Ian Bogost argues that rhetoric not only exists in every statement or word written, but in video games as well. Holding that video games are a means of persuasion, he compares the procedural 'rule following' habit of computers to those of people in the workplace. People who are just doing their job, who were following orders and not listening to their own instinctual response while handling, for example, customer service, are seen as no differently than computers themselves for except one thing. People can be influenced, they can change their mind, and in the case of video games where rules are set- people can make exceptions.
Entering into the discussion of procedural rhetoric, Bogost begins to describe how we use "procedural rhetoric (as) a technique for making arguments with computational systems and for unpacking computational arguments." To tackle this in my own understanding, rhetoric is becoming a media tool using computers, rules, and systems to create a reality/symbolism/argument that is a trail of procedures leading the player to the ultimate argument of the game. In the case of Fable, the game was a huge success and popular topic in that it allowed the player to chose between good/bad/ambiguous options and then watch the outcome of the situation. The rules were there, the procedure was followed, but there was a new dynamic in which the procedure chosen interacted with one another. In a counterpoint, Bogost notes that while we may feel that following the rules can be limiting, not following the rules can yield unwanted results.
I believe it is Beauregard who taught that everything is a symbol waiting for interpretation. With this in mind I believe that Bogost was ultimately arguing about creating symbols or situations for people to experience and walk away from. However these symbols and situations are presented has great influence over the experience of the gamer in general, influencing how they interact and leave the game. The three main topics of politics, advertising, and education are discussed as having been affected by the means of procedural rhetoric. Those games on the back of the cereal boxes? Advertising. Hooked on Phonics? Education. Pin the tail on the donkey?.... Politics? haha.

As far are discussing what constitues a game, and if creating an avatar is a game in itself- I'd argue yes, it is. Creating the avatar was a one player game that kept the participant engaged in thought and a silent conversation with their self. The ultimate point and goal was self satisfaction, and given the constraints of ultimately realistic choices the goal was particularly guided to be one of realistic identity. Perhaps the makers of Wii thought that their players would benefit more from creating one character that was so closely related to them that it would some how enhance their experiences. I'd argue that players of Wii have fewer avatars than those playing Xbox however- those avatars can have hundreds of thousands of fantasy like outcomes. In my personal opinion, I could easily become just as attached to an avatar that looked like my black cat, JuJu, as I would an avatar that looked similar to myself.