Talk:Alternate reality game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
VG To-do: edit  Peer review: Video game, Crash of the Titans, Xbox Live Arcade, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, Metal Gear Solid, Shigeru Miyamoto, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess‎, Myst III: Exile, Blade Runner, Zanac, Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game) Cleanup: List of characters from The King of Fighters, Hellgate: London, LeChuck, Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon, Lost Odyssey (plot), Destroy All Humans! Big Willy Unleashed Featured article candidates: List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (FLC), Halo (series), List of Sega 32X games (FLC), Alleyway, List of WWE SmackDown video game titles (FLC) Good article nominations: Ayu Tsukimiya, Music of the Final Fantasy Tactics series, Super Smash Bros., Music of Final Fantasy XI, Day of Defeat: Source, WWE SmackDown (video game series) Article status review: GA Review – None; FA Review – The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, 3D Monster Maze; FT Review – Final Fantasy titles Articles for Deletion: Participate in video game related deletion discussions. Images: Add box-art and screenshots to articles. Make sure to include a valid non-free use rationale. Monitor the following related changes pages: changes to WP:VG and changes to this to-do list. Announce your new articles Sign up for the new VG Newsletter.

This article is within the scope of the Alternate Reality Gaming Wikiproject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of alternate reality games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Alternate reality game has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] the beast

-puts foot in mouth-

[edit] IMHO

I think that ARG is not a gaming genre but a concept where they are paradigms not strict rules. It's the same to say "a violent game", where usually show blood but still you can find violent games without a drop of blood.

In general ARG means multi-media gaming experience , such online gaming, webpage and real cellphone calls but in general ARG trend to inmerse the players in the game. In the case of pacman if you are addict, then most likely you will considered that pacman is a ARG.

[edit] Apiary vs. I Love Bees Name

I'd recommend adding a parenthetical reference to "I Love Bees" after "The Apiary," since I have heard almost no one refer to it as the Apiary but I've heard tons of references to the game as "I Love Bees" by people in the games community, including its authors.

Actually, my preference would be to change the principal reference to "I Love Bees" and make "The Apiary" secondary, but if that is in fact its correct name (dunno the answer) perhaps it's the equivalent to referring to a fish as "Cichlasoma Managuensa (Lake Managua Cichlid)" Coll7

Changed to I Love Bees (also known as The Apiary). Alphabeter 23, April 2006 23:46 (UTC)

Ok, added some info on it here. Will make a larger article on the Halo 2 page. Ghost Freeman 19:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Reality Game

Shouldn't the title of this page be 'Alternative reality game'?

• Uh, the more common name is just Alternate Reality Game. "Alternative" was sort of a mis-quote of the original name. It's also been called Immersive Gaming, and many other names too. --Quadraxis 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I make a redirect link for those seeking alternative reality game. It points here. Alphabeter 23, April 2006 23:46 (UTC)

• No. It's a universally accepted term for this genre of gaming and has gained worldwide recognition as such. Alternative is not correct, Alternate is. --argjamesi

[edit] Neurocam

I think Neurocam [1] is relevant to this genre of gaming, but I'm not sure where it could fit into the current article. Cnwb 03:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Xbox ARG?

from Gamespot News --> [2]

[edit] Alternate Reality?

This is the first time I have heard this term and frankly, it does not make sense to me. The whole idea behind these games is to make it as far from an "alternate reality" as possible. The idea is that these games are YOUR reality. The REAL reality. How did this term come about and what was the reasoning behind it?

Terminology for a genre normally isn't chosen. It chooses you. Wikipedia as a tool is to define the already widely recognized term.

Yes, it does seem a bit odd if you look at it in that way. However, historically the idea is not that the games are YOUR reality but that they invade YOUR world.

If I remember correctly, the name was formed in the Jawbreakers IRC channel sometime in the spring of 2002 (the Jawbreakers were the group that formed to play Lockjaw). At that point, players tended to look at the Beast and, to a lesser extent, Majestic as defining games of the genre. Both games were highly unrealistic and yet they invaded your reality. One could say that they had you look at your reality in an alternate light.

Frankly, I look at a number of other games in any other genre and feel that they are presenting things as "your reality". Let's take PacMan for example, for no reason other than it being such a classic arcade game. When you are playing PacMan, you are in the game as PacMan. Your reality, when you are playing it, is a maze filled with little dots that you have to run around in while avoiding the ghosts that chase you. Alternate Reality Games don't do this. They present an entire world and allow you to explore it as yourself, not as an avatar or as a sort of character. You are looking at an Alternate Reality, one that is so closely realate to our reality that it is able to intersect it. However, it is not real and it is not reality. It is an alternate reality.

Besides, it's a great acronym... Arrghhh! This ARG is driving me insane!

• As stated in This is Not a Game: A Guide to Alternate Reality Gaming by Dave Szulborski, all of the names for ARGs don't totally fit...which is probably why there are so many names! --Quadraxis 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Examples of ARGs"

I suggest combining the info from the Examples of ARGs section to the History section, as it's basically the same thing. Also, if it is combined, please note that ilovebees is no longer playing. --216.209.140.8 01:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• i believe this was my comment before i made a login. Just so you know. --Quadraxis 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia Game

The Nokia Game was a very popular pan-European ARG that took place once a year between 1999 and 2003, if my memory serves me correctly. There is certainly enough information about it to warrant a new article in Wikipedia. Does anyone else remember this or have anything to contribute? --PkerUNO 04:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ARG Books?

Would it not be fair to say that a precurser to the ARG is the treasure-hunt/puzzle books like the one in the 80s where there was a golden horse ... Treasure was its name, but there were others. Scix 06:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bar code games

What about those early 90s games where you had to find barcodes for robots or something that you could use to battle. It was encouraged to find better robots by scanning barcodes of products you could buy in a grocery store, I think the plot even had to do something with evil aliens hidden in barcodes (thus making this game one of these "alternate" reality games).

You simply scanned the barcode with the hand-held game and it then displayed stats for the robot, extracted from the barcode. Then I think it was just like a Pokemon battle. I know this was fairly popular because I have seen at least two kinds of clones besides the original.

This does not count since ARG only applies to games that have a storyline that the player needs to complete within a gameworld using many diffrent functions including live events. It sounds like what you are describing is just a game.--Chalutz 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARG gone bad?

Did any ARG ever "go bad" because of a player who committed a crime, unaware that everything was part of a game? For example, someone actually damaging a server that was supposed to contain clues for the game, or even someone killing an actor who played a "bad guy" in the game? Devil Master, 28 Feb 2006, 21:20 (MET)

• Uh, not that i know of. I kinda doubt it. Most Puppet Masters who do big real-life things have security around. I think that some Puppet Masters from GMD studios and Haxan said some stuff about how for The Art of the Heist they made sure that security was combined into every aspect of every real life event. For example they had a real life event where some characters met with some players on a boat in Chicago, i think it was, and they had security people below decks, on the dock, etc. Hidden from the players. Plus, i don't think ARG players would be that crazy ;) --Quadraxis 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying up this page

I'm going to let the people over at Unfiction know about this page and how it needs clean up (Unfiction is one of the biggest ARG sites/message boards out there), next time i remember. Maybe that'll help fix things up? --Quadraxis 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been tagged for clean-up by Wikipedia. I am in the process of reviewing and verifying all the information on here. I will be rewriting and adding information as needed. If anyone has anything else they would like to see on here, drop a line on my desk. --Alphabeter 23, April 2006 23:46 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

• I have asked for a move back to Alternate reality game, from Alternative reality game. Argjamesi 03:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Alternate reality game is a more widely accepted term for the genre, especially in academic circles. Alternative, while it has a similar meaning, is simply not the correct terminology. -Jal 13:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur. Alternative reality game means something different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The move was successfully completed on May 20, 2006. Argjamesi 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the move the term know by those that play the game is Alternative Reality Game not Alternate Reality Game redirect if you would like but don't move it.
      • No, the term used by those who actually play and create the games, as seen on ARGNet (the leading news source for the genre), Unfiction (the primary community hub for the genre), headlines for the press page for 42 entertainment (the oldest and most well-known ARG company), Jane McGonigal's writing (probably the leading academic writing about the genre), etc. is "alternate" not "alternative."

[edit] Slashdotted May 29, 2006

I have marked the article with the "high-traffic" template to warn that it may potentially be slashdotted or unusual vandalism (or usual vandalism, as appropriate (or inappropriate)) as a result of it appearing on the front page of the May 29, 2006 issue of Slashdot. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 16:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eon8

www.eon8.com--CountCrazy007 21:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• As Eon8 has not yet been determined to be an ARG -- or anything other than a countdown -- I don't think it should be in the ARG entry. --Phaedra

[edit] Massive Rewrite in the works

I'm attempting a massive rewrite of this article and have set up a workspace for that purpose.

I will be using the MMORPG page as an example and will take the bulleted history list and create subheadings following the development of the genre - focusing on a few key games that exemplify those periods in the genre history.

I'm also going to clean up the additional resources. This should not be an area for people to promote themselves and their projects but, instead, provide resources to learn more about the genre. Honestly, 43Quests? - it may be an interesting project but it's a) not an ARG and b) has 3 participants - certainly not notable at this point.

If there are any suggestions or other concerns, please make them known. And if you want to help, please do! Lots of writing and if we all do a bit, it'll go much faster. Imbri 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• As you've probably noticed, a number of changes have already been incorporated. The big chunk left is the "History" section which, right now, exists in the article as an overwhelming bulleted list of games with no real context. That list has been broken up into sections (Before ARG, Early Commercial Games, Grassroots Development, Experiments in Extending Reality, Promotional Games, and The Search for a Business Model) which follows the timeline pretty well. I've yet to finish writing all the sections and it would be awkward to bring them in one at a time. If you would like to help, please check out the workspace to see what has already been done. -Imbri 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• There's some fairly obvious similarity with viral marketing concepts, such as the websites associated with Doctor Who. The same pattern of a group of fake, interlinked, internally consistent websites, at least. Maybe something of a disputable land on the borders, but is such worth a mention?

• • The biggest issue is that so many people get confused between viral marketing and ARG. Viral marketing I see more as of a something thrown out there with no immersive story backing it while an ARG is much more organized by a team that interacts with its player to further a story and sometimes change original outcomes based on participation --Chalutz 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Rewrite

I reworked the intro, because it was sort of clunky and confusing. Honestly, surrealism!? Phaedra777 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the link to "simulated reality." The purpose of ARGs generally is not to create a computer environment indistiguishable from reality. Phaedra777 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworked chronology; expanded section on the Beast

I reworked the chronology headings in the history section as the current headings really didn't reflect the shape of development.

As it stood, the section on the Beast was roughly the same length as the section on Ny Takma. It is possible, perhaps, to overstate the importance of the Beast, but I don't think it's an overstatement to say that it 1) launched the genre as a genre -- i.e. there may have been ARGs before the Beast, but their players did not go out and attempt to make their own versions the way various Cloudmakers did, and they did not result in the creation of communities that are still active, and 2) exerted a traceable design influence on many (perhaps even most) of the efforts that came after it.

The Beast marked a pivotal moment in the development of the genre. No other game has had a comparable influence. Ergo, I think it deserves its own section in the chronology.

Similarly, "Modern ARGs, 2000-2005" seems an arbitrary chronological division that does not accurately reflect the actual chronology of the form's development. I've divided it into more descriptive and discrete subsections (some of which overlap). If, ten years from now, ARG development from 2002-2007 all appears of a piece, I'm sure they'll fix it.  :-) Phaedra777 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Rewrite Stage 1 Accomplished

As you'll probably notice, if you've been watching the rewrite process, the article is in quite a different format from what it used to be. In rewriting the "history" section, I felt it was far more important to mention games that had made a noticeable impact on the genre and describe what that impact was than it was to describe their plot. People who come here looking for basic information about what ARGs are and how they developed are probably not going to be interested in a plot rundown of every game out there. They're going to be interested in why particular games mattered. I started out by attempting to incorporate the chronological bullet points into a more narrative structure, but a purely chronological structure makes for difficult-to-conceptualize history: it doesn't highlight trends and evolution. So I reworked the history section to highlight development trends rather than simply describe games in the order they were launched (which, I think, also encourages spammers). For the Sections on Grassroots and Community Development, I incorporated Imbri's work from her rewrite workspace, but condensed the language slightly.

In rewriting the history and describing what particular games had done that was noteworthy, I realized I was duplicating a lot of what was in the "Concepts" and "Current Trends" section, so I incorporated that into "Defining ARG" and the History sections. I believe having a "Current Trends" section invites spamming about games before it can be determined whether what they're doing is actually a trend.

I also realized that I'd already described much of the content of the "concepts" section in the "Defining ARGs" intro and the history sections, so I incorporated most of what I hadn't already used and got rid of that section.

Obviously, there's still quite a bit of work to be done. The article needs to be checked by people other than me for factual errors and omissions, it needs to be more fully supported with citations, and links to other Wikipedia articles need to be added where appropriate. A good place to coordinate is probably the ARG Wikiproject Phaedra777 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• wow. Nice job! This is a massive improvement! Imbri 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

This was getting to be absolutely ridiculous and turning into a promotional tool. And was very much against wikipedia's external link policy. I have removed any link solely to a game or developer site as anything notable is included somewhere within the article. I also removed duplicate links to Dave's books, not that I want to deny him the sale, but a) the books are mentioned earlier in the article, b) they were links to Dave's site and not using the recommended ISBN format, c) it is a link to something that needs to be purchased and not a link to one of the online resources. I then combined the various sections of links into one section, though keeping them sorted under subheadings.

Based on the history of this being used as a link repository, I have added a comment to the sections pointing out that all links need to be discussed on the talk page before being added. So, if you see that something is missing that should be listed, please state your case here. - Imbri 12:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a section on something called TorGames. Although we are still cleaning up the article in Imbri's workspace, I thought it's better to make things clear here and deal with current issues as they come up. This is not a place to promote your games. We're sorry, but ARG's have a very clear definition and we have now established that in section 1 (ARG Concepts). There have been endless debates about what constitutes an ARG, but now it is time to stop calling every innovative media combining reality bending experience an ARG. No more external links without discussing them in the talk page, please. Kooheji 05:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TorGame's Waking City is indeed an ARG and the ARG community agrees (http://www.argn.com/archive/000433toronto_wakes_up_to_alternate_reality_gaming.php). I have more references if you need them. TorGame also has Tony Walsh involved as a puzzle designer, has been contacted by Perplex City and visited by one of their puzzle designers and has a team playing from Xenophile media (the folks behind the ARG regenesis). I've put back the reference to TorGame but removed links to the developer site directly to abide by your rules, even though it seems a bit weird to prevent people from going to the page which gives them info about the project. I hope you will change your mind about that. --Katerg 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ps it's called "waking city" not "torgames" - TorGame is the collective behind the game called "waking city" - if you didn't even bother to find out what its called, how can you know if its even an ARG or not?:p --Katerg 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's as may be, but whatever it is, it didn't need an entry longer than that for the Beast and ILB put together, as so far it's neither genre-defining, nor outstanding for the amount of media and player attention it's received. The entry on it doesn't need descriptions of the cost or the number of people playing -- most of the other game descriptions don't have them -- and to include them makes it read like an advertisement for the game. I've reduced it to the first sentence, which I think adequately sums up the nature of the game. --Phaedra

--

Sorry, that edit was mine, but I forgot to note it. Removed the parenthetical statement as it conflicts with the reference - he refers to it as a puzzle hunt and it sounds much more along the lines of a midnight madness sort of game than an ARG which contains a strong narrative element and collaborative game play. Also, reincluded the link to the TorGame site about the game as there is not a seperate website for the game. The statement above was made from a previous edit where I removed about 15-20 links to developer sites at the bottom of the page that were duplicates, as I state, of links elsewhere in the article. Removed the links to resources chronicalling the game play as they can be found on the torgames site and none of the other games in the section contain links to the various player experience sites. There is no real reason, that I can see, for Waking Games to have a larger section and more detail than seminal projects such as The Beast, I Love Bees, Perplex City, etc.

(I assume that the person above referred to it as TorGames because at one point in the blurb you refer to the TorGames project. I am not sure if I should have corrected that, but if you made that in error, you may want to change it.)

As a note, the reason for the heavy-handed link policy is both to fit within Wikipedia's policies (applicable sections below) and to monitor the blatant problem of self-promotion that was rendering this article worthless. As an ARG Developer, I would think that you would agree that this should be made as useful for those interested in the genre as possible.

Links normally to be avoided:

1. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. You are listed as a contributor to the project on the about us page
2. Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. Admittedly, a judgement call. But as the game has just begun and is in play, it does appear to be promotional since a contributor to the project added it-- Imbri 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I'm sorry, but TorGame is hardly the first ARG to "really focus on the goal of building community." That's been a major concern of ARG designers since the Beast. Edited second paragraph about live events to more accurately reflect the scope of the usage in current ARGs. Phaedra777

okay - thanks for enlightening me:) --Katerg 20:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're not taking the hint I've been trying to convey to you with some delicacy, so I'll say it straight out: PLEASE stop using Wikipedia to promote your game. This sort of abuse is what makes it difficult to keep Wikipedia an objective, reliable resource. It is highly inappropriate for you, as one of the game's creators, to be opining on your game in this article. It's highly inappropriate for you to be editing the sections about your game at all; in my opinion, although factual corrections could be justified. Phaedra777 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm not one of the creators - just helping them out i understand your perspective about wikipedia but i believe in the idea that wikipedia's editing by many and the power of many eyeballs will result in the removal or fixing of anything that is not appropriate. i think that process has proven itself well here. i did not mean to be excessively promotional - i just wanted to include as much info as possible as this is wikipedia. i appreciate and respect your edits and i hope you are also happy with what is there now. --Katerg 03:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry -- for some reason I thought you were involved with the game BTS. All right, sorry to be so vehement, then. :-) But the same still holds -- facts, rather than opinions, are what's needed at this point, and any opining on what was notable or well-done or unusual about the game is best left to hindsight. Thanks. Phaedra777 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there were a lot of things going on here. Why was the link to the German News and Info Site ARGReporter deleted? It's a news and info Site about ARGs. It's not only a blog. It's there to spread the word of ARGs to the German speaking community. Best regards and thanks for your answers, Patrick.--PMoeller 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spelling/grammar corrects.

a few minor errors. ran a quick spelling/grammar check. Kelceyjf 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Not A Game

"The result is a design philosophy that leads to a game that does not know that it is a game - everything within the game world believes itself to be true - it is not a game." Does this really make sense? I don't think other games themselves know that they are games. 85.178.30.190 01:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Essentially, what this means is that the characters in the game don't know that they are in a game. When they talk to a player, they "think" that what is happening to them is real, and they act as if their world is real! But yes, perhaps this could be re-worded better. --Quadraxis 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• "This is not a game" is only a motto, not a real fact. Where a player don't known what's real and what isn't then this trend to a real crime path, where the puppetmaster can force to some player to kill themself or do some illegal acts. Or also can represent a psychosis where a player can believed that a fictional success/subjet is real, for example playing the game GTA3, some kids can mix the reality with the fantasy.

[edit] List of ARGs

A lot of work has been put into this article over the last few weeks and months, and it's looking much better than before. May i suggest, though, that a List of ARGs page is created, so that we can completely remove the lists of ARGs from this page? It wouldn't need to include all ARGs, just the fairly prominent ones. --Quadraxis 04:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with a "List of ARGs", i.e. a simple list of ARG names, with an optional external link (rabbithole, trail, or other prominent resource). But what we have now is not a List, but more a "Summary of Past ARGs", and is not necessary to explain what an ARG is. The summaries should have a separate page, the list (if necessary) should be part of the references on this page. This will also relieve bloat on this page, since folks seem insistent on spamming their games, better it be on a separate page than here. Willcb 18:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my first post on wikipedia, so apologies if I do something wrong. I just noticed that all mention of szlamp.com has been deleted both from the list of ARGs and the main body of the article. I presume that this is because the references to it appeared to be promoting the site. However, I wanted to confirm what the reason was, since the previous text claimed that this ARG was not there to make a profit in any way and from the old version of the article it appeared to be one of the more important ARGs. Especially given that this game asks players for details, I'm now a little worried that there is some malicious intent behind szlamp.com perhaps involving selling or otherwise using players' personal info and that's why it has been removed from this page. If anyone can give me any ideas it'd be much appreciated. 82.38.162.151 02:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As i understand it, szlamp.com is not malicious (as far as i've been able to tell), but it is not an ARG. It is more along the lines of a Web Trail. See here for more info --216.209.112.136 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merger

I've proposed a merger with this article and Puppet Master (gaming). Basically, the page only contained one sentence on what a Puppet Master is and a brief history of the beginning of ARG gaming. I really couldn't think of much that could be added to the article that wasn't already here. -AtionSong 01:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This merger would not be the best course of action - there are puppet masters for many kinds of play and performance that aren't alternate reality games. (Think here: big games, pervasive games, urban superhero games, and so on.) I think working on the puppet master entry is a good idea, though.

[edit] Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Imbri, Phaedra777, Argjamesi, and ALL the other members of the ARG community that have contributed to this article. Yeah, there's still work to be done, but you guys are doing a great job so far! Wohoo! Quadraxis 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New one for NBC's Heroes

Looks like there may be a new game unfolding for NBC's Heroes. Last night's episode had a website on a business card and if you call the number there's an employment code. Plus the show's website blogs and graphic novels say you should examine them for hints. I think it's not necessarily up to me to add it to the article page, but just to bring it up for consideration. I'm not affiliated with them...I just watch the show.  :) Cld883 01:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)CLD883

[edit] Wikiproject

I've been thinking that due to the lack of quality in most ARG related articles and the increasing interest in the topic, it may be useful to create an Alternate Reality Game WikiProject to a) improve the content in the mostly lacking articles that have already been written and b) create articles on other prominent games without current articles. Does anybody else think so? -AtionSong 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that sounds like a great idea and would certainly help with it when time permits. Imbri 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ORGs???

Okay, I saw that the Online Reality Game article was voted to merge with this (a while ago), but, honestly, these are completely different things. In fact, the person who voted to merge the articles here only did so because they had similar names. These do not constitute alternate reality games because they do not exist in an alternate reality. Also, I see no articles that link to "Online Reality Games", so I see no reason to even keep this section. What do other people think? -AtionSong 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Game spam. Gone. Phaedra777 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that if it were voted to merge with "Alternate Reality Games," then there should be at least some mention of Online Reality Games, because when people would "Online Reality Games" into the browser and get linked to that page, they'd expect to see at least a mention of ORG's. It definitely should be kept, even if it's just a mention.

Well, I diagree. There was only one person who said this should be merged with alternate reality games, based only on the fact that the names sounded the same. Also, there was no concensus of the discussion to delete at all, so it really was not voted to merge. MLA did this independantly of the discussion. Secondly, there are no articles that link to "Online Reality Games", so there is not going to be a broken link if we take it out. Thirdly, Online Reality Games are not alternate reality games, so merging them together in the same article does not make sense. If you would like to keep the ORG article on Wikipedia, I would recommend linking relevant articles to the ORG article, then reverting it back to when it had content. -AtionSong 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about contents

Does wikipedia have a rule about rumors? I would delete the part of Year Zero (rumored to have been created by 42) and the observation that the puzzle cards are not enough to fund Perplex City. I think that mentioning the financing by other sources is factual, but we don't have access to the numbers,as I think the article mentions.

Also, is there going to be an additional section about academic research into ARGs along with some of the ideas of how ARGs (or principles of ARGs) can be used in other contexts?

Rose-ionarg 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia has a rule about rumors, so long as they're clearly identified as such. Frankly, however, I'd remove Year Zero (as I would MHC) entirely until it can be retrospectively determined to have been somehow influential or significant in the development of ARGs (I'm iffy on Vanishing Point, but it probably deserves a mention just for the scale of both the live events and the prizes), but so far we're only barely into 2007 and I'd suggest leaving it in until we have more actual content for recent developments. However, hasn't it been confirmed that it actually is 42, now? If so, it should be correctly attributed -- the same goes for MHC if it has been confirmed as a Dave S. production. If and when they're proven to be more significant, or more significant developments take place with other ARGs, we can either replace them or alter their descriptions accordingly.

Regarding PXC, my concerns are as follows:

• The section is about the search for a self-funded ARG model, which I think we can all agree (can we not?) is a significant trend in ARGs at the moment.
• PXC's attempt at self-funding is the puzzle cards.
• We don't have enough information to tell whether it's been successful.
• Since the focus is the search for self-funded models, and as yet, as far as we know no successful model has yet been found, however the discussion of PXC's funding is handled, it shouldn't suggest that its model has been successful until we know that.

So, if you can come up with better wording (maybe describing it as an attempt at "partial self-funding" and mentioning the venture capital? As there has been plenty of press coverage of the venture capital, I think it's fairly safe to describe that as factual (did I cite that? If I didn't and someone wants to, that'd be great)) please do. :-) Phaedra777 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 42 heavy?

I know a ton of work went into this improved version of the article. In reading it though it seems to me that any game or work done by 42 gets a more complete description than other games. I haven't measured it, but it jumps out at me on the page. How much detail should be given about each game? Is there an editing policy on this? Rose-ionarg 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the high coverage of 42 games is mostly because 42 develops high-profile games that lots of people play and get recognized more in the media. I don't think that this is intentional, but I do validate your point. -AtionSong 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Short answer -- well, it is intentional, to a point. More about the process of rewriting the article below. Games that get recognized more in the media are games that bring more people to the community and have a greater influence over the development of the games that follow them. It doesn't make sense to try to mention every game equally -- that gives an inaccurate view of the genre's development. Games that have greater influence get more discussion. In an article on the history of classical music, Bach gets a lot more air time than Penderecki.Phaedra777 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I knew this was going to crop up sooner or later. Short answer, demonstrably untrue: neither Hex168 nor MSN Search, both 42 productions, get mentioned at all. Vanishing Point and Year Zero are there mainly to fill out the recent developments section, and get no more complete description (1-2 sentences) than any other game in the article. Last Call Poker gets 2 sentences, also comparable with other games in the article. ILB, as it influenced later games, brought people into the community, and gained ARGs more mainstream attention than other games, gets a longer description, as does PXC which meets the same criteria for having greater influence.

So, I think it's pretty safe to say that the article isn't "42-heavy." What it is is Beast-heavy. The reasons for that are described below.

Long, detailed answer:

Well, if we're going to talk about the development of the genre, we have to talk about the Beast. Describing the importance of the Beast seemed impossible without laying out the design principles it pioneered. Those design principles, as a body, are still standard for ARGs, whether or not individual principles are used in particular games. So, originally I had a section on what the Beast did that was groundbreaking, and a section on basic principles common to most ARGs. But they were almost identical. So then I went with a more chronologically-focused format, trying to introduce principles and trends (such as self-supporting ARGs) as they came up in the history (but I avoided a straight chronological format because I think that encourages the sort of game spam/attempts to mention every game that has ever run). That meant combining them the basic principles and the Beast. (And considering that most of the early games to which we owe the existence of a 'genre' were conscious attempts to make a Beast-like game (and that "Beasting" was an early term for ARGing) I think the article would have to be a lot more Beast-centered to run the risk of overstating the Beast's importance.

So, yes, the Beast in particular is described in more detail than any other game. But I think that's fully justified, as it defined and continues to largely define the way we perceive ARGs.

Beyond the Beast, I tried wherever possible to stick with what people had already written about various games, condensing where possible to even out the coverage (TorGame, in the original article, for example, had a longer description than ILB, which doesn't seem appropriate considering their respective influence over the genre).

Along those lines, I also attempted to point up the games that have been most influential. I define influential games as those that are consciously emulated by other games, that bring large numbers of people to the community, and/or that get a great deal of mainstream notice. I mean, being innovative is cool, but is it really important for a general overview of the genre unless it shaped the genre as a whole? Leibniz essentially invented the computer back in the 1600s, but no one caught on until the 20th century, so if you find him mentioned at all in descriptions of the history of computers, it's as a historical curiosity, not as an influence. You're not influential unless people follow what you've done.

So, of the games that are most consciously emulated or inspire others to attempt to make games, has any game other than the Beast inspired as many attempts to emulate it as ILB? PXC may be getting closer now, but the vast majority of people who are attempting to make grassroots games learned about ARGs either through the Beast or ILB. As far as bringing in new community members, again, ILB and PXC seem to have brought in the greatest number of new players. As far as getting mainstream press, the leader there at this point (from my press-archiving attempts for IonARG) seems to be PXC perhaps by a hair over ILB (and much of that is because of the $7 million in venture capital they received). Other games just don't even begin to come close to the amount of press those two received.

So, by those criteria, other than the Beast, ILB and PXC should be described in greater detail than other games.

• • The description of ILB is 5 sentences.
  • The description of PXC is 8 sentences.

By the standards of creating and holding together a community, I think Lockjaw in particular, and Exocog, Dave S.'s early Majestic spinoffs, and Metacortechs collectively, are also more important than most other games.

• • Lockjaw has 6 sentences.
  • Exocog has 1 sentence.
  • Early Dave S. games have 2 sentences.
  • Metacortechs has 2 sentences. (So, collectively, these early games have 6).

Of other games:

• • Blair Witch has 2 sentences.
  • Majestic has 3 sentences.
  • AotH is 2 sentences.
  • WIBS is 1 sentence.
  • Edoc is 2 sentences.
  • LCP gets 2 sentences.
  • Studio Cypher is 2 sentences.
  • Virtuquest is 1 sentence.
  • Catching the Wish is 1 sentence.
  • Cathy's Book has 3 sentences.
  • Lonelygirl15 has 1 sentence.
  • Vanishing Point has 2 sentences.
  • NIN has 1 sentence.
  • MHC has 1 senetence.
  • Meigeist has 1 sentence.
  • Freakylinks has 2 sentences.
  • Push, Nevada has 7 sentences.
  • Regenesis has 2 sentences.
  • The LOST experience has 3 sentences.
  • Ocular Effect has 2 sentences.
  • Heroes 360 has 2 sentences.

So, outside of the Beast, PXC has the most coverage, followed by Lockjaw, followed by ILB. This seems like a fair distribution for the three games with the most significant influence on the development of ARGs.

The rest of the games seem pretty evenly balanced, with the exception of two:

• • Push, Nevada, which has a longer description even than ILB or Lockjaw (although I condensed it as much as I could, and I figured it still made sense to describe it in detail as a lot of TV-extension games seem to be following in its footsteps.

• • Cathy's Book, which has three sentences when most other games have one or two. I reduced the description to two sentences from the original description (which included a plot summary), but in the original article, it had been described as a successful example of a self-funding ARG. Since that has not yet been proven (heck, I worked on it, and I don't know whether the sales have recouped the production costs) I felt that in the interests of accuracy and fairness, it should be noted that it's not yet certain whether it's successful. The focus of the section, after all, is the search for a self-supporting model, and the other games listed there had also been evaluated similarly.

As for other 42 games, Vanishing Point and Year Zero have two and one sentence, respectively, which are consistent with pretty much every other ARG mentioned. I considered not including them, but others had already added them and taking them out seemed to be overcompensating, since both of them have gotten a great deal of press and audience and are among the more significant games of late 2006/early 2007. As 2007 develops, if other games eclipse them, they can certainly be removed, but for right now, they seem worth mentioning in the "New Developments" section. Neither Hex168 nor MSN Search (both 42 efforts) are mentioned at all because they had little influence on ARG development or the ARG community.

So, basically, I think what's tripping your radar is the heavy emphasis on the Beast. However, as I described above, the Beast defined how we think about alternate reality games, and from a flow standpoint, it was easier to combine the section on the Beast with the introduction to basic ARG principles.

As a thought experiment, skip the Beast section. Does it still seem 42-heavy? And if so, where? Phaedra777 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

'Alternate reality games' are nothing more than a marketing gimmick. The term "alternate reality" is misleading and a bit redundant - most games and any fiction I can think of takes place in an alternate reality. Many of the marketing campaigns mentioned aren't even games.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.45.17 (talk • contribs) 01:21, July 8, 2007 Horrible and messy article this one is for sure. Unreadable pr material. Needs heavy editing or should be chucked out the window altogether. 84.254.51.219 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just because you don't understand it ... Skotte 23:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Or more accurately, they aren't just a marketting gimmmick. They are a form of interactive roleplay. Though they lstarted and are mostly used as a marketting tool, that doesn't make them unworthy of entry.Kairos 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's make sure to remember WP:FORUM guys. -AtionSong 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related Article

Should What is this game? be linked on here? --Is this fact...? 01:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VG Assessment

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page. I'm rating this article as B-class, Low-importance. Here are a few tips to improve it!

-"ARGs are now being recognized by the mainstream entertainment world:" Colons like that are bad grammar, and if they are only just now being recognized, you should have already said that it's generally an unrecognized genre, rather than just dropping that on the reader.

-short paragraphs (defined as 1-3 sentences) should be combined together- it flows better that way, and looks better as well.

-"Basic Design principles"- cite to show that it's not all made up, but that's a general rule of thumb

-"Development and history"- This should be a summary of the linked article, History of Alternate Reality Games, not a copy and paste job! What's the point of having a sub-article if the whole thing is in the parent article anyway?

-There are a few holes in that section as to citing, but overall it's well done. Try to keep the cites when you summarize it.

Overall, a good job. There are some grammar issues, and an overall in formalness to the tone that strikes me, but nothing specific jumps out at me, so feel free to ignore that last. --PresN (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Mneumonic

So that it's not lost, Sony had a huge tie-in with the movie Johnny Mneumonic (~'95-'97).  I believe this one of the very first ARGs. Mmernex (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fasa?

This page talks about the FASA as a 'leading RPG company'. FASA closed in 2001, according to Wikipedia's own article on FASA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.116.186 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History Cut-Down Section

Two things I'd like to throw out here.

1. Having followed this article for a long time, I'm aware that there's a fairly persistent, though not huge, issue with PM's putting large paragraphs about their little games. For the most part, the games mentioned have citations of significance, but I think we may need to do another sweep to check.
2. I think that the history section is a little out of whack. We have a page for the History of alternate reality games. I think that the history section on this page needs to only cover the largest, most significant games in the history of the genre, i.e. The Beast, ILB, Art of the Heist, Majestic, Perplex City, Lost Experience, Cathy's Book, etc. Many of the games I've never heard of on the page, and should most likely be moved to the history. Also, "Fat Cow Motel"? I've never heard of this, and how did it end up with it's own out of place paragraph? At any rate, I think a major cleanup of the history section needs to take place, with a lot of move to the "History" page.

--AtionSong (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)