Post #8- Politics

In the first section of his book, the section on politics, Bogost provides the reader with countless examples of games that are “persuasive.”  These arguably good games while employing procedural rhetoric exhibit how politics can work through games.  Bogost posits that games which exhibit procedural rhetoric can illuminate political processes, various political ideologies, and democracy far better than more traditional sources such as documentaries, visual ads, and even social interaction such as blogs.  If we continue the idea Bogost puts forth in the first chapter, that process (and logic) underwrite everything we do, it makes sense that it forms the basis of various political processes.  And, it follows that ideology is firmly in place and ushered in by procedure. 

                A large portion of what Bogost speaks about in the three chapters on politics and procedural rhetoric is ideology.  Ideology is, as Bogost defines it, the “hidden procedural systems that drive social, political, or cultureal behavior” (72).    It is what we come to think and feel, a “false representation of reality” (74).  I feel that calling it a false representation is a bit extreme, but ideology does seem to lurk at the base of all of our processes.  It lines the affinity groups we belong to and it helps to steer our every move.  Ideology helps to make up our world view.  And persuasive games help to expose that view to us, either for confirmation or questioning.

                Through a myrid of examples, Bogost helps to further clarify what persuasive games are, and perhaps the two that really caught my eye were Tax Invaders and games such as Socks the Cat Rocks the Hill.

Tax Invaders

(Image from: http://usability.typepad.com/confusability/images/tax_invaders.gif)

Tax Invaders is a 2004 game for the GOP when Bush was running against Kerry in the election.  Using the platform of Space Invaders, Tax Invaders situates Kerry’s tax increases as a threat and the Republican firing gun (Bush’s head) as the thing that will save the country.  Framed by verbal rhetoric, this game then allows the player to play through the ideological stronghold of conservative politics.  The ideologies are experienced through the process of the game rather than told via popup text or another such mode.  They allow the player to experience and gain a deeper understanding of one of the big issues of the election.  Republican players may feel their own thoughts about taxation reinforced, and Democratic players may indeed use the game to further cement their own thoughts.  While not a highly aesthetic or sophisticated game, Tax Invaders does require the player to assume the role of a conservative in order to play and it does reinforce ideology.  I found this example particularly useful when it came to understanding political ideology, especially when looked at in comparison to the following two examples.

Socks the Cat Rocks the Hill and Bush vs. Kerry Boxing

(Image from: gamingafter40.blogspot.com)

                “Not all videogames about politics are political” (90) according to Bogost and, true to form, he offers examples (would we expect anything less?).  This game, while it never actually came to fruition, situates the player as Socks.  Socks/the player must navigate throughout the White House, sneaking past politians and spies in order to warn the president (Clinton) that there has been a stolen nuclear missile.  While this game is about politics (the White House, Republicans and Democrats, stolen missiles), it does not expose a process, or in other words, expose how things work.  It merely situates the players within the political world without context.

                Another example of a political game that it not political is Bush vs. Kerry Boxing, a game meant to simulate boxing matches with presidential candidates in hopes of winning people over to a traditional sports game.  Like Socks the Cat, this game does not expose a process or ideology.  Instead it merely puts political people in a situation removed from the process of politics.

Politiking

                Political video games are also useful within the subtext of campaigning.  Presidential hopefuls (or any political hopeful) often utilize digital means to get themselves known, striking out on the internet, attempting to reach possible votes.  These digital artifacts that hopefuls use are made up of “four essential properties” (124).  These are: “procedurality, participation, spatiality, and encyclopedic scope” (124).  While all are very useful when running for office, procedurality is often pushed along the wayside.  It can be, and should be utilized within politics, however.

                Because videogames are well on their way to becoming pervasive artifacts within the political world, it would make sense that persuasive games were adopted.  Bogost claims that because political issues are so complex and policy issues are rarely binary, video games are well suited for the type of conversation that should go on about these issues.  If political issues are meant to be spoken about and discussed, what better way than to utilize a video game that allows the players to work through the process? 

               

Questions:

1)     1)  Is procedural rhetoric just exposing the inner workings or ideology of something?

2)     2)  Games such as Kabul Kaboom and September 12 operate under the rhetoric of failure.  Would those be considered “good” games?  And, can we apply the idea of a “good” game to political games in general if they are unwinnable?

3)      3) This book was published in 2007.  Are more recent techniques for Internet-based campaigning utilizing procedural rhetoric?  Can you think of any?