I would agree with this in general, but what would you say about Dota? In Dota certain heroes can summon other units for your control. I think that the RTS-style command system is inferior, more quirky, and less responsive than a WASD-based system when you're controlling a single character. The simplest example I can think of is that of a fighting game where a new player is just throwing punches and kicks(which can be used to win) but and expert will employ counters/dodges and an overall more intricate arsenal to defeat those not as well versed as they are. No matter how many options may be available to the player, there can not be one 'right' choice or it is all for naught. The trick lies in making each choice viable in its own particular way. Whereas a newbie would only have made it one or two levels deep in their choice, and thus achieved a solution albeit one not quite as nuanced and rewarded as their expert counterparts. Hence, experts may have made it four decision levels into the tree applying very precise granular level specific actions to reach their ends in the best way they know how. Superior depth can be found where the skill of a player can be seen stratified in the final decision level of their most subtle action.

Then, based on that decision, several more subtle options become available. In trying to simplify the wording I came up with: Depth is achieved when the player has many options at their disposal where nearly all are viable solutions to a given challenge. The tree/state space visualization above in combination with the modifiers in this list put a decent stamp on it. The best way to remove depth from a story is to browbeat the reader into submission as you proselytize for whatever moral stance you advocate.ĮDIT: Added some commentary on story depth. Characters that actually change and prove it during the progress of the narrative in believable and nuanced ways instead of just the obvious.īut most importantly the plot can't beat you over the head with the moral of the story.This means subplots that work to develop the characters but don't interfere or sidetrack the main narrative, minor characters that are more than cardboard cut-outs, and a nuanced and complex perspective on whatever topical issues the game's primary conflict may be centered on. This means not being blunt and obvious about every plot point, while at the same time not being so opaque as to be incomprehensible. There are multiple levels of meaning in the story: one or perhaps multiple literal interpretations as well as at least one allegorical or metaphorical interpretation.Characters have believable flaws and have developed mechanisms for either being blind to them or working around them.

Characters express complex emotions, as opposed to exaggerated or obvious emotions.If you're more interested in the depth of stories, consider these criteria: Here's a more thorough article I wrote on the subject a few years ago. I'm not afraid to give examples or describe further if you have specific questions. Each step along the way should allow the player to perform actions that can change the course of the game with some non-trivial gradation of outcome. Unclear longer-term outcomes such that the player's strategic decision-making must maintain a certain degree of fluidity.Players must be able to value outcomes (and moves) in a fine-grained fashion such that a more skilled player can make subtle optimizations that would be lost on a newbie or intermediate player.Choices between various outcomes where as few as possible can be immediately disregarded as obviously suboptimal.Several properties of games comprise depth in my opinion:

Deeper game