Games as The Modern Rhetorical Tool (Blogpost #11)
Games are an evolution of traditional rhetoric; instead of having an argument revolve around one or two different mediums, like a slide deck and a speech, games combine audio, visual, and mechanical components in a way that creates a very different level of engagement. Games ask of their players (and watchers) a certain level of inherent commitment. A student can zone out during a speech or skim a reader, but the intimacy and concentration required to play a game makes it more difficult to play without getting at least some meaning out of it. Sure, a person playing Bloodborne could choose not to read any of the item descriptions or flavor text on any of the items and miss the intricate web of storytelling that’s been carefully crafted in this visually stunning, slash ’em Lovecraftian horror game, but it’s not really possible to miss that people are turning into monsters and you’re running around trying to get rid of the monsters of this city. The level of knowledge gained from simply playing a game without trying to learn anything is still relatively high compared to other types of persuasive compositions.
Given this, it’s important to note that not all video games are trying to persuade its players for or against something. On the baseline level, a game might just be simply trying to create a believable world (though not always). But some games are designed with intent to suggest a specific course of action for the player, like changing their perspective or raising awareness on an important issue, such as endangered aboriginal culture like in Never Alone designed by Upper One Games. In Collin Campbell’s Polygon article “Here’s why the UN is getting interested in video games” he discusses how games can not raise awareness about certain issues in other people’s or group’s lives, but they can also “challenge[…] lazy assumptions about otherness” (Campbell 2017). Campbell goes on to describe how games have a unique ability that other forms of persuasive rhetoric don’t have; games can literally give someone another perspective with which to view the world as they move through the game (2017).
Unlike an article, video games have a more expansive toolkit to work with when used to foster empathy (2017). Articles online have words, but can also include pictures, videos, hyperlinks, and a variety of audio information for the reader to sift through. The problem with rhetorical devices like online articles, however, is that they are very confined in how long they can be to be ‘readable.’ The same applies for videos and audio clips — though I would argue audio clips or podcasts/commentaries or other media that don’t rely on vision can typically be longer because consumers can do other things while they ‘listen’ to it. With video games, the typical time that the work has to convey a point can be much longer — but shorter pieces can also speak volumes. When a advocate for a particular cause is vying for something and they only have words and pictures as their tools, it becomes a game of ‘how do I keep this person interested?’ whereas video games seem to have an expectation that the experience will be somewhere between 20 minutes and several hours for a non-AAA title. That’s so much more time (and expectation) than traditional media and that’s why games can be such a powerful tool for advocacy groups in this day and age.
An example of digital game advocacy is the case of Skylar Thomas, an animal-rights activist who designed Paintball Hero. The mobile game allows players to save animals and educate and murder cooperate goons in the process (Ament, 2017). Though the article “Screen Saviors: Can Activism-Focused Games Change Our Behavior?” by Rachel Ament paints this particular game in a positive light, it also shows off an unfortunate side-effect of games that strike a behavioral binary; either agree with me or there will be violence. Games have the power to inform, unite, and create change, but some designers implement mechanics and goals that suggest that there are just two sides to an argument — either you’re right or you’re wrong. This sort of rhetoric can be effective in growing a movement because people like to have a common enemy, but this sort of divisive rhetoric is detrimental to causes that can be championed in a non-violent, productive way that tries to bring all people on either side of the fence together instead of building the fence higher.
References
Campbell, C. (2017, January 24). Here’s why the UN is getting interested in video games. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/1/24/14364864/unesco-video-games-report
Ament, R. (2017, July 23). Screen Saviors: Can Activism-Focused Games Change Our Behavior? Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/23/538617205/screen-saviors- can-activism-focused-games-change-our-behavior
Brown, James & Alexander E (2016). Procedural Rhetoric, Proairesis, Game Design, and the Revaluing of Invention. In Play/Write edited by Douglas Eyman & Andrea Davis.
