Define 'depth'?

[Stealthie]

For now the NPC ships are let's say not very bright with their levels being supplemented with better guns and armour the higher they go.

They need to be unpredictable and also react on a more realistic manner I mean what maniac is going to attack an elite engineered conda in a mostly harmless sidewinder or eagle? Or go anywhere near it!

This never ceases to make me smile.

Drop into CNB or HazRes in unstoppable BattleVette.
Proceed to slaughter dozens of unwitting outlaws one after the other while the rest all remain apparently oblivious to their peril.
Target, let's say, an Eagle or Adder and...

"I'm gonna boil you up!"
or
"Now you die, victim!"

Seriously?
To paraphrase something a great man once said, maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events but you just got your butts kicked, back there.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I don't understand the term 'depth' as a seperate entity

If a game can keep me 'amused' sufficiently to come back and play it some more, whether it is as simple as matching 3-5 jewels or as 'complex' as piloting a spacecraft it has sufficient 'depth' for me. But i am a simple person who plays for entertainment and doesn't require massive challenge. I have nearly 1000 hours in ED, around 1500 hours in SkyrimVR, 400'ish in FO4VR, several thousand in TF2 and several hundred hours in Bejeweled 3

Obviously these games have some form of depth for me as they 'take my time'.

What do I expect specifically from ED? Simple really, to be 'interesting' enough to want to fire it up again...

Sorry Bill, I don't think this is what you were asking, but I'm one of those odd people who are easily amused...

 

[Deadlock-3000]

I'm not saying that the game doesn't have problems with repetition, grind, balance, bugs, etc, but the ever-present forum hyperbole and indigination about the game "literally" having no depth is asinine.

Who's saying it has "literally no depth"?

It has a whole inch of it.

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

I'm not saying that the game doesn't have problems with repetition, grind, balance, bugs, etc, but the ever-present forum hyperbole and indigination about the game "literally" having no depth is asinine.

It just dawned on me the irony of people complaining about this topic coming up repeatedly, and having to grind through the same answers but ultimately nothing changes. . . kinda reminds me of a game I like to play on occasion

 

[WILLIAMHMcARTY]

I want to put my opinion out here on this "depth" subject.

First, I'm well north of 60, and not currently playing Elite, but I am considering picking up the game, so I thought I'd check some forums and see what's what, do some research, and I see there's quite the range of opinions on the game.

I played the original back in the mid 80's, on a green monochrome screen powered by a Apple II with a massive 640kb of memory. I don't even think "gigabyte" as a word even existed back then, let alone "terabyte". The game was amazing then, stuff you'd never seen, or even imagined. I spent hours and hours and hours trading, flying combat missions, coming to the aid of traders and stations, increasing my rep with factions, discovering mysteries which seemed to have no clues while exploring, (ah, but they were there, if you looked). Found myself (more than once), in a system with no scoopable star and outta "gas", (no fuel rats back then either). Gambled on one big score without insurance only to see my plans land me broke, and starting over on some dump of a station. I'm struck by how much of 84's game is still there in today's game. While "primitive" compared to today's version the learning curve was even steeper then, you have remember nothing like Elite had ever existed, a computer "video" game was text based, and how to play such a game(?), the "rules" were pretty much nonexistent, the "story" was what you made it, the "narrative" was your own.

Games have "improved" since then, now there are "deep, wide arcing narratives", "engaging characters" "immersive locations" and "cutting edge" graphics, and all sorts of other wondrous adjectives. Many gamers of today never saw those early days, they have seen video games evolve from "graphics masterpieces" (compared to the the beginning games such as Elite) to near photorealistic worlds. Those games have grown, and evolved to coin all those wondrous adjectives above, and become, not features, but expectations of any game, not just Elite, to today's gamer, so I can see why they are saying what they are. Really, there's no "right" answer to these questions, depth is where you find it, taste is individual, and often acquired through different circumstances, one players belief is just as valid as anothers.

For me, in 1984/5 Elite was "lighting in a bottle", and I'm thankful I got to experience it, and from what I've seen and read, for me at least, that "bottle" seems to have a little charge left, who knows maybe I'll see some of you in the black, fly safe Commander's o7

 

[Dbrn47]

Layers of interworking systems that engage the player. Some call it busy work. An actual economy wherein miners mined materials that where then used for production to build modules and ships, the X series comes to mind for that. The FSS is an example of going im the direction of depth. While not particularly deep on its own, it adds depth with layers of discovery and player engagement that the ADS didn't have without a ton of player imagination. Engineering and Guardian upgrades adds depth with choice of modules and its connection to existing activities. Again, busy work to some people and these systems aren't without flaws. Thus, it can and is argued that depth is whatever people want it to be. I don't agree, but its not a bad arguement when you look at how people try to define it.

 

[Knightshark]

My simple definition: A game has depth if I am planning out stuff to do even while not playing. And once I am back in game I can execute the plan.

ED has depth for me because of the ship customization it allows.

 

[Scytale]

No (more) real and exciting story line? No allowance to modify anything in the Elite "universe" (not even through the BGS ) ? Then, no real depth.
That's why we must make player driven emergent gameplay like the expeditions, etc...
PP could have given some depth to the game, but FD totally missed the point. Again.

 

[Old Duck]

Depth is what I will experience, both literally and figuratively, when I download Subnautica later this week

 

[Bill Clement]

You still have not defined depth. Just stated that engineering for you does not increase it.

Sorry Mark, I guess my description of what defines 'depth' for me, personally, was clumsy.

I don't believe increased complexity delivers depth. It doesn't matter to me whether it's one button, one action or a hundred of both, if they deliver the same end result, they're delivering the same amount of 'depth'.

On the other hand, if the end result delivers a number of different options to you, with the potential for synergistic or emergent qualities dependent on the choices you make, then I believe that increases the 'depth' of play available.

I'm not making any claims about whether ED delivers a 'deep' gaming experience, btw. I'm genuinely interested in what people mean by the term.

 

[Brrokk]

My simple definition: A game has depth if I am planning out stuff to do even while not playing. And once I am back in game I can execute the plan.

ED has depth for me because of the ship customization it allows.

That's really perceptive and I agree it's a good criterion. There are definitely two kinds of games for me. The ones I dabble in for amusement and the ones I play almost exclusively for a few years, planning what to do in between play sessions. In the second category I've had Laser Squad Nemesis for about three years, Lord of the Rings Online for about 10 years, and now Elite Dangerous for the past two years.

 

[Tarman]

Depth - A extremely vaguely defined concept open to massive interpretation, used as one of the crafting materials for forum beatsticks. See also "immersion", "fun" and "proper mechanics".

 

[Bill Clement]

Every game can be broken down to you are just pushing a button and watch an animated response.

Fo4 is a junk search sim with added shooting mini game ,every fire fight is the same no matter who you are fighting.

ED is already extremely complicated but thankfully not on the level of say DCS flight sims.

If they really want to make ED better they need to make the AI the thing that is groundbreaking.

For now the NPC ships are let's say not very bright with their levels being supplemented with better guns and armour the higher they go.

They need to be unpredictable and also react on a more realistic manner I mean what maniac is going to attack an elite engineered conda in a mostly harmless sidewinder or eagle? Or go anywhere near it!

That actually happened, once! Happy days...

Sarah Jane Avory, AI programmer (also known as MoM, Mistress of Minions) wrote some superb code, pre engineers. The AI became very smart indeed, but their actions were scaled to players combat rank.

There was enough salt to rival a mine! [haha]

Players who really, really enjoyed slaughtering hordes of NPCs were extremely upset when the prey started to fight back, hard. Harder than human opponents, apparently, if you were ranked Elite.

Players who disliked combat were upset that the AI was now at least as competent in a fight as they were.

Players like me loved it! I was never very comfortable with the way I could solo a Battleconda in my Viper, having the AI become smart enough to defend itself was a huge improvement to my immersion. The kind of fighting I found myself doing was mainly against smaller ships like my own. The challenge went up by a huge amount, ironically making it more likely that I'd stay to fight if I was interdicted (before I'd just low wake or fight the interdiction).

It didn't last, FD lobotomised the poor AI within a matter of months. It was great while it lasted, though! [hotas]

I've often thought that restoring the AI, rather than just boosting their stats, is a smarter way to keep the game balanced now engineering is available.

 

[Winterwalker]

"Depends on how you're defining width," said my science teacher.

I'm not making any claims about whether ED delivers a 'deep' gaming experience, btw. I'm genuinely interested in what people mean by the term.

I think the new scenarios in 3.3 help because obviously you can get right into into Elite lore but ED doesn't have proper blackmarkets yet, so the current game has always had a bit of the work in progress about it too. (I actually like that, computer science as an artform, a sometimes raggedy edge of the envelope). The USS scenarios push you that way I think, they're good.

I think you have to remember back to when you were 10 to understand if or why ED might be 'deep'. Something something "law and order" something something "buy cheap sell high" something something "fuel". After the age of 10 things like that might seem old and beneath us .. or are they? Kind of the stuff of life really .. and outfitting very much like playing mechanic.

 

[Bill Clement]

Bill, oh Bill, what on earth have you done? lol.

I just can't help myself sometimes...

I don't understand the term 'depth' as a seperate entity

If a game can keep me 'amused' sufficiently to come back and play it some more, whether it is as simple as matching 3-5 jewels or as 'complex' as piloting a spacecraft it has sufficient 'depth' for me. But i am a simple person who plays for entertainment and doesn't require massive challenge. I have nearly 1000 hours in ED, around 1500 hours in SkyrimVR, 400'ish in FO4VR, several thousand in TF2 and several hundred hours in Bejeweled 3

Obviously these games have some form of depth for me as they 'take my time'.

What do I expect specifically from ED? Simple really, to be 'interesting' enough to want to fire it up again...

Sorry Bill, I don't think this is what you were asking, but I'm one of those odd people who are easily amused...

Yeah, me too. I'm curious about how other people think, though. Irl people are a bit wary around me- I think it's because I look a bit like a Viking? On line people can be as brave or obnoxious as they like, no-one's coming through the monitor screen to get them! It makes for much more honest conversations!

On topic. As far as I can see 'depth' appears to have the following meanings:

1. Layered and involved game mechanics
2. Emotional involvement
3. Complex, interleaved results from in game choices
4. Control of game assets- markets, bases etc
5. Homogenous gameplay
6. Anything that's not Elite!

Most of those are mutually exclusive. I guess that explains why these threadnaughts keep on appearing. Maybe I should add 7. Depth is subjective and deeply personal.

 

[Tarman]

I just can't help myself sometimes...



Yeah, me too. I'm curious about how other people think, though. Irl people are a bit wary around me- I think it's because I look a bit like a Viking? On line people can be as brave or obnoxious as they like, no-one's coming through the monitor screen to get them! It makes for much more honest conversations!

On topic. As far as I can see 'depth' appears to have the following meanings:

1. Layered and involved game mechanics
2. Emotional involvement
3. Complex, interleaved results from in game choices
4. Control of game assets- markets, bases etc
5. Homogenous gameplay
6. Anything that's not Elite!

Most of those are mutually exclusive. I guess that explains why these threadnaughts keep on appearing. Maybe I should add 7. Depth is subjective and deeply personal.

Don't forget to include the lovely bias of completely unrealistic expectations. Some people feel Elite won't be deep until it's EVE plus Planetside2 plus NMS plus X4 plus Mass Effect plus Space Engineers, with a galaxy full of handcrafted yet procedural content that can create a unique personal narrative for a hundred and fifty thousand players. I think those folks specifically just need to go play IRL.

 

[Bill Clement]

I want to put my opinion out here on this "depth" subject.

First, I'm well north of 60, and not currently playing Elite, but I am considering picking up the game, so I thought I'd check some forums and see what's what, do some research, and I see there's quite the range of opinions on the game.

I played the original back in the mid 80's, on a green monochrome screen powered by a Apple II with a massive 640kb of memory. I don't even think "gigabyte" as a word even existed back then, let alone "terabyte". The game was amazing then, stuff you'd never seen, or even imagined. I spent hours and hours and hours trading, flying combat missions, coming to the aid of traders and stations, increasing my rep with factions, discovering mysteries which seemed to have no clues while exploring, (ah, but they were there, if you looked). Found myself (more than once), in a system with no scoopable star and outta "gas", (no fuel rats back then either). Gambled on one big score without insurance only to see my plans land me broke, and starting over on some dump of a station. I'm struck by how much of 84's game is still there in today's game. While "primitive" compared to today's version the learning curve was even steeper then, you have remember nothing like Elite had ever existed, a computer "video" game was text based, and how to play such a game(?), the "rules" were pretty much nonexistent, the "story" was what you made it, the "narrative" was your own.

Games have "improved" since then, now there are "deep, wide arcing narratives", "engaging characters" "immersive locations" and "cutting edge" graphics, and all sorts of other wondrous adjectives. Many gamers of today never saw those early days, they have seen video games evolve from "graphics masterpieces" (compared to the the beginning games such as Elite) to near photorealistic worlds. Those games have grown, and evolved to coin all those wondrous adjectives above, and become, not features, but expectations of any game, not just Elite, to today's gamer, so I can see why they are saying what they are. Really, there's no "right" answer to these questions, depth is where you find it, taste is individual, and often acquired through different circumstances, one players belief is just as valid as anothers.

For me, in 1984/5 Elite was "lighting in a bottle", and I'm thankful I got to experience it, and from what I've seen and read, for me at least, that "bottle" seems to have a little charge left, who knows maybe I'll see some of you in the black, fly safe Commander's o7

Come on in William, the water's lovely, even if we can't agree how deep it is!

If you want any help or pointers either post them up or PM me or anyone else you get on with on the forum. We're good people, even if we do quarrel a lot! It's just because we care about the game. It's pretty special, you know?

A lot of players start in 'Solo', but if you decide to jump into 'Open', be aware you're in a starter system, there may be seal clubbers around. If you want an escort out of there just ask- plenty of us will be happy to fly on your wing!

 

[Urbanski101]

I would use the example of bounty hunting in ED.

You turn up to a RES site, deploy hardpoints, scan ships for being wanted and engage those ships with bounties. That as a mechanic is not very deep and the AI is spectacularly stupid, not so much in combat but for showing up to a RES site (with a bounty) in the first place which is crawling with system security and bounty hunters.

Then you have assassination missions, again fairly shallow, pick up the mission, go to the system, following the mission waypoint, drop in, fight.

There is no element of 'hunt' in either of these scenarios and they both lack depth in that they are overly simplistic, require little thought or problem solving skills from the player and are repetitive, playing out largely the same each time.

The combat mechanics however are quite deep in that there are many different loadouts and ways of engaging, long range engineered rail guns for precision sniping through to point blank frag cannons and everything in between.... plus shield builds, hull tanks, speed demons etc...

So ED is a really mixed bag IMO, lots of things to do and a huge learning curve with much of it but most of the mechanics are fairly shallow yet some elements of gameplay are quite deep and complex.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

My patience has ran out. I'm playing Elder Scrolls Online now. Haven't even thought to update Elite yet. And when I did today, I just thought to myself "I'd rather just go to Tamriel".

ESO is a game that has a lot of depth.

Should've got into MMORPGs long ago.

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

My patience has ran out. I'm playing Elder Scrolls Online now. Haven't even thought to update Elite yet. And when I did today, I just thought to myself "I'd rather just go to Tamriel".

ESO is a game that has a lot of depth.

Should've got into MMORPGs long ago.

Please elaborate. I picked up ESO recently, but have yet to get engaged. What am I missing?