Abstract
The concept of procedural rhetoric - the use of procedural representations like rules and mechanics for the purpose of persuasive communication - as proposed by Ian Bogost (2007) have had a significant impact on the conceptualization of how games convey meaning and has served also as an influential game design paradigm (Sicart, 2011). The related research and academic debate has been focusing on the question what aspects of games and player-game interaction contribute to the meaning making process of gameplay.
The concept of procedural rhetoric has been challenged by some scholars due to the dominant role that is ascribed to procedurality. Ultimately arguing that there is more to the meaning of digital games than their mechanics and rules (Deterding, 2016; Möring, 2013; Sicart, 2011).
Yet there seems to be a lack of quantitative empirical research that would study the persuasive effectiveness of procedural game elements, i.e. how (and whether at all) do they influence the game's effects on players' attitudes. This is partly due to the challenges faced when attempting to formulate an operationalized definition of procedural rhetoric that would be usable as a basis of empirical research design.
Our aim is to provide such a definition. We need to distinguish procedural representation both from the discrete communication elements through which they are conveyed to the player, such us the visual, auditory and textual cues, and also from other structural elements such as the game narrative.
For a broader perspective on what constitutes the persuasive communication of games, we use the theoretical model proposed by Theresa De La Hera (2014; 2015). In this model the means of persuasive communication of games are divided into three levels: signs, system and context, with procedural persuasion being one of three dimensions of the system level together with narrative and cinematic persuasion.
Within these distinctions we propose to conduct a semiotic analysis of selected game examples (Brejcha, 2015) to identify the possible structural elements that constitute the procedural mode of communication. As part of the notation used in the semiotic analysis, we propose to use the Machinations diagrammatic language (Dormans, 2011) that is designed to represent game mechanics retaining the game's structural features and dynamic behaviour.
In the selection of game examples, we would draw upon games already used as examples by above mentioned scholars studying procedurality, but we are also including non-digital games. Although procedurality is often described as something unique to digital games, non-digital games have also of course game mechanics and rules that may contribute to their meaning.
For our purpose they may be particularly useful as they present a specific challenge for the definition of procedurality since their rules are mostly not emerging from gameplay but are instead expressed in a rule book or explained in the beginning of a play session. The resulting operationalized definition of procedural rhetoric is to be used in following research as a basis for the design of qualitative empirical research conducted as a series of independent laboratory experiments with random allocation.
Participants play one of the two versions of an educational game designed for the purpose of our research, the independent variable are exclusively the procedural elements of the game. Such an empirical research is significant not only as a verification of the assumptions about how and by what means do games affect players, but it has also far-reaching ethical implications for the game design process as design choices result in a procedural representation of a given topic.
References: Bogost, I. (2007), Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Brejcha, J. (2015), Cross-Cultural Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience Design: A Semiotic Perspective, CRC Press.
Deterding, S. (2016), "The Mechanic Is Not the (Whole) Message: Procedural Rhetoric Meets Framing in Train & Playing History 2", DiGRA/FDG '16 - Abstract Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG, Vol. 13, DiGRA. Dormans, J. (2011), "Simulating mechanics to study emergence in games", Workshops at the Seventh Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference, AAAI Press, Palo Alto, pp. 2-7. de la Hera Conde-Pumpido, T. (2014), Persuasive Structures in Advergames.
Conveying Advertising Messages through Digital Games, Utrecht University. de la Hera Conde-Pumpido, T. (2015), "A Theoretical Model for the Study of Persuasive Communication through Digital Games", Engaging Consumers through Branded Entertainment and Convergent Media, pp. 74-88. Möring, S.M. (2013), Games and Metaphor - A Critical Analysis of the Metaphor Discourse in Game Studies, Dissertation, IT University of Copenhagen.
Sicart, M. (2011), "Against Procedurality", Game Studies, Vol. 11 No. 3, available at: http://gamestudies.org/1103/articles/sicart_ap (accessed 28 April 2018).