I was very interested in the alternate reality game, especially because it isn’t something I’m familiar with at all. There are tons of interesting aspects of this media form that could be explored, but what struck me most about the ARG was the “This Is Not A Game” aesthetic, and it’s interesting ethical implications.
As described in the S.E.E.D. reading, this aesthetic practice refuses to acknowledge the game’s fictional nature, instead insisting that the events of the narrative are real. While the efficacy of this deception is open to debate (how many students actually believed they were getting messages from the future?), I am more interested in examining the nature and ethics of this undeniable deception, and the effects this might have on both the game and its participants.
Let’s start here: why is this form, also known as immersive gaming, a good thing? What does it achieve? Jane McGonigal, cited in the S.E.E.D. reading, seems to argue that by blurring the line between reality and fiction, a game can provide players with a greater sense of political agency and accomplishment, because in-game achievements will seem to have real impact. In the examples we examined, it is argued that this can create a stronger sense of real world agency for players. However, it could just as easily be argued that the eventual, inevitable reveal (the “it was a game all along!” moment) would undo this sense of agency. It might even have the opposite of its intended effect: revealing that player achievements had no impact could create a sense of social impotence, because players worked so hard to achieve something that was ultimately meaningless.
Another potential issue I see is more fundamental: blurring the fiction/reality divide creates problems. In psychology, an inability to distinguish between reality and fiction is a textbook marker of serious mental illness. How dissimilar is that to the ‘real’ environment of an ARG? Surely people can understand that what is happening is a game, and is this fictional, but is that always the case? What if a player is convinced? Or multiple players? What if a narrative is so immersive and compelling that it drives players to drastic, unpredictable, dangerous action? Granted, I don’t know what safeguards might be put in place to prevent this, and based on the anecdote about the S.E.E.D. riot Patrick offered in class, it is clear that the team had ways to step in. Still, the criticism remains as something ARG developers MUST keep in mind, unless they plan on re-enacting the 1997 Michael Douglas thriller The Game.
Still, I do understand the appeal, especially as an escapism addict. Reality sucks, and it’s nice to be occasionally free of it’s restraints, the more immersive the better. Perhaps my distrust of the ARG’s particular brand of deception is rooted in my own personal experience with the reality/fiction divide. Growing up with conservative parents in a rural area, I had to go to great lengths to prove to those around me that I remained capable of distinguishing between reality and fiction (no, my D&D books don’t advocate blood sacrifice, my Magic cards don’t contact demons, and playing Assassin’s Creed won’t make me murder people). In my experience, blurring that line can be dangerous, to both mental and physical health.