Today’s Plan:
- Defining Rhetoric
- Bogost Discussion
- Playing Some Games
- Homework
Reviewing Last Class / Defining Rhetoric
Last class I opened arguing by trying to confuse you a bit–the strategy here was to get you thinking in ways to which you might not be used. I hope you took away that I don’t like to think about rhetoric as “persuasion,” as an attempt by a self to manipulate another person. I want to think about human communication as more “dialogic” than that, as interaction, movement and response. So, instead of thinking about rhetoric as “persuasion” or even “influence,” I propose the following definition:
I consider rhetoric as the study and practice of how we can develop experiences, spaces, collaborations, encounters, through which we help ourselves and others negotiate the disequilibrium produced by difference in order to potentially foster more productive collaboration, negotiation, and change.
I’m surprisingly happy with that.
Bogost Discussion
A pre-discussion exercise. Go through your answers to the four questions and decide which one you would like to revise and present to the class.
At some point I want to talk about Collin’s question and visual enthymeme.
You can put that material (question, any quotes, etc) in this document.
Thinking About Procedurality
It might be useful to define “serious games,” which can have two definitions. First and second.
Okay, let’s watch something.
Okay, let’s play something.
Our first project this semester is based on Jason Custer’s article on teaching procedurality. In the article, Jason distills the Bogost article you read (and a few other materials) into a “heuristic,” a set of generative questions we can apply to any game. I’ve modified those a bit, so here’s our collective heuristic:
- What does this game represent? [What is the theme? Rhetorical Purpose? Argument? Message?]
- Mechanically, what stands out to you?
- What mechanics does the game use to support that representation?
- What are some potential arguments made by the mechanics?
- In what ways do the mechanics match the argument?
- In what ways do the mechanics clash with/ignore the argument?
- How might we modify the mechanics to create more procedural harmony/aesthetic impact?
What happens when we apply these questions to Cooking Mama?
Homework
First, read the Custer article in the files section of Canvas–it should help you better understand how to do a procedural analysis. We will discuss this article in class on Friday.
After you have read the Custer, visit this Google Doc. Everyone should play at least 2 of the games on Jason’s list for 15 minutes. Complete as many of the heuristic questions for that entry as possible.
