|
Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric〔Frasca, Gonzalo (2003). “Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology.” In ''The Video Game Theory Reader''. Ed. by Mark J. P. Wolf and Bernard Perron. New York: Routledge. 221–37 ISBN 9780415965798〕 is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct.〔Bogost, Ian (2008). "The Rhetoric of Video Games." ''(The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning )''. Ed. by Katie Salen. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 117–40. ISBN 9780262693646〕 ==A New Rhetorical Theory== The term “procedural rhetoric” was developed by Ian Bogost in his book ''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''.〔Bogost, Ian (2007). ''Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames''. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262514880〕 Bogost defines procedural rhetoric as “the art of persuasion through rule-based representations and interactions, rather than the spoken word, writing, images, or moving pictures” 〔‘Persuasive Games’ p ix〕 and “the art of using processes persuasively.” 〔‘Persuasive Games’ p 3〕 Though Gonzalo Frasca’s preferred term of “simulation rhetoric” uses different language, the concept is the same: he envisions the authors of games as crafting laws〔Simulation versus Narrative p 229〕 and that these authors convey ideology “by adding or leaving out manipulation rules.”〔Simulation versus Narrative p 231〕 Frasca defines simulations as “to model a (source) system through a different system which maintains (for somebody) some of the behaviors of the original system,”〔Simulation versus Narrative p 223〕 a definition that shows the importance of systemic procedures. In coining this term, Bogost borrows Janet Murray’s definition of procedural from her book ''Hamlet on the Holodeck''—“a defining ability to execute a series of rules”〔Murray, Janet (1997). ''Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace''. The Free Press, New York, NY.〕—to theorize that a different system of learning and persuasion could be found in computerized media. As Bogost suggests, “This ability to execute computationally a series of rules fundamentally separates computers from other media.”〔The Rhetoric of Video Games p 122〕 Frasca likewise sees the need for new rhetorical theory because “simulations can express messages in ways that narrative simply cannot.”〔Simulation versus Narrative p 225〕 In procedural rhetoric, these rules of behavior then create “possibility spaces, which can be explored through play.”〔 Procedural rhetoric also views games as strongly rhetorical—we “read games as deliberate expressions of particular perspectives.”〔The Rhetoric of Video Games p 119〕 The exploration of possibility spaces becomes rhetorical and instructive as soon as games make claims about aspects of human experience, whether they do so intentionally or inadvertently.〔The Rhetoric of Video Games p 123〕 Frasca concurs that “video games are capable of conveying the ideas and feelings of an author”〔Simulation versus Narrative p 224〕 and “offer distinct rhetorical possibilities.”〔Simulation versus Narrative p 222〕 Game laws represent “the designer's agenda.”〔Simulation versus Narrative p 233〕 As Bogost traces the history of rhetoric back to classical Greece, he argues that, as theories of rhetoric have expanded from examining only verbal to including written and visual media, an expansion of rhetoric is now necessary to include the properties of procedural expression: “A theory of procedural rhetoric is needed to make commensurate judgments about the software systems we encounter everyday and to allow a more sophisticated procedural authorship with both persuasion and expression as its goal () Procedural rhetoric affords a new and promising way to make claims about how things work.”〔The Rhetoric of Video Games p 125〕 As Matt King summarizes the procedural and rhetorical sides of this theory, “By embodying certain processes and not others, by structuring a playing experience around particular rules and logics, videogames make claims about the world and how it works–or how it does not work, or how it should work.”〔 Bogost overwhelmingly uses video games as the medium to clarify this concept because “they embody processes and rely upon players to enact them.”〔Persuasive Games p 44, 45〕 However, he does suggest that this theory could apply to other types of “play” and their possibility spaces: “For example, consider a game of hide-and-seek in which an older player must count for a longer time to allow younger players a better chance to hide more cleverly. This rule is not merely instrumental; it suggests a value of equity in the game and its players.”〔The Rhetoric of Video Games p 121〕 Similarly, procedural rhetoric would apply to board games such as Elizabeth Magie’s ''The Landlord Game'', a forerunner of ''Monopoly (game)'', that was designed to educate players on the negative outcomes of capitalism.〔Pilon, Mary (February 13, 2015). "Monopoly’s Inventor: The Progressive Who Didn’t Pass 'Go.'" ''New York Times''. Retrieved February 27, 2015〕 Frasca is much more explicit about the historical use of procedural rhetoric: “Simulation is not a new tool. It has always been present through such common things as toys and games but also through scientific models or cybertexts like the ''I-Ching''.”〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Procedural rhetoric」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|