Summary, Ian Bogost (2007): ”Procedural
Rhetoric,” chapter 1 in Persuasive Games
– the Exressive Power of Video Games. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. (pp
1-64).
Ian Bogost
introduced the concept of procedural rhetoric: The rhetoric of the process or
the procedure. The name comes from the procedure, a set of actions bound by
rules, tradition or law. While a procedure can also be an entirely functional
process, as in the procedure for building a house, where each step needs to be
finished before the next starts, Bogost focuses on the conventional procedure,
where the process is based on decisions rather than function, and as such can
be manipulated.
Bogost
takes the idea of procedurality from Janet Murray’s book Hamlet on the Holodeck, and cites her essential properties of
digital artifacts: procedurality, participation, spatiality and encyclopedic
scope (see p 6). He specifies that for his purposes, procedural expression must
entail symbolic manipulation. Bogost does not specifically mention semiotics,
but this understanding of expression can be understood semiotically, which is concerned
with the production of meaning. For Bogost, the main issue is with the
computer’s ability to perform procedures, and hence create representations of
processes.
This unique
property of the computer as medium is not only part of the affordances, but
also the restrictions. In order to understand the potential of the computer, we
need to understand what processes it can represent, and how it can be done. It
also means that we can use the procedures in two major ways: as simulation,
descriptively to demonstrate how something is done, but also critically, to
question and explore how something is done, and even suggest alternative roads
of action.
Reading
tip: In the attempt of describing procedures, Bogost mentions several examples of
software and games. If the different types of procedurality are hard to grasp,
make the effort to visit these.
The book
also mentions different genres of procedural rhetoric, and the main inspiration
for this is Noah Wardrip-Fruin with his term operational logic (see p 13). He distinguishes between graphical and textual
logic. Graphical logics are typical of video games, and include movement and
collisions, while textual logics are for instance demonstrated in Eliza – “the
online therapist".
Bogost
spends pages 15 – 24 on rhetoric. This is a good repetition of other literature
on the topic for this course. On page 24 he reaches digital rhetoric, where he cites Lev Manovich, who claims that the
digital media means the end of rhetoric,
Laura Gurak and Elisabeth Losh, who work on creating a new understanding
of rhetoric based on digital media.
On this
background he suggests procedural rhetoric as a new rhetorical domain, a domain
that may open up to understanding how things work, how the process creates
meaning. Again, he brings several examples of different processes, and makes
suggestions to how a different process may convey a different meaning. From
page 46 he discusses persuasive games, with an emphasis on the potential of
videogames to communicate understanding of complex processes often ignored and
badly understood. He puts the idea of persuasive games against the idea of
serious games, a term he finds covers mainly authoritative games – games that
convey actions and processes which have been sanctioned: the corrct procedures
by a given political regime. Here Bogost’s understanding and argument becomes
both political and functional.
The next
step in his discussion is persuasive technology, where he leans heavily on B.
J. Fogg’s understanding and his concept of captology.
The overall
purpose of this chapter is to frame and explain the idea of procedural
rhetoric. In Bogost’s words: “In particular, a procedural rhetorician should
strive to understand the affordances of the materials from which a procedural
argument is formed.”
Summary, Christopher Paul (2010): “World of
Rhetcraft: Rhetorical Production and Raiding in World of Warcraft.” In Heather
Urbanski: Writing and the Digital
Generation, McFarland & Company inc., North Carolina and London. Pp 152
– 161.
Chris
Paul’s short article on the rhetoric of raiding describes how learning to play
and maintaining that knowledge is a process in itself. Paul underlines the
necessity of literacy to participate in the raiding process, and claims that
the emergent nature of rhetorical production in and around games is part of the
defining the digital generations. As examples he mentions the work to
understand one single bossfight, coordinating 25 people in the fight, and
research the different fights and the potential for success and failure evident
in the game through different websites.
Summary, Lisbeth Klastrup (2010): “Når
handlingsrommet bliver en modalitet: om spilæstetisk analyse af websites.” I
Martin Engebretsen (red): Skrift/bilde/lyd
– Analyse av sammensatte tekster, Høyskoleforlaget.
Klastrup
discusses the use of games for advertising, and hence for persuation. Her main
analytical perspective is to view the room of action as a modality. She points
out that games both are multimodal, and relate and interact with other online
modalities.
Klastrup
points to the user and the expectations to the user to act. This action within
a system-controlled world is then the main source of the creation of meaning. The
main focus of the game is not world as told or shown, but world as experienced.
In this understanding of the production of meaning, meaning arises from the process, from the
actions and the participation.
Agency
becomes a vital part of this process, and in conjunction with affordances,
training and mastery, a way to explore different modalities. This allows the
user to move between different states or modalities in a playful and
challenging manner unique to digital games. Klastrup describes this opportunity
for participation as a semiotic resource. This semiotic resource is a new form
of expression dependent on navigation and agency.
Her
discussion of the different modalities rests on the representation of the user
in the game, the user’s agency, and the connection between the game system,
universe and message. She uses these in an analysis, to demonstrate how these
can help understand and critically question a persuasive game.
Summary, Consalvo, Mia &
Dutton, Nathan (2006): ”Game analysis: Developing a Methodological Toolkit for
the Qualitative Study of Games”. In Gamestudies, vol.1. http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton.
Consalvo
and Dutton start out by showing how game analysis up until 2006 has been
looking for a structure for textual game analysis, but so far not been able to
find one that can be fully activated at all levels. They proceed to suggest and
expand on four areas of a game which can be analysed, either together or
independently: Object Inventory, Interface Study,
Interaction Map and Gameplay Log.
The object inventory can tell players
about the play style of the game: Are objects important, or random? In some
games all objects need to be saved, and they can be vital to being able to
finish the game. In other games objects have very little meaning, or they are
interchangeable and their importance depend on player style or goal. Objects
also give certain affordances, or offer limitations.
Interfaces are the site of players’
interaction with the game, and as such are rife sites to understand the goal of
the game, it’s affordances, usability, genres and the philosophy of the
designers. The interface is also the carrier of traditional textual meaning,
where players learn about the game universe through text and images, as well as
potential for actions or restrictions.
Interaction mapping is about
understanding the potential for actions in the game. This is active rather than
static, a description of the processes on play. In later studies, this may
perhaps be described as the procedural rhetoric.
The final area of game analysis is what
Consalvo and Dutton call gameplay logging. This action requires play, and it is
a process of experience as much as of analysis. It is also where it is possible
to explore the emergent aspects of games, when games cease being understood only
as structures, and become more sensual and explorative.
