In a life wrought with a search for meaning and direction, video games play on the concept of “possibility space”, which is the leftover, unmarked quandary of reality. This concept was drawn up by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman and is present in all mediums of art. “First they create a possibility space, then they fill that space with meaning by exploring the free movement within the rigid structure of literary rules.” Bogost elaborates on how video games and digital mediums derive their worth by mirroring the constructs and restrictions of reality, not by representing them, but by replicating their basic procedures into playable digital formats. Constructs such as capitalism or political policies in video games are revamped from real world circumstances. The universal laws of reality within a procedural rhetoric change according to the programming of the game. For video games, art imitates life, and they deserves a reevaluation.

Bogost has an arsenal of terms he revises for the purpose of clearing the path for a revamped understanding of how video game development can be framed under procedural rhetoric. He examines how language, like the words ‘procedure’ and ‘rhetoric’, needs to evolve past implication. ‘Procedure’ has become procedurality for the purposes of understanding computer programming. ‘Rhetoric’, plunging past 2,500 year history of political hot air, vapid speeches, approaches how language is actually imbued or pulled apart in intellectual description. 

“It creates meaning through the interaction of algorithms” That is the behavior of the computer. How he explains that “process instead of data” seems like a light bulb moment, a rich format for onlookers to assess what is going on rather than why it happens. Video game play and creation have almost helped create smarter computers. Video games are their own ‘thing’, necessitating its own philosophical approach. challenging how language implies meaning and researching how new meaning can fortify new learning tools, he is downloading how to intellectualize these terms with updated application for a digital artifact. His scholarly defense of the worth of video games is such of a top-tier FPS snipper. 

Rhetoric can mean “effective expression”, rather than “effective influence.”“Effective expression” conveys rhetorics basic possibility. Words entrenched by what they are in search of. For detailed analysis, if language were imitating the boundaries of visual rhetoric, it would reach a cap. Perhaps in knowing how much it falls short, Bogost implores on the importance of “visual rhetoric”as an alternate avenue for communication on video games.

“The rules do not merely create the experience of play- they also construct the meaning of the game..what the game allows and disallow make up the game’s significance”. Video games work with memory recall and visual understanding. There are no arbitrary movements in a (good) game; everything is stylized and intentionally created to arrive to specific tasks, while distinguishing each step as its own ‘level’. What in reality is this clear? Slicing bread. 

Video games crystalizes the infinity of reality by qualities of impossibilities. Knowing the future and what it beholds is unrealistic, yet a video game creates that network. That in itself is worth the consideration.