Post #7- Procedural Rhetoric

             (From bn.com) 

 

Ian Bogost’s first chapter in Persuasive Games seems to be the tool box for which we, the readers, will find some important basic concepts and terminology used throughout the book.  This chapter, entitled “Procedural Rhetoric,” breaks down rhetoric and eventually moves into a distinction between serious and persuasive games, all the while providing examples which can help to clarify these terms and the ways in which he uses them.  And, of course, Bogost lays out his purpose for this book in a very clear-cut way.

                As someone not hailing from a background of computer knowledge beyond that of a word processor and some internet surfing, from a background replete of video games, and a background where rhetoric was never explicitly expressed (although, granted, we’ve implemented it in writing, in debate classes, in my art history classes), this chapter provided a very useful starting point for the integration of rhetoric and persuasive games.

                In the beginning of the chapter, Bogost opens with a detailed example of the video game Tenure which allows the player to simulate the first year of teaching at a secondary school.  The player gets to make decisions which then have the ability to affect their relationships with other teachers, the principle, students, and the parents of students.  Many different possibilities are available in this game, all which help to show first year teachers how the system works—how every decision is caught up in political and social dilemmas.  And this game, Bogost argues is an example of procedural rhetoric—that is, “the practice of using processes persuasively” (3).

Procedurality

                In the sub-section about procedure, Bogost begins by acknowledging that procedure is often coupled with a negative connotation.  Essentially, Bogost seems to be saying that procedure is a set of rules and regulations that can be manipulated if need be.  A particularly interesting comment Bogost makes on the topic of procedure, and a comment that I feel highlights his explanation very well is that without a process “it would perhaps never even occur to us that defective or unwanted products can be returned” (7).  Through the logic that surrounds what we do, there is a process and we are “authoring” that process by procedure.  Basically, almost everything we do is part of a process.

Rhetoric

                In this sub-section, Bogost goes into detail about various kinds of rhetoric.  The classical form of rhetoric was meant to be oral and performed in public, as it was specifically meant to deal with social and political issues.  We’ve all be exposed to this and a more written form of rhetoric, so in awareness of word restrictions, I will be moving onto mention, briefly, visual  and digital rhetoric. 

                As an art history minor, I took a class on women and art and I was much more substantially educated in visual rhetoric.  In visual rhetoric, images are used to generate and sway opinions.  We are faced with these every day when we see billboards and ads on the internet.  Because there is, as Bogost mentions, a very emotional aspect to visual rhetoric (think of Humane Society ads with the abused dogs and cats), verbal rhetoric is often much more privileged.  However, the very fact that visual rhetoric exists helps us see that the concept of rhetoric is open to various other forms, say, for instance, video games.

            The existence of visual rhetoric leads Bogost into a discussion of digital rhetoric, which he claims “typically abstracts the computer as a consideration, focusing on the text and image content a machine might host and the communities of practice in which that content is created and used” (25).  However, this form of rhetoric does not often address the interactivity that allows for the authoring of processes.

Procedural Rhetoric

(Image from: http://mcdonalds.video.game.suckered.us/)

                Which brings us to procedural rhetoric.  In short, procedural rhetoric is the act of using process persuasively.  Bogost’s example of the game Tenure is a good example of this.  But, Bogost also provides another example of a game called The McDonald’s Game which allows the player to run a massive fast food organization.  Like Tenure, the player gets to make decisions based on how it will operate its farming, deal with various rights groups, and other such day to day organization activities.  As an example of procedural rhetoric, this game uses the process of the fast food conglomeration to make an argument about the procedures they have.

                Both of those examples, Tenure and The McDonald Game, were extremely clear in the book, allowing me to really grasp what procedural rhetoric was and how it can relate to video games.  In many ways, it seems as though all simulations are a form of procedural rhetoric.  They engage a procedure, a process, and have the ability to make an argument.  And, they stand in direct contrast to other examples Bogost presents such as the Retouch project which shows the viewer what happens to a photo that will be in a magazine, but does not allow the viewer to do it themselves.  There is a process being presented there, and an argument being made, but it is vastly different than persuasive games and not quite procedural rhetoric because it does not allow the viewer to be part of the process.

                In many ways our project in Second Life could be classified as a persuasive game which embodies a procedural rhetoric and makes arguments as to how various processes work in the material world.  We are taking a process (being a tour guide) and allowing those who are going to become tour guides operate within a world where they can explore various ways in which tour guiding can happen and practice persuading members of the tour to stay on task.

Questions:

1)      1)While Bogost says he will get into more commercial games in later chapters, can you think of any more commercial or popular games that would fall under the umbrella of persuasive games?

2)      2) Does a game having a goal and a simple set of instructions make it procedural rhetoric?  Is there anything else it should or could have to make it a “good” game?

3)      3) Bogost provides an example of GrandTheft Auto on page 43 and in discussion about it he says that the limited interactivity is not a limitation of the game.  But, couldn’t it be seen as a limitation?