Ian Bogost writes in his piece “Procedural Rhetoric” that by the works of Aristotle, rhetoric has come “to refer to effective expression—writing, speech, or art that both accomplishes the goals of the author and absorbs the reader or viewer.” While he doesn’t use it in reference to modes of persuasion, this definition nonetheless applies to the documentary videogames Bogost, Simon Gerrari, and Bobby Schweizer detail in “Documentary” that were meant to convey a communal, emotional angst but received criticism for callous and offensive material.
In JFK Reloaded and Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, videogames that the above authors reference, the intention of the creators was to portray a series of actions that pinnacled in a single historical event: the assassination of President John F. Kenny or the student-shooting of Columbine High School. In the latter case, the creator of the game had a deep and personal connection with the events he depicted, signifying what I feel like would be the opposite of an attempt at mockery. In both games, I feel like the creators used visual rhetoric to not influence the attitudes or opinions of their viewers, but to affect their awareness of the events. After all, as Bogost says, “images are move ‘vivid’ than text or speech, and therefore they are more easily manipulated toward visceral responses.” For an audience in which the majority of people did not have an eye-witness account of JFK’s assassination, these games have a more evocative power than any description could hope to possess.
Bogost has two similar ideas that conflict with the goals of human interest/documentary videogames. In “Documentary,” he says that “experience means something much more abstract: the emotional sensation of an event…if citizens were able to experience the sensations of an experience through simulation rather than by description, perhaps they would better connect world events with [emotions] in their own lives.” Similarly, Bogost says in “Procedural Rhetoric” that “the closer we get to real experience, the better…the best interactivity [comes] closest to real experience.” Through this appeal, those who play games like Darfur is Dying or September 12th should become more perceptive and aware of the facts: the choices a family in Darfur had to decide between to get water, the consequences of their actions, and why they were made to act so in the first place. Why, then, have these types of games received so much criticism? Is it investigative reporting devolving into “fear-mongering,” or that the general public just isn’t ready to have videogames rip open old wounds with evocative images? Considering the fact that JFK was killed almost 50 years ago, I’m less likely to concur with the latter and draw my own conclusion that people consider these historical events to be taboo (makes people uncomfortable to talk about to a certain extent) and therefore would really prefer to not have related graphic images shoved into their faces reminding them of what they shouldn’t/won’t talk about.