What is the most imprtant issue from this post?
About half the feedback, comments on tweets on last week’s post was to do with the ARG or the Transmedia story-experience being, in-itself a lie or a hoax. Clearly my fault for being, erm, clear.
So, to lay the ground out tidy…
1. I have zero personal experience of playing ARGs.
2. I am interested in using transmedia to tell small stories in interesting ways that increase the connection of the audience to the material.
3. but I do not think ARGs are hoaxes and I kind of thought that had been dealt with by now? Expertly unpacked here.
4. That was not what I was looking at, but it did cross paths with the questions about the apparatus which was why it was included as an interlude.
5. Its hard doing this in my head and discussing only online (sob!) but the trees are pretty here. I need to make something soon before the virtualness of the issues causes an implosion
5a i.e. – I’m thinking out loud – so don’t shoot.
Something has been bugging me about the relationship of the audience to trasnmedia stories. I dont mean that we aim to fool and lie, i mean that the
Reversal (Abolition? Evolution) of the Suspension of Disbelief
|Single Media Narratives||Transmedia Narratives|
|Mechanics are present until you get into the story. Awareness of the apparatus breaks the connection to the narrative||Mechanics are absent until you get into the story. Awareness of the apparatus forms the connection to the narrative.|