Define 'depth'?

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

I dunno. Instead, elite taught me what a sandbox game was and suddenly turned every other game into 'canned wide canned deep'.

When kids ask for it they're probably missing a single player campaign, or cqc with people in it..

Also very fair requests probably expected from new players who aren't familiar with elite, and come in with the same ideas they've used for every other video game they've played before it. Makes sense.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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.

Agreed. I think the game is very in-depth. Even before the reworks they have done.

Mining now is really in depth, you even have to play the markets. This is something I hope they keep doing more of.

PVP believe it or not is REALLY in depth, everything from speed, modules, how and what to engineer. Counters, flight patterns and more.

BGS and Powerplay have really in depth playing fields on their own. I hope people try to enjoy them and learn them before they say these things.

Exploring now has some pretty cool tools to use. Im not much of an explorer, but to me it can be faster or the same as it used to be with those new limpets for planet scanning and finding POI's. Plus things like the Codex.

The only thing I dont like is how they distanced player groups from squadrons. Where people can sign up for the group and then anyone can represent it through the BGS, where it looks like the creator can make a move on the chess board, but its not the creator that did it. And if the guy operating under the creator goes to war with someone else. The Creator will be thrown into a war against someone else whether they like it or not(we attack all the assets.) I think that's pretty dumb to allow anyone to represent those groups. Lots of people work really hard and are strategic about how they play their BGS. Plus there is an economy attached to them as well.

But besides that, the game is great.

I think its a mile wide inch deep because people limit themselves. Lots of PVPers I know dont BGS or even powerplay either. Lots of BGSers or Powerplayers(ironically dont PVP).

Seems weird to me. But thats their fault if they dont get involved.

People that limit themselves should never be able to say this game is a "mile wide and an inch deep".

 

[Stealthie]

I dunno. Instead, elite taught me what a sandbox game was and suddenly turned every other game into 'canned wide canned deep'.

When kids ask for it they're probably missing a single player campaign, or cqc with people in it.

Yeah.

ED might be "a mile wide and an inch deep" but that's still better than a water-slide that's a mile from top to bottom.

Long ago, I was part of the beta-test for the game AvP2 (back when "beta testing" was a proper thing) and in the beta all the rooms in all the human labs were accessible, filled with personal nick-nacks and some useful bits & bobs.
For release, Monolith decided to bin all those rooms and the end result was much less "immersive" IMO.
Monolith said they did it because players were "getting confused" by the layouts which was a bit odd cos, as far as I knew, we were the beta-testers and none of us had reported the maps being confusing.

 

[Urbanski101]

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.

Yeah...totally agree with this.

It feels like we are disconnected observers and nothing we do really matters.

After 4 years I really was expecting ED to be much more fleshed out in this aspect.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Depth for a game is an ensemble of easy to get but hard to master mechanisms that let the players experiment and achieve their goals while keeping them involved and giving them a sentiment of accomplishment. For me Elite has in depth features like the flight model with FAOff. All the stuff leading to the discovery of the thargoids was great too.

All the other MMO grind nonsense, on the other hand...

 

[VR StarLightPL]

It feels like we are disconnected observers and nothing we do really matters.

It doesn't just "feel like", it's a design decision. Everything is optional, sterile, and the galaxy just doesn't care about the actions of the individual. The "optional alien invasion" is a great example of this. Which is of course true in the grand scheme of things, but in the smaller scope like factions treating you differently based on reputation and "history", would be a huge benefit.

 

[Ca$hback]

Sophisticated, complex, intellectually challenging, realistic.

 

[Franc Kaos]

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.

I would <redacted> love that!

 

[Ian Phillips]

Sophisticated, complex, intellectually challenging, realistic.

Are you describing a girlfriend or a game?

 

[kilvenny]

Depth for me is about the way game elements interact and inter depend with each other. One of the problems with a flight sim style game is that once you have "mastered" the flight part you have mastered the major depth element of the game and take it for granted. I remember playing a flight sim on the Spectrum when you had to land at night. This was challenging and had a depth to it, but once you had mastered the controls and landed a couple of times there was nothing else. ie no depth. More terrain adds scale not depth.

 

[Dibble]

the coords Z+

 

[Dbrn47]

A related relevant question to this OP is, even if we define depth, why is it critical to the enjoyment of a game?

Depth typically lends to longevity. A shallow game isn't going to provide everyone a long term experience. There are people that can enjoy shallow for extended periods of time and there are people that get bored and frustrated by it. Clicker Heroes is neat for a mobile experience that you can waste 10 mins at a time on when needed, but that's about it. A game like Elite that not only has a history but is also in a relatively niche genre of games, where people will spend hundreds of dollars on something like a HOTAS and want to sink thousands of hours or even more into, cannot be as shallow as Clicker Heroes (it isn't, but I feel the extreme makes a point). Depth isn't a concept that is a catch all thing, as obvious by the conversations here about it. People that like employing their vast imaginations aren't going to have as much of a problem with missing choices, complexity or interwoven systems since they can just pretend it's all there. For those that aren't interested in filling gaps for the developer, it becomes critical to the enjoyment. It really doesn't take much either, the FSS is evidence of that and those sorts of things add to the overall depth of a game.

Take something like building a house in a game. There are many options that a developer has to make just that feel like a deep and even complex process or simply just allow the player to have a house. They can have the player farm up money to then purchase a pre-existing house in the world, they can have the player purchase plots of land and pick from a selection of houses that they then drop into the world, they can have the player purchase sections of the house like walls, doors, windows and furnishings that they then place themselves in a design they prefer, and they can go as far as to have the player gather materials to then process into all of those individual pieces that they build incrementally onto a plot. It can even go further by adding extra steps that are involved in building real houses by adding the complexities of load bearing sections, electrical wiring, insulation, ventilation, etc and connect that to the game economy. It's all in how much time they want to spend on it and how much the player would appreciate the time spent.

If FDev throws the first example in the game, sure, many are going to simply be happy they have a house in the world, but over time that novelty is going to wear off as people start to wonder why they can't mine materials to build that house, why they can't use that house to build a surface mining operation, why they can't trade from it, even why they can't attack each others houses. In time, the shallow nature of the house shows in a game that can and does go deeper than simply plopping something down. Would they need to change it? No, because people would still be happy to have a house, but changing it would add to the overall enjoyment of the game as it becomes further connected with the rest of the game. Connected gameplay mechanisms have always been something of a topic here and it's clear that having those mechanics connected is critical to at least some. Do they need to go as far as the last example? Probably not, because then it turns into obnoxious busy work for another segment of the community, it becomes a sim within a sim that requires too much investment in a game that already wants you to invest a lot of time into it.

So since the community is made up of varying degrees of invested and imaginative people, it's really up to FDev to decide how much depth is critical to their vision and their bottom line. For me, I like a middle ground. I want control over building the house, but I don't want anything to do with architecture and wiring unless I'm playing a game about architecture and wiring. In any case, some amount of depth is critical to game development because if you have too little your game may be dead within a month due to boredom, but if you have too much your game may also be dead in a month because people drowned in an overwhelming sea they weren't expecting nor wanted from it.

Game development is harder than people think, especially when having to deal with concepts as ambiguous as depth and immersion. The simple answer is that it's all critical to varying degrees, depending on whom you ask.

 

[DeletedUser191218]

There's yet another 'mile wide, inch deep' threadnaught starting. Ten pages as of 21.00z tonight. I predict much bickering, increasing animosity and ad hominem attacks, followed by a lock. (That's what usually happens. )

I don't want to buzzkill on that one, but I am curious. What is 'depth', or what does 'depth' actually mean to you?

For example:

A couple of years back I stated my belief that more busy work is not depth. This was prior to engineering, but engineering is a great example, so I'll use that.

The engineering process involves many different requirements being met- unlocking engineers, gathering materials, trading same, rolling on a RNG generator to apply improvements.

I do not consider any of these activities to add depth to the game.

Engineering and the associated special effects can completely change the character of a ship. Different engineering effects can be combined in a staggering number of different ways. These can compliment or detract from the build's intended use. There's no 'best' build, the min/max of simpler systems doesn't apply.

This I consider to have added considerable depth to the game.

But that's just my opinion, I'm interested to hear yours?


Btw, I'm curious about 'depth', not engineering. I had a great response to an earlier OP on engineering, which I found very educational. I'm grateful to everyone who posted on it, even (heck, especially!) those who disagreed with me.

One example - missions. Every mission board is the same and they're inconsequential. There's no narrative at all. No point to missions. No emotional substance. Just algorithmically generated tasks.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

One example - missions. Every mission board is the same and they're inconsequential. There's no narrative at all. No point to missions. No emotional substance. Just algorithmically generated tasks.

That's not entirely true. A lot of those missions generated depends on the current state and welfare of those systems.

If you play the game for the BGS states instead of the credits. You'll find yourself doing all sorts of things you wouldn't normally do. The real reward in doing missions is the Influence for the "home" you'd represent. Its quite fun if you haven't tried it out yet. This is best when played with a group of friends though working the BGS.

 

[da_wae]

That's not entirely true. A lot of those missions generated depends on the current state and welfare of those systems.

If you play the game for the BGS states instead of the credits. You'll find yourself doing all sorts of things you wouldn't normally do. The real reward in doing missions is the Influence for the "home" you'd represent. Its quite fun if you haven't tried it out yet. This is best when played with a group of friends though working the BGS.

Calling BGS-manipulation fun is like calling doing your taxes fun. It's mostly spreadsheets with some very repeating pseudo-gameplay in-between [haha]

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Calling BGS-manipulation fun is like calling doing your taxes fun. It's mostly spreadsheets with some very repeating pseudo-gameplay in-between [haha]

Meh, to each their own right? I personally fell out of love with it the moment someone UA bombed us, killed all our cops and tried to put us in lock down from solo. Then after all that we got hit with waves of bots too.

It would be really engaging at least to me if we could fight and defend at the same time. But yes, you're right its a spreadsheet game based on your faction you represent. Not for everyone I guess. Thats okay!

 

[Remus]

Here is a good video that talks on this subject !

[video=youtube;jVL4st0blGU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU[/video]

As for my definition of depth, I'll say it goes as follows.

"Depth in a game can be defined as the amount of actions that a player must go trough in order to obtain a result, reach a target or a goal with the game mechanics that the game provides. Before said actions start to become monotonous or repetitive"

Example, Tetris has a very simplified game mechanic, but it is not a shallow game. Why ? Because even if the game mechanic is simplistic, the amount of combinations possible makes it so that the amount of different moves available is almost infinite and the end result varies constantly, if not every time.

Call of duty on the other hand, while having a more complex game mechanic. ( inventory, classes, kill streaks, etc...) Is in my experience a more shallow game. Why ? Because while the game mechanics can be more complex, the game-play itself is pretty basic ( point and click ) and there are always only two possible outcomes. Either you win or you lose.

You may argue that with any game is the same, you win or you lose. True, but with Tetris multiple combination gameplay, you will never, or at least almost never, win or lose a game in the same way.

With COD, the main reason why you lost is simply because you died more than your adversary. And that fact will never change no matter what mode you chose to play with in COD.



Tho I can always amend my point of view and my definition. What are your thoughts ? Was it helpful ?

 

[Kaocraft]

Here is a good video that talks on this subject !



As for my definition of depth, I'll say it goes as follows.


Example, Tetris has a very simplified game mechanic, but it is not a shallow game. Why ? Because even if the game mechanic is simplistic, the amount of combinations possible makes it so that the amount of different moves available is almost infinite and the end result varies constantly, if not every time.

Call of duty on the other hand, while having a more complex game mechanic. ( inventory, classes, kill streaks, etc...) Is in my experience a more shallow game. Why ? Because while the game mechanics can be more complex, the game-play itself is pretty basic ( point and click ) and there are always only two possible outcomes. Either you win or you lose.

You may argue that with any game is the same, you win or you lose. True, but with Tetris multiple combination gameplay, you will never, or at least almost never, win or lose a game in the same way.

With COD, the main reason why you lost is simply because you died more than your adversary. And that fact will never change no matter what mode you chose to play with in COD.



Tho I can always amend my point of view and my definition. What are your thoughts ? Was it helpful ?

You always lose a game of Tetris in the same way: the blocks pile up to the top. Just like you always lose a game of COD in the same way: you get killed more than your opponents get killed. But sure, the different situations and block configurations ("moves") you can make between start and failure in Tetris is vast and varied. But the different circumstances and methods by which you can kill or be killed in COD are much vaster. You're switching frames of reference between your analysis of Tetris to COD and your perspective is skewed as a result.

Tetris is arguably one of the most elegant games out there because of the way its complexity, depth, and skill requirements are perfectly integrated and strengthen each other. But it's not that deep of a game. I think you WANT to call it a deep game because it's a GOOD game, but if we're being real, COD is a deeper game than Tetris by almost any sane criteria. That doesn't necessarily make it better, especially since much of the depth in the game is wasted on throwaway complexity and uneven skill requirements. But it's a bit rich to act like Tetris offers a vaster field of possibilities and experiences than COD. Even your dismissal of COD's gameplay as "point and click" strikes me as particularly absurd given that Tetris consists of nudging shapes in one-block increments to the left or right or rotating them 90 degrees. There are more consequential input choices made in 5 seconds of COD than in an entire game of Tetris. Where Tetris succeeds is in the incredible legibility of its consequences and in the satisfaction of executing its limited moveset.

 

[Remus]

You always lose a game of Tetris in the same way: the blocks pile up to the top. Just like you always lose a game of COD in the same way: you get killed more than your opponents get killed. But sure, the different situations and block configurations ("moves") you can make between start and failure in Tetris is vast and varied. But the different circumstances and methods by which you can kill or be killed in COD are much vaster. You're switching frames of reference between your analysis of Tetris to COD and your perspective is skewed as a result.

Tetris is arguably one of the most elegant games out there because of the way its complexity, depth, and skill requirements are perfectly integrated and strengthen each other. But it's not that deep of a game. I think you WANT to call it a deep game because it's a GOOD game, but if we're being real, COD is a deeper game than Tetris by almost any sane criteria. That doesn't necessarily make it better, especially since much of the depth in the game is wasted on throwaway complexity and uneven skill requirements. But it's a bit rich to act like Tetris offers a vaster field of possibilities and experiences than COD. Even your dismissal of COD's gameplay as "point and click" strikes me as particularly absurd given that Tetris consists of nudging shapes in one-block increments to the left or right or rotating them 90 degrees. There are more consequential input choices made in 5 seconds of COD than in an entire game of Tetris. Where Tetris succeeds is in the incredible legibility of its consequences and in the satisfaction of executing its limited moveset.

OK, first I said that it was in MY experience. I'm not asking people to acknowledge my input as a general fact or truth.

Second, in Tetris you have 7 pieces that can be turned each time by 45 degrees, which allows for a huge amount of combinations already. And because the order at which the pieces appear relies on RNG, the total amount of combinations on a single game is virtually infinite.
You are right when you say that a game always ends when the screen is filled. But the way you get there will never be the same, the pieces wont appear in the same order or be combined in the same way. It just never happens.

You say that in COD there are more consequential choice in 5 seconds of cod than in a full game of tetris ?

I'm willing to believe that but you will have to be more precise. What are the choices that a COD player is faced with ? AS far as I can tell you must choose between run, jump, stop, move left or right move back, point and click.

In tetris, you must take into account way more factors. Even the basic BLOCK gives multiple options ! will you place it in the center ? To the left ? The right ? In between ? Anticipate for a straight piece ? A T piece ? How to combine it with a Z piece ?

And that is just the Block, or Termino O if you want the official name. And there are 6 other pieces that depending how you previously combined your pieces will give you different amounts of possible combinations.

In Tetris, you must think forward and anticipate.

In COD you mostly REACT.

In Tetris there is no preconceived strategy or move that a player can apply or refer to. Because the situations vary all the time.

A professional COD player that knows the maps by heart will always try to apply a single strategy for each map in the game. Why ? Because it is the most efficient ! Chances are that his opponent knows how to counter it. Therefor it boils down to who make his move faster.

In Tetris you cannot memorize by heart. Since the situations change all the time.

I'm not saying COD is BAD per se. But there is a Reason why in 50 years people will keep on playing Tetris, and COD will be replaced by another shooter franchise. Heck it is pretty much already happening !

 

[Slange Lands]

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.

Bill, I think all of the above and especially #7 is your answer because we all play games for different reasons. What causes a person to play games will determine the sort of effects she wants from said games. In addition, we as individuals are in constant flux so that what we would perceive as "depth" in our twenties would be hackneyed boring "science fiction plot #77a" in our fifties, for example.

Personally, what I find most engaging is the flight mechanics. It seems simple at the start; 6 degrees of freedom, not unlike an FPS. However, the degree of complexity and number of maneuvers you can fly and outfit a ship are vast. To me that is what "depth" may be. The flight mechanics in Elite is perhaps to a much lesser extent like music, where you have a small set of 7 notes which you can vary by a half step. But the number of combinations and resulting compositions one can produce with those notes is infinite, varying from Chopsticks to Das Rheingold.

It's also like music because of the gamut of technical proficiency over one's ship one can attain: from scrub like me, to the legendary Isinona, for example. The great pilots make it look so easy, so effortless - virtuosi in a very real sense. Gluttony Fang makes soloing Medusae look like a walk in the park. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just like any Horowitz or Baryshnikov, these truly elite pilots put in their time and practiced.

Furthermore, just like some great artists, these pilots are also attempting to teach and pass on their knowledge and expertise to others.
For absolutely free.
That's love.
That's deeply inspiring.
That's what makes me keep on trying harder.
Who wouldn't want to be just like them?

o7