ARGs, or Alternative Reality Games, have a long history of consent and the question of the blurred lines between the designers and the players. The only way to have a successful ARG is if all the players agree to buy into the “magic circle”, or shell, that encapsulates the rules and the world of the game. Sometimes the way to create this magic circle though is to go beyond the typical rules of consent and blur the boundary of game designer and player. Indeed, reading some of the history with the character of Mateo Rey being a fiction created by the designers, it appears that line got perhaps even more blurred than expected, especially for the players. The players genuinely believed Mateo Rey was a person, not a game designer monitoring them. He invaded the Super Secret Squids group and it was only when “he” unmasked himself that the players realized they might had not consented to this level of gameplay. In creating the world of The Parasite, new relationships and levels of play had been discovered and developed. The line between player and designer was no longer a harsh one and the relationship turned into a dialogue instead. (My favorite example is when some Squids discovered the construction of the set and the designers responded by creating another character.)
And now for a question that’s perhaps foolish to ask since the designers are the people literally grading this post – what was the intention of the game and how does consent play into that intention? Part of it was to introduce the incoming students – especially marginalized students – to the vast resources at the university. Taking the students all over campus, getting them to explore the different buildings and learn about what each department did, was certainly an effective tool for this. But more interestingly, I perceived an intention to build a tight-knit group of students and encourage students to bond through a shared and intense experience. This element of the game necessitated consent because it is only through consent that people build positive and growing relationships. Even now, 2 years after The Parasite, the Squids are still friends and play games together. Different D&D groups branched off from The Parasite, and even the more casual Seekers laugh about the experience of playing. Consent to play the game and buy into the world created all these different relationships. Perhaps this is why many players were upset by the “Mateo Rey” reveal. If a person consents to building a true relationship, one based upon trust, then a betrayal of that relationship will break that down. That much is just from relationship analysis. However, the interesting thing about ARGs is that, because they take place in the “real world”, the relationships go beyond the magic circle. If the intention of the ARG is to build those relationships though, why did the game designers break those relationships down by eroding the trust between the players and reminding the players of the boundaries of the game. Was there the concern that, because the lines were being confused and there were growing questions about the boundaries of the game, players would inadvertently cross that boundary with a designer?
Why did the designers include Mateo Rey and keep playing him in the game for so long? In the end, I have trouble understanding that design decision, both from a procedural standpoint and from the standpoint of a player. Did something happen, or was his reveal planned all along? I’m most interested because he might be an example of what happens in ARGs and how the designers’ intent becomes less controlling as the game goes on. ARGs, especially those that have multiple stages across multiple mediums, introduce player agency in what the game is and what it can be and what it can mean. I personally like to imagine that a player confessed their love to Mateo, and to avoid awkwardness, the designers called an audible and pulled him. But that might just be because I’m a little dramatic…