Ian Bogost defines "procedural rhetoric," as "a type of rhetoric tied to the core affordances of computers: running processes and executing rule-based symbolic manipulation." Procedural rhetoric requires active participation, as opposed to merely telling the user about the processes, which would place the user in a more passive role.The difference between procedural rhetoric and other types of rhetoric can be exemplified by comparing video games to books. Video games use procedural rhetoric. Video games allow users to undergo certain real-life experiences by playing a part in a scaled-down version of those experiences. For example, video games represent walking (as occurs in the real world) by having the user "walk" in the game. The process of walking (performed by moving one's legs) is represented by the process of "walking" in the game (performed by pushing a button). Books, on the other hand, use literary rhetoric; readers play more passive roles in receiving information.
Procedural rhetoric is particularly applicable to Minecraft, a video game without a point system or designated storyline, whose only limitations are the processes the user must follow. It is these processes that the procedural part of procedural rhetoric refers to.
Making a Crafting Table
In Minecraft, the user replicates actual processes when crafting something. In order to make a tool, you need access to a crafting table. You can make one by arranging four wooden planks in a square. Move the crafting table to the bottom line of your inventory, use the scroll wheel to equip it, and place it in the world by right clicking. In order to make an iron sword, for example, you have to gather the materials (chop down a tree for wood, mine for iron ore), make those materials usable (change the wood into planks and then into sticks, smelt the iron ore using a previously-created furnace to make iron ingots) and then craft the sword (by placing those materials in the shape of a sword). This is about as close as a video game can come to representing the process of creating a sword without going
Crafting an iron sword
into the science of it (and completely frustrating the user).
The other part of procedural rhetoric is rhetoric--the game needs to try to convince the user of something. The McDonald's game was created in order to criticize the McDonald's corporation. Minecraft, on the other hand, does not have a societal or political agenda (at least not overtly). Instead, what it convinces the user of is this new world she is in. When I first started playing Minecraft, I was distracted by the blocky graphics, could not control my character and had no idea what I was supposed to do. I was very aware of the new world I was placed in and therefore skeptical of it. However, as I learned more about how to operate within the game and became more practiced, I had to think about it less. The graphics became less overt--instead of seeing blocks, I saw trees that I needed to chop down. I was better able to control my character--instead of pressing w and space bar, I was running and jumping. While the game had no particular goal, I quickly created my own--instead of wandering aimlessly, I was trying (somewhat desperately) to build a shelter before night fell. By following the procedures of Minecraft, I became immersed in that world.
And that is one of the biggest things Minecraft has to offer. Minecraft has often been compared to LEGO blocks, but I would argue otherwise. When playing with LEGO blocks, you are a god, removed from the world, above it. In Minecraft, on the other hand, you are completely submerged. The game persuades you that you are in a new world, a new domain, and, as Gee and many others argue, there is a lot of benefit to be found in that.
The procedural rhetoric of Minecraft is unique from that of other video games. In the case of the McDonald's game, the user receives the rhetorical meaning conveyed by the processes enacted by the game's player. These are described above, and are they constitute a fixed set of possible actions which may be taken in response to a fixed set of potential hazards. Therefore, an important component of the game’s rhetorical content is defined by the sets of hazards, actions, and outcomes which are predetermined by the game designers. Minecraft is different. It also shares a predetermined set of dangers, materials, and actions which interact with the player. This is the nature of computer games (but also real life), in that all worlds are comprised of actors and objects. What distinguishes Minecraft from other games is the objective. The game itself is divided into two basic categories: creative and survival. The objective of each category is self-explanatory, and therefore the game is procedurally as simple or as complex as the user decides to make it. That is to say, the meanings constructed by a player of Minecraft are not unlike those of any person engaged in the businesses of surviving or creating something. The player’s avatar begins their existence naked and unarmed in an undeveloped wilderness. The need for food and shelter is that avatar’s only imperative; the processes necessary to acquire those things are not explicitly prescribed by any agent. The player of the game is left to acquire resources and learn how to use them. The user is left to discover the hazards of their world, as well as the means of survival. Consequently, this is a game which rewards resourcefulness, foresight, planning, and other skills commonly associated with the processes of the "real world". The procedural rhetoric of Minecraft is characterized in part by the absence of preconceived processes. In other words, by offering the user a Tabula Rasa and a simple imperative (survive or create), the game requires the user to explore possibility, to seek to invent, and to direct themselves. Simplified conceptualizations of victory and defeat do not apply in this context. Consequently, the meanings conveyed by the procedural rhetoric of this game are unlike many video games. Those meanings will be heavily influenced by the user of the game, who may choose to engage any of a wide variety of processes that are allowed by the amorphous nature of the game. Players are invited to participate as co-designers of the game's world, and in this way to influence the characteristics of that world, such as the materials and the processes by which it is defined. By this flexibility, the procedural rhetoric of the Minecraft empowers the user, invites active participation and innovation, and avoids limiting itself to the narrowly defined set of meanings associated with many popular games.
Ian Bogost defines "procedural rhetoric," as "a type of rhetoric tied to the core affordances of computers: running processes and executing rule-based symbolic manipulation." Procedural rhetoric requires active participation, as opposed to merely telling the user about the processes, which would place the user in a more passive role.The difference between procedural rhetoric and other types of rhetoric can be exemplified by comparing video games to books. Video games use procedural rhetoric. Video games allow users to undergo certain real-life experiences by playing a part in a scaled-down version of those experiences. For example, video games represent walking (as occurs in the real world) by having the user "walk" in the game. The process of walking (performed by moving one's legs) is represented by the process of "walking" in the game (performed by pushing a button). Books, on the other hand, use literary rhetoric; readers play more passive roles in receiving information.
Procedural rhetoric is particularly applicable to Minecraft, a video game without a point system or designated storyline, whose only limitations are the processes the user must follow. It is these processes that the procedural part of procedural rhetoric refers to.
The other part of procedural rhetoric is rhetoric--the game needs to try to convince the user of something. The McDonald's game was created in order to criticize the McDonald's corporation. Minecraft, on the other hand, does not have a societal or political agenda (at least not overtly). Instead, what it convinces the user of is this new world she is in. When I first started playing Minecraft, I was distracted by the blocky graphics, could not control my character and had no idea what I was supposed to do. I was very aware of the new world I was placed in and therefore skeptical of it. However, as I learned more about how to operate within the game and became more practiced, I had to think about it less. The graphics became less overt--instead of seeing blocks, I saw trees that I needed to chop down. I was better able to control my character--instead of pressing w and space bar, I was running and jumping. While the game had no particular goal, I quickly created my own--instead of wandering aimlessly, I was trying (somewhat desperately) to build a shelter before night fell. By following the procedures of Minecraft, I became immersed in that world.
And that is one of the biggest things Minecraft has to offer. Minecraft has often been compared to LEGO blocks, but I would argue otherwise. When playing with LEGO blocks, you are a god, removed from the world, above it. In Minecraft, on the other hand, you are completely submerged. The game persuades you that you are in a new world, a new domain, and, as Gee and many others argue, there is a lot of benefit to be found in that.
The procedural rhetoric of Minecraft is unique from that of other video games.
In the case of the McDonald's game, the user receives the rhetorical meaning conveyed by the processes enacted by the game's player. These are described above, and are they constitute a fixed set of possible actions which may be taken in response to a fixed set of potential hazards. Therefore, an important component of the game’s rhetorical content is defined by the sets of hazards, actions, and outcomes which are predetermined by the game designers.
Minecraft is different. It also shares a predetermined set of dangers, materials, and actions which interact with the player. This is the nature of computer games (but also real life), in that all worlds are comprised of actors and objects. What distinguishes Minecraft from other games is the objective. The game itself is divided into two basic categories: creative and survival. The objective of each category is self-explanatory, and therefore the game is procedurally as simple or as complex as the user decides to make it. That is to say, the meanings constructed by a player of Minecraft are not unlike those of any person engaged in the businesses of surviving or creating something. The player’s avatar begins their existence naked and unarmed in an undeveloped wilderness. The need for food and shelter is that avatar’s only imperative; the processes necessary to acquire those things are not explicitly prescribed by any agent. The player of the game is left to acquire resources and learn how to use them. The user is left to discover the hazards of their world, as well as the means of survival. Consequently, this is a game which rewards resourcefulness, foresight, planning, and other skills commonly associated with the processes of the "real world".
The procedural rhetoric of Minecraft is characterized in part by the absence of preconceived processes. In other words, by offering the user a Tabula Rasa and a simple imperative (survive or create), the game requires the user to explore possibility, to seek to invent, and to direct themselves. Simplified conceptualizations of victory and defeat do not apply in this context. Consequently, the meanings conveyed by the procedural rhetoric of this game are unlike many video games. Those meanings will be heavily influenced by the user of the game, who may choose to engage any of a wide variety of processes that are allowed by the amorphous nature of the game. Players are invited to participate as co-designers of the game's world, and in this way to influence the characteristics of that world, such as the materials and the processes by which it is defined. By this flexibility, the procedural rhetoric of the Minecraft empowers the user, invites active participation and innovation, and avoids limiting itself to the narrowly defined set of meanings associated with many popular games.
Sources:
Bogost, Ian. The Expressive Power of Video Games. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007. Print.
For more information on procedural rhetoric and video games, you can explore:
Bogost - "Procedural Rhetoric"
Bogost's Website
GameZone - "Procedural Rhetoric of Deus Ex: Human Revolution"
Lindgren - "More on Procedural Rhetoric"
Reid - "Post-Procedural Rhetoric and Serious Games"
Wikipedia - "Procedural References"