Prompt 2 Week 7
Beyond what many people feel is ” a waste of time,” video games use rhetoric on different levels constantly (Gee, 19). Video games can be compared with philosophy on the basis that both can teach somebody something. Gee argues that conveying facts is not enough. One must look past content and look for knowledge “in the sense of information rooted in, or at least, related to intellectual domains” (Gee, 21). Every subject is on a different domain and this includes video games. One can just look at the facts and say that game just has senseless violence, but without understanding the domain of the game, one will not see the connections of teamwork, strategy, and other important traits which the game develops through rhetoric. The games display through the players “typical ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, and believing… sorts of social practices associated with a given semiotic domain” (Gee, 27). Without rhetoric woven in the game, people would just play to play, not gain experiences with it. Ian Bogost also discusses how rhetoric in games help to portray a desired feeling and actions. Games like Crazy World and The McDonalds Video Game allow players to act as if they had all of the choices within these areas and allows players to see the consequences of their actions on a global scale. This type of rhetoric is not written or spoken, but has the same effect through images and “procedural representation” (Bogost, 36). In addition Bogost says a game’s code is like verbal rhetoric where ones must look through the symbols to find the true meaning. On the outside video games appear to be just for fun. However, the development of the games for certain domains is the true goal of the developer. This person uses rhetoric to convey beliefs and feeling which the player typically will duplicate while playing the game. This is why video games/computer games fall under the scope of rhetorical studies. -Chris-
