(Hi-Res Link for Your Viewing Pleasure)
From the article, I think the main takeaways for my game include the idea of procedural rhetoric sitting more in the realm of abstraction than concreteness; I think abstract approaches work very well with getting messages across—or rather, that those who get the message get it much more strongly, even if it sacrifices the understanding for a few a bit further from the target audience. I was also reassured to see an example like Bully, which takes a less didactic approach than the McDonalds game; I definitely think my style of games I would like to create would lean more towards either entertainment via gameplay or narrative, and have the rhetorical or ideological aspects be an artistic side-effect of my game’s implementation—rather than a primary leading factor that can disturb from the game’s standalone effects as either a game or entertaining. However, I will also keep in mind for future assignments that a game that does not exist inherently to primarily distract/amuse can also be an incredibly efficient game, and that if I can create a game that accomplishes its procedural rhetoric despite (or maybe because of this), then that would be a successful game as well.
Side Note: After I drew Pierce from Animal Crossing I realized how much more space Sketchnoting would take for the rest of the article and toned it down a lot… but I got him in so it was worth it. Make sure to look at the hi-res version to not miss out on any unhinged goodness.