Bogost round 2

Ian Bogost in his second half of discussion addresses the particulars in what he considers rhetoric. Visual rhetoric, what can be synonymous with graphic design and visual art, and digital rhetoric, which is the medium and the processes, both tie in together. In the field of digital technology, and specifically video games, digital and visual rhetoric tie in together to make a general argument. Touching back on the previously discussed idea of procedural rhetoric, a video game follows the mechanics and rules just as if we were to play a game of cards. However, with the idea of visual and digital rhetoric, these mechanics can be built to influence the user as well as create a completely new arguement. Allowing the player to play as a 'god' or as a hieracrhy for example could create a new thought process not yet considered by the player. In a way, it comfortably allows the player to play 'in another person's shoes' and see another point of view.

The interactivity and the syllogism continues on this process of creating custom mechanics used to communicate the argument. The designer decides how to build the maze through which the player will enter, with each turn and button mash, the player will learn the rules of the game and how to anticipate it's overall interaction. There is a conversation between the medium created by the designer and the player that introduces this information, but allows the player to make the deductions.

Games can shift their logic, however, and can in theory take the player in a step by step process of thoughtful philosophy considering the situation. Sometimes, the player can become so involved with the game that they can switch the logic and meaning behind their game play later in the game without it even bothering them- all for the sake of keeping up with the game they fell in love with. Is it trust? Can we trust games? Overall, games can become so enticing that we may not even know that it can be giving us medicine because it's so sugar coated. This is why I love rhetoric= because I know I can logically strip something down to it's bear bones and really think about whether I agree with it's purpose or not; ;)