Thinking about Bogost...
Like Lars, I wondered if Bogost’s concept of procedurality is really specific to videogames. While I was reading, I kept thinking about the board game Life. My brother and I always used to play it when I was a kid. I would inevitably lose (he's eight years older and we played when I was like, 9), and then I would lay awake all night worried that because I couldn't win at the game of Life, I would end up sucking at life. I was an anxious child.
Anyhoo, my point is that board games like Life seem to explore processes similarly to videogames. So, why make a whole new discipline out of it? Not that this is an answer, exactly, but I felt like Bogost's discussion of enthymeme in part responds to the issue. Bogost writes that: "The enthymeme...is the technique in which a proposition in a syllogism is omitted; the listener (in the case of oratory) is expected to fill in the missing proposition and complete the claim. Sophisticated interactivity can produce an effective procedural enthymeme, resulting in a more sophisticated procedural rhetoric" (43).
In rhetoric, we often discuss the enthymeme as useful for involving the listener/reader in our topic. Because the listener/reader must fill in the missing proposition, they engage more with what we’re writing or speaking than if we gave them a syllogism that spells out each part of our argument. While I’m uncomfortable with the argument that videogames are more interactive than board games, it does seem like videogames allow players to skip steps that they would have to complete during a board game; players are required to mentally fill in the pieces on their own perhaps more than they do when playing board games. For example, players of video monopoly may not physically move their game pieces on a board, but instead mentally fill in this missing step. The board game version corresponds more directly to the syllogism, in which the “argument” is acted out step-by-step, whereas the video game version corresponds more with the enthymeme, in which parts of the argument are missing.