This whole notion of rhetoric in video games has come to me
as a shock! The way one must analyze a video game is completely different than
analyzing a film or any other type of major media. The rhetorical devices
include ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos. Throughout Bogost’s article, I delved
into the notion of video games and the way they are created.
As a viewer, I am able to scrutinize any video game with a
whole new viewpoint. Bogost introduces procedural rhetoric, which is something
I was unfamiliar with. He clearly explains how the game writer codes and
creates rules taking a certain standpoint on one or many cultural values. For
me, it is very interesting to learn about the background of the way a video
game is created. Being taken step-by-step through the creation allows me to
open my mind while playing a new game. I will be able to discern the meaning
and rhetorical devices of any game. Not only does this add to my video game
knowledge, but it also adds credibility to the creator. The designer of the
game will feel a sense of accomplishment because its users understand the
purpose for the game. There are many options for our “avatar” in the game, yet
each player performs specific actions according to his/her point of view.
Overall, in order for me to maximize my analysis on video
games, I am continuing to try and understand the way logos, pathos, ethos, and
kairos are incorporated into any specific game. It would be helpful to clarify
kairos a little bit more in class, maybe give an example to help us understand
the way kairos can be connected to video games. Other than that, I look forward
to expanding my knowledge and analytical skills on video games.
Good stuff Sarah -- I'm looking forward to your analysis! I think you're right to say that this sort of thinking is both productive for players and for designers in that it offers a critical toolkit for thinking about how the interactive qualities of the medium can be used to construct highly nuanced arguments. Bogost's article is interesting in that it defines play as a non-passive activity that requires players to develop and utilize a literacy of the game in order to construct meaning in that space. Something as simple as "mushrooms make me grow bigger" or "100 coins will reward me with an extra life" constitutes a literacy of Super Mario and its procedures. Players become fluent in what the symbol "mushroom" says AND does -- how each object in a game has an effect that can be either positive or negative. Whereas reading books or watching films in no way obliges you to understand the message, games do oblige players to understand if they want to progress in the game. The production of meaning while playing is essential, which means that (as your post observes) learning how to unpack the meanings that players are producing is necessary. Also, while Super Mario Bros. might be an abstract example, it's easy to see how one could use this model to teach in a much more productive manner in that it allows players to explore what happens when they choose an answer that might be "wrong." Anyway, just some thoughts.
ReplyDelete