Here's what I learnt from one day of hearing from the game creators, and two days of playing them:
I came to avoid reinventing the wheel, but it seems that the wheel has not yet been invented. Many designers presented their experiences as "this is how we did it; don't do it like that". I haven't met anyone with a degree in Game Design. Nobody gave me a reading list. It seems that the barriers to entry are still very low.
I start with nothing, which is confusing and no fun at all; rule discussions with other players cause tension.
Then I learn the rules and the game runs more smoothly, but I'm still playing at random. I have the 'what' but not the 'why'. If the game is physical, then I can have some fun here.
Then I devise the strategies. Now I'm playing with intelligence, and I get an achievement rush when I plan something and it comes off successfully. This is fun.
Games need to minimise the time it takes to get to step 3 by having simple rules and obvious strategies - or maybe even a discussion of simple strategies along with the rules. The first time I played the Comfort of Strangers, I didn't understand strategy at all until nearly the end.
I'm confused that many games, particularly technology-based games, deliberately extend Step 1. Perhaps I'm atypical?
Hand To Hand can be played anywhere, but that doesn't mean that the terrain doesn't make a difference. Certain cards can be played ("powers invoked") only under certain conditions, like "in sight of a CCTV camera" or "standing under an overhanging roof".
I love this. Absolutely nobody used it strategically - see the Strategy Point - but if we had, it would've been amazing. Suddenly, the familiar world takes on a whole new shape.
Puzzles are a barrier to entry; narratives create a power gap between the "knows" and the "don't knows". And for first-time players, the experience will dominate the content anyway. It seems it's better not to focus too much on the narrative, and put some kickass experiences in there instead. Blast Theory are doing this.
Some companies are doing ARG development using Agile processes, right down to two-week-sprints and wizard-of-oz testing. More than one person told me that some of my company's social-networking websites are basically games. For me the nine-to-five and the five-to-nine aren't so far apart, after all.
Most ARG players don't play; they watch. The catch-up burden is huge if you didn't get in on the ground floor. Yet, if most people aren't participating, is it even a game?
I'd like to see this solved with "instancing". The game isn't played by "the world" as a single player. Neither is it just a solo repeatable experience (although that's good too - it's what I did with Exeunt Omnes). Instead, I want to see ARGs played by small groups; me and a dozen of my real-world friends, for example. Now I don't get 'stuck' any more (I have smart friends), but I still get the 'thrill of the chase'.
I'm not sure how that fits into the real-world events, though, unless they run frequently.
People want to play as cooler versions of themselves. Most people can't act, or don't want to. There are lots of ways to do this - I really like the "extra senses" provided by Comfort Of Strangers and Always Something Somewhere Else.
Hide and Seek was amazing. Every game was full. Every gamer had an idea. Every idea turns into a project plan in my head. I am on fire.
I agree that rule discussions provoke arguments.
I disagree that games shouldn't have narrative. For those looking for one, it should still exist; it keeps the hardcore happy.
You're right, participation doesn't always have to mean playing. Trying to involve different groups in different aspects of the game is always fun!
I enjoyed Hide and Seek immensely.