Digital vs non-digital games
Games are things that provide entertainment, so regardless of platform, a game is still a game. However why is it that the same game played on a different platform can provide such a different experience?
Taking a sports game for example, lets say, soccer. Soccer can naturally be played in the traditional sense, with 11 players on each side on a massive field. Soccer can also be played in a miniturised version in form of table soccer, or foosball. Then soccer can be played in the computer game version, usually a game called FIFA something or rather.
(Personally i refer to soccer as football since the foot actually plays a big part in the game, unlike some other footballs… However i shall be considerate of my target audience and politely refer to it as “soccer” for this blog entry)
As a soccer player, one would expect to be fit enough to run around the field chasing a little ball for like 1.5 hrs. In fact one would also like to be physically skilled, in order to contribute to the team and gameplay. With 11 people per side, soccer is a very team based game, and as such, very social. You develope camaradarie with your teammates, and there is a sense of belonging. However, you are but one person on the field, and you do not have as much control over the game as a single.
Foosball shrinks the teamsize to something between 1-3. Here the social element is retained, albeit to a much smaller scale. You belong to a team, and you have an opponent you can see and interact with. A different skillset is needed – more reflex with the hands and less body stamina. The game is also faster, as the “field” has also shrunk. You do have a lot more control over the game, as you control, at the very least, a kebab of mini players as opposed to just one.
Then comes the computer game version. Here, I would say that the social element can very easily be removed altogether by playing against AI. However you have most control over gameplay, and you hardly need an ounce of physical strength. Instead of having superb hand skills, you now only need superb finger skills. You choose where to run to, who to pass the ball to, when to try for a goal, all with a few mouse and keyboard clicks. Granted there can still be some minor form of social element if you are playing against an opponent online, but there is quite a difference in being able to see your opponent and not.
—
So there you have it, football, ahem i mean soccer, in 3 different flavours. Essentially the same game, but the skills required for each game is considerably different.
As a designer, the changes to the game change the target audience significantly. I would argue that the move towards computer games broadens the market. Only a fraction of the population are fit enough to play real football, but by lowering the physical requirement more and more people are able to play. By shrinking the field, the game is now much faster (I would be surprised if a game of foosball went on for 1.5 hrs) so more people can allocate the time to play it. The game has now been simplified, so other challenges have to be raised to balance out the game. In foosball it would be having fixed kebabs of foosmen unable to move forwards or backwards. In computerised soccer you do not have full control over all the members of your team – they would have to be controlled by AI except for the one that your cursor has selected. Opponent AI can be increased for greater challenge. Faster gameplay calls for faster reflexes.
I believe that all these forms of soccer have their own loyal fans, and that people are having the same amount of fun playing the games. A different kind of fun maybe, but fun nonetheless.