Johnathan Preshaw: Is being a Bee fun? Maybe sometimes, but it is always useful!

1) In your opinion, what makes games fun?

For me, the fun of games comes from adapting to previously undefined challenges, and recognizing obscure or possibly unintended solutions to the problems presented by the games creator. It is the feeling of discovery and mastery that urges me to try new formats and systems, or variations on old familiar ones. Often times I do not linger long on any singular game unless it has a intriguing depth or mechanical challenge for me to overcome.


2) Which of these things (if any) were present in the I <3 Bees ARG? If not present, what made I <3 Bees fun?

To a certain extent the ability to find unintended solutions exists in “I <3 Bees”, but in the sense that because part of the development was left purposely ambiguous there was no box to think outside of. “I <3 Bees” has a definite appeal to those that wish to solve puzzles, but denies the actual ability to solve anything. As the challenges were developed in response to the capabilities of the participants, it almost seems as if success was hand fed to them. This is not to say that the accomplishment of a gigantic, impromptu Collective Intelligence is not impressive, but it does not envelope the aspects of exploration and cunning that I find to be enjoyable. If a puzzle constantly moves in order to meet your exact abilities, is it really a puzzle anymore?

After learning addition it would seem trivial to be asked what 3 + 3 adds up to. The question was being asked of a Collective Intelligence, and as a result measured the progress and growth of the Collective Intelligence’s ability to disseminate and translate knowledge, but individually, within the Collective, I would find myself lost in a sea of meaningless numbers and riddles.

I call them meaningless because the answer to the riddles was mutable and ever changing depending on what the players input into the system. This would make it impossible to figure it out early because the answer doesn’t even exist until much later after the contributions have been assimilated into the system.

It reminds me of a Murder Mystery train ride I once went on. A serious of clues and characters were presented to the audience, and at the end we were to all guess as to who the murder is and how they did it.

There was no answer of course, because if there was an answer it would be possible for no one to guess it, and that’s not a very satisfying end to a mystery. Instead the most coherent answer was selected by the administrators of the mystery and read aloud as if it were deduced masterfully by the would be detective.

The goal was unattainable because it did not exist, which is the most frustrating sort of goal to reach for.

In conclusion to the actual question of what made “I <3 Bees” fun, is this. The forming of an HiveMind, becoming a small but important wheel in an overwhelmingly huge system creates a sense of worth. The idea that “barking up the wrong tree” is a useful endeavor is a very satisfying concept. It allows for absolute freedom of thought, and unshackles the mind from the looming fear of failure.

In “I <3 Bees” it was okay, even useful to be wrong. In a Collective Intelligence system every thought, every attempt is important, and at the end of the it is fun for people to be important. I don’t think I would enjoy such a game myself, but the game has proven that through Collective Intelligence we can accomplish more as a whole than we ever could alone.