Digital storytelling works in an interactive environment by giving the user agency, rather than the medium acting upon the user solely. In TimeSpace: Inauguration, we saw the Inauguration from different vantage points–it gave us a sense of story across space. The user can see the big picture, and as we lose identity as a society, maybe we lose our social context.
I thought the 9/11 archive was very appropriate for digital storytelling because so many people alive today lived through it. Hence there would be a desire to interact with the material, rather than take it in more passively if it were a subject that many didn’t know about and would be far more likely to relate to in a detached way. And you see it on the site: people uploading their own pictures and telling their own stories.
In Evan’s thesis project interview video, he suggests that game and narrative are different things, but maybe the game derives from the same source.
The section on ARGS were interesting, the issue there is whether one loses touch with their personality, and therefore, learning (among other things). This would be my greatest fear in developing an ARG.
Will ARGs be the way of the history future, I don’t know. One of the issues is to assess whether people lose touch with reality and the uncertainties of life. I don’t agree with McGonagle that games necessarily make people better.
The digital environment changes academic writing and argument by their own story structure (AGRs). It changes the argument by calling into question whether one needs an argument. Still, the web is here to stay. Web 2.0 storytelling said it best: “stories now are open-ended, branching, hyperlinked, cross-media, participatory, exploratory, and unpredictable.”