I just saw this on Slashdot:
Hugh Pickens writes “The TV series ‘Lost’ involves a large cast of characters marooned on a tropical island after a plane crash, with episodes that thread lengthy flashbacks of characters’ backstories with immediate plots of day-to-day survival and interpersonal relationships, and a larger ‘mythos’ involving the strange and apparently supernatural (or science-fictional) happenings on the island. Independent scholar Amelia Beamer writes that the series works as an example of a recent cultural creation: that of the hypertext narrative. ‘In Lost, the connections between characters form the essential hypertext content, which is emphasized by the structure of flashbacks that give the viewer privileged information about characters,’ writes Beamer. ‘Paramount are the connections unfolding between characters, ranging from mundane, apparently coincidental meetings in the airport, to more unlikely and in-depth meetings, reaching back through their entire lives and the lives of their families.’ Beamer writes that the series also pays tribute to video games, another relatively recent interactive means of storytelling.”
Jem 7:32 am on April 30, 2010 Permalink |
I wonder how the audience felt about each of the different forms of interaction?
Perhaps we could do some research by interviewing people who played the games as to how it felt to interact with the game?
I liked what we had with Midnight note. The plot was ours, the big events were all ours, but there was a smaller scale of interactivity by the “players” talking with Sam like he was a regular twitter person. I felt this was a useful tool to engage people into the story. This is my kind of thing. We told a powerful story that was ours to tell. I think we could have had this with DWS, progressing the story once the puzzle was completed. (We ran out of time to really write one, though).
I think we asked players for a good level of interaction in DWS. Yes, it was a high level and it frustrated some people who wanted to be more involved and couldn’t during weekdays, but I still thing everything we gave them would have been possible with a bit of teamwork and a place to catch up. The beginning was just as challenging as the last puzzle – in fact, it was arguably more so, but they pulled it off because they talked to each other.
I think the biggest thing that stopped DWS from working as well as it could have was that there was no central communication hub that felt comfortable for the audience. I think this is something that Flickr could have delivered if we had initiated it from the start. We gave them ARG signifiers, and since ARG players already have unfiction, they don’t need to be given a place to hang out. We also didn’t give them any instructions. Again, fine for ARG players, they know the formula so they don’t need to be given it. Our players needed it, because most of them had never seen anything like this before.
Since we were making an ARG for a non-ARG audience, we could have appointed Beth as a kind of team leader, helping people to organise themselves and know when they were doing stuff right, and keeping track of who was up to what.
If we had worked harder to establish an “official” hangout, so people felt like it was the in-game place to talk and discuss, I think we could have potentially seen a lot more interaction in the later weeks.
I think the lack of response to player concerns about things impacted on their willingness to continue. Perhaps when Badtom had voiced his concerns about the difficult nature of focusing on DWS during a weekday, we should have had Beth or DWS respond with something. Just little touches like this (that, of course, I only think of now) could have made the experience a little more inviting for the players. (This should have probably been my job, since I’m the one with the free time all day).
One of the the things that worked really well in DWS was the photo-matching exercise. We nailed that one really well. Knowing that our friends are photography buffs as well as historical enthusiasts really helped to make that one awesome. Hell, they even picked an Architect to tell their story about!
I think for future projects we shouldn’t be aiming for the more passive Midnight Note model necessarily, but to make participation less “Life or death”. In this one the story (and players) were punished because they couldn’t/wouldn’t participate. We didn’t plan very well for this kind of low-input option, although I think the solution we ended up with worked quite well.
So! To sum up! Things we could do to improve for next time:
- Establish hub point for content/archive/conversation/submission
- Give clear instructions so that new players know how to get involved and what getting involved requires. (<3 you, n00bs)
- Reward any and all levels of interactivity (@ replies, # comments)
- Have a more active role in maintaining and guiding the community (In-character, or OOC)
Timothy 7:45 am on April 30, 2010 Permalink |
So when you say, “Reward interactivity” – a reward is just a reply from a character – so a reinforcing of that interactivity, that it was the right thing to do?
Timothy 7:59 am on April 30, 2010 Permalink |
Another thing that springs to mind about the “hub point for content/archive/conversation/submission”… we had two of those for Midnight Note: Midnightnote.com, and Facebook.
I wonder how much people looked at midnightnote.com to keep track of what was going on? It was “where the story was”, but we hoped that ‘Out Of Game’ interaction would turn up on Facebook, and it totally didn’t. Not even a little bit.
Having a single hub point is a good idea though. What would some of the key features be?
Hadyn 9:17 pm on May 2, 2010 Permalink |
I think perhaps the story might have been your problem with DWS, as much as the interactivity part. And I don’t mean that it was a bad story it was pretty good, though even now I could tell you what the plot was (with the noted difference between plot and story).
My feeling is that what you had was a clearly linear storyline similar to MN (which it how I shall abbreviate Midnight Note), but the you had real task points that if not completed genuinely affected the story. So what you needed were **consequences of failure**.
So I play Mario Brothers, in the opening sequence I discover that I have to save the Princess, and if I fail then she’s going to die (or marry that dinosaur guy I forget). But basically I know what my end point kind of looks like, though how I get there and where it is I don’t know. Similarly with MN, we opened with Sam at the end of the story telling the audience what’s going on and then (effectively) telling the audience that they are in for a sequence of interesting events to get where he already is.
I felt that was missing with DWS.
The character of Beth was introduced with the same level of mystery as DWS himself, making the players feel that no matter how many puzzles they solved there was still another level of mystery, and no real reveal. MN had good stages where, upon completing a task, players were rewarded with another large chunk of the plot.
Now, as you say the ARG folks may have lapped this up, but the group you were working with were the same group that had loved MN and so were possibly expecting something similar (“A new game from the creative minds behind Midnight Note” etc).
And this where **consequences of failure** come in.
If I fail in Mario, the Princess dies (or maybe ratifies the treaty with Bowser). So many games have these, don’t find item X and you won’t be able to get to the next level or if get there it will be much harder. Consequences are the last part of every good story logline: Protagonist has to overcome difficulties otherwise there will be consequences.
Think about what would’ve happened if we hadn’t found the package on the 9th. What would be the consequences? Would we be punished in some way for it? would we arrive a day late only to discover the package had been taken by a competing group? Would DWS lose power or parts and become less coherent in his communication every time we missed a deadline?
Essentially a health meter or “Game Over” message.
It makes the story harder but like MN you can keep bringing it back to the main story. Just make them work for it.
Hadyn 9:36 pm on May 2, 2010 Permalink |
[Just realised this all seems very down on DWS, so I need to preface with the fact that it was actually pretty fun doing all the tasks and playing along. These comments are just more of an attempt to describe how it can be polished for next time]
So why did the puzzle task work so well?
It was the first and possibly most interesting task. It required us to get together and discover who was involved*. We learned quickly that it was something to do with the Centennial Exhibition, and a secret message. We were all focussed on what the message would tell us, and then what the secret package was. Following that, the tasks seemed to become less involved.
Naming buildings around Wellington was fun, because it was a little bit urban exploration, but it didn’t come with an accompanying “reveal” it seemed like it was just a time-killer that would lead to yet another task. So instead of story punctuated with tasks, like MN, DWS was tasks punctuated with story.
If people don’t feel like they are getting anywhere they lose interest. So the reveal of DWS’s identity wasn’t as big a “WOW” moment is it should’ve been.
*SIDE NOTE: A neat twist that I think we should explore in a future game is having two teams one like the DWS team (but smaller) and another competing one that is told to be secretive and work against the first group, sort of like a werewolf situation. Then at some point the first team could be alerted to their opponents and then the real game would start.