PREFACE
Before reading this book, from the title, I thought that this book would be explaining why people get addicted to videogames and then discuss the hazards of it. In my mind I wondered what that really had to do with ePA, but I started reading. I was fascinated to discover the author’s true intent. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I have to say my opinion of videogames changed: I do not see them just as games now, but an aspect of Humanities, an art form reaching out to the general public.
CITATION
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
REVIEW
After reading Bogost’s (2007) Persuasive Games, I come away feeling awestruck and amazed at the influence videogames can have upon society. Bogost discusses video gaming as a type of procedural rhetoric, something that influences through process/experience (31).
Bogost (2007) considers the fact that some games are violent and can persuade players to believe violence is okay; but he believes such things come about through procedural rhetoric. He further explains that most games are not designed to corrupt society, but to shape society’s beliefs and actions. Further, the author explains that in the case of politics, “When listening to a politician on the soapbox, most of us would not even make note of the metaphors” that games present (such as taxation and theft or theft and battle). Yet, videogames allow us to make the connection through the processes they present to/require of players (107).
Bogost’s (2007) primary argument is linked to the idea that video gaming has a social impact in three areas: politics, advertising, and learning. In this book, Bogost discusses the power of procedural rhetoric in these three areas. Basically his argument is that through the process of “playing” various videogames, one’s ideas and beliefs are shaped and influenced by the rhetoric of the videogames’ designers. For example, if someone plays The McDonald’s Videogame, the idea that fast food is corrupt and the industry needs to be changed. Perhaps after playing the game people who loved fast food and McDonald’s would change their minds and realize the grossness of fast food. How could a videogame change someone’s opinion? By forcing the player to go through processes/actions in the game that will illustrate and persuade the player to destroy the fast food industry. The rhetoric behind the game becomes implanted in the mind of the player.
So what impact does this procedural rhetoric have on society? Let’s take politics, for example. If someone plays Tax Invaders, “it frames taxation in a way that reinforces a conservative position” (Bogost, 2007, 106). But, the metaphors and other rhetoric of the game are hidden to the player unless they are looking for them; this makes it easy for unsuspecting users of the game to be persuaded that a conservative view is correct (because of the experiences the player has during the game with taxation). If a vast majority of our society was playing that game, perhaps people would vote differently—mostly conservative. On the other hand, maybe people would play a game like this, disagree with its view and think exactly opposite (liberal). Couldn’t this change our society’s dynamics?
On another point, Bogost (2007) presents advertising in videogames as the future of advertising (197). While television can present images and brands, similarly games can portray ideas about certain brands. This can be done in two ways (197). First, games can use product placement like television and movies to bring one brand or product to light. For example, Mountain Dew power in the Mountain Dew Skateboarding game (216). In this game Mountain Dew is simply the brand attached to the game. Mountain Dew is not essential to the framework or process of the game, only a label in the game). Second, games can use simulation and integration. For instance, The Toilet Training Game systematically seeks to temper “the very lifestyle of alcoholic overindulgence” (222). As the player goes through the game, they participate in late-night activities and always come back to the same place: the toilet. Games like these “create simulation gaps about consumption practices; they expose the potential unities and discontinuities of consumer goods as they enter the lives of individual customers” (222). Thus at the end of the game, the player sees drinking through his/her own eyes and how it affects them personally.
The aspect of videogames I had not considered prior to reading this book was learning. Bogost (2007) goes into great detail to discuss the various ways videogames can teach. This goes much deeper than advertising or making suggestions about a certain viewpoint. In games designed to teach something (e.g. Tenure) tap into the “natural medium for procedural learning” (245). That is to say, these games can actually teach players a skill. Let’s take Tenure, for example, a game which simulates “the first year of secondary school teaching” (1). After answering a series of questions (as in an interview with the principal) the player is presented with various challenges that could potentially occur inside a real-life classroom. This game “makes claims about how high school education operates” (2). In essence, the player can learn to be a teacher, dealing with conflicts an issues a teacher might face, but all within the realm of Tenure’s view on high school education. Another example is Microsoft Flight Simulator. This program can actually teach pilots to fly. Yet, like the question the author raises, would you be comfortable on a flight knowing the pilot had only ever flown in simulation? Perhaps not, but that is how we train astronauts—with game simulation. After reading this book I agree with Bogost: “videogame players develop procedural literacy through interacting with the abstract models of specific real or imagined processes presented in the games they play” (260). Obviously this could be for good or ill.
The greatest strength of this book is that it presents videogames in a good light. Videogames are not just for fun but have usefulness in realms of politics, advertising, and education. In playing videogames, we question and consider claims made and integrate our conclusions into everyday practice (339). Videogames are presented as a means of communication—literary expression (338). I would say the greatest weakness of the book is that it does not address the negative nature of videogames enough. Perhaps because the text’s focus is showing the expressive power of videogames—how the game persuades and is intricately designed—it somewhat neglects this aspect. Although Bogost (2007) does discuss some of the negative aspects of persuasive games (e.g. anti-advergames) , I think the arguments in this book would be more effective if the author further explored the negative effects of playing games with such persuasive power.
On the whole I really enjoyed this book. It was definitely something I needed to read. I am sure it will help me in the future as I pick and choose what games I want my children playing—considering what kind of persuasion is embedded in the game. I think this book is highly relevant to our ePA class in that it shows technology is changing; as a result politics, advertising, and education must change along with it. Plain ad campaigns for goods and services or even political candidates will not suffice anymore. The best way to present ideas to society is by exposing them to experiences with that idea—people can then choose whether to agree with the idea or not, buy the product or not. Finally, we’ve already seen how much of our learning is online or computer-based. I can see the possibility for videogame simulation to be a frontrunner for how to learn in the future. No wonder our children love computers and games so much—much of the world they live in is represented in these venues. Perhaps in the future more regulation will come about concerning videogames because of the powerful persuasive aspects of the game. Who knows!
