'Depth' - What does it mean to you?

[Pink Gregory]

I've been rumanating on this recently, it would be innaresting to hear opinions, thoughts etc.

Because stimulating discussion is probably what we're here for.

So what does 'depth' in a game mean to you? Lore? Extent of role-playing? Difficulty?

Do tell.

 

[piinyouri]

For me, it would probably be something akin to anything that isn't immediately apparent on the surface of a game.
I think I may lack the ability to quantify this, but yeah. That's my answer.

Another way of putting it could be, "Using old paths to get new results"?
I'm terrible at this.

 

[Pulse]

Having to consider multiple options when carrying out an action, either gameplay or story based.

 

[felbot]

the more complexity the more depth, more choices could also make the game deeper.

in before "b-but extra credits said complexity does not equal depth" well extra credits is a shit show and you're shit for watching it.

 

[veloper]

For me it's many interlocking game mechanics.

Look for instance at space empires 4. Not only can you design many very different vehicles and units, like spaceships of many different sizes, small fighter craft (think TIE fighters), satellites and ground based troops(tanks), but the technologies required to build the individual components such as shields and meson blasters, combine with other techs like small weapons and construction to make the final product available, scaled to size.
Frigates and escorts are hard to hit without advanced sensors, but against bigger cruisers the sensors aren't necessary, but cruisers can be outfitted with many shields and pound alot of smaller craft before they perish, but shields can by bypassed by engine busters making the cruiser a sitting duck, so it can be targetted safely from afar with missiles, unless the cruiser has bigger missiles, in which case you need point defenses installed on your ships to shoot down the missles or fighters which are too small to hit with nuclear missiles, but the cruiser could have PDs aswell wich also work against fighters. Then there's boarding parties and all kinds of abilities in the mix.

And that's just the ships. Planets come in sizes, different atmospheres, climates, resources, specials and even gas giants can be colonized with the right tech. Where you want to build your construction yards, or your mines or labs depends. Even Dyson spheres can be build around suns if your empire has advanced far enough.

That's the sort of deep that I look for, in a strategy game atleast.

 

[Panorama]

well i have to throw in immersion, if a game can get me draw into its world,f be it just wanting to explore more of the city of dunwall or visit every sector of the mass effect universe, that to me is depth even if the game is linear say half life i love being dr freeman, it doesn't need to be overly complex or difficult to me just me wanting to keep playing even when i should have stopped 2-3 hours ago is depth.

Yes it can also be dark souls and its difficulty or FF with whatever it has going for it.

 

[Zhukov]

Generally speaking, it's a way of saying, "My game is better than yours and I'm better than you because I play it."

Alternatively, "This game has more numbers in it, because adding +1 to strength is some fucking deep shit, man."

...

Okay, okay.

I'd say a game's mechanical depth can be judged on how many viable approaches there are in any given situation and how many decisions you are required to make at any one time to prevent defeat. I suppose the degree of planning required could also be a factor, but that unnecessarily excludes fast paced games. Also, something about interlocking mechanics.

A game's narrative depth could be judged on how many details are presented to the player and the degree to which those details form a cohesive whole. And yes, I'm aware that that's vague as all hell.

As for thematic depth... actually, fuck trying to define thematic depth. I'll leave that to someone more learned and intelligent than myself.

 

[Pink Gregory]

As for thematic depth... actually, fuck trying to define thematic depth. I'll leave that to someone more learned and intelligent than myself.

Not that I'm more learned or intelligence, but I'd say when we actually start to play with themes is a nice level of depth to start off from. I suppose thematic depth is when something becomes ambiguous, but usually that involves the thing in question being quite abstract, which is probably not so simple to pull off in a game while remaining enjoyable.

Perhaps it's something like when a game raises questions and themes that you continue to think about, as is the case of many people's experiences with Planescape Torment, for example?

 

[Hagi]

I'd say it's about the number of interactions between the game's systems.

A game where your choices and actions have only a direct effect, like say just killing stuff, isn't very deep. It can be very fun, but it's not very deep.

A game where your choices and actions have effects that impact nearly everything in the game then you've got a very deep game, every action requires careful thought as it might have unintended consequences. That doesn't automatically make it a fun game, but it's very deep.

 

[shrekfan246]

the more complexity the more depth, more choices could also make the game deeper.

in before "b-but extra credits said complexity does not equal depth" well extra credits is a shit show and you're shit for watching it.

I don't watch Extra Credits.

I still say complexity doesn't equal depth.

Needing to navigate through four Excel spreadsheets to tell one character to equip an axe and attack a goblin doesn't make for a deep game, but it does make for a complex one.

Not needing to memorize twenty-five different keybindings and map out everything yourself because the game has a shite in-game map and no indication of where you should be heading doesn't make a space-sim have less depth than X[sup]3[/sup].

For more "mainstream" examples:
Crysis 2 wasn't more shallow than Crysis because the nanosuit modes suddenly had hotkeys, or because it didn't have the illusion of an open-world that was in reality completely empty aside from your objective locations.

Mass Effect 2 wasn't more shallow than Mass Effect because it removed all of the pointless "+1% to [Stat]" of leveling up and the annoying busywork of trying to sift through the useless inventory to find the one item that was a slight upgrade over what you already had equipped. Conversely, while Mass Effect 3 did have a more shallow dialogue system, the leveling and equipment management was probably the deepest in the entire franchise because it actually mattered for once instead of just slapping on the best stuff and calling it a day.

OT: Depth, to me, is something that makes me think. If I'm presented with something, be it a tangible choice or otherwise, that makes me stop and consider what happened, what will happen, and what might have an impact on it, I consider there to be depth, however slight, behind the game.

If I can just run through willy-nilly non-stop with zero regard for my actions, I don't feel it's a particularly deep game. There's nothing wrong with that, though. Some of my favorite games of all time (Banjo-Kazooie, Sonic the Hedgehog) are built off of that style of simple, quick fun. It's a shallow experience, but it doesn't need to be deep to be fun or interesting.

Alternatively, there can be mechanical depth in something like an RPG or stealth-action game when you're presented with obstacles that can be overcome no matter how you've built your character, provided you know what you're doing. When archers, rogues, warriors, and mages are all equally viable in any given encounter, I feel the game has sufficient depth and balance, because I don't feel a game should punish a person for wanting to play in a specific way. If a mage has to pull out a sword and engage in melee combat to beat a boss or something, the game loses some of its depth to me.

 

[Hyper-space]

the more complexity the more depth, more choices could also make the game deeper.

in before "b-but extra credits said complexity does not equal depth" well extra credits is a shit show and you're shit for watching it.

You're shit for saying they're shit and probably did not get what they were saying in the first place.

Complexity isn't necessarily having 8 different buttons for walking forward or 8000 sub-menues or trillion of stats, it could also be the range of uses any action presents you with or even something like meta-game. Consider the competitive-side of Pokemon games; the core of complexity in that isn't the stats or combos, but the meta-game, wherein players try and predict the opponents actions and choices beforehand. That's what they were saying.

"Complexity" shouldn't be an excuse for having an unintuitive UI or inefficient game-play.

 

[Aircross]

Meaningful choices, good complexity to enhance the player's experiences, multiple ways to achieve objectives, little to no hand holding past the tutorial stages, dynamic world that reacts to what the player does, and little that restricts what the player can do.

Hmm...

...sounds like Deus Ex.

*reinstalls*