Introduction - Wordplay and the Discourse of Video Games - page 8

which is the most established method of game studies analysis predicated
on a rhetorical approach. Bogost defi nes procedural rhetoric as “a practice
of using processes persuasively.” 29 He argues that, in video games, “the
main representational mode is procedural, rather than verbal,” 30 which
necessitates developing a mode of procedural rhetoric to address texts that
are not spoken or written in a conventional sense. Inspired by his descrip-
tions of rhetoric, he contends, “Following the classical model, procedural
rhetoric entails persuasion—to change opinion or action. Following the
contemporary model, procedural rhetoric entails expression—to convey
ideas ef ectively.” 31 To this end, a key take away from his argument is that
“video games make claims about the world. But when they do so, they do
it not with oral speech, nor in writing, nor even with images. Rather, video
games make argument with processes .” 32 Procedural rhetoric seeks to ana-
lyze how games use processes to “dictate how actions can and cannot be
carried out” 33 and how those processes persuade players. Both Galloway
and Bogost are invested in the ways in which the structure and processes
of games are dif erent than other forms of media, which requires revising
analytical methods designed for other media formats.
Although attention to structures and the notion of procedural rhetoric
is quite useful in analyzing video games, there are two key limitations of
this approach. First, isolating procedures from other elements of discourse
is problematic. Just as Galloway and Bogost contend that video games can-
not be fully understood without analyzing their processes, one must also
analyze the context and forces shaping those procedures. Although some-
thing like the specifi c chat channels or means of communication enabled or
disabled by a video game could be considered an aspect of its procedural
rhetoric, the discourse in those channels may be quite similar to traditional
reading and writing. There are also dynamics inside and outside of the
game that can shape how it is played, from Dragon Kill Points (DKP) 34 to
the clothes players choose to wear in games 35 or the presentation of race in
Grand Theft Auto . 36 Procedures in games are not conceived in a vacuum,
which means that it is important to look both at and beyond them. Word-
play fi lls this gap by focusing on both the procedures within games and the
elements surrounding them.
Separately, one could read Bogost's approach to procedural rhetoric as
a secondary text that reshapes how games are designed. Bogost presents a
rearticulation of what games do, altering the structure of future processes.
In ef ect, if his analysis is successful in changing how games are designed,
his work is a demonstration of the rhetorical force of both texts beyond a
game and processes of a game.
Second, Bogost contends that “[v]ideo games have the power to make
arguments, to persuade, to express ideas. But they do not do so inevita-
bly” 37 and gives “the name persuasive games to videogames that mount
procedural rhetorics ef ectively.” 38 This pair of statements is incompatible