3 ms·

Isn't that width? Dwarf Fortress is the epitome of 'depth' in a game, to the detriment of basic things like a graphical interface, and it couldn't be a better e

by gota 5y ago

Isn't that width? Dwarf Fortress is the epitome of 'depth' in a game, to the detriment of basic things like a graphical interface, and it couldn't be a better example of a creator's vision

me_me_me 5y ago
> Isn't that width? That depends on the implementation. Number of different features/actions is the game width. Complexity of the features are the depth. A turn based strategy might give you 10000 units that vary slightly, but not in a meaningful way is a shallow width. A roaster of units to choose from that counter certain opponent's units and have bonus interactions with certain friendly units would be example of depth.
- zzbzq 5y ago
  Breadth and depth Game communities call them both depth, which is a huge error. I played an RTS that claimed to have depth because of the insane amount of armor and weapon types. In the end, the armor/weapon strengths & weaknesses were still just rock-paper-scissors. Having hundreds of them just meant you had to look them up on a spreadsheet, in order to make the simple rock-paper-scissors decisions. This is breadth with no depth. Although confusingly, gamers will still call it "depth," not having the distinction of "breadth" in their vocabulary. Meanwhile simple ancient games like Go can achieve a large amount of complexity with simple rulesets. That's real depth. I think depth is probably hard to invent intentionally.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    One could argue that Go from the design point of view is has no breadth nor depth. There are few rules and rules are very simple. Depth of the strategy and the gameplay comes out as emergent property of the game. But that's just splitting hair.
GlennS 5y ago
Hah, it probably is width. Maybe gamers should all start using it that way. Then people who want a big list of knobs to fiddle with will be able to find the games they like easier. I feel like Dwarf Fortress and other games in the simulation category are probably an exception, because the main enjoyment isn't in a tight, well-polished game loop. Rather it's in the surprises that the game throws up and watching all the little folks run around and do their thing. Also, there are very few games that tie all their features together in layers of interacting systems with the rigour or success that Dwarf Fortress does. Lot of effort has gone into that game.

by gota 5y ago

Isn't that width? Dwarf Fortress is the epitome of 'depth' in a game, to the detriment of basic things like a graphical interface, and it couldn't be a better example of a creator's vision

me_me_me 5y ago

> Isn't that width? That depends on the implementation. Number of different features/actions is the game width. Complexity of the features are the depth. A turn based strategy might give you 10000 units that vary slightly, but not in a meaningful way is a shallow width. A roaster of units to choose from that counter certain opponent's units and have bonus interactions with certain friendly units would be example of depth.

zzbzq 5y ago
Breadth and depth Game communities call them both depth, which is a huge error. I played an RTS that claimed to have depth because of the insane amount of armor and weapon types. In the end, the armor/weapon strengths & weaknesses were still just rock-paper-scissors. Having hundreds of them just meant you had to look them up on a spreadsheet, in order to make the simple rock-paper-scissors decisions. This is breadth with no depth. Although confusingly, gamers will still call it "depth," not having the distinction of "breadth" in their vocabulary. Meanwhile simple ancient games like Go can achieve a large amount of complexity with simple rulesets. That's real depth. I think depth is probably hard to invent intentionally.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  One could argue that Go from the design point of view is has no breadth nor depth. There are few rules and rules are very simple. Depth of the strategy and the gameplay comes out as emergent property of the game. But that's just splitting hair.

GlennS 5y ago

Hah, it probably is width. Maybe gamers should all start using it that way. Then people who want a big list of knobs to fiddle with will be able to find the games they like easier. I feel like Dwarf Fortress and other games in the simulation category are probably an exception, because the main enjoyment isn't in a tight, well-polished game loop. Rather it's in the surprises that the game throws up and watching all the little folks run around and do their thing. Also, there are very few games that tie all their features together in layers of interacting systems with the rigour or success that Dwarf Fortress does. Lot of effort has gone into that game.