Interesting! I'm going to play and consider the game a bit more before commenting on its content and excecution, but I have one functional question for our readers: is the "echo" sound in the voiceovers during play intentional? It sounds a bit like the Don King remix on my Mac here. I'm trying to determine if this is an intended stylistic effect or not.

No sound echo on IE (but no sound at all on Mozilla).

Weird. Must be buggy on my 'puter.

I use mozilla and I got the same echo effect. This leads me to believe that they simply didn't test it too much. I also think that this is not IMO a video game. It is much more an advertisement since there is no control in the game, and you can't lose or even compete against anything.

I think there are clearly some major design problems. Conceptually, the idea of the boxing game isn't bad. But unfortunately, the player action has no bearing on the game.

They could have called us, but they didn't... ;)

I also got the weird echo (Don King's techno re-mix) in my browser (Mozilla), by the way.

I think this raises an interesting question about game design, lack of "play" notwithstanding. Clearly September 12th and the Howard Dean game are better looking and work better, but how does that affect their rhetorical effectiveness?

I guess the jury's still out for me on the if/how/in what way questions of rhetorical gaming, but I think the _main_ reason the Kerry game is unconvincing is that it _looks_ so shoddy.

Zach - yes, good point. In my mind, the rhetorical power of games come from how they can communicate differently than print or linear media. The rhetoric is the effect, sometimes emergent, of the combination of rules and gameplay actions. This is what happens in Sept 12 and the Dean Game.

In the Kerry game, the rhetoric is really the image of Kerry vs. Kerry in the ring. The gameplay itself does not add anything to this message. I think that's why Gonzalo said it is "a political cartoon presented as a game." That said, I think the Kerry vs. Kerry boxing image is a good way to communicate the idea they want to express.

The fact that it's buggy does not help the experience. In fact, I have no idea what the Don King bit adds to the experience, especially since it doesn't seem to work.

Of course, not everything should argue its position with a game. But I believe that abstract concepts like policy are good candidates for gameplay rhetoric.

Ian - So would you agree, then, that a game like the Kerry game _is_ effective to a certain extent just in the idea of the game itself? [I mean, the point's obvious: "Kerry flip flops on issues."] But communicating the idea through play makes a difference?

I think so, and I assume you do too, but I'm curious about how you would argue for that point. That is, how do two people talk differently about the issue or idea when one person has played September 12th or Madrid and another has just heard of them? Do you have to redefine what counts as "form" (not grammer/style but playability) and "content" (not logos or syllogism but "play")? Or do you have to redefine "rhetoric" all together?