3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoBreadth 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 agoOne 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.