What exactly is an AAR?

[Cenobite30]

I have been reading a few of these AARs and I found myself enjoying them quite a bit. I do not, however, quite understand their significance. I was reading one from Hearts of Iron II (which I have not played), but I could not tell if he was roleplaying. Let me give you an example of the writing:

"5 am in the morning the French embassador in London officially ends our participation in the Anglo-French alliance and a new one is signed with Republican Spain on their embassy in Paris. Simultaneously engines are started in Toulouse and first shells fired across the border. Now nobody can say France doesn't take her task as a guardian of democracy seriously. It would have been quite hard to justify joining the fight to the French people if it would be about democracy only, it was imperative to give them something concrete as well. In a deal struck with the Spanish they promised to cede possession of the regions they hold in Western Sahara and around Ceuta if they were to be successfull in the civil war."

I suppose my question boils down to this: is the storylike writing really what is happening in the game, or is he just adding a fun story to regular gameplay? What is the reason behind these AARs? I enjoy them, but I simply do not understand them...

 

[Director]

Well, before this gets moved...

People who read and write AARs are storytellers at heart. We enjoy a good yarn, especially if it involves interesting events, places and people. A good AAR can read as convincingly as 'real' history and perhaps help explain how and why events happened in our world.

But, at heart, the story is the thing.

 

[unmerged(64768)]

AARs are written because the video game industry fails to produce sufficient quality, replayable, and affordable video games.

The video games which are produced are generally expensive relative to the target market. Most video games are aimed at 14-18 year old males. In this demographic, the cost of one video game is relative high.

On top of this, out of every 10 video games produced, only one (on average) is able to hold the attention of the gamer for more than a few hours. Any serious gamer will easily tell you about the enormous quantity of crap games that just sit on his shelf collecting dust.

And out of those that are worth playing, most are linear in design and lack sufficient replayablity.

So you have a demographic (which I dont pretend to have precise information about) that is both bored and of a writing mindset. The AAR exists because there are bored gamers out there who feel that the best way to extract the final drops of value from a game is to write about them in an AAR.

In short, it is a defensive response to boredom.

 

[Sir Humphrey]

Even though the average PC gamer is within the 20-24 year age bracket.

 

[coz1]

An AAR is simply an After Action Report. The way one chooses to report such information is varied, but in the end, it should detail what occured during a game or period of a game with something interesting to express (a great win, loss, character, circumstance, etc.) There are many ways to accomplish this, but people read AARs a.) to find gametips as one might read a walk-through; b.) to read a writer's work and c.) to enjoy a funny or serious, entertaining and above all, creative work.

I honestly don't consider it boredom at all. I love playing the games I write about. It's just that I write as well, and when playing, always seem to find something I'd like to tell in the process that I think others might find interesting or entertaining. If they benefit from my gameplay - great. If they enjoy how I wrote it up - even better. That's really what it's all about in the end.

 

[unmerged(64768)]

I honestly don't consider it boredom at all. I love playing the games I write about. It's just that I write as well, and when playing, always seem to find something I'd like to tell in the process that I think others might find interesting or entertaining. If they benefit from my gameplay - great. If they enjoy how I wrote it up - even better. That's really what it's all about in the end.

Im not saying you are bored with the game in question, I am saying it is because the AAR adds an element to the replayability of it because it is more fun than just playing the game.

 

[unmerged(11366)]

In one instance, I have written an AAR purely because of the fact that my game was really exciting.

One other idea, Al_Qassam, is to do what folks like heagarty and Horace have done - to write an AAR which gives the game a weird goal which you try to play to reach, such as starting as Luang Prabang, south of China, with the goal of annexing Ireland. That would not be a boring game. But you are right, the prospect of AAR-writing does add value to the game, for players who love to write (like us).

 

[CatKnight]

Hi, Cenobite:

Al_Qassam raises some interesting psychological points which may well be his experience elsewhere. (Welcome to the forums btw, Al!) It's not mine, however, and I've never detected an undercurrent of boredom with 'AARland' or Paradox's games.

Certainly AARs add something to the game...but that's not why I write. I do it because Paradox's games are usually pretty good at firing my imagination, and I find that by writing it out I get to explore that aspect. In "Tannenberg" I can explore being the grand master of a troubled order trying to save it from entropy. "Resurrection" began as an exploration of one of the great what-ifs of history...what if the American Revolution failed? I actually got that idea from an HOI1 game.

I also do it to entertain and participate in the community. If you hang around here awhile you'll find we will occasionally argue and bite, but for the most part we're all bound together by a love of history - especially alternate hsitory - and like to share our different visions of what that could be.

Time after time we reiterate the importance of commenting in various AARs. It's that community that binds us together and keeps us writing. THAT is why I write an AAR - because the game's found something interesting (or infuriating) to shove at me and I want to share it with my friends.

Now...what is an AAR. As Coz says, it stands for After Action Report. That's a misnomer, as many AARs are written as the game's ongoing.

AARs generally fall into one of these categories, though overlaps happen and there are certainly other divisions.

Narrative/Storytelling: The author is writing a story. Gameplay is usually very well hidden.

Historical Narrative: This is written something like a history book, or essays, or some other third person abstract. Game play's usually a little more obvious as you're more likely to get a macro-view of the nation, but it's still subtle.

Gameplay AARs: Here there's no question about it. The author is sticking to the facts. Whereas a historical narrative might say "General Bob led his army to the hills overlooking Winnepeg," a gameplay AAR would say "I moved 12,000 men into Manitoba, crushed the defenders and headed east."

Comedy: Some try for humor. Some even succeed They'll use one of the above methods but resort to absurdity, singing, or some other theme to show they aren't taking this seriously and neither should you.

AARs can pretty much run the field. You're already reading, so sooner or later you'll find a few you really like.

 

[unmerged(19363)]

An AAR gives us folks with an imagination a chance to use that imagination to further enhance our gaming experience. Do one hour of gameplay, and spend another hour creating a story line around it. I get a ton more out of playing hearts of iron by also writing about it, then in a game where I just blast thru it. The game becomes very much more absorbing when you're pausing it constantly to create a scenario in your head based on what's happening in the game.

 

[Cenobite30]

Hi, Cenobite:

Al_Qassam raises some interesting psychological points which may well be his experience elsewhere. (Welcome to the forums btw, Al!) It's not mine, however, and I've never detected an undercurrent of boredom with 'AARland' or Paradox's games.

Certainly AARs add something to the game...but that's not why I write. I do it because Paradox's games are usually pretty good at firing my imagination, and I find that by writing it out I get to explore that aspect. In "Tannenberg" I can explore being the grand master of a troubled order trying to save it from entropy. "Resurrection" began as an exploration of one of the great what-ifs of history...what if the American Revolution failed? I actually got that idea from an HOI1 game.

I also do it to entertain and participate in the community. If you hang around here awhile you'll find we will occasionally argue and bite, but for the most part we're all bound together by a love of history - especially alternate hsitory - and like to share our different visions of what that could be.

Time after time we reiterate the importance of commenting in various AARs. It's that community that binds us together and keeps us writing. THAT is why I write an AAR - because the game's found something interesting (or infuriating) to shove at me and I want to share it with my friends.

Now...what is an AAR. As Coz says, it stands for After Action Report. That's a misnomer, as many AARs are written as the game's ongoing.

AARs generally fall into one of these categories, though overlaps happen and there are certainly other divisions.

Narrative/Storytelling: The author is writing a story. Gameplay is usually very well hidden.

Historical Narrative: This is written something like a history book, or essays, or some other third person abstract. Game play's usually a little more obvious as you're more likely to get a macro-view of the nation, but it's still subtle.

Gameplay AARs: Here there's no question about it. The author is sticking to the facts. Whereas a historical narrative might say "General Bob led his army to the hills overlooking Winnepeg," a gameplay AAR would say "I moved 12,000 men into Manitoba, crushed the defenders and headed east."

Comedy: Some try for humor. Some even succeed They'll use one of the above methods but resort to absurdity, singing, or some other theme to show they aren't taking this seriously and neither should you.

AARs can pretty much run the field. You're already reading, so sooner or later you'll find a few you really like.

I have already found a few I really like, but I was not sure I quite understood them. I am a fan of history myself, though I doubt I hold a candle to most of the people on these forums. Regardless, I see the appeal, and I may even try writing one myself once I get better at this game.

That being said, thank you for your help, CatKnight. That goes for everybody who bothered to answer my stupid questions.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I recently started writing AARs, mainly because I'm an enjoyer of history. But what I've found is that AARs actually motivate me to write and help my writing skills. This is really helpful to me since I'm a junior in high school and don't like to write for school.

 

[unmerged(3435)]

Ooh, interesting!

To add my two pence, I think the point about replayability is a very good one. As Al_Qassam mentions there is a bit of a tendency for games to come with a linear or otherwise limited storyline, so although I enjoy games such as Warcraft 3 etc once completed they sit on the shelf for evermore... While the Paradox games are essentially (Hi)story-generating engines

Since the way the game develops is different each time it is played, there's a lot of fun to be had sharing your own (comparatively) unique experiences with other players. Not to mention that many people enjoy writing and illustrating these stories almost as a separate hobby entirely.

 

[unmerged(51967)]

It can be a boredom or a looking for more. Role playing really kind of fits in here, expanding imagination, having a few more free hours a day to waste.

Might be training, sometimes you'll see someone writing up an AAR and half of it is just practicing english skills. Or expanding on them. Again in this it might be someone trying to really tune up on creative writing skills. However the problem with this is you usually never get real in-depth feedback, positive or negative.

Some people like to tell a good yarn and just have people listen. "Bragging" AARs might fit in here but i wouldn't really think this happens consciously, the most epic AARs aren't always the ones where it was a cliffhanger and they eventually won. Most i'd say are steamrollers, they won one objective then just kept going and were never stoppable after one point.

Originally an AAR was just "regale your stories about wins/losses that were memorable". Now it's just expanded to become a big depot of people trying to be creative/funny (whether they succeed or not :rofl: ).

And also, try not to bitch about people commenting. A lot of people that comment are saying the same thing to boost a post count or trying to make you feel good because they know nobody else comments. If you were after comments you'd get people to Participate, give a choice, ask their opinion or leave the story itself so vague or suspenseful someone has to keep asking you to update/reveal the plot already.

 

[CatKnight]

And also, try not to bitch about people commenting. A lot of people that comment are saying the same thing to boost a post count or trying to make you feel good because they know nobody else comments. If you were after comments you'd get people to Participate, give a choice, ask their opinion or leave the story itself so vague or suspenseful someone has to keep asking you to update/reveal the plot already.

So....let me get this straight.

If a writer wants comments, he should directly solicit for them.

Anyone who offers an unsolicited comment is either spamming or feels sorry for you.

Right.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

It can be a boredom or a looking for more. Role playing really kind of fits in here, expanding imagination, having a few more free hours a day to waste.

Might be training, sometimes you'll see someone writing up an AAR and half of it is just practicing english skills. Or expanding on them. Again in this it might be someone trying to really tune up on creative writing skills. However the problem with this is you usually never get real in-depth feedback, positive or negative.

Some people like to tell a good yarn and just have people listen. "Bragging" AARs might fit in here but i wouldn't really think this happens consciously, the most epic AARs aren't always the ones where it was a cliffhanger and they eventually won. Most i'd say are steamrollers, they won one objective then just kept going and were never stoppable after one point.

Originally an AAR was just "regale your stories about wins/losses that were memorable". Now it's just expanded to become a big depot of people trying to be creative/funny (whether they succeed or not :rofl: ).

And also, try not to bitch about people commenting. A lot of people that comment are saying the same thing to boost a post count or trying to make you feel good because they know nobody else comments. If you were after comments you'd get people to Participate, give a choice, ask their opinion or leave the story itself so vague or suspenseful someone has to keep asking you to update/reveal the plot already.

I am still practicing my English skills, and I still can't figure out if your comments are meant positively or negatively

 

[phargle]

I disagree regarding the accusations leveled against AARs.

Originally, an AAR was simply what it claims to be: an after-action report. You'd play a game (often a board game) and then post what happened in the game for other people to read. It's always been a great way to learn about new games, or to think back on how things went. My first AARs were in my LiveJournal and were about the boardgame Junta - just round-by-round analyses of what people did in the game and when the turning points occured. I didn't do this because I was bored or to get people to boost their post-count on LiveJournal. I did it because the game was so exciting that I just had to tell somebody else about it.

Here, the AAR has evolved into a storytelling tool that also enhances the enjoyment the game provides. When I'm playing, I often think, "This is a lot of fun - but it'd be more fun if I was taking screenshots and putting everything into the context of an overall story that I could post on the forums."

If it was just about boredom, then we'd be posting roleplay AARs about Tekken 3. And honestly, who cares about post-counts anyway? And nobody reads AARs because they feel sorry for the writers. An AAR lives and dies by its readers. If people are interested, they read and post. If they're not, they don't. There's a certain amount of effort by people to be conscientious about reading and posting, but that's because folks here want to build a community - and one that encourages AAR writers. And for that I am quite grateful.

- - -

That defense of AARs said, there is a lack of constructive criticism. Feedback is either "that was awesome!" or nothing, and that's because it's difficult to parse or present negative feedback on the Internet without somebody getting offended - people just won't get the line between "hey, this would've been better if you did this" and "man your AAR sucks man." It's easier to just have a blanket ban on downers. This goes back to the idea of building a positive environment. If a writer wanted, they could solicit constructive criticism, however.

 

[CatKnight]

That defense of AARs said, there is a lack of constructive criticism. Feedback is either "that was awesome!" or nothing, and that's because it's difficult to parse or present negative feedback on the Internet without somebody getting offended - people just won't get the line between "hey, this would've been better if you did this" and "man your AAR sucks man." It's easier to just have a blanket ban on downers. This goes back to the idea of building a positive environment. If a writer wanted, they could solicit constructive criticism, however.

Now this is a fair statement, and for the reason phargle says: It's incredibly hard in a written forum like this to tell whether someone is trying to help, or offering something constructive, or if they're venting their spleen in your direction.

It is IMO far better to remain positive in another person's AAR. You're something of a guest there. Anyway, if I don't like where they're going, I'll tend to stop reading. One could argue it would be more helpful to 'criticize,' but then am I just arguing my personal preference or is there really a problem? The resulting discussions, even if they remained civil (good luck there), would quickly derail the AAR.

In a way the purpose the SolAARium and this general discussion forum serves. A writer thinks he's in trouble and starts asking for help.

The better commenters, if they like what they're seeing, will start speculating (without being solicited, I might add.) Their speculations will tell you EVERYTHING about your writing. If they're confused, it'll show and you can try to piece together where you lost them. If they're getting bored, they will hint it's time to go do something exciting. If they come up with a good idea... study it very, very closely. That speculation often serves the same purpose as constructive criticism - if you read between the lines of what your commenters say, you can figure out if something needs watching.

 

[unmerged(51967)]

If a writer wants comments, he should directly solicit for them.

If a writer wants feedback he needs to ask for it yes.

Anyone who offers an unsolicited comment is either spamming or feels sorry for you.

No, but it is often that a lot if not most comments are worth little in terms of feedback

 

[unmerged(19363)]

Quite true as has been said above, constructive critiquing an author's work is generally not done in an AAR. For one reason it would hurt the flow of the story. Though in the long term it might help the writer improve his trade, and make the tale more enjoyable yet for the readers. That's why this Guess the Author thing is such a great idea. You can look at your own work 1000 times, but get a different set of eyes on it, and instantly you find ways to improve upon it.

 

[phargle]

Methinks this thread is in danger of derailing! And, in doing so, it highlights the problems inherent in unfettered critiquing of AARs. Whether through misunderstanding or deliberate grumpiness, things will just spiral off-topic or get ugly.

Let's get back on topic.

CatKnight explains reading between the lines very well. A good writer will note what his readers are saying, not saying, responding to, and not responding to. Often, based on that, a writer is his own worst critic.