Current Events > What does "deep gameplay" mean?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What does it mean? Can you give examples of games with deep vs shallow gameplay? Or give a good definition?
Followup, given your definition of depth, is it necessarily a good quality? Is there a sweet spot of depth, or does it vary based on the game? Etc.

I'm honestly curious what people think about this.
---

multiplayer open world survival crafting sandbox
---

People thought FF8's junction system was deep LMAO!!!!!
---

You need a high IQ level to understand what that means LOL
---

I'll answer the reverse, when I think of a simple gameplay, I look at it as a type of gameplay where the concepts are easy to implement and there isn't much room for creativity in the strategy and tactics that are possible. For instance, platformers are generally super simple games to play. The Mario and Luigi games are quite simple to play through.

In contrast, games with deep gameplay allow the players to show off their creativity and allow for a far more noticeable gap in skills between an expert and novice. The Mega Man Battle Network games show off their complexity with the strategies that available from the chip combinations in their folder. Then there's Pokemon with a billion and 2 different permutations for teams and it's always a huge event if someone comes up with a strategy to use an underused pokemon, see Pachirisu in 2014's Grand Finals.
---

Lots to do outside of main/standard gameplay.

Like far cry - it could've easily been a call of duty style shooter but they have fishing and stuff.
---

So would you guys say that depth is synonymous to complexity?
---

Gameplay built upon providing several complex, and layered interactive systems. Players can express themselves through gameplay systems in a large variety of ways, and expect that the designers anticipated those potential decisions and programmed in content to validate them.

Even when the game play is seemingly simple, on the face of things, like Final Fantasy Tactics, there are several other systems in play that may influence how a certain action is interpreted by the game (Weather, height, distance, time cost, resource cost, your stats, enemy stats, zodiac signs, special gear abilities, etc). All are factors which an attentive player can choose to exploit or circumvent for various ends.

Another classic example is SMT3:N's press turn system. It seems simple. One turn per character, but expands dramatically as it encounters other gameplay details. Strengths vs weakness, critical hits vs. evasion rates, etc.

TLDR: A variety of options for how to play the game, and a game that presents challenges that respond to those options.
---

scar the 1 posted...

So would you guys say that depth is synonymous to complexity?

I wouldn't say that, FFXV has a pretty complex skill tree system, but in the end you can win most the fights by just holding the B button. Also to travel the map you pretty much just have an auto pilot driver or an instant teleport to the next town.

Compared to Zelda BOTW, no skill tree what so ever but there are countless different ways to tackle all the different challenges and fights in that game, stuff is still being discovered.
---

Gameplay that both provides players with a variety of options and tools to progress, and rewards players for using them.
---

Shallow: Overwatch
Everything is literally spelled out for you on your skill buttons and there isn't anything you can do outside of pressing them in the obvious proper situations to be "good". Objectives are structured to play out exactly the same every match because eSports

Deep: Team Fortress Classic
Tons of advanced movement techniques to master and get an edge over your opponent. Flag isn't locked to a single path like payloads so there is no limit on the strategies you can use to capture it. No 1-button-win skills/ultimates. Just pure skill and a deep bucket of tools to achieve it.

Overwatch is designed so you play exactly as the developers intend you to in just one specific way. Breaking out of that will result in a patch to bring you back in line to the developer's shallow vision.

TFC is the opposite. You are given multitudes of tools and it's up to YOU to figure out what sucks and what's good, and how to be good with it, without the developers stepping in to lessen the skill gap.

It would mean, to me, the primary gameplay system has many choices and approaches available in order to achieve your goal, and features both long-term risk reward choices as well as difficult choices for short-term goals, and these choices can often conflict.
---

For instance, Mario 64 has shallow but fun gameplay. Most obstacles can only be cleared through the application of a specific mechanic (Jumping, sliding, climbing, some combination of those, ect.) with only slight variation in approach (Until you start getting into glitches, for instance, and building speed runs from scratch). Breath of the Wild has much deeper gameplay, as your obstacles tend to have a multitude of solutions and a plethora of tools to do so.
---

Interesting, seems like there are some different ideas here. Personally I can see how you could make an argument for game with very simple mechanics being deep.
Like, if I think about it I would say that complexity describes the mechanics available to the player, while depth rather describes the metagame that arises from the mechanics. Soccer would be a good example of very simple rules, but the metagame is still quite deep.

What do you guys think about that?
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

It would mean, to me, the primary gameplay system has many choices and approaches available in order to achieve your goal, and features both long-term risk reward choices as well as difficult choices for short-term goals, and these choices can often conflict.

This is the only correct answer. Everyone else is talking about breadth, which is completely different.
---

Space_Man posted...

Lots to do outside of main/standard gameplay.

Like far cry - it could've easily been a call of duty style shooter but they have fishing and stuff.

I wouldn't call that depth or deep gameplay. It just means the game has a good deal of content.

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Compared to Zelda BOTW, no skill tree what so ever but there are countless different ways to tackle all the different challenges and fights in that game, stuff is still being discovered.

I agree with this. BotW has a very simple and easy to get into battle system, but because the tools are so flexible and interactive, there's a lot of ways you can utilize them giving it genuine depth. On the flipside, I'd argue that The World Ends With You has a complex but rather shallow battle system. It's not to say it's underwhelming, it's insanely fun. But the main learning curve to TWEWY is getting a feel for the controls. Once you have that downpact, just chain all these really flashy attacks together against the enemies and win the battle. Simple and straightforward, yes, but insanely addictive.
---

QTEs are an example of shallow gameplay.
---