Perceptual narrative criticism, I like that. You again understand my view well. I would very much like to see entries into the genre that do not utilize the hive mind protagonist (collective detective for those at home).
Were audiences so different in thought processes pre-papyrus that each audience member was unable to make revelations individually and simply discuss with others? This communal format of current ARGs creates a situation of either being an individual and behind the group, or joining the group and allowing others to control your pace. For example, with thousands of people working on the same puzzle, you’re likely not the one to solve it first. Your two choices are continue to be diligent and lose pace with pack (and ultimately the story as elements are triggered), or consume the solution as a spoiler in hopes of enjoying the story as it was intended (which goes back to repeatability).
I think where ARGs have failed is proper appeal to those looking for the model closer to real life, which I contend is the shorter walk away from “audience” in the transitional sense of the word. It need not be egocentric, but at the very least egoaccepting. That’s why audiences of any presentation (movies, theater, lecture) become upset or walk out when others interrupt the ability to consume the media on their own accord.

“Don’t tell me what’s about to happen or what it means. Let me do it myself and then I’d love to discuss it and check for insight I might have missed.”

I wouldn’t dare attempt to define what the ideal experience should be. Even very well-defined genres don’t do that. I just want to see the single dot that ARGs currently inhabit on the narrative spectrum expanded to include a range of methods. Why settle for a non-dimensional point when you can have a one-dimensional line?

Different types of media experiences do different things to the implied relationships between protagonists and audiences. “Communal” is a short walk away narratively from “audience” which touches alot of transitional forms (and in transitional, I mean “between oral tradition and some future that works as naturally as that” which started with Gutenberg or papyrus or clay tablets or something.)

Much of modern video gaming is based upon an egocentric storytelling method that’s unusual from the view of transitionary media makers — each audience member is the protagonist (or at least has a representation, “another you”, that fills that role.) Collaborative narrative still happens, but happens through the intersection of individualized protagonists. That’s actually a closer model to the way we experience real life (where we are each the protagonists of our own private movies, even if our “external self” might be representational of our “internal self”.)

At the other end of spectrum might be something like the novel or the television show or the movie: you are a third-person observer of the actions of others. That isn’t you on the screen, that isn’t even a representation of you in the novel.

Your argument about communal versus individualized is another way of asking where on the continuity between those two narrative points the “ideal experience” would be. ARGs rarely have opportunities for individuals to feel like a protagonist and can produce way too many experiences that feel like being a bench warmer on a team.

As a creator and artist, I don’t really care what labels fly around externally to describe something I do (what does the skunk care what name the fawn has given it?) Some of what we do is “ARG”, some of what we do is “ARGish”, some of what we do is “non-ARG”. You should hear some of the labels that people stick on us or our work … sometimes years after the work is done. To constantly argue “it’s not a mockumentary, it is a faux-documentary, and there is a big difference” is ultimately exhausting and frequently unsuccessful.

So you can call me Flower if you want to.

Metaphoric example: there’s a school of psychology that approaches the problem of mind/body by suggesting that you don’t really feel emotions. You use “emotions” as a label to explain the internal feedback your nerves are giving you — you’ve learned what “fear” feels like in your body, so when those feedback elements start to kick on you label that subjective experience with the “fear emotion” shorthand. Asking someone how they know they are feeling that emotion produces a blink-fest of confusion in most people: they just know it, because the brain is designed to let that gestalting of feedback happen.

Right now, I’d argue that much of the community’s definition of ARG is derived in a similar proccess. People had an experience (like all those little nerve endings) that required a label, to separate it from the other kinds of experiences one might have (oh, this is “love” not “fear” even though they have some similar traits.) However, that gestalt whole is actually a variety of smaller pieces of feedback working together, and not everyone has the same feedback from any experience (do the hairs on your arms stick up when you’re afraid? mine do … but they do that when I’m cold too, so am I cold or afraid right now? if I shave the hair on my arms does that mean I won’t be cold or afraid again?)

So, long metaphor answer to your Kool Aid question reduced to simplier declaration: for many people in the existing community, the communal gameplay experience was an important element of what made their experience special. When you’re afraid, the hair on your arms goes up. When you’re playing an ARG, you’re having a communal gameplay experience.

That definition could change as easily as a lot of people having an ARGish experience that was very low on collaboration THAT ALSO WAS ENGAGING AND “GOOD”. Then everyone would try to incorporate the feelings of playing that game into that label “ARG” … or more clearly define the edge between what that label means when other people apply it to your work versus some other label.

Where I think you start to hit the nail on the head is in that balance between individual and communal experiences. Individualized experiences are the main part and parcel of the media arts, communal experiences are the main part and parcel of the performance arts.

There are still WAY too many people building the Web who think HTML is a medium rather than a performance. ARGs are a really interesting way to treat it like a performance. So if we tend to lean more into the communal, it is just because it is really fun to stretch the rubber band in a surprising direction.

I would also like to add that what you are describing has already occurred with such games as “The Beast” (how, from my understanding, ARGN and Unforums got formed), “Art of the Heist”, “Last Call Poker” and probably some others that I do not remember at this time. There were people outside of the community that were drawn into the game (via pop-up ads and television commercials) without even knowing that it was a game until they were introduced to it (much like the “LG15″ creators).

I think you are looking more at “grassroots”, which use the internet as their foundation, where “corporate” use the internet as a gathering place rather then a platform of play.

I think that no matter how “real” you try to make the game, or how much of the “real world” you try to use, the internet will still play a large part of how the game is played because it is the one place that is easy for people [players] to get to and converse about what they are doing. The beauty of “alternate reality games” is that it really is the players who decide how the game is going to be played. It just so happens that a lot of the players decide to use the internet to exchange and locate information.

One question that I have always had about “alternate reality games” is how large can the player base really get? If a trailhead is located in the real-world (we will use your example of a billboard), how many people in the area of the trailhead will see it (#1) and (#2) how many of those who see it will know what to do with it?

In marketing you have to know two main things: 1) who is your target market? 2) how will you reach your target market?

“Alternate Reality Games”, as with any marketing platform, has a specific (that is going to be the wrong word to use, I just know it) “target market” even though it may not be the market that the company who is putting the game out is trying to attract.

For example, a lot of the people who ended up playing “Art of the Heist” probably couldn’t afford a brand new Audi A3. But one thing that “AOTH” accomplished, if nothing else with the players, was getting a positive brand response.

I think a lot of people did not know who Audi was as a company. Sure, they probably have heard of Audi, but really didn’t know the company. This experience provided those people with a better view of the company (even though they probably couldn’t afford anything that the company was offering) then they had before, and a good image in business is very important. Just look at how much money other companies spend each year trying to make a positive brand image and all Audi had to do was create an “alternate reality game”.

If for no other reason then that, “alternate reality games” will have a place in business marketing.