Today’s Plan:
- Resources / Group Formation
- Read, Write, Transcribe for 20 minutes
- Synthesize and Discuss for 20 minutes
As I indicated Monday, I want to spend some time today having you work in groups. Our goal is to try and define/explain Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric in a few paragraphs–at least 2 but probably not more than 4. I want this paragraph to combine primary and secondary sources–so quotes and paraphrases from Bogost’s own writing as well as descriptions by other scholars. We should identify key terms with which the audience might be unfamiliar and provide some clear examples that help a reader visualize/comprehend the theoretical terms.
As an experiment, here is the response the AI ChatGPT provides when I ask it to “explain Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric:
Bogost’s procedural rhetoric is a theory of how the design and structure of a computer program can be used to persuade or argue for a particular point of view. The term was introduced by Ian Bogost, a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology and a leading thinker in the field of game design and game studies.
According to Bogost, procedural rhetoric is not about the use of language, images, or other traditional forms of rhetoric in the user interface of a program, but rather about the way the program itself operates. He argues that the processes and procedures of a program can be used to create an experience that is not just informative or entertaining, but also persuasive.
For example, Bogost suggests that a computer game that simulates the experience of a factory worker might be used to make a political argument about the conditions of factory work, and that the experience of playing the game would be a form of persuasion in itself.
He also explain that the way the program represented the world, the kind of interactions the player could have and the outcome of those interactions will shape the user’s understanding of the theme.
Additionally, the design of the code, the structure of the program, the way data is represented, the flow of the code are used to make a point and to shape how a user interacts and understand the digital artifact in question.
Bogost’s work has been influential in the field of game design and game studies, but also in other fields where computational artifacts are used as a form of persuasion such as Human Computer Interaction, Critical Code Studies, and more.
While this is pretty impressive–it also has some “empty calories” and/or fails to explicate Bogost to the point where I, as a reader, would feel I could conduct a procedural analysis. But it does give us a staring point, some categories to think about. I have questions:
- How does the design of a computer game, the world in which it places us, the world as backdrop for player action, make an argument?
- What kinds of actions are more likely to shape a user’s understanding of a game’s theme?
- Is procedural rhetoric something designers intend to do?
- What are examples of how the “experience” of playing a game is an argument? [we can do better than the factory worker example]
- What are the elements of a procedural analysis
- Group 1: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games” 117-123. Pay particular attention to bottom of 119–note how he is differentiating his analysis from the values of the game’s community. Page 121 and possibility space and rules. Finally, paragraph that begins “video games depict real and imagined systems on the bottom of 122 through the end of that section.
- Group 2: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 125- top of 128. Y’all get to tackle the “Procedural Rhetoric” section. Why does Bogost think procedural rhetoric is necessary and important?
- Group 3: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 128-130. You’ll tackle the “Ways of Using Procedural Rhetoric: Interrogating Ideology” section. Note: we probably need to distinguish procedural rhetoric form the study of epistemic and/or serious games.
- Group 4: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 130-136. You’ll tackle the “Ways of Using Procedural Rhetoric: Making and Unpacking an Argument” section. This is a long chunk–note the distinction between games designed to make arguments and games that might make those arguments less intentionally (the Bully vs. McDonald’s Game paragraphs at the bottom of 134).
- Group 5: Bogost, “The Rhetoric of Video Games,” 136-137. Y’all get the conclusion–short but dense.
- Group 6: Custer, “Understanding Procedural Rhetoric.” 1-5
- Group 7: Custer, “Understanding Procedural Rehtoric” 5-8 (has useful “how to” list)
- Group 8: Love, “Problematizing Videogames: Teaching Students to be Critical Players.” p. 7’s paragraphs on Bogost. Good luck summarizing what an enthymeme is in a few sentences–if you Google it, you’ll get explanations about how an enthyememe is a “truncated syllogism.” Essentially, it is an argument that leaves out a few claims that an audience will fill in themselves.
Stage One: Gather, Collect, Copy/Paste, Label
Your group will have 20 minutes to go through the pages you have been assigned and collect and catalogue the valuable ideas, terms, passages, quotes, and examples it contains. We will dump that material into this document, which has sections similar to the questions I have laid out above.
You can use anything we develop collaboratively in your papers.
Stage Two: Share, Discuss, Paraphrase or Quote?
Let’s talk and mess with what we have.
Homework
Play your game. Finish your journals. Start drafting your paper. Think about what smart things you have to say about your game, and what parts of today’s explication are necessary for your paper.
