Define 'depth'?

[Tarman]

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.

GL, my personal experience is that it did not. I played it hardcore for about 5 months, and then it completely stopped being interesting and I never picked it back up. I wasn't a fan of any of the MP aspects actually (woot bot trains and waiting for dungeons to respawn), and knowing that EVERYONE was on the exact same epic SP journey as myself really took the shine off. Also the canned death animations grated on me after playing ragdoll-physics games.

The char creator is gorgeous though, and there's a high level of kit customization. By my own personal definitions, ESO has tons of breadth but little depth. A good game, but not something I could play for years on end.

 

[Apos]

Depth can only be perceived by those who are willing to dive.

The only issue is that FD is often incapable to control how deep some players will dive which leads to them being reluctant to implement even deeper depths. However, a depth already exists, some people just are too stubborn to experience them and demand that the depth they wish to experience comes to the surface just for them instead.

 

[StuartGT]

This is a great thread to read through so thanks for starting it

So many differing and interesting opinions on what "depth" is, showing that whether Elite Dangerous has "depth" or not is entirely subjective. Consequently, vague requests like "devs, add more depth" without context are useless feedback for game developers.

For me, games have "depth" if they satisfy one or both of these criteria:

• When not playing, i seem to be constantly planning/strategising what to do in-game when i next play (Elite Dangerous, Stellaris, Subnautica, Civ 6, Warframe, etc) because of the mechanics/features.
• After playing, i seem to be regularly emotionally-reminiscing the game for days/weeks afterwards (Mass Effect 1-3, Life Is Strange, Journey, Return of Obra Dinn, etc) because of the characters/story.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

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.

(...)

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

First of all, Elite: Dangerous is worth buying (necessarily with Horizons Season Pass) despite ANY forum opinions on the subject. Many of us have hundreds or thousands hours in-game time (!) so we're looking at the game differently. It's a pity you didn't write sooner, you just missed HUGE sale on humblebundle.com. But there will be other sales, just keep an eye on https://isthereanydeal.com/ or similar sites (our polish https://gg.deals/ is also nice) or just buy it. I guarantee you will get at least 60 hrs of enjoyment out of it.

Now what you write about the original is simply stating the fact that the game was state of the art then. I was too small to play it ;-) but I remember the original "tennis" (or "pong" in some regions) games on "tv consoles" and started with an Atari 65XE not long after ;-) Been playing ever since. Games (and technology) have evolved immensely. Elite now supports true Virtual Reality (!!!) - which I strongly encourage you to try, because it is AWESOME. You ARE in your ship. No words can describe the feeling, and you will never be so close to piloting a FTL spaceship... But "kids today" react differently to VR - they find it "nice" but they notice the resolution is not so good etc. While for us who remember the aforementioned "tennis" it's like an epiphany to actually BE IN THE GAME WORLD. No really, go try it somewhere... maybe someone with VR lives near you or something. Try it. But I digress, so back on topic: Elite was a marvel back then. We weren't used to such "complexity" in a "video game" as it was called back in the day. Games were simplistic, this one was complex... it added depth by breaking the boundaries of what's actually possible. But now times have changed, software got way more complex and Elite got a bit... stale in the recent few years. It's still a great game but now you can see the shortcomings more, especially that now it has some competition in the likes of No Man's Sky (which was a newt but got better ;-) ) and X4: Foundations. I know many of posters here will shout that these are different games, but for me they are a competition because I play them and not E: D.

So, yeah, while we all fondly look back to our "younger selves" playing whatever Elite version they started with (for me: Frontier: Elite 2 on Amiga), we can all agree that the bar has been raised now. Elite has much to catch up, but it still is an awesome game. So go buy it, you won't be dissapointed.

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

You're prettying things a bit. I too loved the added danger of "WARNING! Impulse attack!" message out of the blue, meaning you just got railed by something you don't see and your shields won't last 2 more hits. However it was full of bugs. Let's take the iconic plasma multicannon from this video... I would LOVE that thing on my Cutter too...
[video=youtube;s_6HjebZFYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_6HjebZFYs[/video]

 

[Eymerich]

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.

Yes I remember that time as well.

When the ship after going hull down 50% started to run making an half hour to chase them…

Or when Ai were able to do manouvre no pilot can do just because of their ability, being in vertical without you would be able to bring them in your aim…

Great time yes… (sarcastic)

 

[Deleted member 110222]

GL, my personal experience is that it did not. I played it hardcore for about 5 months, and then it completely stopped being interesting and I never picked it back up. I wasn't a fan of any of the MP aspects actually (woot bot trains and waiting for dungeons to respawn), and knowing that EVERYONE was on the exact same epic SP journey as myself really took the shine off. Also the canned death animations grated on me after playing ragdoll-physics games.

The char creator is gorgeous though, and there's a high level of kit customization. By my own personal definitions, ESO has tons of breadth but little depth. A good game, but not something I could play for years on end.

Is that not the case with any MMO though?

Devs' can't exactly write a bespoke story for each individual player in that kind of environment...

As for dungeons... That's what guilds are for.

Honestly ED just feels empty. Nevermind everyone being on the same epic story... There isn't a story at all.

ED has no PvP mechanism beyond shooting other players. ESO? PvP both direct in Cyrodiil/Battlegrounds, and indirect via LB for dungeons/trials.

As for the gear grind? Is it really so different to engineering? I'd wager ESO handles gear in a much more interesting way because it features real P2P trading. Even monster helms can be traded between the dungeon party.

ED? The economy is nothing compared to proper MMOs.

In ESO, loot means more than gold or enchanting.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Or when Ai were able to do manouvre no pilot can do just because of their ability, being in vertical without you would be able to bring them in your aim…

Great time yes… (sarcastic)

Aw c'mon, I am sure you also remember the "spin of death" NPC did sometimes and allowed you to blow them up into tiny pieces All fair and square

 

[StuartGT]

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.

Those many weeks were truly fantastic for PvE gameplay. After the initial bugged AI outfitting was fixed the NPCs really brought a true sense of danger to encounters (other than other players of course).

Is it an Elite-rank that'll give me a proper challenge, or a bunch of Dangerous-ranks, perhaps requiring me to flee?

Was such a pity that FDev top-brass listened more the whining about it being difficult (at Dangerous+ ranks, as it should be) than gamers who wanted challenge. Thankfully, Thargoids then provided a different slant on difficult NPCs, before Guardian weaponry made it easier of course.

 

[StuartGT]

GL, my personal experience is that it did not. I played it hardcore for about 5 months, and then it completely stopped being interesting and I never picked it back up. I wasn't a fan of any of the MP aspects actually (woot bot trains and waiting for dungeons to respawn), and knowing that EVERYONE was on the exact same epic SP journey as myself really took the shine off. Also the canned death animations grated on me after playing ragdoll-physics games.

The char creator is gorgeous though, and there's a high level of kit customization. By my own personal definitions, ESO has tons of breadth but little depth. A good game, but not something I could play for years on end.

My sister's & bro-in-law's experience was similar - they only play MMORPGs and Co-op RPGs. After a few months of enjoying ESO to completion they were back playing WoW and Path of Exile again. For Xmas I got them copies of Divinity Original Sin 2 which they're enjoying too (they loved the first one).

 

[Old Duck]

GL, my personal experience is that it did not. I played it hardcore for about 5 months, and then it completely stopped being interesting and I never picked it back up. I wasn't a fan of any of the MP aspects actually (woot bot trains and waiting for dungeons to respawn), and knowing that EVERYONE was on the exact same epic SP journey as myself really took the shine off. Also the canned death animations grated on me after playing ragdoll-physics games.

The char creator is gorgeous though, and there's a high level of kit customization. By my own personal definitions, ESO has tons of breadth but little depth. A good game, but not something I could play for years on end.

This mirrors my experience as well. What kills games like ESO for me personally is that it feels like "The Amazing Race" with the players being contestants running between a bunch of staged checkpoints. Because of this, it does not feel like a living, breathing world, but rather Disney World. I would absolutely love an offline version of ESO that mirrored Skyrim in game design, because ESO is a beautiful, breathtaking game, but I just don't like MMOs anymore.

Now for people who do like MMOs, I can't think of any I would recommend over ESO.

 

[rhiz]

Complexity is not the same as depth. They are really completely different concepts.

I agree with this for the most part, with the possible exception of the strategy genre. As others have said there are many ways to define depth, but for me a broad definition might be “anything that provokes sustained intellectual and/or emotional engagement”. In terms of game design, depth might manifest itself in the following ways:

1) A compelling, dramatic and sophisticated narrative that elicits a meaningful intellectual or emotional response in the player (The Last Of Us?). Personally, I think very few games are ambitious enough in this regard, when compared to film or literature.

2) A complex and varied environment which keeps repetition to a minimum. Usually, the best examples of this are hand-crafted worlds imbued with drama and designed to provoke specific responses in the player (The Witcher 3, Subnautica etc).

3) With regard to a true sandbox game, a sufficient number of tools or activities made available to the player to enable them to shape or interact with the environment creatively (Minecraft).

4) In strategy/simulation, sufficiently complex player choices that can be mastered, used creatively and which influence the evolution of the game in a direct and tangible way.

 

[AlexAndTheDJ]

Is that not the case with any MMO though?

Devs' can't exactly write a bespoke story for each individual player in that kind of environment...

As for dungeons... That's what guilds are for.

Honestly ED just feels empty. Nevermind everyone being on the same epic story... There isn't a story at all.

ED has no PvP mechanism beyond shooting other players. ESO? PvP both direct in Cyrodiil/Battlegrounds, and indirect via LB for dungeons/trials.

As for the gear grind? Is it really so different to engineering? I'd wager ESO handles gear in a much more interesting way because it features real P2P trading. Even monster helms can be traded between the dungeon party.

ED? The economy is nothing compared to proper MMOs.

In ESO, loot means more than gold or enchanting.

Just to expand on this a little. Instancing in Elite also restricts the amount of depth one can experience or perceive. I remember there was that lady, Celeste (?) travelling from A to B, who ended up getting offed by CMDR Harry Potter. Unfortunately that narrative was plagued with instancing issues. The amount of commanders wanting to help escort her safely was far greater than those who could actually do so. Meaning that the players influence on the story was restricted to RNG, and the player base couldn't fully engage in what could have been an extremely enjoyable scenario.

 

[Stealthie]

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.

FWIW, I think the simplest way to define "depth" would be with the word "choice".

Choice, in everything from what you do and how you do it to what consequences the game applies and how it does it all provides "depth" IMO.

By way of the most trivial example I can think of, I'd fall off my chair if ED treated players differently depending on their level of allegiance to a faction.
Imagine scraping another ship on the way out of a station and getting a message saying "Careful Commander, even an ally like you can be prosecuted for misdemeanors" instead of the arbitrary Cr100 fine.
To me, that'd be an indication that ED had really evolved.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

By way of the most trivial example I can think of, I'd fall off my chair if ED treated players differently depending on their level of allegiance to a faction.
Imagine scraping another ship on the way out of a station and getting a message saying "Careful Commander, even an ally like you can be prosecuted for misdemeanors" instead of the arbitrary Cr100 fine.
To me, that'd be an indication that ED had really evolved.

If you listen closely to ATC control, this kinda happens, they are nicer if you are allied and nastier if you are on bad terms with the controlling faction. I know this isn't exactly what you want though.

 

[xondk]

Obscurity, and a grind process which is positively fractal, aren't the same things as depth.

It's always going to be a subjective judgement. Me, I think this game has all the depth of gossamer. You can write as many essays about your experience as you want, it won't change mine.

Well if you reduce all games to 'the grind' then there really isn't any game that is deep.

What is depth? Many possible answers.
Unqiue ways to achieve different tasks.
missions that are varied that involves many unqiue tasks to complete.

I get what you are saying, but I do not agree as such, mainly because from my experience many games that try to do this end up making everything quite bland, because thre's no real requirement of people, no real path, you can 'get everything any way' so why would you ever do x?
Now some say it is a good thing players aren't forced to do x thing that they dislike, but I would argue that uniqueness comes exactly from not having everything be possible, is there a balance? sure, but say, allowing a miner to get the same weapons as a combatant via mining makes little sense to me, they'd get access to better mining equipment because that's what they are doing, that is what they are effective at.

 

[Stealthie]

If you listen closely to ATC control, this kinda happens, they are nicer if you are allied and nastier if you are on bad terms with the controlling faction. I know this isn't exactly what you want though.

Uhuh,

That sort of makes it worse, for me, cos it tells me that somebody at FDev does understand that it adds to the game but nobody's bothered developing the idea.

FWIW, as well, I'm not just mentioning that in isolation.
I'd like to see every aspect of your character acknowledged by every related NPC.
When you arrive somewhere you're allied you would, as I said, be treated a bit more leniently.
When you arrive in a military system you'd receive comm's acknowledging your rank, you might get assistance from military ships in combat and, as a real "party-piece", if you're King/Admiral, you might sometimes get a wing of 3 Vipers forming up and escorting you in a system - whatever you were doing.
Equally, if you're an outlaw, you'd get treated differently by civvie ships and, after being interdicted, pirates might treat you with respect and let you go on your way and, ultimately, you'd get a similar bonus to what military rank provides in that pirates would assist you in your dastardly deeds.

All that's just one tiny aspect at what "depth" is all about (to me, at least) but it's the sort of stuff that really brings a game to life and makes you feel like you're part of that universe rather than just being somebody who's poking it with a stick from the outside.

Hate to keep making the same comparisons but, if FDev want to put "depth" into ED, they could do a lot worse than just play Skyrim for a month, make notes of everything that makes them think "Heh, that's pretty cool!" and then try and implement similar things in ED.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Yeah I get your drift, I even advocated for a career paths / karma system when that was on the table, something akin to what you describe. I also proposed notoriety, but not in the broken way it's implemented now, but more like you describe it - respect among outlaws, security reacting more harsh, hisec are no go etc.

And a positive career path on the other side, respected politician / trader etc., gaining insights about lucrative trades and important "do-good" missions... If you played fallout 3, their karma system was similar. I always ended being a wasteland jesus, whatever that was called. Random NPCs approached me and gave me supplies for example. It reflected what character I was playing in the game... This also does tons for immersion and said "depth". But as of current, Elite isn't deep for me, personally.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

A related relevant question to this OP is, even if we define depth, why is it critical to the enjoyment of a game? I can think of dozens of awesome games that make elite's "depth" look like the mariana trench in comparison.

Depth of play doesn't guarantee a good game, not does lack of it.

That's why i find the mile wide, inch deep meme very annoying. It doesn't actually tell you anything about what the posted actually wants and how they would improve the game. All it tells you is they like to use slogans instead of constructive comments.

Anyway, doubt anyone will provide a definition that everyone can readily agree on in relation to ED.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yeah I get your drift, I even advocated for a career paths / karma system when that was on the table, something akin to what you describe. I also proposed notoriety, but not in the broken way it's implemented now, but more like you describe it - respect among outlaws, security reacting more harsh, hisec are no go etc.

And a positive career path on the other side, respected politician / trader etc., gaining insights about lucrative trades and important "do-good" missions... If you played fallout 3, their karma system was similar. I always ended being a wasteland jesus, whatever that was called. Random NPCs approached me and gave me supplies for example. It reflected what character I was playing in the game... This also does tons for immersion and said "depth". But as of current, Elite isn't deep for me, personally.

I wouldn't want "careers" per se. I like how i can be a good guy in one system and a bad guy in another, but otherwise the things you write could have been lifted right from my brain Especially the parts about respect among outlaws and no go areas. I think i when i wrote a post a long time ago about this I also threw in the idea of pirate bases where you could only go if you were a bad boy.

 

[MarkAusten]

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.

Thanks Bill, that cleared your definition up considerably.