ALTERNATE REALITY GAMES - DIVING DEEPER
From Interaction to Interpretation
Alternate Reality Games occupy an unusual position within interactive media because they stretch the definition of what interaction itself means. Traditional video games rely on clearly defined systems. The player acts within a structured environment, receives feedback, and gradually understands the rules that govern the experience. In ARGs, that structure is obscured or deliberately fragmented. Interaction does not occur through a single interface or ruleset, but across multiple platforms and contexts, many of which are not immediately recognizable as part of a game. The player is not simply acting within a system. They are interpreting whether a system exists at all, and if so, where its boundaries lie. This shift transforms the nature of engagement. The core activity becomes interpretive rather than mechanical. The player is not solving a predefined puzzle as much as discovering that a puzzle is present in the first place.
Do ARGs Have Procedural Rhetoric
Procedural rhetoric, as defined by Ian Bogost, describes how games persuade through systems, through rules, constraints, and feedback loops that guide player behavior and interpretation. Applying this concept to ARGs introduces a complication. ARGs often lack a stable, visible system. There is no single ruleset that the player can observe and learn in the traditional sense. Instead, the “rules” of an ARG are distributed, hidden within platforms, interactions, and narrative fragments. This raises an important question. Can a system persuade if it is not fully visible as a system. The answer appears to be yes, but in a different way. ARGs do not persuade through explicit mechanics. They persuade through the conditions they create for interpretation. The player is guided to think in a certain way, to question sources, to connect disparate pieces of information, to treat reality itself as a potential layer of the game. The rhetoric is not contained within a rule set. It is embedded in the process of discovery.
Procedural Rhetoric Without a System
In traditional games, procedural rhetoric emerges from structured interaction. Scarcity teaches conservation, punishment enforces caution, reward reinforces specific behaviors. The system communicates through repetition and consequence. ARGs operate differently. The consequences are often interpretive rather than mechanical. A correct insight leads to progression, a missed clue leads to stagnation. The feedback loop exists, but it is less visible and less immediate. This creates a form of procedural rhetoric that is more diffuse. The player is not being taught how to act within a system, but how to approach information itself. Patterns begin to emerge. Players learn to question what is real, to assume hidden meaning, to collaborate with others, and to treat ambiguity as a signal rather than an obstacle. Over time, this produces a shift in mindset. The player begins to inhabit a way of thinking that extends beyond the ARG itself. The system does not just guide behavior within the game. It reshapes how the player interprets the world around them.
The Role of the Entre-Deux
This is where the concept of the entre-deux, as discussed by Mathieu Triclot, becomes particularly relevant. Meaning in ARGs does not reside entirely in the system, nor entirely in the player. It emerges in the space between them. The game provides fragments, signals, and structures, but it is the player who assembles them into a coherent experience. This relationship is more dynamic than in traditional games. The system does not fully determine the interpretation, and the player does not operate freely outside of structure. Both influence each other continuously. This creates a form of engagement that is closer to dialogue than control. The player proposes interpretations, the system responds with new information, and meaning evolves through this exchange. Procedural rhetoric, in this context, becomes less about delivering a fixed argument and more about shaping the conditions under which arguments are formed.
Are ARGs Even Video Games
This leads to a more fundamental question. Should ARGs be classified as video games at all. On one hand, they share key characteristics with games. They involve interaction, problem solving, and structured progression. On the other, they lack many defining features. There is no singular system, no clear boundary, no consistent interface. The experience is distributed, often asynchronous, and heavily reliant on external platforms. Calling them video games may obscure what makes them distinct. At the same time, excluding them entirely ignores their reliance on game-like structures. ARGs sit at the edge of the medium. They expand its boundaries rather than fitting neatly within them. They suggest that a game does not need to be contained within a screen or defined by a single system. It can exist across spaces, across platforms, and across forms of interaction.
Toward Procedural Dialectics
If procedural rhetoric describes systems that persuade through rules, ARGs point toward something more complex. They do not present a fixed argument. They create a space where the player must construct meaning through interpretation. This aligns with what could be described as procedural dialectics. The system does not tell the player what to think. It forces the player to engage in the process of thinking itself. Clues are ambiguous, connections are uncertain, and meaning is never fully stable. The player must constantly negotiate between possibilities, refining their understanding through interaction. This process resembles a dialogue rather than a transmission. The game does not deliver a conclusion. It creates the conditions for one to emerge. In this sense, ARGs may represent one of the most advanced forms of interactive design. They do not simply simulate systems. They simulate the act of interpretation itself.
Conclusion
ARGs challenge the foundations of procedural rhetoric by stretching the concept beyond visible systems and explicit rules. They demonstrate that persuasion in games does not always rely on structured mechanics. It can emerge from ambiguity, from distributed design, and from the relationship between player and system. In doing so, they push the medium toward a new form of interaction, one where meaning is not delivered or even guided in a traditional sense, but constructed through engagement. Whether they are classified as games or something beyond them may matter less than what they reveal. Interaction does not need to be contained. Systems do not need to be visible. And the most powerful experiences may be those that ask the player not just to act, but to interpret.
