Regarding the 'Rhetoric of Failure'

Is it a Product of Time, Frustration, or Indifference?

This was the question that occurred to me in regards to Ian Bogost's theory of the 'Rhetorics of Failure.' Namely, what is it that produces failure in a game more specifically then the games abstracted design; why does it fail? And how does the way it fails (a 'technique of failure') reflect the rhetorical argument made by the game?

Let's review the concept of 'Rhetorics of failure' for a moment. According to Bogost, "If procedural rhetorics function by operationalizing claims about how things work, then videogames can also make claims about how things don't work" (85). Or as Bogost quotes of Shuen-shing Lee, "A you-never-win game could be considered a tragedy, for example, a game with a goal that the player is never meant to achieve, not because of a player's lack of aptitude, but due to a game design that embodies tragic form" (85). Finally, near the end of the chapter, Bogost explains "Videogames that deploy rhetorics of failure make a subtly different statement than those that are simply unwinnable, or that actively encourage play loss. In Kabul Kaboom, the rules inscribe a playable game that eventually and inevitably end in loss, similar to arcade games like Pac-Man. In September 12, the rules depict the impossibility of achieving a goal given the tools provided" (87-88).

So what the 'rhetorics of failure' seem to be essentially, is a style of conclusion, like "tragedy" as Bogost writes, because it preordains and requires the game to end with failure. Not because of "the player's inepitude" as Lee argues, but because this is the form of the game, and this prewritten failure is part of the game. This act, the eternal manifestation of failure at a game's end, according to Bogost's implications, is a subversion of the standard gaming conclusion where the objectives are attained, and the game is solved, beaten, completed. Against this standard that unwinnability of a game seems to make the game like a pair of loaded dice, unerringly progressing to the same conclusion.

To return to my initial questions: how is that you fail a game, Bogost provides several examples of differentiated categories but does not create a taxonomy. What this leaves unresolved is the idea that the way you fail is important. That the logic of failure or the propulsion to lose is the most important element of the 'rhetorics of failure,' a conclusion that Bogost never gets around to. Briefly, I'll try to sketch some categories and show what I mean.

1. "The Onslaught Failure" - As in Space Invaders, pushes an individual to the point where their ability is overwhelmed by the progressive betterment of the program they play against. This sort of rhetoric of failure produces the understanding that no matter how vigilant you are, you cannot keep the enemy in check. Growing bored, or becoming overwhelmed (as in onslaught) the game defeats you, leaving nothing but a score, or in the case of Kabul Kaboom, nothing at all. The speed at which you are defeated, and the inevitability of your defeat produce a sensation of futility, which is a common message of political satire. The message: Nothing can be done to win (bring peace, prosperisty, etc.) until the conditions of the game (government, war, environment, etc.) are changed.

2. "The Immoral Failure" The McDonald's Game makes you think you can win, but it never reaches an end game, as the game's clock just keeps running, and the ways to stay ahead of the game's drive to make you lose keep shrinking. So you are forced, out of the conditioned drive to win (which Bogost does not discuss, but deserves attention), to perhaps do the the immoral thing (if you haven't already) to try to win. But even this is not enough. You still lose. And though you continue to change the variables and strategic approaches to the way you play, you continue to lose. Here, the game is playing you, as your engagement with the game causes you, the player, to change, while the game remains the same. The morphing of the player, all in the attempt to win, is revealed when the player understands that the game is unbeatable, and then must assess all of the ways he/she changed to try to win, and consider those actions, or more importantly, that drive. I think the most important conclusion of the McDonald's Game 'rhetoric of failure' is how capitalism is embedded within the concept of the game, exemplified by the player assuming he can win, and changing strategies multiple times before realizing otherwise.

3. "The Wrong Tools Failure" This is the one 'rhetoric of failure' that Bogost does engage with, as he suggests that the conclusion of September 12 (or one conclusion) is that you cannot do your job of ridding the world of terrorist with an oversized bomb that is time delayed and kills other, innocent people in the process. Therefore, the argument is that the game, or more metaphorically, the American Military does not have the adequate approach to defeating terrorism. If we want to defeat terrorism, we must change our weapons entirely, perhaps even stop using weapons altogether.