So.
What's the fundamental difference between tactual and digital gaming?
You're probably wondering, "Tactual Game? What the zuk is that?" (Unless you've already read this article. You honor me with your re-read. Wait, you know it from elsewhere? well thanks for reading anyway!)
A tactual game is a game that is primarily implemented through player's engagement with physical components outside of their own bodies. Most (if not all) board games fall into this category. It should be noted that this is distinct from the physical game type, as most of the engagement in those games comes from the different ways players are asked to use their bodies. Football, Real Football, Basketball, and Golf are all physical games for instance.
So then what defines a game as "digital"? Again it comes from the source of engagement. Digital games' primary source of engagement is derived from the player's interaction with (predictably) digital components or digitally presented ideas. Any game that requires a computer, console or mobile phone is likely to be a digital game just by the nature of the medium they are using to present themselves
So what advantages do the two game types, Tactual and Digital, have over each other?
In general one very big difference is the ease of sociability. As noted in previous talks because tactual games almost always involve some element of accepted rules instead of imposed rules, players must converse at some point during the game to clarify, fudge, or enforce the rules as they were stated. In this way players must interact socially in at least a minor sense when playing these games. Because the rules are (mostly) imposed in digital games, players don't need to converse or socialize as much in these games, only doing so if the elect to. (save for when a game is cooperative).
On the flip side digital games make rules arbitration very simple and easy as the players are affected directly by the game's rules, rather than by players acting as avatars of the games rules. In this way the
process of learning the rules can be much more organic, as the player simply plays the game and tests what it does and does not allow to determine what its rules are. Player's can't misapply the rules as they are simply a fact of the code that is running the game. This means that players can play these games without knowing all of the rules involved and don't need to resolve edge cases as the game does this for them.
From a design standpoint, tactual games are more flexible than digital games, as players can fill in rules gaps or fix imbalances with house rules made on the fly. In digital games, the rules are the rules, unless you are a programmer. And even then, it will take some time and effort to change (eg. mod) the game such that its rules are more suited to your tastes as a player (or are less objectively broken in some cases)
Interestingly, both types do still have a physical connection to the player's engagement as in both types players must physically interact with play elements to play the game. This said the nature of that interaction tends to be simpler in tactual games than in digital games. This is because digital games tend to cram a ton of different action and abilities into one medium of control slash implementation. This means that not all of the interactions are immediately understandable
Consider a simple digital game, Super Mario Brothers. In this game your character can jump, run, contextually throw fire balls contextually climb beanstalks, swim and pause the game. In this fairly simple game, six different actions can be executed by through one component: the controller. These days digital games average at around 7 different actions that players can take via their controller, but upwards of 100 actions can be crammed into them via different button combinations and contextual
situations. This concept, called "component overloading" is extremely versatile but can be very confusing.
Tactual games on the other hand tend to avoid component overloading, instead associating different components with different actions. Often times tactual games will have 3 to 5 different component classes which in of themselves have only one or two actions associated with them. This makes aspects of the game's rules much easier to grasp and learn, as there's a physical "totem" to help it stick in the mind. Additionally, this leans into an aspect of how the human mind works, where it has an easier time quickly processing things that it has grouped together or classified. By having different components
that are associated with specific action groups, it allows the mind to compartmentalize the actions, easing the strategic process as they move from one action set to another. This said this concept of component compartmentalization can also cause confusion as "component glut" (having too many individual components to figure out) can lead to a similar confusion to that of component overloading.
At the end of the day, both game types have many strengths and weaknesses and it is your responsibility as a designer to keep the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen game type in mind.
Well then, dear reader, what do you think? Do you prefer Tactual games or Digital games? How about games that straddle the line between the two? Do you like the term "tactual?" (I mean, I do, but I'm biased ;}). Comment below, inquiring minds want to know!
+
Comments