Procedural Rhetoric

Preface: I know this analysis and response is going to seem simplistic as compared to other analyses, but given the analytical tools available, it's the best I can do.

It appears that Bogost proposes that by developing or limiting the controlling options available to the end user, the game developer advocates a certain level of interaction or player experience. His analysis of GTA III, for example, demonstrates that the player is all but forced to engage in subversive actions as opposed to more socially acceptable approaches. The PC cannot directly interact with most NPCs (the exception being quest givers, who provide insight into the game through brief machinima presentations). However, the player can kill anyone and take their money, weapons, and/or car. The game world is dynamic and open-ended, but the actions the player can take are limited by the developers to keep the key gameplay aspect, anti-social behavior, alive throughout the gaming experience.

Similarly, in the McDonald's Game, which I played in preparation for this class, the key to success lies in inappropriate corporate behavior. Playing the game according to "the rules" of proper corporate conduct, such as paying fair wages or using safe and environmentally sound farming practices, almost directly results in failure. Where it costs $5000 to develop a pasture on clear ground, it costs only $3000 to bulldoze old growth rain forests or native villages and develop that tract into farm land. Rewarding an employee is much less effective than firing one and hiring a replacement. The controls do not allow for raises for employees or safe farming practices in most cases, which limits your options. In essence, you are forced to make bad decisions and live with the consequences.

These kinds of controls remind me of both Foucault's and Burke's discussions on rhetorical controls and orientations, respectively. Foucault, for example, explains that conforming with the established social constructions of how things are done is reinforced by several nodes of authority in a network of social control. Failure to comply with these often unwritten controls results in the member of the society being ostracized or labeled "crazy." Further, the public internalizes these controls through a network of reinforcements, both external and internal. Breaking these internalized controls is difficult and painful, and therefore is often not undertaken. In the case of games, having a finite and anticipated number of control commands or opportunities for interaction feels normal. By offering a large number of options for interaction, such as is demonstrated in GTA IV or the Elder Scrolls series of games, the player may become confused or discouraged from further play. There simply are too many options available.

Burke's explanation of terministic screens and orientation also lends to the discussion of procedural rhetoric. Orientation, in this case, refers to the accepted perspective of the end user. That which occurs within the normal orientation of a gamer in a game setting, such as shooting a cab driver in the face and stealing his car, feels right. Paying for the cab ride does not, so it was not included in early iterations of the GTA game series. Alternately, in the McDonald's game, the player is offered only a select number of options for each challenge which he encounters. Solutions outside those control configurations are not allowed, so the player is forced to adopt the orientation of a vicious corporate controller and take otherwise despicable actions in order to succeed at the game.

In both of these cases, the procedures of the game are designed to espouse a very specific paradigm of gameplay and build a strong rhetorical example of how the player must interact. Persuasive games, according to Bogost, use procedural rhetoric to convince the audience that a certain course of action is appropriate. For example, in the Tax Invaders game, the player is encouraged to avoid tax collectors while collecting money. This game, produced to support the Republican party's program of tax cuts, advocates tax evasion in favor of personal wealth. By keeping keeping the game experience on message, the player may find himself more likely to support tax cuts based on a negative experience in the game. The game itself did not state that taxes were bad, but in order to successfully complete the game, the player has to internalize this notion, which is reinforced throughout the game experience.

Unfortunately, I can see that this line of thinking can result in the kind of negative attention espoused by Jack Thompson and the anti-gaming politicians. Games such as GTA IV can be construed as advocating violent solutions to problems.

1) How can a pro-gaming advocate explain the arguements in favor of procedural rhetorics without opening the window for traditional anti-gaming arguments?

2) What other definitions of rhetoric are effective at explaining Bogost's idea of procedural rhetoric?