How to Say Things with Actions I: A Theory of Discourse for Video Games

Key insights

7 takeaways

01
Rao's paper argues video games can be analyzed as discourse in the linguistic sense, conveying argument-based meaning comparable to verbal communication, and aims to build a procedural rhetoric framework that sits outside the ludology–narratology debate.
02
The paper draws on argumentation theory, informal logic, and speech act theory, and adopts a rhetoric-derived definition of discourse (following Kinneavy's four aims: to inform, to be beautiful, to persuade, and to express) rather than the broader social-practice definition associated with Gee and Foucault.
03
Its central finding is that games can currently produce only non-propositional, single-setting arguments (enthymemes), and they underuse the medium's capacity for temporal articulation of argument.
04
Using Walton's definition of argument, the paper identifies propositions, verifiability, and logical articulation as the core elements of an argument and assesses how still images, film, and games can each carry them.
05
The paper proposes that a language-based framework could generate new game design approaches for serious and persuasive games, and it argues that Kinneavy's aims are a more useful basis than labels such as 'newsgames' for categorizing serious games.
06
The paper cautions that strict linguistic formalism, a recurring temptation in film and new media theory, has often constrained creative practice more than it has clarified it.
07
The work is theoretical and conceptual in scope, addresses video games as a medium in general, and is positioned as the first part of a larger series.

Summary

Rao's paper, "How to Say Things with Actions I: A Theory of Discourse for Video Games," argues that video games can be understood as discourse in the linguistic sense: structured flows of actions and events capable of conveying complex, argument-based meaning comparable to verbal communication. Its central aim is to establish a theoretical framework for procedural rhetoric that sits outside the long-running ludology–narratology debate. Rather than treating games as texts to be read through narrative categories, the paper draws on argumentation theory, informal logic, and speech act theory to examine whether games can make arguments, how those arguments relate to narrative, and where in a game the argument resides, whether in design or in player experience.

A key conceptual move is the paper's adoption of a rhetoric-derived notion of discourse rather than the broader social-practice definition associated with Gee and Foucault. Following Kinneavy, it classifies discourse by four aims (to inform, to be beautiful, to persuade, and to express), which it presents as a more useful basis for categorizing serious games than labels such as "newsgames." The paper also cautions that strict linguistic formalism, a recurring temptation in film and new media theory, has often constrained creative practice more than it has clarified it.

The paper's most significant finding concerns the limits of current game argumentation. Drawing on speech act theory and Walton's definition of argument, it identifies the core elements of an argument as propositions, verifiability, and logical articulation, then assesses how still images, film, and games can carry them. Its conclusion is that games can presently produce only non-propositional, single-setting arguments, known as enthymemes, and that they underuse the medium's capacity for temporal articulation. This suggests that a language-based framework could generate new design approaches. The scope is theoretical and conceptual, addressing video games as a medium in general, with the work positioned as the first part of a larger series.