You have made the most nonsensical argument I've seen on these forums in months, congrats.
If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow. How is that nonsensical? If you've played EVE you understand the huge chunks of its gameplay are devoid of decisions, and other parts involve decisions from a narrow handful of players, and other narrow chunks are a simple combat system, and then you're left with this tiny scrap of truly deep decisions.
Deep down all the EVE players understand this if they're not trying to pretend the game is different to support an argument. Or in some cases completely overvaluing that tiny scrap of deep decisions (largely due to its scarcity.)
A game's depth relies on how difficult the decisions are, but it also relies on how many decisions there are -- how much of your game time is spent making decisions which are deep vs. those which are shallow.
Being part of a living virtual world sometimes means you're going to have to look for your content. You're trying to paint this picture that people who have played both types of games know that ow pvp games are shallow and games like WoW are more deep but I feel like it's COMPLETELY the opposite. To me it seems like the vast majority of people who have played both kinds of games simply cannot enjoy themeparks anymore because of how shallow they are.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I like EVE's way. Everything drops, but much of it is destroyed in the dropping. If you or friends can get to your wreck first, you'll recover what survived. The only reason I like this is because it means that equipment comes from player crafters rather than raid drops, so the Devs have implemented a deep crafting system and worked to build a functioning economy.
You have made the most nonsensical argument I've seen on these forums in months, congrats.
If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow. How is that nonsensical? If you've played EVE you understand the huge chunks of its gameplay are devoid of decisions, and other parts involve decisions from a narrow handful of players, and other narrow chunks are a simple combat system, and then you're left with this tiny scrap of truly deep decisions.
Deep down all the EVE players understand this if they're not trying to pretend the game is different to support an argument. Or in some cases completely overvaluing that tiny scrap of deep decisions (largely due to its scarcity.)
A game's depth relies on how difficult the decisions are, but it also relies on how many decisions there are -- how much of your game time is spent making decisions which are deep vs. those which are shallow.
Being part of a living virtual world sometimes means you're going to have to look for your content. You're trying to paint this picture that people who have played both types of games know that ow pvp games are shallow and games like WoW are more deep but I feel like it's COMPLETELY the opposite. To me it seems like the vast majority of people who have played both kinds of games simply cannot enjoy themeparks anymore because of how shallow they are.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
A lot of this discussion hinges on what the word 'deep' means in relation to gameplay. The difficulty that I've noticed with this argument is that so many people have a personal and subjective definition for what deep and shallow gameplay is (id est, their opinion). However, there is a concrete and objective definition for gameplay, this definition does not rely on someone's opinion or subjective experience. Axehilt's point is that depth of gameplay is a measurable and objective thing, something that isn't subject to his or mine or anyone else's opinion. When measured, EVE's gameplay is shallower. This is simply a measurement but it also causes a kneejerk reaction in many people who see EVE as 'hard' and like it that way. This is a fine opinion to have, but consider the facts of the arguement. EVE's gameplay depth is quantifiably shallower, even if EVE's world itself is more involved and player driven. You still spend an inordinate amount of time waiting, even if you've already made the infrequent decision to roam or gank or login trap a super or launch an all out war you still have to do alot of 'busy' work (that is, work that is almost devoid of decision making). In this respect EVE is much more like the real world in which you must perform a lot of work to see the decision you've made come to fruition.
Compare this to Axehilt's frequent example of the warlock rotation in which a branching and important decision is made with each use of an ability. Much more frequent decisions are made in that game compared to EVE, but EVE's far less frequent decisions have the potential to affect the entire gameworld. This, I think, is what most people mean when they think of deep gameplay and that interpretation is what leads them to conclude that OW PVP games have deeper gameplay than themepark PVE games. It's a simple misunderstanding of what the words 'deep gameplay' actually mean.
You have made the most nonsensical argument I've seen on these forums in months, congrats.
If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow. How is that nonsensical? If you've played EVE you understand the huge chunks of its gameplay are devoid of decisions, and other parts involve decisions from a narrow handful of players, and other narrow chunks are a simple combat system, and then you're left with this tiny scrap of truly deep decisions.
Deep down all the EVE players understand this if they're not trying to pretend the game is different to support an argument. Or in some cases completely overvaluing that tiny scrap of deep decisions (largely due to its scarcity.)
A game's depth relies on how difficult the decisions are, but it also relies on how many decisions there are -- how much of your game time is spent making decisions which are deep vs. those which are shallow.
Being part of a living virtual world sometimes means you're going to have to look for your content. You're trying to paint this picture that people who have played both types of games know that ow pvp games are shallow and games like WoW are more deep but I feel like it's COMPLETELY the opposite. To me it seems like the vast majority of people who have played both kinds of games simply cannot enjoy themeparks anymore because of how shallow they are.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
A lot of this discussion hinges on what the word 'deep' means in relation to gameplay. The difficulty that I've noticed with this argument is that so many people have a personal and subjective definition for what deep and shallow gameplay is (id est, their opinion). However, there is a concrete and objective definition for gameplay, this definition does not rely on someone's opinion or subjective experience. Axehilt's point is that depth of gameplay is a measurable and objective thing, something that isn't subject to his or mine or anyone else's opinion. When measured, EVE's gameplay is shallower. This is simply a measurement but it also causes a kneejerk reaction in many people who see EVE as 'hard' and like it that way. This is a fine opinion to have, but consider the facts of the arguement. EVE's gameplay depth is quantifiably shallower, even if EVE's world itself is more involved and player driven. You still spend an inordinate amount of time waiting, even if you've already made the infrequent decision to roam or gank or login trap a super or launch an all out war you still have to do alot of 'busy' work (that is, work that is almost devoid of decision making). In this respect EVE is much more like the real world in which you must perform a lot of work to see the decision you've made come to fruition.
Compare this to Axehilt's frequent example of the warlock rotation in which a branching and important decision is made with each use of an ability. Much more frequent decisions are made in that game compared to EVE, but EVE's far less frequent decisions have the potential to affect the entire gameworld. This, I think, is what most people mean when they think of deep gameplay and that interpretation is what leads them to conclude that OW PVP games have deeper gameplay than themepark PVE games. It's a simple misunderstanding of what the words 'deep gameplay' actually mean.
I don't think you or Axehilt are using the word depth correctly. Depth isn't simply the amount of things that are happening at one time, or the amount of decisions you make per unit of time in game. The reason we used the word depth is because it accurately portrays the feeling of "oh wow, there's so much more to this than I thought." If you jump into a puddle on the street, is it going to be shallow, in other words is it going to be exactly what it looks like on the surface? Or is it going to keep getting deeper as you go, surprising you with how much more it has to offer compared to what it shows on the surface. WoW's complexity isn't depth. EVE's massive, sprawling, intricate world is.
Being part of a living virtual world sometimes means you're going to have to look for your content. You're trying to paint this picture that people who have played both types of games know that ow pvp games are shallow and games like WoW are more deep but I feel like it's COMPLETELY the opposite. To me it seems like the vast majority of people who have played both kinds of games simply cannot enjoy themeparks anymore because of how shallow they are.
Everyone understands why virtual worlds are designed as they are, but the reality is that has resulted in players engaging in shallow activities for the majority of each game session. We understand why bulldozers are slow vehicles too -- the fact that their purpose is the reason they're designed that way doesn't change the fact that they're slow, and the fact that there's purpose behind virtual worlds' designs doesn't mean they aren't shallow.
But unlike the bulldozer,virtual worlds could be designed in a way that was much deeper than existing virtual worlds. It just requires them to not waste players time with so many shallow non-gameplay tasks. The virtual world playerbase has been pretty well fooled into thinking their games are deep enough though, so the lack of demand for deeper gameplay means that these games remain shallow.
As for the claim virtual worlds are deeper than themeparks? Well you can read the rest of what I've posted across this thread to understand why that's simply not true.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Being part of a living virtual world sometimes means you're going to have to look for your content. You're trying to paint this picture that people who have played both types of games know that ow pvp games are shallow and games like WoW are more deep but I feel like it's COMPLETELY the opposite. To me it seems like the vast majority of people who have played both kinds of games simply cannot enjoy themeparks anymore because of how shallow they are.
Everyone understands why virtual worlds are designed as they are, but the reality is that has resulted in players engaging in shallow activities for the majority of each game session. We understand why bulldozers are slow vehicles too -- the fact that their purpose is the reason they're designed that way doesn't change the fact that they're slow, and the fact that there's purpose behind virtual worlds' designs doesn't mean they aren't shallow.
But unlike the bulldozer,virtual worlds could be designed in a way that was much deeper than existing virtual worlds. It just requires them to not waste players time with so many shallow non-gameplay tasks. The virtual world playerbase has been pretty well fooled into thinking their games are deep enough though, so the lack of demand for deeper gameplay means that these games remain shallow.
As for the claim virtual worlds are deeper than themeparks? Well you can read the rest of what I've posted across this thread to understand why that's simply not true.
You're defining depth in a completely arbitrary way. A virtual world where different people offer different tools/skills and create a functioning economy is a lot more deep that queuing up for a raid and then cycling through a dozen skills. Just because there's more time spent in game pressing buttons in a themepark doesn't mean it's deeper.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think fun is more important than depth. A gameplay can be deep but annoying and boring at the same time. I would eschew that and engage in a fun activity rather than something deep. They are not mutually exclusive but deep gameplay must also be fun gameplay.
You're defining depth in a completely arbitrary way. A virtual world where different people offer different tools/skills and create a functioning economy is a lot more deep that queuing up for a raid and then cycling through a dozen skills. Just because there's more time spent in game pressing buttons in a themepark doesn't mean it's deeper.
A preference for player-driven economies isn't what makes things deep. Depth comes from the difficulty in mastering a game.
My definition of depth has been established for over a decade by a fellow designer. You're applying the term to a game just because you like it. Who's more arbitrary?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by kitarad I think fun is more important than depth. A gameplay can be deep but annoying and boring at the same time. I would eschew that and engage in a fun activity rather than something deep. They are not mutually exclusive but deep gameplay must also be fun gameplay.
I totally agree!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're defining depth in a completely arbitrary way. A virtual world where different people offer different tools/skills and create a functioning economy is a lot more deep that queuing up for a raid and then cycling through a dozen skills. Just because there's more time spent in game pressing buttons in a themepark doesn't mean it's deeper.
A preference for player-driven economies isn't what makes things deep. Depth comes from the difficulty in mastering a game.
My definition of depth has been established for over a decade by a fellow designer. You're applying the term to a game just because you like it. Who's more arbitrary?
Your definition seems to be change every time you post. Before you were talking about the emptiness of sandbox games, contrasting that with the ability to jump right into a raid in WoW. You've also said that the amount of decisions at any given time is depth. If your definition of depth is now "difficulty in mastering a game" I'd still totally disagree. That's not what depth is. You can have a game that is very mechanically difficult without being particularly deep.
Depth means there's "more" to the game as you go... deeper. You look at a system or a feature in a game and it has a certain amount of complexity to it at face value. As you delve into that system or feature, you notice that there's more and more to it as you learn. That's depth. Depth is not:
"If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow."
The amount of time it takes to uncover the game has nothing to do with its depth. A game doesn't need constant action all the time in order to be deep.
Originally posted by kitarad I think fun is more important than depth. A gameplay can be deep but annoying and boring at the same time. I would eschew that and engage in a fun activity rather than something deep. They are not mutually exclusive but deep gameplay must also be fun gameplay.
Well then you're not talking about depth, you're talking about fun and fun is relative. For a lot of people who have played OW PVP games, they don't find riskless themepark games fun anymore. What you call annoying, they call exciting. I don't like this trend where the more "casual" players seem to be trying to trademark the word "fun." Just because something is hard or unforgiving, doesn't mean it isn't fun.
You're defining depth in a completely arbitrary way. A virtual world where different people offer different tools/skills and create a functioning economy is a lot more deep that queuing up for a raid and then cycling through a dozen skills. Just because there's more time spent in game pressing buttons in a themepark doesn't mean it's deeper.
A preference for player-driven economies isn't what makes things deep. Depth comes from the difficulty in mastering a game.
My definition of depth has been established for over a decade by a fellow designer. You're applying the term to a game just because you like it. Who's more arbitrary?
The only depth in difficulty of mastering a game I've seen in MMOs for years comes from ever increasing and bigger numbers. Add in new capabilities along the way and the "tactics" they bring along, but that's hardly adding lot of depth as much as making up for a lack.
You're defining depth in a completely arbitrary way. A virtual world where different people offer different tools/skills and create a functioning economy is a lot more deep that queuing up for a raid and then cycling through a dozen skills. Just because there's more time spent in game pressing buttons in a themepark doesn't mean it's deeper.
A preference for player-driven economies isn't what makes things deep. Depth comes from the difficulty in mastering a game.
My definition of depth has been established for over a decade by a fellow designer. You're applying the term to a game just because you like it. Who's more arbitrary?
The only depth in difficulty of mastering a game I've seen in MMOs for years comes from ever increasing and bigger numbers. Add in new capabilities along the way and the "tactics" they bring along, but that's hardly adding lot of depth as much as making up for a lack.
I certainly wouldn't say that the themepark games that Axehilt is supporting take very long to master. It seems like it's pretty easy f or the community to min/max all raids, builds, etc.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
A definition has been around for centuries. Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with your definition.
I don't think you or Axehilt are using the word depth correctly. Depth isn't simply the amount of things that are happening at one time, or the amount of decisions you make per unit of time in game. The reason we used the word depth is because it accurately portrays the feeling of "oh wow, there's so much more to this than I thought." If you jump into a puddle on the street, is it going to be shallow, in other words is it going to be exactly what it looks like on the surface? Or is it going to keep getting deeper as you go, surprising you with how much more it has to offer compared to what it shows on the surface. WoW's complexity isn't depth. EVE's massive, sprawling, intricate world is.
I would prefer to use the word 'scope' for this idea. EVE has an enormous scope, but when you jump into the activities of the game you find out they are exactly as they appear on the surface, very little depth. Whether you're mining with a frigate or mining with an exhumer, you're still doing the same shallow activity. Scanning for enemies in a w-space system or scanning for exploration sites in hisec is rather dull, shallow decision making. Running incursion sites with a large fleet or doing missions over and over again, still not very deep. You're doing the same things by rote memorization in those, and maybe in the rare case of something different happening (a gank attempt in your incursion, a counter drop on your tower siege, or reds showing up in your exploration site) you get to make only a few interesting decisions. The fact that these decisions gets your heart racing (because of the potential of punishing loss) does make the game deep, it might make it fun for some (myself included) but there is a difference.
Consider the example of chess. Each turn in chess is a complex decision, which piece to move (opportunity cost), where to move it (tactical considerations), future moves and counter moves (strategic thinking). All very deep, you can spend quite a long time thinking about each one of those turns and still not experience the entire depth of that turn. EVE, on the other hand, not so much. You keep your guns cycling, pulse your MWD/AB, shitpost in local. Not much thought goes into cycling your guns or not. Probably the most rewarding gameplay in EVE is solo/small gang PVP because each participant gets to make various decisions constantly (see: Prometheus Exenthal), but unlike WOW, your options are limited around 3-6 different abilities based on your ship's loadout. EVE's total loss for failure design means that you don't see much of that. If you bring one ship, your opponent naturally wants to bring more, not just for the numerical advantage but because it is fun to involve your friends in a neat little gank. Alternatively, trading (or hangar PVP as it is colloquially known) has a greater depth of gameplay than spaceship combat, so EVE's got that going for it.
When you engage in gameplay in EVE, you're making only a few decisions. Here's a scenario to highlight what I mean, and this comes from only one tiny instance of personal experience. Say you're running a site in w-space (wormholes) and you detect, for only a moment, a probe that isn't your's. Now you get to make one decision based on that information, stay or go. As an individual player you get to chose whether to follow the orders of your FC or gtfo and save yourself. Not a very deep decision. If you're in a position of leadership you get to make one additional decision based on that position. These decisions, while shallow in and of themselves, will affect your future experience and the experiences of many other players. Thats the allure of EVE, its scope, not depth. Lets say you chose to stay and you're the FC for your group. You decide to put the call out for aid from your friends/allies. Two decisions with wide (scope) ramifications. Lets say you make the right decisions in your role as FC during the fight every several seconds or few minutes in calling targets and fleet position, there are important things to consider in those decisions; range, your own fleet's fittings, knowledge of enemy tactics and fittings, eta of reinforcements/ambush risk. The thing that gets the blood going in these situations is the risk of failure and the reputation and material costs, not the decisions themselves. Now, because of a few correct decisions, you win the engagement and earn yourself and your corp/alliance some reputation. You're feared and respected; that isn't depth, that is scope because it affects the width of the game world.
Some might say this is just a semantic debate. But i would disagree, if the affects of understanding these concepts change future game development then I would prefer a game that does not sacrifice gameplay depth for world scope. I would rather have both.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
A definition has been around for centuries. Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with your definition.
The part in yellow doesn't necessarily pinpoint specifics but I think it has to be included in any conversation about depth.
I've always thought about depth vs breadth with the idea that "depth" might give innumerable possibilities that lead to many more possibilities from modest amount of choices whereas breadth is a large amount of possibilities presented up front but not really having much to link them with any of the other possibilities and not many places to go with them.
I think it's why chess or GO come up so often because there is an immense amount of depth from so few movies. It's how everything relates to each other and how those connections can have greater meaning beyond their initial consideration.
Any game where experts have studied and dissected and mapped all the components but still find things to talk about most likely has an immense amount of depth.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
A definition has been around for centuries. Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with your definition.
The part in yellow doesn't necessarily pinpoint specifics but I think it has to be included in any conversation about depth.
I've always thought about depth vs breadth with the idea that "depth" might give innumerable possibilities that lead to many more possibilities from modest amount of choices whereas breadth is a large amount of possibilities presented up front but not really having much to link them with any of the other possibilities and not many places to go with them.
I think it's why chess or GO come up so often because there is an immense amount of depth from so few movies. It's how everything relates to each other and how those connections can have greater meaning beyond their initial consideration.
Any game where experts have studied and dissected and mapped all the components but still find things to talk about most likely has an immense amount of depth.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
A definition has been around for centuries. Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with your definition.
The part in yellow doesn't necessarily pinpoint specifics but I think it has to be included in any conversation about depth.
I've always thought about depth vs breadth with the idea that "depth" might give innumerable possibilities that lead to many more possibilities from modest amount of choices whereas breadth is a large amount of possibilities presented up front but not really having much to link them with any of the other possibilities and not many places to go with them.
I think it's why chess or GO come up so often because there is an immense amount of depth from so few movies. It's how everything relates to each other and how those connections can have greater meaning beyond their initial consideration.
Any game where experts have studied and dissected and mapped all the components but still find things to talk about most likely has an immense amount of depth.
I think that is a good way of at least describing an aspect of depth with regard to competition. Of course, you don't have to be competing with anybody to have depth.
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
A definition has been around for centuries. Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with your definition.
The part in yellow doesn't necessarily pinpoint specifics but I think it has to be included in any conversation about depth.
I've always thought about depth vs breadth with the idea that "depth" might give innumerable possibilities that lead to many more possibilities from modest amount of choices whereas breadth is a large amount of possibilities presented up front but not really having much to link them with any of the other possibilities and not many places to go with them.
I think it's why chess or GO come up so often because there is an immense amount of depth from so few movies. It's how everything relates to each other and how those connections can have greater meaning beyond their initial consideration.
Any game where experts have studied and dissected and mapped all the components but still find things to talk about most likely has an immense amount of depth.
Yeah, I agree. I think you put it succinctly.
Thanks "David Hasselhoff with puppies"!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Your definition seems to be change every time you post. Before you were talking about the emptiness of sandbox games, contrasting that with the ability to jump right into a raid in WoW. You've also said that the amount of decisions at any given time is depth. If your definition of depth is now "difficulty in mastering a game" I'd still totally disagree. That's not what depth is. You can have a game that is very mechanically difficult without being particularly deep.
Depth means there's "more" to the game as you go... deeper. You look at a system or a feature in a game and it has a certain amount of complexity to it at face value. As you delve into that system or feature, you notice that there's more and more to it as you learn. That's depth. Depth is not:
"If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow."
The amount of time it takes to uncover the game has nothing to do with its depth. A game doesn't need constant action all the time in order to be deep.
It's all the same meaning of depth, but we're digging into the details of why these games are or aren't deep.
If only 10% of your time in a game involves meaningful decisions, that's shallower than a game where you're making decisions of the same caliber 90% of the time (as long as the 90% decisions are just as difficult to master.) A lot of players here seem tricked by the fact that those 10% decisions are fewer in number and so they are more important on a per-decision basis. But depth is about the challenge of mastering a game, so as long as those 90% decisions are of equal challenge then that game is simply 9x as hard to learn because you have to worry about playing well 9x as much.
You seem to want to disagree with my definition of depth, and then you go on to describe depth as there being "more" to the game. The fact that you keep learning new things because there's more to the game is exactly what sirlin's definition is saying! Difficult to master doesn't mean it's hard to become an average player. Mastery isn't mediocrity. Mastery is mastery. It means you are literally the best player in the game and you never make mistakes no matter how many curveballs the game throws at you. So the "more" you're describing is the process of skill progression towards mastery!
Games don't need to be constant action all the time to be deep, but the decisions in open world PVP games aren't of a higher caliber than those found in other games. So if you take a game with 10 important decisions per hour and eliminate all but 1 of those decisions then you've made the game shallower, and that's effectively what these games have done. In that 1-decision game, you might mistake it for being a deep game because holy crap is that 1 decision important (it's the one deciding factor in whether you win or lose!) But the reality is that mastering that game requires the mastery of fewer skills.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your definition seems to be change every time you post. Before you were talking about the emptiness of sandbox games, contrasting that with the ability to jump right into a raid in WoW. You've also said that the amount of decisions at any given time is depth. If your definition of depth is now "difficulty in mastering a game" I'd still totally disagree. That's not what depth is. You can have a game that is very mechanically difficult without being particularly deep.
Depth means there's "more" to the game as you go... deeper. You look at a system or a feature in a game and it has a certain amount of complexity to it at face value. As you delve into that system or feature, you notice that there's more and more to it as you learn. That's depth. Depth is not:
"If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow."
The amount of time it takes to uncover the game has nothing to do with its depth. A game doesn't need constant action all the time in order to be deep.
It's all the same meaning of depth, but we're digging into the details of why these games are or aren't deep.
If only 10% of your time in a game involves meaningful decisions, that's shallower than a game where you're making decisions of the same caliber 90% of the time (as long as the 90% decisions are just as difficult to master.) A lot of players here seem tricked by the fact that those 10% decisions are fewer in number and so they are more important on a per-decision basis. But depth is about the challenge of mastering a game, so as long as those 90% decisions are of equal challenge then that game is simply 9x as hard to learn because you have to worry about playing well 9x as much.
You seem to want to disagree with my definition of depth, and then you go on to describe depth as there being "more" to the game. The fact that you keep learning new things because there's more to the game is exactly what sirlin's definition is saying! Difficult to master doesn't mean it's hard to become an average player. Mastery isn't mediocrity. Mastery is mastery. It means you are literally the best player in the game and you never make mistakes no matter how many curveballs the game throws at you. So the "more" you're describing is the process of skill progression towards mastery!
Games don't need to be constant action all the time to be deep, but the decisions in open world PVP games aren't of a higher caliber than those found in other games. So if you take a game with 10 important decisions per hour and eliminate all but 1 of those decisions then you've made the game shallower, and that's effectively what these games have done. In that 1-decision game, you might mistake it for being a deep game because holy crap is that 1 decision important (it's the one deciding factor in whether you win or lose!) But the reality is that mastering that game requires the mastery of fewer skills.
No, you're still wrong. First of all, how many decisions you're making doesn't dictate the depth of a game. A game is not more shallow because you're making fewer decisions. That's not what depth is. You're assuming that the decisions in WoW are of the same "caliber" (whatever that means) as the decisions made in a sandbox.
Another thing that isn't depth is "the challenge of mastering a game." As I've already pointed out, you can have a difficult game that isn't deep. SC2 isn't a deep game compared to most MMOs, but it will take you considerably longer to master it. Difficulty isn't depth.
You're quite literally just making up your own definition of what depth means. You're also now trying to quantify decisions. How are you determining how important a decision is?
You're also simply asserting that the decisions in ow pvp or sandbox games aren't more important, which is ludicrous. If an officer in an EVE corp makes a decision that ends up starting a server war that destroys tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, what's the WoW analog of a decision like that?
The only depth in difficulty of mastering a game I've seen in MMOs for years comes from ever increasing and bigger numbers. Add in new capabilities along the way and the "tactics" they bring along, but that's hardly adding lot of depth as much as making up for a lack.
Um, that's not a significant source of depth, and it's certainly not the only depth.
Interrupting a 100-damage spell is exactly as difficult as interrupting a 10,000-damage spell. So scaling the values doesn't change the skill involved at all. If that spell gets cast faster, that increases the skill involved since you need quicker reflexes. If the spell gets cast in the midst of a bunch of chaotic other abilities demanding players move around, that requires more skill too. If you're fighting the boss while undergeared, that typically requires more skill too (but not if the boss' only ability is this 100-damage spell, because even if you have so little HP that it would one-shot you the actual difficulty of interrupting the spell hasn't changed. The risk being higher (instant death) won't have increased the skill required.
Skill and depth in MMORPGs largely comes from the combination of decisions required to beat the encounter, which usually involve a rotation which is difficult to learn by itself, which is then deliberately disrupted by boss capabilities, and teammates' actions (if your tanks drag two mobs together and your 2-mob rotation is stronger than your single target rotation, then you need to adapt to that on the fly, or you're not playing skillfully.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, you're still wrong. First of all, how many decisions you're making doesn't dictate the depth of a game. A game is not more shallow because you're making fewer decisions. That's not what depth is. You're assuming that the decisions in WoW are of the same "caliber" (whatever that means) as the decisions made in a sandbox.
Another thing that isn't depth is "the challenge of mastering a game." As I've already pointed out, you can have a difficult game that isn't deep. SC2 isn't a deep game compared to most MMOs, but it will take you considerably longer to master it. Difficulty isn't depth.
You're quite literally just making up your own definition of what depth means. You're also now trying to quantify decisions. How are you determining how important a decision is?
You're also simply asserting that the decisions in ow pvp or sandbox games aren't more important, which is ludicrous. If an officer in an EVE corp makes a decision that ends up starting a server war that destroys tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, what's the WoW analog of a decision like that?
If you're making as few decisions as you make in a open world PVP game, and if some of those decisions ('bring lots of friends') completely trump the importance of most of the other decisions you could make (instead of being additive,) then yes, the resulting game is shallower. I'm not just assuming WOW's decisions are of the same caliber. They are. They're just as critical to beating the game's toughest challenges as anything in an open world PVP game.
SC2 is deep because it takes a long time to master. The skill cap is extremely high and nearly impossible to reach -- that's exactly what depth is.
No, I'm quite literally using another game designer's established, straightforward, and logical definition of what depth means. Did you miss the post where I quoted Sirlin? ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries" -Sirlin, 2002)
I didn't say the decisions in a OW PVP game weren't important. In fact I explicitly pointed out that the decisions are more important because there are fewer, but that fewer decisions means less types of skill which means less depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I can and do enjoy both types. I find his opinion of what makes a game deep laughable. It's a definition he invented for the word in order to suit his argument. If number of decisions made per second was the most important factor in determining depth, cookie clicker would be one of the deepest games ever.
A lot of this discussion hinges on what the word 'deep' means in relation to gameplay. The difficulty that I've noticed with this argument is that so many people have a personal and subjective definition for what deep and shallow gameplay is (id est, their opinion). However, there is a concrete and objective definition for gameplay, this definition does not rely on someone's opinion or subjective experience. Axehilt's point is that depth of gameplay is a measurable and objective thing, something that isn't subject to his or mine or anyone else's opinion. When measured, EVE's gameplay is shallower. This is simply a measurement but it also causes a kneejerk reaction in many people who see EVE as 'hard' and like it that way. This is a fine opinion to have, but consider the facts of the arguement. EVE's gameplay depth is quantifiably shallower, even if EVE's world itself is more involved and player driven. You still spend an inordinate amount of time waiting, even if you've already made the infrequent decision to roam or gank or login trap a super or launch an all out war you still have to do alot of 'busy' work (that is, work that is almost devoid of decision making). In this respect EVE is much more like the real world in which you must perform a lot of work to see the decision you've made come to fruition.
Compare this to Axehilt's frequent example of the warlock rotation in which a branching and important decision is made with each use of an ability. Much more frequent decisions are made in that game compared to EVE, but EVE's far less frequent decisions have the potential to affect the entire gameworld. This, I think, is what most people mean when they think of deep gameplay and that interpretation is what leads them to conclude that OW PVP games have deeper gameplay than themepark PVE games. It's a simple misunderstanding of what the words 'deep gameplay' actually mean.
I don't think you or Axehilt are using the word depth correctly. Depth isn't simply the amount of things that are happening at one time, or the amount of decisions you make per unit of time in game. The reason we used the word depth is because it accurately portrays the feeling of "oh wow, there's so much more to this than I thought." If you jump into a puddle on the street, is it going to be shallow, in other words is it going to be exactly what it looks like on the surface? Or is it going to keep getting deeper as you go, surprising you with how much more it has to offer compared to what it shows on the surface. WoW's complexity isn't depth. EVE's massive, sprawling, intricate world is.
Everyone understands why virtual worlds are designed as they are, but the reality is that has resulted in players engaging in shallow activities for the majority of each game session. We understand why bulldozers are slow vehicles too -- the fact that their purpose is the reason they're designed that way doesn't change the fact that they're slow, and the fact that there's purpose behind virtual worlds' designs doesn't mean they aren't shallow.
But unlike the bulldozer,virtual worlds could be designed in a way that was much deeper than existing virtual worlds. It just requires them to not waste players time with so many shallow non-gameplay tasks. The virtual world playerbase has been pretty well fooled into thinking their games are deep enough though, so the lack of demand for deeper gameplay means that these games remain shallow.
As for the claim virtual worlds are deeper than themeparks? Well you can read the rest of what I've posted across this thread to understand why that's simply not true.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You're defining depth in a completely arbitrary way. A virtual world where different people offer different tools/skills and create a functioning economy is a lot more deep that queuing up for a raid and then cycling through a dozen skills. Just because there's more time spent in game pressing buttons in a themepark doesn't mean it's deeper.
I'm a designer, and another designer came to the exact same conclusion of what game depth meant years back ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries.") So the definition has floated around since 2002, and definitely wasn't invented for this argument.
Depth isn't measured in decisions/second, but it also requires some decisions being made with relative frequency.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A preference for player-driven economies isn't what makes things deep. Depth comes from the difficulty in mastering a game.
My definition of depth has been established for over a decade by a fellow designer. You're applying the term to a game just because you like it. Who's more arbitrary?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I totally agree!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your definition seems to be change every time you post. Before you were talking about the emptiness of sandbox games, contrasting that with the ability to jump right into a raid in WoW. You've also said that the amount of decisions at any given time is depth. If your definition of depth is now "difficulty in mastering a game" I'd still totally disagree. That's not what depth is. You can have a game that is very mechanically difficult without being particularly deep.
Depth means there's "more" to the game as you go... deeper. You look at a system or a feature in a game and it has a certain amount of complexity to it at face value. As you delve into that system or feature, you notice that there's more and more to it as you learn. That's depth. Depth is not:
"If 95% of your playtime is shallow (involving few decisions and almost no meaningful ones) then the game overall is shallow."
The amount of time it takes to uncover the game has nothing to do with its depth. A game doesn't need constant action all the time in order to be deep.
Well then you're not talking about depth, you're talking about fun and fun is relative. For a lot of people who have played OW PVP games, they don't find riskless themepark games fun anymore. What you call annoying, they call exciting. I don't like this trend where the more "casual" players seem to be trying to trademark the word "fun." Just because something is hard or unforgiving, doesn't mean it isn't fun.
The only depth in difficulty of mastering a game I've seen in MMOs for years comes from ever increasing and bigger numbers. Add in new capabilities along the way and the "tactics" they bring along, but that's hardly adding lot of depth as much as making up for a lack.
Once upon a time....
I certainly wouldn't say that the themepark games that Axehilt is supporting take very long to master. It seems like it's pretty easy f or the community to min/max all raids, builds, etc.
A definition has been around for centuries. Strangely enough, it has nothing to do with your definition.
I would prefer to use the word 'scope' for this idea. EVE has an enormous scope, but when you jump into the activities of the game you find out they are exactly as they appear on the surface, very little depth. Whether you're mining with a frigate or mining with an exhumer, you're still doing the same shallow activity. Scanning for enemies in a w-space system or scanning for exploration sites in hisec is rather dull, shallow decision making. Running incursion sites with a large fleet or doing missions over and over again, still not very deep. You're doing the same things by rote memorization in those, and maybe in the rare case of something different happening (a gank attempt in your incursion, a counter drop on your tower siege, or reds showing up in your exploration site) you get to make only a few interesting decisions. The fact that these decisions gets your heart racing (because of the potential of punishing loss) does make the game deep, it might make it fun for some (myself included) but there is a difference.
Consider the example of chess. Each turn in chess is a complex decision, which piece to move (opportunity cost), where to move it (tactical considerations), future moves and counter moves (strategic thinking). All very deep, you can spend quite a long time thinking about each one of those turns and still not experience the entire depth of that turn. EVE, on the other hand, not so much. You keep your guns cycling, pulse your MWD/AB, shitpost in local. Not much thought goes into cycling your guns or not. Probably the most rewarding gameplay in EVE is solo/small gang PVP because each participant gets to make various decisions constantly (see: Prometheus Exenthal), but unlike WOW, your options are limited around 3-6 different abilities based on your ship's loadout. EVE's total loss for failure design means that you don't see much of that. If you bring one ship, your opponent naturally wants to bring more, not just for the numerical advantage but because it is fun to involve your friends in a neat little gank. Alternatively, trading (or hangar PVP as it is colloquially known) has a greater depth of gameplay than spaceship combat, so EVE's got that going for it.
When you engage in gameplay in EVE, you're making only a few decisions. Here's a scenario to highlight what I mean, and this comes from only one tiny instance of personal experience. Say you're running a site in w-space (wormholes) and you detect, for only a moment, a probe that isn't your's. Now you get to make one decision based on that information, stay or go. As an individual player you get to chose whether to follow the orders of your FC or gtfo and save yourself. Not a very deep decision. If you're in a position of leadership you get to make one additional decision based on that position. These decisions, while shallow in and of themselves, will affect your future experience and the experiences of many other players. Thats the allure of EVE, its scope, not depth. Lets say you chose to stay and you're the FC for your group. You decide to put the call out for aid from your friends/allies. Two decisions with wide (scope) ramifications. Lets say you make the right decisions in your role as FC during the fight every several seconds or few minutes in calling targets and fleet position, there are important things to consider in those decisions; range, your own fleet's fittings, knowledge of enemy tactics and fittings, eta of reinforcements/ambush risk. The thing that gets the blood going in these situations is the risk of failure and the reputation and material costs, not the decisions themselves. Now, because of a few correct decisions, you win the engagement and earn yourself and your corp/alliance some reputation. You're feared and respected; that isn't depth, that is scope because it affects the width of the game world.
Some might say this is just a semantic debate. But i would disagree, if the affects of understanding these concepts change future game development then I would prefer a game that does not sacrifice gameplay depth for world scope. I would rather have both.
The part in yellow doesn't necessarily pinpoint specifics but I think it has to be included in any conversation about depth.
I've always thought about depth vs breadth with the idea that "depth" might give innumerable possibilities that lead to many more possibilities from modest amount of choices whereas breadth is a large amount of possibilities presented up front but not really having much to link them with any of the other possibilities and not many places to go with them.
I think it's why chess or GO come up so often because there is an immense amount of depth from so few movies. It's how everything relates to each other and how those connections can have greater meaning beyond their initial consideration.
Any game where experts have studied and dissected and mapped all the components but still find things to talk about most likely has an immense amount of depth.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Yeah, I agree. I think you put it succinctly.
I think that is a good way of at least describing an aspect of depth with regard to competition. Of course, you don't have to be competing with anybody to have depth.
Thanks "David Hasselhoff with puppies"!
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It's all the same meaning of depth, but we're digging into the details of why these games are or aren't deep.
If only 10% of your time in a game involves meaningful decisions, that's shallower than a game where you're making decisions of the same caliber 90% of the time (as long as the 90% decisions are just as difficult to master.) A lot of players here seem tricked by the fact that those 10% decisions are fewer in number and so they are more important on a per-decision basis. But depth is about the challenge of mastering a game, so as long as those 90% decisions are of equal challenge then that game is simply 9x as hard to learn because you have to worry about playing well 9x as much.
You seem to want to disagree with my definition of depth, and then you go on to describe depth as there being "more" to the game. The fact that you keep learning new things because there's more to the game is exactly what sirlin's definition is saying! Difficult to master doesn't mean it's hard to become an average player. Mastery isn't mediocrity. Mastery is mastery. It means you are literally the best player in the game and you never make mistakes no matter how many curveballs the game throws at you. So the "more" you're describing is the process of skill progression towards mastery!
Games don't need to be constant action all the time to be deep, but the decisions in open world PVP games aren't of a higher caliber than those found in other games. So if you take a game with 10 important decisions per hour and eliminate all but 1 of those decisions then you've made the game shallower, and that's effectively what these games have done. In that 1-decision game, you might mistake it for being a deep game because holy crap is that 1 decision important (it's the one deciding factor in whether you win or lose!) But the reality is that mastering that game requires the mastery of fewer skills.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No, you're still wrong. First of all, how many decisions you're making doesn't dictate the depth of a game. A game is not more shallow because you're making fewer decisions. That's not what depth is. You're assuming that the decisions in WoW are of the same "caliber" (whatever that means) as the decisions made in a sandbox.
Another thing that isn't depth is "the challenge of mastering a game." As I've already pointed out, you can have a difficult game that isn't deep. SC2 isn't a deep game compared to most MMOs, but it will take you considerably longer to master it. Difficulty isn't depth.
You're quite literally just making up your own definition of what depth means. You're also now trying to quantify decisions. How are you determining how important a decision is?
You're also simply asserting that the decisions in ow pvp or sandbox games aren't more important, which is ludicrous. If an officer in an EVE corp makes a decision that ends up starting a server war that destroys tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, what's the WoW analog of a decision like that?
Um, that's not a significant source of depth, and it's certainly not the only depth.
Interrupting a 100-damage spell is exactly as difficult as interrupting a 10,000-damage spell. So scaling the values doesn't change the skill involved at all. If that spell gets cast faster, that increases the skill involved since you need quicker reflexes. If the spell gets cast in the midst of a bunch of chaotic other abilities demanding players move around, that requires more skill too. If you're fighting the boss while undergeared, that typically requires more skill too (but not if the boss' only ability is this 100-damage spell, because even if you have so little HP that it would one-shot you the actual difficulty of interrupting the spell hasn't changed. The risk being higher (instant death) won't have increased the skill required.
Skill and depth in MMORPGs largely comes from the combination of decisions required to beat the encounter, which usually involve a rotation which is difficult to learn by itself, which is then deliberately disrupted by boss capabilities, and teammates' actions (if your tanks drag two mobs together and your 2-mob rotation is stronger than your single target rotation, then you need to adapt to that on the fly, or you're not playing skillfully.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you're making as few decisions as you make in a open world PVP game, and if some of those decisions ('bring lots of friends') completely trump the importance of most of the other decisions you could make (instead of being additive,) then yes, the resulting game is shallower. I'm not just assuming WOW's decisions are of the same caliber. They are. They're just as critical to beating the game's toughest challenges as anything in an open world PVP game.
SC2 is deep because it takes a long time to master. The skill cap is extremely high and nearly impossible to reach -- that's exactly what depth is.
No, I'm quite literally using another game designer's established, straightforward, and logical definition of what depth means. Did you miss the post where I quoted Sirlin? ("A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries" -Sirlin, 2002)
I didn't say the decisions in a OW PVP game weren't important. In fact I explicitly pointed out that the decisions are more important because there are fewer, but that fewer decisions means less types of skill which means less depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver