While reading Ian Bogost’s chapter on texture in videogames, I was trying to think of ways that texture has not yet been incorporated in games.  Bogost outlines the basics of game texture:

What I’ll call visual texture is the texture mapping in the programming of a game to make surfaces look as though they’re more than just television screen.  In any game, different pieces will show different textures, in an effort to either depict the game world as close to reality as possible or just to differentiate between elements.  Hair is different from wooden floorboards is different from that leather pouch your hero carries.

Then there’s “simulated properties,” like traction, friction, and the way a character struggles to move through a swamp (these are just a few properties mentioned by Bogost).  It seems to me that this all contributes to the realism of a game, but doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with texture.

Although I see how Bogost relates these things to the overall texture of the game world- the look and feel, if you will- that’s just the thing.  To me, texture means touch. Whether it’s at our fingertips or in our mouth, a texture is something for which we don’t need our eyes to sense it. And in these games, every sensory input is coming from our eyes and occasionally ears.  The closest games get to the touch version of texture is the rumble- but even that is just a substitute for the ‘real’ thing, an abstraction away from what the character is supposed to be feeling.

Can we someday create a video game that effectively communicates texture as touch sense, without leaving behind the video aspect and returning to classic games? Should we bother trying? Perhaps it would be better to embrace that video games are VIDEO games.  And with the increasing presence of the touch screen over the last couple of years: these screens have their own texture, but is there a way to incorporate different textures into the games we play on our phones and tablets? I guess I’ll leave it to the programmers and engineers.