{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023744911804613297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.9575471698113205, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Procedural Ethos: Confirming the Persuasive in Serious Games

How is it that serious games are actually persuasive? Ian Bogost's work on serious or persuasive games provides essential philosophical foundations for the genre though, as the article demonstrates, sufficient detail of argument is lacking. Bogost uses the model of classical rhetoric to demonstrate that games can make arguments through "procedural rhetoric," which he exemplifies with games like Molleindustria's McDonald's Videogame, a title that can best be identified as parody. However, such games, while attempting to make persuasive arguments, lack classical requisites for persuasion, leaving room for further critical inquiry and development of understanding of how serious games work. To be considered persuasive, serious games should additionally demonstrate the components of ethos, which include: phronesis practical knowledge, factual basis, arete integrity, virtue, and eunoia goodwill, concern for the hearer. It is insufficient for serious games to have procedural rhetoric without taking account of procedural ethos. Analyses of the McDonald's game and the ReDistricting Game are conducted for an initial verification of this proposal. This description of how serious games can be persuasive can provide additional conceptual tools to game developers, instructional designers, and educational scholars attempting to leverage serious games for intentional, productive, and predictable learning.