I do want to note that I have also seen games that have had terrible stories and terrible games, but just wouldn't die). The point seems to be that inexperienced PM's with poorly thought-out ideas (in either playstyle, storyline, workflow management or execution) leads to imploding ARG's. I wholly agree.

I do dissent a bit about the notion that grassroots games can hurt the genre as much as corporate ones. Lookit...if OC wound up being the "next big ARG by 42ent" in fairly major news outlets, despite the fact that it was neither an ARG nor by 42, we could have a bigger problem on our hands than whether Bob's indie venture panned out or not. It seems to me that, while ARGs are in the adaptation phase, this is infinately more dangerous than a handful of imploding grassroots games. After the various presentations by 42ent, the webbies for ReGen and ILB, and the coming E3 ARG events, game developers are looking at ARGs for the first time. Statistically, you better believe a couple of big suckas are gonna implode. It's one thing when a 15-year-old makes a typo-ridden, neon-bright angelfire.com rabbithole that doesn't finish out. It's another thing when Majestic, Push, or Myst Online doesn't work out under major player/media scrutiny. Isn't it?

Quote:

Newbie Forum

Phaedra made an excellent point saying, I'm the type of person who usually skips the instructions. I didn't notice anyone give a compelling response. I don't know about you, but I've never read or posted in a newbie thread of any forum, ever. And I only read the "READ BEFORE POSTING" stickies half the time. And that's in forums where there aren't massive threads with 1200 word posts.

UF has an introduction section, anyway. I never saw it until six months after joining, when rowan linked to the resource section.

Another thing about newbie forums. The reason I joined UF was the intellect, respect, humor and civility everyone demonstrated while I lurked at the start of ILB. I would say that spacebass, shad0 and dorkmaster were key in that (though really it was everyone, including how you dealt with flamers and trolls, and using trout). After joining, varin, vpisteve, and spacebass all continued the encouraging responses. I particularly remember how folks responded to folks who came across as unusally forward (including a certain "leading ILB theorist from the bungie.net forums" ).

Really, I am still astounded by how respectfully folks respond to one another, even to this day. I have never seen such a community spring up from a CMC technology. I have and would gladly recommend UF as a model of exactly how to encourage an online community. I feel much more comfortable discussing religion here with Phaedra and thebruce than I do in any church (and I really do mean that). Is that very easy to carry over to a newbie forum?

[cerulean]

Re: Newbies.
It's difficult to get into an ARG if you haven't been playing it right from the start. It's even more difficult for those who have never played an ARG before (eg those who will start discovering PPC via the cards). What would be helpful would be a regularly updated walkthrough aimed at newbies. This would include how to get started as well as how to approach the puzzzles. So instead of saying "I found a hidden comment in the source, "55623912382193" which translates to the password for the stegged file", it would explain in detail how to go about how to solve each puzzle, with constant reference to other player tutorials and resources. After a week of using the guide, most people would be self-sufficient enough to fly on their own. The trail could be a couple of days behind the game so that it didn't spoil anything.

Just looking out for the little people.


Re: Grassroots games

What we should have is an official ARG panel, the members of which would be democratically elected froods. Grassroots games would be assessed by the panel before the game launched. The game would be assessed for its likelihood of success. Factors such as overall strength of storyline, resources of the creators (personnel and finances), recruiting strategy, etc would be examined. If it was felt that the game would be extremely unlikely to succeed, the panel would point out the flaws to the game designers. Once the panel was happy, the ARG would be given an official stamp of approval which potential players could look for when choosing whether or not to play. Even without the panel's official tick, the designers could still launch the ARG if they really wanted to.

[Incitatus]

Wolf, you misunderstand. I do not think ALL grassroot games are hurting the genre. Sure there have been many successes, I'm not arguing that at all. But I point to the dozens and dozens of failures, failures that have all poped up since the last major audience influx (ILB).
And I am going to have to stick to my guns on this one. Great stories do not make a great game. I think Imbri is more towards the point I was trying to make. Game development and organization, in many, not all, cases is dirrectly proportional to the amount of financial backing a game has. Sure, there have been several great stories organized well with minimal financial investment, and these games stand as true triumphs in the genre. That is not disputable. But one cannot simply ignore the fact that so many zealous people are jumping off to make their very own home-made ARG and having it consequentially flop.

That also brings forth the question: Is there a corelation to making your game great by spending more time for less money to develop the game?



(And I know I can't spell for beans, let alone when I'm typing in a rush. Since it seems to offend, I will copy/Paste to word for analysis in the future. But much appologies applied, I am running on a fresh install without Office at the moment, so if you will bear with me for this post aswell, I will begin this practice from next-posting-out. It's all good. )

[imbri]

Like Wolf, I have to disagree with the notion of grassroots games hurting the genre. It's not grassroots games hurting it, it's people that do not properly develop their games (whether they have $$$ behind them or not) that are hurting it.

Wolf wrote:

Money does not make a good story. There's nothing further from the truth than $ = !. Good writers make a good story. People who KNOW the genre make a good story. Cash is secondary.

I also think this is worth paying attention to and, in a way, distinguishing. There are good story makers and there are good game makers... it takes both of them to make a good story come to life in an ARG. You say that people who KNOW the genre make a good story, I disagree to a degree. I mean I KNOW the genre. Hell, I believe that I know the genre better than just about anyone out there. That may be ego talking, but honestly do not believe that there is anyone that knows it as well as and from as many angles as I do. Not only have I been around since the days of the beast, I've taken on a number of roles... player, player & moderator, player & guide/trail blazer, "bts", puppetmaster (both grassroots & professional, small & large), and, for the last year have not only been running games, but have been formally studying new media design & interactive narrative. I *know* this genre and I'm pretty strong in other forms of interactive narrative as well. Yet, I do not make good stories... I take good stories that others have made and help bring them to life. I know how to design an interactive experience around the story and, since I've already bragged more than a bit in this post, I'm pretty damn good at it. But make the story? I don't think that I could take credit for that.

Even in MU, where I was pretty integral in the story development, i don't believe that I could take the credit for making the story. I will, however, take the credit for helping those that made it. Space came up with the basic story idea and I filled much of it in (along with Steve) before we threw it all out for the group to add and subtract from it. It was with that structure that we designed the game platform, which is where a majority of my work came into play. The more that I fleshed out the story, with the game play in mind, the more that I did so with certain individuals in mind. As much as I LOVED Dina, the more that I put her story into the game outline, the more that I did so with Krystyn in mind. Before Krystyn had even agreed to write her, I knew that she could give her the soul that the character and game required. So, I provided just enough structure for Krystyn to run with. The same is true with you & Wongmo. Steve, I think, came up with Wongmo and I know that he wanted to and could have run with him. However, we knew that you could bring him the voice that he needed and that voice was essential to part of the game element (the comic relief, a certain degree of interaction, etc) and so much of his role in the game was created with you in mind. I could help flesh out their basic story, but I could not tell or make their story nearly as well as you guys could have. So, while I can help a writer get a character from point A to point X, Y, or Z pretty well, I can't do the writer's job and I can't make the story. Frankly, if it was just me behind a game, I think it might suck because the writing would not be there to back it up. Fortunately, we haven't had to find out.

Too many people go into this with only one strength (that of writer or that of game designer) and it shows... the games and stories are not fully fleshed out and they struggle, often to the point where they either stagnate or implode. That is bad for the genre and it isn't only grassroots games that have that difficulty.

The reason, I believe, that so many are quick to lay blame on the grassroots games is that there are just so many more of them than the professional games and, therefore, more of them to meltdown. But, certainly, there have been quite a few professional games that haven't gone to completion for whatever reason (Majestic, Terraquest, and Push are three notable examples).

Games don't implode or stagnate just because of story or just because of game design. However, I do think that, frequently, it's because story telling and game design are not properly balanced and one suffers at the hands of the other. This is especially true when both aspects are weak but when one is far weaker than the other... the piece that's left just isn't strong enough to support both. A weak story cannot hold up a badly designed game just as a weak game cannot hold up a horrible story. ARGs need people that can make the story and they need people that can make the game. And, as Wolf pointed out, money can't do either... though I will say that it sure can help!

- b

[Wolf]

Quote:

Funded ARGs, have experienced some great successes, because they have the mustard to turn a great story into a great game. and make no mistake, a great game a great story does not make. There needs to be much more invested for that transistion to take place. One of the investment-failed ARGs that comes to mind is "Majestic" And unless we have several grassrooters out there with pockets linned with burnable cash, and excellent resaources to back an awsome story... The genre is going to have to stay firmly planted in the realm of advertizing, at least for now. (snip) Of course this all comes crashing back to the original discussion of weather or not the grassroots games are diminishing the ARG audience. Of course, they are.

I'd have to take enormous exception to that.

The second SUCCESSFUL ARG (post-Beast) was Lockjaw (ours) with NO budget, NO backing and NO corporate support. Another enormously successful one was Project_MU aka Metacortechs. Another by us, no corporate sponsor, no budget. HUGE numbers. Successful.

Money does not make a good story. There's nothing further from the truth than $ = !. Good writers make a good story. People who KNOW the genre make a good story. Cash is secondary.

Saying grassroots games diminish the ones backed by a million dollar Micro$quish contract is insulting. We've already proven money doesn't equal quality. Quality equals quality.

Money is gravy. Period.

And spelling counts. So does proper punctuation. Blaming a lack of corporate backing for success--or failure--is a cop-out.

(and I, for one, didn't find ILB compelling in the slightest, even though I was one of the earliest to join up with the AI/Beast campaign)

[Incitatus]

Good points and interesting ideas all around.

Quote:

ARG's are seen as viral marketing. Now, that's not a totally bad thing...movies, radio, television and modern periodicals were all seen as advertising when they started, too. They could grow beyond that financial paradigm (though it's noteworthy that TV and print are hardly more than advertisements even today, so maybe ARGs won't move past that)

Agreed, and I resend my earlier statements, here is why:
Thinking deep and hard about the refferences you pointed out, your right.
Television and print programs which are free, and thus the most widespread and popular are all heavily latent with advertizing. That keeps it free, ergo more people enjoy it. what I personally consider the best television program on air right now, the new battle star gallactica, had high end preformances, high end plots and beautifull visual effects, none of which would be possible without companies sponcering them for advertizments, those damnable commercials that run every 12 minuetes or so. If the producers went ahead and made this a pay-per-view event, First off the financial support for the show would be minimal at first, it would all rely on the studio's own personal investments, which would diminish quality, this would lead many people to not enjoy the show once paying, and thus a poor incoming financial base completes the entire cycle. Now, as a generalization (not saying this is actually the case for this show, but generally, this can apply to most TV programs) ARGs could potentially fall into this trap, and do every time we watch a grassroots ARG build up and fall early. As a puppet master for the late (*sigh*) Project Ashcroft 2 (it was my first), I know all to well what can occur if a game fails to properly capture it's audience. In that particular game a plot, with great potential was assembled, live character interactions, packages, meetings and IM conversations all added to the machine that was PA2, but ultimatly, poor funding, lead to a decrease in interest, wich lead to failures to deliver the story effectivly, which in turn caused every sing one of the PMs to abandon the game one by one. Funded ARGs, have experienced some great successes, because they have the mustard to turn a great story into a great game. and make no mistake, a great game a great story does not make. There needs to be much more invested for that transistion to take place. One of the investment-failed ARGs that comes to mind is "Majestic" And unless we have several grassrooters out there with pockets linned with burnable cash, and excellent resaources to back an awsome story... The genre is going to have to stay firmly planted in the realm of advertizing, at least for now.

Now I do believe eventually this genre will pick up and begin to fly on it's own. Way back in August, I believe steve described the ARG best on g4techTV as "An Interactive Fiction". When we think of a fiction, typically literature comes to mind. Next would be a cinematic movie. I am positive that as the ARG audience grows, the genre will grow more and more capable of becoming the next Movie or Book in the entertainment industry.

Of course this all comes crashing back to the original discussion of weather or not the grassroots games are diminishing the ARG audience.
Of course, they are. When bob sees his first, mabey even second ARG crash and burn he is of course discouraged. if he is intelligent he might say "Well only a handfull of these are great, I have heard about Ilovebees and the beast, but I have yet to see one like that." But he is discouraged nevertheless, more so if he really attempted to get into it.
I think the best way to counter this, without discouraging grassrooters is to go ahead with the idea of a newcommer forum, for all the reasons already listed, and the sence it makes as a result.