Spore

• "Rockstar does not generally discuss or acknowledge the procedural rhetorics they build into games like Bully. But other designers make more deliberate efforts to frame the ideas they put forward in their games. Consider the Will Wright/Maxis game Spore. In Spore, the player starts with a microorganism and grows it into a complex sentient creature, then a civilization, then a military power, and finally a space-traveling superrace. The game is a rich and complex one that clearly addresses a number of topics, most notably the tension between evolution and natural selection (creatures evolve, but the player carefully designs their attributes). But in a discussion of the game at the annual Game Developers Conference, Wright explained that the real topic he hoped to address in the game was astrobiology, the study of life throughout the cosmos. Often when we wonder if there is intelligent alien life in the universe, we assume that life arises naturally and evolves slowly. Thus the chance of finding intelligent life seems remarkably small; to do so would require the greatest of coincidences in a place as large as the (ever expanding) universe. In the theory Wright hopes to advance in his video game, intelligent life does not occur and grow naturally, but is cultured and transported from planet to planet by other, more advanced civilizations. The perspective on astrobiology Wright advocates borrows the concept of seed spread by wind or other environmental factors; these reproductive structures are called spores. Spore adopts the logic of this particular view on astrobiology, subtly arguing through its game play that the spread of life in the universe is most likely caused by sentient beings transporting other creatures from star to star. While a book might make this argument by explaining the process, in Spore the player discovers the argument by playing in the possibility space the game’s rules create. This act of discovering a procedural argument through play is endemic to procedural rhetoric."

Another exert from Ian Bogost's 'The Rhetoric of Video Games', this one explains the procedural rhetoric used in the game 'Spore' and how that poses the argument to the player through play and discovery.  It firstly uses procedural rhetoric to create an argument about the difference between evolution and natural selection, as in the game your microorganism evolve and get stronger, but the player picks and chooses the evolutions that the creature gets.

Spore also uses procedural rhetoric to make a statement about astrobiology, Wright puts across the idea that the spread of life across the universe is more likely cause by sentient beings than the slow, hit and miss process of evolution. The player then realises this argument through play and discovery in the possibility space that the games rules create.

This point in the research so far I think is a very important part. Spore is a massive example of procedural rhetoric in a mainstream entertainment game, produced and developed by a big company. It also shows perfectly how procedural rhetoric can be used to create a statement or ask the audience a question, which could very well have an affect on the audience. From here I want to go look at the ethical implications for the game designer who produces games that try to persuade or make a statement.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026269364Xchap6.pdf