Let's talk ARGs, for a second.

Had a conversation where I was talking about the definition of ARGs, the other day. The definition I typically go by is:

1) story;
2) told across channels;
3) where players have at least the illusion of agency;
4) and follow the rules of "TINAG".*

That asterisk is there for a reason - in part, it's because I'm on record as disagreeing with how the term is frequently interpreted. https://www.argn.com/2012/02/a_fond_farewell_to_this_is_not_a_game/

Because of that, I'll frequently swap in a paraphrase for phase 4, that amounts to "suspension of disbelief".

Players and creators knowingly negotiate together which spaces are part of the story, and which ones are separate. And they respect both sides of that boundary.

Without that fourth factor, you can easily refer to pretty much any hoax or sophisticated disinformation campaign as an ARG. Piltdown Man? Deaddrop with custom artifacts.

Dreadnaught Hoax? Immersive theater enhanced by real-time telegrams.

In many ways, the defining factor of alternate reality games are their dedication towards clearly demarcating and respecting the lines between fiction and reality.

Because things can get dangerous for both parties if you don't respect that line.

That's also why I take breaches of that trust so seriously - ARGs are about trust. And if things break down to an extent where I can't tell if something coming from a creator is in-game or out-of-game, I'm just not going to trust the creator.

Period.

So, yeah. This hits at the root of why the "QAnon is an ARG" talk annoys me so much...it's because it's throwing out what to me is the defining value of what makes an ARG an ARG.

But it's also about the handful of projects that trade audience trust for a cheap, one-off thrill.