In class we talked about how Ian Bogost’s Rhetoric on Video Games talks about how video games are, contrary to what other people might believe, is also a form of media that can help us learn about the world much like how books and movies do. Bogost believes that, “video games make arguments about how social or cultural systems work in the world— or how they could work, or don’t work” and I completely agree with him. He used the video game called Spore to reinforce his point but I’m going to use a different game called Baldur’s Gate 3 by Larian Studios because I think it’s more appropriate here. Baldur’s Gate 3 or BG3 for short is a turn-based action rpg (role-playing-game) that just like what Bogost says, makes arguments about social and cultural systems. In the very start of the game, you are already faced with such an issue, if you start the game with your player character being the race called “tieflings” which are a race of people commonly referred to as “the cursed people”, you are faced with immediate discrimination and sometimes even violent discrimination much like how certain races in the real world are faced with similar situations. You are seen by characters in the game as automatically evil or inferior because of your heritege and if you pick another race called “Elf” you are treated completely the opposite way NPCs (non-player characters) would treat tieflings. This is obviously a form of discrimination and a way for the game to tell us that people in this fantasy world, much like in the real world, values certain races more than others which the game critiques by showing us how, even though it’s not real, a real enough alternative to how someone would feel in this situation.

INTRO CINEMATIC – HELLDIVERS™ 2

No Description

Here’s just an example of a game called Helldivers 2 where it’s making a parody and a completely satirical lense on fascism and extreme militarism similar to how a movie called Starship Troopers does.

In class we also talked about how video games are unique in a way that sets it apart from movies or literature. Unlike in movies and books where you are told the story of the protagonist and their adventures, in video games you control the protagonist which gives a whole other dimension of immersion that traditional forms of media just can’t compare to. Just think of any rpg game and just one of them is already infinitely more complex than any book or movie can ever be, for example, when a book tells you about a city that the protagonist is in, we can only ever see what the protagonist sees, the reader is bound to the perspective of the protagonist which is set to do predetermined actions by the author and we as readers will never get to experience anything about the city beyond that without speculating. Video games on the other hand can make it so that you as the protagonist, even though you are meant to do certain things in the story as the author ordained you do so, you are given a certain bit of free will and freedom to do other things, you can explore the city through you own volition and visit places or see other events that the protagonist in the book never even saw or thought existed. Which is why I agree with Bogost when he says “educators should consider adopting video games as artifacts to be discussed alongside traditional media” because video games can explore certain topics and ideas in a way literature is never able to do and because of the fact that games are easier to get into than reading because it’s more involved and more fun in the eyes of certain people.

Ian Bogost’s “The Rhetoric of Video Games” delivers a radical and unique take on the educational benefits and rhetorical purposes that video games can serve and already serve, respectively, in our society. He begins the piece describing and outlining the game, Animal Crossing. By having the player complete menial and repetitive tasks, like fishing, farming, and foraging, “everyday” both in game and in real life to gain ample wealth and exchange it for upgrades from Tom Nook, the game develops a stance on the monotony of capitalism, the “condensation of the corporate bourgeoisie” (2654), and the “repetition of mundane work necessary to support contemporary material property ideals” (2655). Regular players normally do not realize the way that Animal Crossing is essentially a simulation of real-life facts and systems. For example, the way that Tom Nook’s shop begins as a “wooden shack general store” and ends as a “two-story department store” (2654) after enough upgrades demonstrates the way that more money and space creates a necessity for more goods to be acquired and sold, for profit to remain stable.

The fact that this family-friendly video game is able to convey so much in the rules, algorithms, spaces, and restrictions its developers created and established exemplifies the impressive ability and capability of video games to represent reality. This fact makes video games worth studying and analyzing.

Video games have this special way of taking experiences, implementing them through coding, and making that experience “experienceable” for people and gamers to undergo through their screens. Game designers and developers establish these “possibility spaces” for anyone to play through. Although these “possibility spaces” are constrained within programs, there is so much that they allow to be explored.

Video games also have this unique ability to demonstrate rhetoric and convey a particular positions. There are many on-the-nose games which were created with the intent of critiquing something about society, like the McDonald’s Vid­eogame, which blatantly critiques the malpractice and corruption of the fast-food industry through the way it sets the player in the position of McDonald, giving them control over its production environment. It permitted the player to commit terrible tactics to bring to light how “bad” the fast-food chain really is. This kind of rhetoric, which Bogost calls “PROCEDURAL RHETORIC” can be just as or even more persuasive than the traditional kinds of rhetoric that we get taught in school.

Even simple phone games like Candy Crush can tell us a lot about our society. Why do people derive pleasure from lining up candies, working towards a particular score, and moving up through a seemingly infinite number of levels? From first glance, it may make no sense. But, upon closer inspection, there is a satisfaction and an aesthetic within the simple game that keeps people hooked.

Therefore, video games are not only worth playing. They are worth studying, analyzing, and learning from. As a result, they are also worth looking into to find a possibility for incorporating them within regular education.

Antonio Gramsci’s essay, “The Formation of the Intellectuals,” redefines that very term. Right out of the gate, Gramsci finds there to be two different kinds of intellectuals already in society. The first kind, the “organic intellectual,” comes out of a social group which creates homogeneity and an “awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields” (113). The organic intellectuals organize their social group and assert that group into society as a whole. A significant aspect of the organic intellectual is that he must be a jack of trades — not only proving himself to the group from which he rises, but also proving the group to society on its behalf. Like a founder, entrepreneur, or feudal lord, the organic intellectual has to possess technical ability, economic prowess, and the ability to essentially create culture. Gramsci goes on to describe a second kind of intellectual that is often at odds with the organic intellectual. The traditional intellectual is one who is a part of the existing social hierarchies, the one who essentially runs them. As the name suggests, the traditional intellectual has been a part of society throughout its many iterations. Religious scholars, writers, philosophers, and the aristocracy are typical traditional intellectuals. What makes the traditional intellectual stand out is the perceived self-autonomy and independence that he has from any other class or group. Gramsci remarks, “through an “esprit de corps” their [the traditional intellectual] uninterrupted historical continuity and their special qualification, they thus put themselves forward as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group” (114). The traditional intellectual might not run society, yet his place in society has long been secured and is not up for debate due to his independence. Both of these types of intellectuals exist in society, in some form or another, and often butt heads. Yet these two kinds of intellectuals have the same goals: to maintain hegemony in society. Rising from his social group to stand against all other social groups, the organic intellectual seeks to spread his culture and dominance through climbing the social ladder. However, the organic intellectual does not attempt to do this, and instead decides that its hegemony and prominence in society comes from creating a barrier between itself and society. In doing so, the traditional intellectual keeps itself hovering near the top of the pyramid, taking all the spoils won by the aristocracy and ruling classes, without having to bear much of the brunt of societal pressures.