[Flidget Jerome]

I could see this eventually turning into a trailer-type thing, though. How many trailers have you seen that were a lot more fun than their movies?

[wraith]

Varin wrote:

Ehsan wrote: and I would wish someone told me it's good BEFORE it started Why not allow these "reporters" to have access to the game before everyone else? It might ruin the whole experience for them, but reviewers don't get to enjoy things anyone because they focus on analyzing things. PM's can then choose to give access to there reporters knowing that they can trust them. The players then get a "preview" as opposed to a full Game Report. yeah, breaks the immersion...and takes all of the surprise out of it. Think about how lame it would've been if we knew ARGtalk was a setup for an ARG, none of us would have been fooled. Or what about Urban Hunt? We were surprised about that one too. Not to mention it would be a heck of a lot of work for the PMs. Could you imagine running the game twice? And this still doesn't guarantee that it would be good anyway. The ARG could still have a meltdown halfway through.

Actually for games that pre-announce this would work. Certainly the main-stream game community uses previews to good purpose. The main danger is that the game gets overhyped.

And I don't think the PMs would have to run the game twice. Some glimpses of some of the content and some limited play would probably suffice (the degree to which this was made accessable would be up to the PMs). Previewing the entire game is obviously impractical (unless its designed as a repeatable experience).

For games which choose to keep the element of surprise or discoverability the two week review should be just fine. It might be that the genre deserves a running review which gets added onto as the game progresses. I suppose you could review it earlier than that, but I would worry that its not enough time to get a good read on the game's sustainability.

[Varin]

Ehsan wrote:

If it's good, then maybe i missed the first two weeks and I don't really feel like getting into it now

But this would still greatly help the countless number of new people who stop by and don't know which ARG to jump into and want someone to help them decide which to catch up on. And who really has the time to follow every single trailhead and invest 2 weeks into it to see if it's to their liking anyway? With so many ARGs out there, many are going to make a quick judgement based on the trailhead device and the theme. If it doesn't grab people, they may not play. I know I've missed some good games that way - I didn't hear about how excellent they were until they were finished. I would love to see some thumbnail summaries up on ARGN. That way, even if I missed a great first two weeks I could quickly catch up and not miss out on the rest of the game.

Quote:

and I would wish someone told me it's good BEFORE it started Why not allow these "reporters" to have access to the game before everyone else? It might ruin the whole experience for them, but reviewers don't get to enjoy things anyone because they focus on analyzing things. PM's can then choose to give access to there reporters knowing that they can trust them. The players then get a "preview" as opposed to a full Game Report.

yeah, breaks the immersion...and takes all of the surprise out of it. Think about how lame it would've been if we knew ARGtalk was a setup for an ARG, none of us would have been fooled. Or what about Urban Hunt? We were surprised about that one too.

Not to mention it would be a heck of a lot of work for the PMs. Could you imagine running the game twice? And this still doesn't guarantee that it would be good anyway. The ARG could still have a meltdown halfway through.

[krystyn]

That's ... not very immersive.

I wish I had a better solution, though.

[Ehsan]

vpisteve wrote:

So, we've been working on something more along the lines of a Game Report, two or three weeks in, that basically is a review/thumbnail of things as they stand.

That's excellent, but the only problem I see is that it's two or three weeks into the game, so if it sucks I've already wasted 2 weeks on it and know that on my own. If it's good, then maybe i missed the first two weeks and I don't really feel like getting into it now, and I would wish somone told me it's good BEFORE it started (i.e. you read the movie review before you watch it, not 20 minutes into the movie)

Why not allow these "reporters" to have access to the game before everyone else? It might ruin the whole experience for them, but reviewers don't get to enjoy things anyone because they focuse on analyzing things.

PM's can then choose to give access to there reporters knowing that they can trust them. The players then get a "preview" as opposed to a full Game Report.

[Fi]

Abbot, props to you. You clearly had a good concept for a game that you were able to implement well, albeit to a very limited extent But you were mature enough to handle its implosion well, to make the effort to post here and to take criticism like an adult, instead of a precious little child, as so many of the 'PMs' these days seem to be.

And now can we please unsticky and lock this thread? Do we /really/ need another thread that's just going to end up in sniping and whining and bitching? Given that the author is no longer going to reply, surely this matter is dead.

[Lewis the Second]

Excuse me?

[colin]

Lewis the Second wrote:

Forget I said anything. I jumped in too quickly based only on what I've seen a couple of times.

rofl that seems to be the problem....

[wraith]

Imbri's first post seems to have largely summed it up for me, but I'll throw in my own two-bits anyway.

First off, despite all he did wrong, Bobby deserves a lot of credit for having quickly learned one of the most important tenets of game development -- YOU ALWAYS SHOOT YOUR OWN HORSE. And you don't let it suffer very long. I can't tell you how many millions upon millions of dollars have gone down the drain because no one on a project will own up to a lame horse. Even though you might end up pissing some people off, I can assure you that no one is going to thank you for spending an extra $10 million bucks (frequently more) because you didn't have the courage to eat the million you've already spent and admit your project needs to be put out of its misery.

As to catastrophic ARG failures: Its going to happen a lot. A whole lot. You can try attacking it by jumping all over the ones that fail, but its kind of like railing against the wind. Look at all the MUDs and MOOs that started up and failed quickly (and this was long before MMOs became big). Even professional efforts in any given field or genre fail with great regularity and amateur efforts are even more prone to melt-down. This is not to denigrate amateur efforts, you only have to look at the vibrant game modding community to know that some of the best creative work is done by non-professionals. And of course some of the best ARGs to date have been grass roots efforts. But almost any endeavor that attracts large numbers of people is going to generate large numbers of failures. It's just the nature of the beast (and of people). And if the past is any judge, your best efforts aren't going to hold back the flood waters.

This is not to say that you shouldn't do anything about it. You SHOULD point out the failures, bad practices, and bad actors. But the better part of your energies would be better spent in calling out successes, facilitating future success and putting the best foot forward. Some of this is already being done by the community. Most of the ARG sites have sections on PMing and best practices. But try finding a review. Although there ARE reviews out there, they're not easy to find. A quick perusal of the main ARG sites shows very few that have a prominent or separate link to a "Review" section on the main page (vpisteve's idea of game reports/thumb-nail-reviews is a nice step in this direction). Neither are there links to any "best of" sections in any of the sites. I note that we now have an ARG museum, which is cool (although it doesn't seem to start until 2003, grouch, grouch), but no Hall of Fame (or Shame) to call out the exceptional. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitching at the wonderful, tireless folks that put these sites together on their own time and expense (several of whom deserve to be in an ARG Hall of Fame). I'm just saying that there's plenty more that can be done to promote the genre and show it in the best light.

I also think that new players, marketers, and the press often have a hard time getting into and understanding the games (or however you want to define them). Some sites have excellent introductory sections, but I don't remember any press or marketing kits or links (though I might have missed them -- which, come to think of it, reinforces the point). And when you get down to the level of individual ARGs things can get pretty intimidating. Again, I can't fault the people who put together the trails and wikipedias, these people are in a large part responsible for the success of ARGs, but even so, coming in cold on one of these can be an overwhelming experience. Too often there is no simple, engaging summary of what the game is about and what has gone before, and to be perfectly honest I don't think this is the responsibility of the trail writers (although some do it). I think the PMs need to step up to the plate (as some of them have) and provide a top line intro and story/progress summary to their games. This doesn't need to take you out of the game, it can be provided by in-game characters and sites without breaking the fourth wall. For one thing its just good design as it becomes a strong reward and situational awareness mechanism for the players.

And last but not least: Passion. I see a lot of it. Frequently the folks that seem the most upset or uptight about this subject are also the ones that seem to have a great deal of passion for the genre and its future. And that's a good thing. But I guarantee you that if you're this uptight about it now, you'll be ten times more uptight about it next year. Focus on what can be done to promote ARGs long term, we have yet to go through any number of cycles of boom and bust, before we even get to the point of being a large and successful genre. So as others have said before me. Don't curse, light a candle. Well OK you can still curse, but then you have to light two candles...

[Mozzie]

Bobby, Spacibo bolshoe! I appreciate the explanation of what happened to your game. It looked really interesting, and I am truly sorry you won't be able to continue. Hope you can move on and do some more good work. As my old professor always used to say: "Uzhin bez celyodka ne uzhin!" Rough translation for those who don't do Russian: "You can't make a decent dinner without skinning a few herrings first...."

[Varin]

vpisteve wrote:

So, we've been working on something more along the lines of a Game Report, two or three weeks in, that basically is a review/thumbnail of things as they stand.

Wow, ask and you shall receive. I'm looking forward to it!

[vpisteve]

Varin wrote:

Is there not a venue that they feel they can speak up ? Are they scared of being flamed? Do they not care if more players participate? I wish there was some sort of snapshot of games available somewhere. We have reviews after the games are finished, but nothing that could help us look at the ARGs currently playing. It's near impossible for anyone to be able to follow and review every single game, but some of the active players could probably easily do it for the one game they are playing. I think it would be really nice if we could have a 2-week review or something. Anything so that people could take a quick look and know what the games are about.

We've been trying to address this very problem (at ARGN). Reviews serve the purpose of helping someone decide if a film, book, etc. is worth investing their time/money in, so they don't really serve a good purpose as far as an ARG goes, since if it's over, it's gone. That's really the point of a review, I think, above just giving the reviewer a platform to state their opinion, which while interesting doesn't really serve a useful purpose beyond that.

So, we've been working on something more along the lines of a Game Report, two or three weeks in, that basically is a review/thumbnail of things as they stand. We haven't implemented this quite yet, but that's the plan. And in that vein, if there are any of you out there playing what you think is a great game, feel free to submit a Game Report as a guest writer.

[Varin]

addlepated wrote:

And in the meantime I'm likely to miss out on some fantastic experiences and less likely ever to be fully immersed in a game simply because I am too gunshy to let myself be.

For me - gunshy and too busy. There's no possible way to follow every launch and invest oneself long enough to decide which game will not simply survive, but also be interesting, immersive and clever. You would think that if a game was really turning out to be enjoyable and a "fantastic experience", that the players of the ARG would speak up loudly. Unfortunately I don't see much of that. The PMs can't obviously come out and say "Hey everybody look what we're doing! You're missing out!". So the question is, why don't more players do that? I see any occasional "ARG X is great. Who's playing it?" in chat, but nothing more substantial than that.

Is there not a venue that they feel they can speak up ? Are they scared of being flamed? Do they not care if more players participate? I wish there was some sort of snapshot of games available somewhere. We have reviews after the games are finished, but nothing that could help us look at the ARGs currently playing. It's near impossible for anyone to be able to follow and review every single game, but some of the active players could probably easily do it for the one game they are playing. I think it would be really nice if we could have a 2-week review or something. Anything so that people could take a quick look and know what the games are about.

[addlepated]

imbri wrote:

It hurts because it causes every potential player and every potential investor to question the validity of the next game they see.

Amen. I got excited. Hell, I even registered the chat room, which I don't think I've ever done as a player. 24 hours later, there's a message saying the game's been pulled. I am just so damned tired of trying to immerse myself into a game and running headlong into a brick wall of PM unpreparedness or shoddy workmanship (and now I'm not talking solely about Gypsysoft, so I hope you don't take what I am saying as personally as you took others' comments).

You can better believe that I have become jaded, and next time a trailhead is discovered in whatever manner I will detach myself from getting involved until the game has proven itself. I don't care whether anyone thinks that's fair to THEM. It was not fair to ME to dangle so many carrots before my eyes and then snatch them away with no reward. And in the meantime I'm likely to miss out on some fantastic experiences and less likely ever to be fully immersed in a game simply because I am too gunshy to let myself be.

[Lewis the Second]

Forget I said anything. I jumped in too quickly based only on what I've seen a couple of times.