The concept of ‘procedural rhetoric’ has come to dominate game studies due to the work of academics such as Ian Bogost, especially from his Unit Operations (2006) which detailed the first truly comprehensive theory and rhetoric of proceduralism in video games. Within the confines of procedural rhetoric and proceduralism, “(…) games create complex relations between the player, the work, and the world via unit operations that simultaneously embed material, functional, and discursive modes of representation” (Bogost, 2006, p.106).
Of course, the philosophy of an innate value or meaning embedded in the rules of the game disregards the existence of any form of value and nuance derived from the player and their individual gameplay, but instead forces the notion that a game’s value is only driven by procedure: the embedded argument within the rules, the expression of the rules, and how they are communicated to and understood by the player (Sicart, 2011). The rigidity of procedural rhetoric (and lack of empirical evidence) has led to the arguments found in Miguel Sicart’s Against Procedurality (2011) where he places control back in the hands of the player, challenging that “games belong to players - at most, games belong to the designer if she wants to establish a dialogue with the player through the game - but play, the performative, expressive act of engaging with a game, contradicts the very meaning of authorship in games. Players don’t need the designer - they need a game, an excuse and a frame for play” and that “meaning of a game, its essence, is not determined by the rules, but by the way players engage with those rules, by the way players play. The meaning of games, then, is played, not procedurally generated” (Sicart, 2011).
Especially after Wednesday’s Mario Kart discussion, I found this especially applicable to the Mario Kart game and the inability for procedural rhetoric to be appropriately applied to it. Approaching Mario Kart like Bogost may, for example, would only lead to finding no intrinsic meaning besides pure entertainment. However, the true value is derived from the players themselves and how they make of the game in their own individual interpretations and creative play. In the instance of this game, which may be played single-player or multiplayer, the game may take on individual meanings or even wider ones once factoring in the complexities garnered by external forces, i.e. perceptions and actions of other players in a social, multiplayer environment both inside and outside the gameworld. Unlike many multiplayer games, such as World of Warcraft, Overwatch, etc, Mario Kart generates not one, but two ‘arenas’ of gameplay, being the virtual gameworld and the physical environment, which amplifies the game’s social aspects (and screaming matches), opening an entire realm of potential actions and reactions to the player’s competitors and teammates alike. Mario Kart’s multiplayer gameplay results in countless variances in strategies, decisions, and the like. For example, losing the race to one person in a friend group may hurt a bit more than others, motivating the player to specifically target that friend in future races. It is for reasons like this that Mario Kart simply cannot be approached by a proceduralist lens, as it is so much more than strict gameplay and procedure.