Purposes of Persuasion

In concluding this book, Bogost attempts to draw a final conclusion between the games he's examined and his proposal that the procedures therein either successfully or unsuccessfully persuade the audiences. However, it would seem that the best forms of procedural rhetorics are the ones that act almost subliminally to incite action. Animal Crossing, for example, does not insist that family members play in the same game world, but builds in rewards for doing so. Similarly, WoW has a sub-surface reward system that privileges gamers who play with others, take time away from the game, and work within the system to do things that are not simply grinding mobs.

This second example, WoW's use of procedural rhetorics to encourage responsible and communal gameplay, is the thesis of the seminar paper for this course. I've been working and thinking on it for weeks at this point, and finally feel as though I'm in a position to begin writing.

I've also been preparing questions for Ian Bogost's appearence (if virtually) in class this evening. My biggest questions for him are:

1) To what extent do you think a game's capacity for user generated content, such as machinima or user created maps, exhibit or inhibit the procedurality of the designer's original intent?

2) You've commented on ethics models in RPGs as effective models of how games can teach ethical decisions. Do you think this is more akin to hero quests of classical literature? (Probably will skip this question)

3) In your chapter on procedural literacy, you mention that videogames bridge the gap between costructivism and behaviorism. Could you expand on this claim?