A Theory of Depth for Game Design
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- Depth is seemingly why games like Chess and Go have persisted for centuries, yet we still don't have a unified definition and understand of what it even is. This essay explores the many definitions of depth that have been created, and the numerous ways we assess for depth both in the design and analysis of games.
Support on Patreon / gameoveranalyser
Contents
0:00 Definitions of Depth
2:18 Interesting Decisions
3:17 Risk vs Reward
3:34 Resource Engines
4:09 Movement Systems
4:55 Rock, Paper, Scissors
6:34 Mechanical Depth
- sensitive - versatile - combined - uniqueness -nuance - synergies - game feel
7:52 Situational vs Functional Game Design
-orthogonal unit differentiation - positional play
9:07 Scoring Systems vs Survival
10:38 Heuristics and High - Level Strategy
11:12 Uncertainty and Randomness vs Depth
- improvisational play vs strategic foresight
11:55 Depth vs Difficulty and Depth vs Balance
12:26 Emergence
13:34 A Pragmatic Map of Depth
14:27 Comparing Depth within and between Genres
15:21 Depth in Puzzle Games
16:09 Conclusion
Sources
- Depth in Strategic Games julian.togelius.com/Lantz2017D...
- Advanced Game Design, a Systems Approach , Michael Sellers
- Game Feel , Steve Swink
- Uncertainty in Games , Greg Costikyan
- A Theory of Fun for Game Design , Raph Koster
- Game Balance , Ian Schreiber , Brenda Romero
- A Basic introduction to depth , Celia Wagar critpoints.net/2015/03/21/tho...
- Meaningful Choice in Game Level Design, Matthias Worch GDC • Meaningful Choice in G...
- Breaking Conventions with The Legend of Zelda , GDC Talk • Breaking Conventions w...
-Action Games without Borders , Platinum Games GDC www.gdcvault.com/play/1023581...
- How to Play Virtua Fighter 5 DandyJ • How to play Virtua Fig...
- DMC5 combo tutorial • DMC5 Combo Tutorial(da...
- Momentum Throttling F Zero tutorial • Momentum Throttling MT
-Rocket league Gameplay • Rocket League Gameplay...
-Ikaruga Gameplay • GameCube Longplay [013...
- Wipeout Zone mode • Wipeout HD: Syncopia Z...
- Mirrors Edge Movement Guide • Mirror's Edge - The Mo... - Ігри
Game Overanalyzer never drops a ball. This might be one of the most relevant videos for game designers from your channel. Thank you, I enjoy listening to your videos during the walk, washing dishes, or when waiting for the bus.
if you hosted a podcast with game designers and discussed these topics it would be amazing.
definitely one of my favourite videos of yours so far, it's very comprehensive in relation to the length of the video and goes quite in-depth on the topic. I loved it, thank you for making these. always happy to see one of your videos pop-up. they're insightful and inspiring!
Also I think GunZ and Super Smash Bros Melee are great examples of extremely high (mechanical) skill ceilings and depth, while of course also incorporating things like positioning and strategy. That's why I love those games and wish there were more like them. I specifically like depth in multiplayer because of the high amount of emergence, the possibility space and player expression! that might actually be one of my favourite aspects of this, being able to express yourself in such a way that you can actually have a unique and distinct playstyle. A game I've played a lot called Blade Symphony had a lot of this, which is one of the reasons I loved it. You could actually almost tell apart players just based on their playstyle alone. Shout-out to WhoArts and Flash! And all my others babes ofc ❤
One of your best, most deep videos
damn I was gonna say the same!
You videos are so good!
Your videos are always really high quality, thank you for the effort you put in to share these resources and provide excellent summaries. I've found a lot of great game design books, papers and talks from your videos.
was just thinking about this topic, so great timing for a great video!
Elucidating as usual.
A sidenote of yours really got me to think, and that's how momentum can be used to feed into combat systems.
I used to primarily think about the relation of movement and combat in terms of positioning, so giving players the means
to get a combat or stealth advantage through cover and height which is fine and dandy, but if the player can feed their
velocity into the combat system, suddenly every little piece of the movement system that allows people to get a little
bit faster translates into a combat advantage - at the price of foregoing slow and methodical combat and thus opening
themselves up to attack. And it can of course be modified by other factors like carried weight/loadout.
I've been struggling with how to enable both slow and methodical combat and fast movement and verticality in the same
game space without fast movement only being useful for quick, zero-risk escapes (a pattern I have come to detest) and
I think this has been a key point towards that, so thanks!
To add my own sidenote: I think an area that's especially interesting is feeding small and direct actions into wider world
systems. The example I always give for this as it's how my interest in game systems engineering started is ecosystem
simulation.
Imagine a bog-standard RPG; you're in the starting village and oh boy, there's wolves about in the forest surrounding
it. The townsfolk task you with the eradication of a pack that's been attacking travelers, so you do and collect your
reward. And you go on killing pretty much all the wolves in the surrounding area, because it's a fantasy RPG and
that's what you're supposed to do, right?
But you have removed a keystone predator and now rabbits, rats and other small rodents multiply without being
kept in check and start eating and shitting in the towns granaries, spreading famine and disease. So you stop
killing the wolves who now have an overabundance of prey and start multiplying accordingly. At first, they don't
attack people because there's so much easier prey. But as the prey is diminished by the burgeoning wolf population,
the wolves start to go hungry and now you have an even worse wolf problem and a town population that's sick and
weak. And systems-wise this isn't even that hard to do. Lotka-Volterra is a well-established function to model
predator-prey relationships (tho I would modify it for more control) and infection is a function of population size,
density and current infection ratio.
Hunger itself is simple to implement, but it would imply more logic (plant->harvest->store->process->consume)
that is probably the most involved ones out of these.
The real challenge here is balancing these so things don't just explode everywhere all the time. I think the basic
implementation to enable this wouldn't be all this complicated tho - essentially you just feed weighting curves
into the functions that can be edited graphically and use this to make ranges on some axes chosen by algorithm
implementation more or less stable. For example defining a high weight for intermediate population densities
of both predator and prey species while having 0 weight on both ends of the curve so these locations in state
space either don't happen at all or are quickly (and more randomly than weighted ones) bounced back from.
A normal distribution for these would likely be a good default, but I think this gets really interesting if you have
multiple defined equilibriums on the same axis. That way you could define a whole range of distinct variations
for locations. If we go back to the previous example with the town and the wolves the rather relaxed starting
town with a small wolf problem vs. the depressing place of death and disease it became could be two such
distinct variations that are stabilized like this. But it being systemic, there would be a plethora more emergent
scenarios that are delightfully impossible to foresee as developer. :)
Why have not seen your channel until now? Great video btw.
This will definitely help me delay and procrastinate! Thanks. I don't know why YT algo hasn't recommended this channel earlier. pS.can you tell me that font face? 😊
I love you my man!!
Thank you for this video. I always love how you reference books, articles, and GDC talks that I can look up for more info.
I checked your sources in the description but couldn't find the one for the GDC talk you show at 7:52. Only for the 2 GDC talks that showed after. Could you say what talk its from please?
Thanks! That's platinum games gdc talk action without borders www.gdcvault.com/play/1023581/Action-Games-Without-Borders-Making
@@thegameoveranalyser4835 thank you!
He doesn't miss.
I love the concept of functional vs. situational design, and its very fitting that it was brought up in a Platinum Games talk.
It perfectly explains why I feel that NieR Replicant has much more interesting combat than NieR Automata, despite many claiming that Automata's is "objectively" better. Automata has more depth in its possibility space; more varied functional design, since you have more movement options and can build more complex combos. The game itself however never makes use of this: there is no advantage to ever doing so. The safest (and since there is no scoring system: best) option is to stand in a corner and shoot the unlimited pod bullets, while spamming dodge (with a large window for invincibility) and constantly healing with your close to unlimited supply of items.
In Replicant (and even the original NieR) you have less options when it comes to attacks, but using magic (the equivalent to the pod) needs mana as a ressource, making which magic to use a choice. Dodging isn't nearly as easy, but you can block and parry on top; and healing items are limited to 10 each, making you much more limited.
So yes, while it's less complex on a functional level, on a situational level the choices you need to make have much more depth.
This is still just noise from which you choose the most damaging option
There some issues with this breakdown. The first being that "Depth" has been discretely defined for at least a decade now in design circles. Your definition ignores the established definition of "Depth" as existing in a state under the surface, nor does it identify what that "surface" actually is.
The most useful, accurate and discrete definition for the word "depth" as it pertains to video games is this:
Dynamically-emerging game states created through interaction and interplay. The longer a player can interact with a system/element without the system collapsing (ending the interaction) or repeating a previous state, the deeper the interplay is. Depth is a function of interplay, the back-and-forth interactions between player and game that act as the "unit of measure" for gameplay.
This definition is so well-conceived, in-fact, that it literally makes depth objectively quantifiable, as in you can count it. For example, Super mario Bros on NES can reach up to 7 "layers" of depth with Mario, a Koopa Paratroopa, and a solid level element. For reference, that's more than _twice_ as deep as _any_ gameplay present in at least 99.99% of all video games released since.
And here's how it breaks down:
1. De-wing the Paratroopa by jumping on it.
2. The Koopa will fall to the ground and walk in Mario's direction upon landing.
3. Green Koopas generally walk themselves to their doom unlike Red Koopas who turn around on the edges of platforms. In order to attack the Koopa, it must be jumped on or bumped from underneath. Unlike the Goomba, there is no way to kill a Koopa by just jumping on it or bumping it.
4. Once the Koopa has been attacked, it'll rest in its shell. After about 5 seconds it'll wake back up if left alone and re-emerge. Depending on the Koopa it may walk in mario's direction after emerging.
5. To prevent the Koopa from getting back up, it can be kicked away while still inside its shell. This is also useful as an attack against other enemies.
6. If the shell hits a solid level element, it'll bounce back toward Mario. This sliding shell poses a threat.
7. To avoid getting hurt one can always simply jump over the shell, however, to counter it directly Mario can stop the shell from moving by jumping on top of it, or kick another shell into it for a double KO. If Mario stops the shell, then the cycle resets back to level 5. If it ever wakes up again, the cycle resets back to level 3.
Essentially, think of it like dominoes. The first domino is the surface state, and it must fall before the second domino (layer of depth) can fall, which allows the third domino to fall, and so on. The key to depth is that each layer is only accessible by interacting with the layer immediately superficial to it.
For all of the other concepts discussed in this video that are not components of depth there are other, more specific and useful definitions.
Appreciate the insight given here. I personally think debating to arrive a fool-proof definition is futile, but there is merit in discussing it.
My question to your definition, is how does it compare to complexity?
For example, point #3 seems a very specific rule that adds complexity but not the elegant depth I look for in a game.
To expand further, let's say in chess, if I add a specific rule for the king to do something special if it crosses the middle, does it make it a deeper game or more complex?
In other words, how do you distinguish between layers artificially created vs emerged from interaction?
@@guksungan1267 I disagree, I think that specific, discrete definitions are _the_ single most important thing for a thorough understanding of a topic. Language informs all of our thinking; if you don't have the language to identify and describe a concept, you cannot identify that concept at all.
Complexity is simply the amount of "stuff" in a game. Mechanics, elements, systems, etc. Depth is a property of function. Depth refers to emergent game states that are attained via interaction and interplay, the back-and-forth between the player and game.
Adding a rule to Chess makes it more complex. It _can_ make it deeper, but it depends on what the rule-function does.
Layer's can't be created artificially. If you used game mechanics (player actions mapped to control inputs. Any other definition doesn't work) to create a change in the game state, and the state now offers new functional opportunities, then you've created an emergent state that exists deeper than whatever superficial state it existed in prior.
@@alondite215 Sure, thorough understanding is feasible, and grounds for this discussion.
I actually agree with the definitions you gave at large but find some examples slightly inconsistent.
For your example #3, I notice the increase of potential states largely come from addition of rules rather than interplay. I wonder if just adding different types of Koopas continually add "dynamically-emergent game states".
So, I guess what I'm really entertaining is the thought of width vs depth. You mention layers can't be created artificially, but can't addition of game states be mistaken for layers of depth? I agree that additional game mechanics or rules add more game states by way of function. However, how is that emergent in the truest sense of depth?
I resonate with your domino example. I see width as branches of dominoes and depth as elongating the domino chain. This is how I compare the #3 of adding different types of Koopas as adding new branches of dominoes.
I think we are on the same page of the premise of depth. I also think we both like to explore further and raise issues with details of the breakdown. Let me know if anything's unclear from my part. Cheers.
Depth is the property of a game to resist minmaxing
Great quote
I can think of several games with a lot of depth that also allow or even encourage minmaxing. AD&D2e comes to mind as a game more susceptible to minmaxing than 5e D&D, but I think that it also has more depth.
@@jonathan0berg What do you mean by depth in these examples.
@@TimmacTR It's kinda subjective, but I'm referring to the feeling of having multiple valid approaches to solving a problem.
Maybe D&D editions are not good examples for me to bring up because the "problem" being solved can be wildly different depending on the preferred gaming style of the players and DM. Also I might have some biases when it comes to D&D editions.
I'm going to make the claim that AD&D 2e has more depth, and is more appealing to minmaxers than 5e.
I think your initial quote is interesting and relevant, but it seems like one factor that could have exceptions. Or we might be talking past each other by using different definitions.
@@jonathan0berg Depth is not subjective.