Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This word, misused countless times in my opinion, still has yet to be
properly defined. How do we determine whether or not a game has
depth? One example I'll start with is fighting games. In my opinion the
Dragonball Dudokai series (including budokai tenkaichi, not an official
sequel) is a relatively simple game. I sat down and read through an FAQ
on how the combat system worked, played the game and faired well
enough. Much more needs to be explored, yet I feel Tekken, Virtua
fighter 4: Evolution, Soul Calibur 2 (to lesser extent, bumped into plenty a cheeser) to be far more difficult to grasp. Don't think I forgot about Streetfighter and the other 2D games. I selected the titles I consider myself skilled in.

Tekken is the game I excel in, but still consider myself a beginner. When playing Virtua Fighter 4, I am a novice. In Soul Calibur, I'm strong. But there are a multitude of variables to consider while playing these games.

Ring Outs
Counters
Buffers
Control Scheme
Players Ability
Difficulty
AI
Balance
Learning Curve
Abusable Moves
Reaction Time

I seek others logical input on this topic, speak from experience.

everything about the game comes to factor in the depth (or lack thereof) of the game in question. Your variables might be completely different if you were talking about gran turismo, or a golf game.

generally, a game with depth will keep you coming back for more..

I would that depth in games has pretty much the same meaning it has in real life.

A game that has layers, is NOT transparent, rewarding knowledge and secrets, a purpose that requires effort to discover.


A game can be very good technically, but have little or no depth to it.

Quake3 comes to mind. Pretty much everything you need to get from or know about the game can be gained in one setting. There are no real puzzles. Theres no history. There are no characters with meaning. There's no secret combo to unlock.(except for plasma+quad or bfg ownage, but most people figure that out pretty quick).No military mastermind requiredm, Just fun(run for these weapons/powerups) type violence. Plain and simple.

Soul Calibur,Tekken can have some suprising depth once you look underneath the cover. But you can still, pretty much button-mash and survive, unless you're playing against a wicked expert. Reflexes,talent, and experience will generally excel above complicated moves and strategy in those type if games.

For example, I can often win with kilik(soul calibur) standing completely still. Just use a horizontal attack if someone charges me or vertical attacks if person starts straffing. The only person that worries me is good Ivy or Nightmare user.

So sadly the complicated part of the game that gives it depth is often ignored.

Originally posted by jerlark386
I would that depth in games has pretty much the same meaning it has in real life.

A game that has layers, is NOT transparent, rewarding knowledge and secrets, a purpose that requires effort to discover.


A game can be very good technically, but have little or no depth to it.

Quake3 comes to mind. Pretty much everything you need to get from or know about the game can be gained in one setting. There are no real puzzles. Theres no history. There are no characters with meaning. There's no secret combo to unlock.(except for plasma+quad or bfg ownage, but most people figure that out pretty quick).No military mastermind requiredm, Just fun(run for these weapons/powerups) type violence. Plain and simple.

Soul Calibur,Tekken can have some suprising depth once you look underneath the cover. But you can still, pretty much button-mash and survive, unless you're playing against a wicked expert. Reflexes,talent, and experience will generally excel above complicated moves and strategy in those type if games.

For example, I can often win with kilik(soul calibur) standing completely still. Just use a horizontal attack if someone charges me or vertical attacks if person starts straffing. The only person that worries me is good Ivy or Nightmare user.

So sadly the complicated part of the game that gives it depth is often ignored.

The first line was a good comparison. The button mashers of the world upset me. Why? Because it can show a player the game may not be as complicated as he/she thought it was. Could further explain your last statement?

Originally posted by SlimYout
The first line was a good comparison. The button mashers of the world upset me. Why? Because it can show a player the game may not be as complicated as he/she thought it was. Could further explain your last statement?

I guess I was just saying what could've been more, was'nt

button mashers (from a fighting game standpoint) tend to be people who arent seasoned fighting game vets.

However on the other hand.. someone could easily disguise their true talent by button mashing you to see if you can withstand it.

This person I once knew said she hated soul calibur because all one does is button mash (as she believed tekken to be more 'difficult' or whatever)

What fighting games do you believe are the best overall? State strengths and weaknesses. Also for those who have played Shadow of the Colossus, do you feel it has depth?