One of the issues when creating an ”alternate reality game” is that it may receive negative backlash from being perceived as a ”hoax”. Alternate reality games (ARGs) if you recall, are (among other things) multi-platform works that remove any cues to its fictionality. So, if you put fake newsfootage online, there is no meta information around it explaining that it is a work of fiction. There are many examples of negative backlash due to confusion over the fictional status of a work, a recent example is LonelyGirl15. August last year I posted a short essay on Why ARGs Aren”t Hoaxes on my old blog (which I’ve moved to my personal site). The argument I put forward was that ARG creators actively encourage players to co-create the work of fiction with them and the resulting player-production that occurs (gameplay resources) then puts all the fictional cues back in. ARG creators take the cues to fictionality out while the players put it back in. This has worked well with many ARGs, except those that are not launched to the ARG community first.
ARGs that launch outside of the community often garner lots of media buzz, but for (I argue) the wrong reasons: people are discussing whether it is a hoax and how this makes them feel. In an interview at ARGNetcast, filmmaker Lance Weiler, reflected that the reason why his ARG to market the Warner Bros. VOD release of his film Head Trauma, Hope is Missing , faulted temporarily under this hoax accusation was because it was launched outside of the ARG community. Weiler will be on a forthcoming podcast here (talking about distribution techniques and so on), but for now I wanted to explain why I think ARGs launched outside the ARG community suffer from hoax issues.
As I discussed in my mini ARGs & Hoaxes essay, ARG players have a new media literacy of ”judgement”. I reconfigured this new media literacy posed in the new media literacies whitepaper ”Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century” in the context of ARGs:
Judgment: players evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources (to discern whether the sources are part of a game, or discovered at the right time) through activities such as checking the date the website domain was registered, who the website was registered by, the depth in the archives and the links to and from the site and ingame references.
Recently, a longitudinal study ”Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future” conducted by CIBER research team at University College London has found that the ”Google Generation” (among other things) lack the skills to critically assess online information. This deficiency of judgement is due in part I believe to the lack of education in schooling. At many universities and secondary schools there is a ”no web” policy where teachers do not train students how to judge websites, they just forbid them from citing the web. One of the reasons why this policy is so rampant of course is because many of the educators don”t know how to judge websites either. But the inability to judge content (including its fictionality status) is a skill in itself. That is why many educators are excited about using ARGs — they (among other things) help teach such literacies.
Anyway, this phenomena explains in part the issue of a ”hoax” perception in some ARGs and reveals a strategy that can be used to circumvent it. Target those who have these judgement skills, wait until they create resources that frame the work, and let the ripple effect spill over into the non-ARG communities (with well timed efforts to raise awareness from yourself too). How practitioners target the ARG community will be the topic of another post…but in the meantime, if you have any thoughts on this issue comment away!
[26 JAN EDIT: This post seems to have been misinterpreted by some, so I've cleared up and developed the idea with Steve Peters and SpaceBass in the comments here and also in my follow-up post here].









Hey Steve!
Thanks for coming by and taking the time to give a lengthy response. I really appreciate it! I totally agree that where an ARG is launched is not a sole defining factor in its hoax perception. I didn’t mean to give that impression, but I do think it does have a role. But I’m going to use your examples to try and draw out some other anti-hoax guidance and ARG launch tactics.
Firstly, I would immediately dismiss existing properties as examples of successful outside-ARG community launches because the awareness of the existing fiction is a pretty good indicator of fictionality.
However, thinking about this point. Perhaps one of the issues then with Hope is Missing is that Weiler’’s intention of slowly bring the ARG and the existing property (Head Trauma) together was another contributing factor? The lesson here is to include cues that indicate it is part of an existing fictional world. This means I’ve got to adjust the “fictional cues” removal to something else: one can remove any paratextual (metadata) cues to fictionality but include cues to fictionality in other ways: professional lighting, use of actors, use of a script and set within an existing fictional world. Taking this adjustment further: setting the AR content in an existing fictional world is a more accessible cue than discerning the constructed nature (production) of it. It is the latter that most audiences have trouble with.
Metacortechs is a good example. Obviously it was set in an existing fictional world, so there aren’t the same problems as introducing players to a new fictional world. But as you say, some people still didn’t get the fictional world link. So another good fiction-identifying cue that you mention then is “unrealistic statements of truth”. That would work well an off-hand remark such as “we all know the world is flat” etc. But you’re also forgetting the media coverage. You got some great media coverage and there was a lot of talk about the ARG. The majority of that talk would have been referring to it as fiction. Metacortechs of course did have a problem though with the paratextual cues: in that players got upset when they realized it wasn’t the Wachowski Bros. behind it. Which will be a problem for fan-fic ARGs obviously.
I Love Bees of course was launched within the frame of the existing Halo fiction. So it didn’t have the same problem. But I think that 42 (and you can tell me if not) do make sure they always include the ARG community in the first birth. And if one assesses the movement and understanding of worldwide players, that it is the interpretations of ARG players that helped cement what was going on pretty early.
Last Call Poker was not solely launched via ads, it was also launched to the ARG community with an email on the tip-line! Here is what Johnathan said:
I find it interested that even the ARG community wasn’t sure — or they were playing the game to get everyone interested. I wonder too how successful the ad launches were? Did those who came to the site expecting to simply poker stay when they realized it was also an ARG (the haunting?)? How long before this happened? Were the ads to attract poker players to seed the world, to make it seem alive and real before the ARG community arrived? I don’t think it was an ARG until the ARG community was alerted. But I don’t know, I didn’t play it. Can you help me with these questions?
Art of the Heist is probably the only example you’ve given which appears to refute my claim since it is a new fictional world that, as you say, began with ad buys. But here is something I prepared earlier (I’ve used AoTH as an example of an ARG launch strategy in my talks).
All of this information is from McKinney-Silver’s official report video. Now, as you can see they first put the ingame, story sites online, then major ad buys for “art retrieval” services and Virgil Tatum (”master video game auteur”). [Indeed, the fact that Virgil was described as such would have been an "unrealistic truth" for some audiences.] And then it was announced in the ARG community and then the video and then the “official launch” at the car show, and then the PM-gameplay sites. Now sure, there were ingame ads there for the general public before the ARG community, but the gap was short and this was all way before the actual launch of the game — which I think started with the break-in video. The ARG community were already in place when the video was released and the “official launch” happened to the general (car) public. Of course this ARG was designed to be played by non-ARGers as well (I’ve got an essay and website about this coming out in the next few weeks which I’d love your critical feedback on Steve).
But for now. Steve, I think there is a difference between content that “furnishes the world” (that is: creates the online presence of fictional world), acts as a hook to garner interest and the actual beginning of the game.
I’m not sure if Vanishing Point proves your point either, as it was obviously a “game” right from the very beginning. All the videos etc were obvious constructions and there was little storyworld.
Also, you keep mentioning where the games are played. While I agree that PM-created gameplay resources and non-ARG gameplay communities relate to the hoax issue, I’m talking about how the launch can influence a hoax perception. How it can be defined as a game really early so the whole game isn’t a discussion about whether it is a hoax. I’m not talking about where games are played, just whether the ARG community is intentionally targeted at the launch.
As for Year Zero. You’re right, it was launched outside of the ARG community but it was an extension to an existing entertainment property. In this case there was no issue of a hoax, but of it being perceived as a marketing campaign rather than part of a work of art.
Cloverfield is also an existing entertainment property that was launched through direct connections with the film. I think that the people who found any of the fictional sites through serendipity were in the minority and even then the amount of players (ARG communities and otherwise) were so loud on the web that any question would be verified immediately. And I agree, there is a whole other story with Cloverfield. I’d love to have a chat with you about that.
As for Dark Knight. I don’t think it was launched in the comic book shops. Given your place of work, you could find out for me! But what I was able to discern is it began with the official teaser site for the film being launched on May 12, not soon after that (I don’t know the date) the first fictional site that is part of the game was revealed on that film site. The same image on the fictional site were also on posters around streets, and then on May 19th the cards were found in the comic book stores. So, as I spoke about earlier in this response. The tactic was to link the ARG with the film right from the very beginning — that way those outside of the ARG community would understand it as a game.
As for the ReGenesis ERGs, well they thwarted the hoax issue by password-locking any fictional sites so that only people who had registered to play the game could access it.
So, in summary: there are many ways that an ARG can be launched. My original post was not about the various ways it can be launched, but how can an ARG that has little fictional cues in it can thwart the problem of being perceived as a hoax and why it is that some people just don’t get the fictional cues. Launching within an ARG community is one tactic (which doesn’t exclude in my mind seeding the world in the public domain or restrict the gameplay to that community). But for ARGs that are linked with an existing entertainment property, then making the connection between them early seems another good way. Basically the point is that there needs to be fairly early on either an overt clue that it is a work of fiction (eg: set in a fictional world), launched through a work of fiction, or a loud community that knows it is a work of fiction.
Over to you Steve…
January 19, 2008 @ 4:49 am