 Analysis – Separating the parts to make (a) sense of the whole.  Examples include, a rhetorical analysis, or argumentative analysis.  Critique – Separating a predetermined list of the parts to make a judgment about the whole.  Movie review, game review

Critical = criteria-based. In other words, a list of “things” that you will use to judge a “Text” by.  Critical thinking – judging a situation or choice based on set of criteria. The more experience you have, the more criteria that you can consider.  The more experience we have taking things apart, the better we are at seeing what parts fit together. Criteria (singular criterion) become your framework for analyzing your work.  Rhetorical – how a text persuades  Argumentative – what claims and evidence does a text use

We will call these criteria our frame or framework. They help us focus our attention on a limited amount in the game. We cannot look at everything.

Will Brooker: institution, authorship, character and narrative, genre and socio-political connotations and remakes Lars Konzak: hardware, program code, functionality, gameplay, meaning, referentiality and socio-culture Mia Consalvo and Nathan Dutton: object inventory, interface study, interaction map and gameplay log

You can use parts of those frameworks if you want, but you should focus on the communicative function of the game. However, you can consider elements that contribute to that communication  Rhetorical – audience, purpose, persona, logos, ethos, pathos, identification.  Consider procedurality – how do game rules or gameplay persuade?  Argumentative – context, genre, assumptions, qualifiers, claims, evidence.  What evidence do games use to communicate?

Pick a game – you are looking for an advergame. A game that was programmed with specific intent of advertising something.  The course website has a long list, and within that list there are many more. You don’t have to pick a game on that list, but make sure you check with me whether your game is an advergame or not.  Advergames can be found on iPhone, Xbox360, Playstation3 as well.

Play the game. This involves playing for longer than five minutes. There is no real upper limit/suggestion for how long to play (depends on the game), but you should at least progress through the game, learning how its rules/procedures. Take notes. If something seems effective, write down what it is and why. If something seems weird, write down why. Consider context, genre, logos, ethos, pathos, audience, persona, demonstrative, illustrative, associative communication qualities.

Craft your criteria you want to use. In a 2-4 page argument, this usually involves 3-4 criteria. With 1-2 pages, that’s a bit more difficult Why is it difficult?  You want to remain focused. You cannot pick everything.  You might come up with a combination of criteria that you haven’t used in conjunction with each other.  Some criteria might be relevant, but you just don’t have the evidence to say enough about. Use your notes to make sure you have evidence.  A “sophisticated” paper (A/B) will synthesize criteria to create new and more specific criteria (e.g. audience values, ethical associative strategies, and contextual evidence).

Thesis. Is the game effective? Is it persuasive? Before you get out of your introduction graf, the reader needs to know what you are doing in this paper. Your thesis should clearly state what that is:  Bob’s Ranch is an effective advergame that relies on its illustrative game mechanics and realistic graphic representation to persuade an audience of the benefits of Bob’s tractors.  Bob’s Ranch is a successful advergame because it presents a authoritative and credible ethos while maintaining an emotionally satisfying gameplay experience.  Bob’s Ranch is a rhetorically effective game as it expertly combines logical demonstrative qualities with emotional and ethical appeals.

Organize your notes and criteria. Begin drafting your paper. Remember, introduce your criteria and the game before you analyze.  Introduction: what are you doing? What are your criteria?  Summary of game  Criteria 1: Claim and evidence from gameplay  Criteria 2: Claim and evidence from gameplay  [criteria 3, criteria 4]  Counterargument: “Some would argue that Bob’s Ranch does not address audience values. However…”  Conclusion

In groups of three, Go to Red Bull’s Soapbox Racer game: Play through it, explore the game, take notes:  What’s the rhetorical situation (audience, persona, purpose)?  Demonstrative, illustrative, associative?  Rhetorical appeals (consider music, graphics, game mechanic, interface)  Claims? Evidence? In 100 words or less, describe the rhetorical situation and evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of the advergame. Post this graf (make sure each of your names is listed) to the class website (categorize it as Blog).