Game designer, researcher, and gamer Ian Bogost examines the rhetoric of videogames and their ability to present arguments or a point of view. Videogames are a recent phenomenon that most associate as a leisure activity. Bogost goes a step further and finds a few choice examples of certain videogames that do more than simply entertain us.
As the title The Rhetoric of Video Games suggests, Bogost supports the notion that videogames are a type of visual rhetoric. Rhetoric, as have we read, is an art form of communication and persuasion. Bogost adds that the still and moving images of videogames are just one part of what comprises videogames as rhetoric. He puts the procedural aspect, essentially the coding and playability of the game itself, above the images. He argues that the rhetoric is woven into the process of playing the game. Unlike written text or spoken word, the rhetoric of
Ian Bogost. Google Images
videogames is vested in how to the player advances through the game. Bogost uses the term ‘procedural rhetoric.’
Procedural rhetoric is a general name for the practice of authoring arguments through processes.
Procedural rhetoric deals with a symbolic medium and therefore serves as a model for conceptual systems. Animal Crossing is a game that demonstrates the workings of consumer capitalism. The McDonalds Videogame is an example used to demonstrate how the procedural rhetoric of videogames can be used to critique existing institutions. Unlike most videogames, The McDonalds Videogame‘s main focus is to call to attention the workings of a global corporation and all of the nitty-gritty, behind the scenes action that takes place. It isn’t a traditional videogame in the sense that its mission is to provide entertainment; it’s more focused on “a procedural rhetoric about the necessity of corruption in the global fast food business, and the overwhelming temptation of greed, which leads to more corruption” (Bogost, 11).
While I think Bogost wrote a compelling article, I believe that there are some oversights to his argument. His claim that videogames have become and can further advance as rhetorical platforms neglects to account for those who will completely miss the message – people like me. In his article he gave the example of how the game Bully served to satirize social cliques and the politics of high school. When I was playing this game, I definitely didn’t come away with a changed perspective towards high school social groups. I was main
ly focused on the fun aspect of the game: preying on fat kids, police, and civilians. I think that the procedural rhetoric of videogames makes it more difficult to convey a message than traditional rhetoric. The message gets lost in translation unless the game makes it explicitly clear what message they are conveying – a
Mario is a game without any special lessons. Google Images
game like The McDonalds Videogame is a good example. Of course, these ‘games with a lesson’ will be less likely to reach a mass market of gamers who are out to slay dragons and eat shrooms.
3 responses to “New Virtual Rhetorical Frontier”