When speaking about digital rhetoric of cause video games on the internet two considerations are important. First, one must take into account the interactive nature of video games. Interactivity helps to build engagement. Engagement helps a video game to become viral. Second, one must take into account the persuasive nature of video games for cause promotion.
Regarding the phenomenon such as procedurality and the use of procedural rhetoric in video games, Bogost (2007) looks at it as “the practice of using processes persuasively” (p. 28). According to Bogost (2007), an analysis of procedural rhetoric within the video games allows for “a new and promising way to make claims about how things work” to emerge (p. 29). Bogost (2007) sees the importance of procedural rhetoric in the fact that it has the ability to “express specific patterns of cultural value” (p. 54). “The game has a goal…and a set of simple rules …that constitute its procedural rhetoric” (Bogost, 2007, p. 38). Bogost also discusses the “rhetorical function of procedural expression in the tradition of representation rather than the tradition of play” (p. 53).
Gurak (2001, p. 29) identified basic characteristics of digital rhetoric: “speed, reach, anonymity, and interactivity.” The notion of digital rhetoric and its importance for the field of video games studies lies in the fact that interactivity is the main driving force that distinguishes video games from other media. Grodal (2000) distinguishes the following types of interaction in video games: passive, perceptual witness to spaces, actions, and processes. He argues that
[v]ideo games are structured according to a principle of uses and gratifications similar to that of real life: We can seek out stimulating spaces when bored and take shelter in some other spaces when over stimulated and in need of rest. The video game enables the player to control his or her perceptual, emotional, and enactional activation (p. 204).
Grodal points out that a film is usually viewed one time only, whereas a video game is usually played many times. Taking this information into account, construction of reality in video games is different for the player each time. Grodal argues that a “video game may be played many times and many events can be altered by the player’s interactions.” He concludes, “video games are learning processes” (p. 205). Gee (2007, p. 131) also points out the usefulness of interactivity for video games and its possible uses and gratifications for players, arguing “[i]nteractivity: In video games, players make things happen; they don’t just consume what the ‘author’ (game designer) has placed before them…”
 Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
 Gurak, L. J. (2001). Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with awareness. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
 Grodal, T. (2000). Video games and the pleasures of control. In D. Zillmann, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Media entertainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 197-214). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
 Gee, J. P. (2007). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. In P. Messaris, & L. Humphreys (Eds.), Digital media: Transformations in human communication (pp. 173-186). Broadway, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.