Procedural rhetoric is the most effective way to get a point across. A videogame with an interactive format and engaging game-play that effectively gets your idea to the player, is more effective than sending out a pamphlet with your views, or even a TV add that voices your opinion. Because a video game allows the player to actually get involved in a simulated representation of the situation, the player maintains interest in the situation, and the game designer is able to put a bias in the game so the player is more likely to see the situation how they want. However, it is important for the game designer to make the game as realistic as possible. Even when the game is being used as a tool to get people to think like you, when the only option in the game is to be what the designer considers “evil,” the player realizes this, so acts evil, and thinks that it is the only way to succeed in the situation. Likewise, when a game only allows you to be “good,” the player cannot see the consequences of being bad.

In the online game McDonald’s Videogame, procedural rhetoric is used to show the corruption and problems in the fast food industry. However, in the game, the player starts out as a bad guy. They are forced to farm on foreign soil near rainforest that eventually needs to be cut down to succeed. In order for the player to make it in the corporate world of McDonalds, for any period of time, they have to do things that are construed as bad. If a player tries to not genetically alter the cattle feed, or not use growth hormones on the cattle, problems ensue such as the cattle feed runs out and cows start to die, or not enough hamburgers are being produced so the restaurant cannot sell to customers. All of these lead to the corporation losing money, and firing you. The only way to last for an extended period of time in the game is to do what the videogame producer was trying to show as bad. However, by doing this, their message is weakened. They are showing that the only way to succeed in the fast food industry is to genetically alter food, use growth hormones, corrupt governments, destroy rainforests, and generally use bad business practices. Had the designer given the gamer an option to use better business practice and allowed them to succeed by doing this they would have sent a stronger message. Showing that it is possible to be good in the fast food industry would cause the player to realize that being bad is unnecessary instead of the only option for success. The designer also makes the game very difficult to win. No matter what you do, something bad will happen that will cause you to lose money and eventually go bankrupt and get fired. This makes the game less fun for the gamer, because no matter what they do, they will essentially fail, which causes the game to not receive a huge long term following of people, so the message is eventually lost.

When procedural rhetoric is used properly it is a very strong tool to get support for a cause. However, it is difficult to make procedural rhetoric that properly gets your idea across to the masses. The view of the designer should be the way to succeed in a procedural rhetoric game, because when properly implemented it allows the player to realize that the designer’s view is the right way.

—Daniel Wagman