Whenever someone on this site wants to bash a game they claim that this or that game lacks "depth." Of course, they never explain what "depth" is, we're all supposed to just know. More often than not I see the word "depth" conjoined to the word "complexity" almost as if they are mutually exclusive. The idea being that a game that is complex is automatically deep and a game with depth must be too complex to simply pick up and play. Of course, anyone that's ever actually looked at the rules for Chess or Go knows that this simply isn't the case since both games have depth that has lasted centuries and rules that fit on a single page.

So just what constitutes "depth?"

At what level of complexity is a game considered to have "depth?"

Is there a scenario where complexity limits depth or, vice versa, where elegance enables depth?

To me depth involves options, more than just a single way to go about something.  I usually use it as a descriptor of some aspect of the game, like deep character creation, deep fighting system, deep missions.  The difference between depth and not, is without depth there isn't much flexibility or choices to be made, there are few paths to take and few ways to do something.  Chess has more depth than checkers.

Complexity I measure by how complicated something is.  Lots of options does not create complexity, you can have many options presented in a straightford and easy to understand manner, complexity is when the game becomes hard to understand without study into the game.  Like learning a language, how it is presented can make it seem simple or complex.  I never use complex as a possitive descriptor.  To me complex is akin to inefficient design.  SWG had depth but also had a lot of complexity that combined with the speed made the game unfun for me, I liked the idea of building a city but do not want to spent time slogging through the dull game to get to it.

Too much complexity can hurt depth though as it puts off people from enjoying the game to actually access it.

they are words used by people who dont like WoW and need to think up of an excuse to hate it. The only complex game with depth that i kow of, are sandbox games.

Originally posted by CactusmanX

To me depth involves options, more than just a single way to go about something.  I usually use it as a descriptor of some aspect of the game, like deep character creation, deep fighting system, deep missions.  The difference between depth and not, is without depth there isn't much flexibility or choices to be made, there are few paths to take and few ways to do something.  Chess has more depth than checkers.

Complexity I measure by how complicated something is.  Lots of options does not create complexity, you can have many options presented in a straightford and easy to understand manner, complexity is when the game becomes hard to understand without study into the game.  Like learning a language, how it is presented can make it seem simple or complex.  I never use complex as a possitive descriptor.  To me complex is akin to inefficient design.  SWG had depth but also had a lot of complexity that combined with the speed made the game unfun for me, I liked the idea of building a city but do not want to spent time slogging through the dull game to get to it.

Too much complexity can hurt depth though as it puts off people from enjoying the game to actually access it.

Reading your opening, it seems like you are using deep to describe depth, but yet still are not communicating what is so deep.

Complexity can be a great thing, but only when it serves a purpose.  Complexity has to serve a purpose, it has to open up options.  If it doesn't,  then we are better off without it (K.I.S.S.).  Complexity with purpose is depth.

 Depth has the following elements (note that not in this order):

1.High character customization (stats or looks/gear a attainable status,infamy gained threw different actions that negativly affect others players,not necesarly all of these,but afew),something that makes you .. "YOU" and not just another faceless soldier/carebear with the same clown suit.

2.The ability to affect the world around you without it being nullified after a period of time like in PotBS or WAR (not bashing them) where capturing a port/city will only yield a temporary capture after that it magicly returns to normal and the vicious proccess begins anew (not necesarly sandbox)

3.Combat where it offers a dinamic,fast paced battlefield yet still requires some thinking and creative people are rewarded (like you combine a skill nobody ever uses with another lesser skill to a create a powerfull combo)... basicly not: 123 wsd wsd spacebar 123... you should understand this exemple if you ever played WoW

Depth is where the core mechanic is simple but there is more.  plob down a tower and you claim a bit of land.  However if you were to go deeper you'd realize that there are a dozen factors affecting how much territory you control and the shape that it ends up taking control of.

Complexity is just that.   you plob down a tower and it does nothing unless a dozen factors/requirements are met.

Lame example but it works.   they aren't as exclusive as that but they also aren't inclusive all the time.

In my opinion, Depth normally means a lengthy of certain objective and it could be time or complexity. Time means playing hour. MMO is online game but the contents will be finished in one day. So measuring the length of playing hour, you simply say Depth. 

That's why most F2P use endless grinding as major content otherwise there is no contents. I found some games have contents only for 10 months, but if your playing hour is 10 hour or longer per day, you may finish most of the part in 8 months or even earlier.

Originally posted by Kyntor

Complexity can be a great thing, but only when it serves a purpose.  Complexity has to serve a purpose, it has to open up options.  If it doesn't,  then we are better off without it (K.I.S.S.).  Complexity with purpose is depth.

 

I like this differentiation. There are few games out today that I would qualify as deep. Some are very complex, but they are complex for the sake of extending game life, which leads to boredom which leads to fewer players. I have been keeping tabs on games that still require thinking, without making it complex for no reason, and most tend to be from the neglected genre of MMORTS. In my mind fewer and fewer MMORPG's are hitting the depth level that I prefer, mostly because they're trying to recreate WoW without openly cloning it... which is a mistake... My favorite game as of now is Beyond Protocol (google it), if you want depth, this game has it, just be prepared to step outside of your normal game box.

Yes complexity and depth have nothing one to other.

Complexity determine the how dificult is to learn the game, till depth determine the limits of the game play. Meaning of depth heavily depend of the genre.

Just complexity determine learning complexity, till depth determine gameplay complexity. Ofthen complexity is misunderstanded as depth because both affect player attunement. But even very complex game can not have a depth just becasuse after learning the game itself there is nothing to improve in gameplay.

I don't claim to know what everyone means by depth and complexity, but some of the answers I've seen seem reasonable.

But I do think there is an interesting issue on what depth and complexity means in a sandbox type game versus a linear type game.

In a "linear" type game where you are herded along a pre-set adventure path, complexity and depth would really be synonyms for the amount of options you have on things like character development, how you accomplish the pre-set objectives and how long the adventure is as well as any variants that are allowed. In short, complexity and depth in this kind of game would refer primarily to the amount of content.

Not so in a sandbox type game.

In a sandbox game where player actions drive the game and content is to some extent created by players, complexity can arise from a relatively simple initial situation. This is a similar effect to what we see with fractals and chaos theory in mathematics where a few simple rules or even just one simple equation can, with multiple iterations, lead to enormous and never-ending complex patterns.

Saga of Ryzom already allows players to create their own scenarios in what's called the "Ryzom Ring". A game called Crusades Online or something like that was talking about trying to emulate facebook where user-supplied content is the main thing. Crusades is not even in beta yet, but Magic of the Gods already had the same idea and is already doing it. (They're in open beta now.)

Magic of the Gods began with a simple starting situation, but players can request things from the "gods" and the game developers add things in response to requests. Also, players have the ability to add their own content. It's not easy, but crafters can create new crafts and new types of items. Warriors can create new kingdoms (I did.) Clerics can create new religions. Clerics and mages can create new types of magic spells, new magic items, new creatures, new playable races and I think new lands. When I say "warriors" or "clerics" or "mages", I'm not talking about strictly limited character classes, because there aren't any. I'm just categorizing people by what sort of things they are doing.

So does "complexity" mean you have a lot of options that are already programmed in? What about a game where there's not a huge amount already programmed in at the start of the game, but it's open-ended and players and game devs both keep adding content to help the storyline evolve from player actions?

Does "depth" mean only that there is a lot of content, but it doesn't change and once you've explored it all the game is boring? Does a game have depth if it has less content, but you can never see it all because there are limitless possibilities on what content you and other players can create?

Lots of games have frequent additions to content by game developers. Should this be factored in when determining if a game has "depth"? Of course, game developers can only do so much, but it looks like we might be seeing the beginning of a new trend where players can add content and that could drastically increase the rate at which new content is added. It seems to me that if content is being added to a game faster than I can explore it all, then the experience is the same as if the game world were infinite. I'd say that's depth.

I would say no mmo has ever been really complex, some are more simple then others tho.

Without criting you with a wall of text about depth the short answer is simple more options. 

Newer mmos have done pretty good with combat depth, lots of classes, lots of skill options, and combo options but they have all but completely failed with non combat features.  So you are left with little more then hacking and slashing your way from one end of the map to another for no other reason then to get the next shiny item.  They have become very console rpg. A -> Z then your done.

Depth and complexity are achieved by adopting the harshest death penalties and applying the most difficult leveling process to advance a character.

If you disagree with me then you are worse than Smedley.

There are some good points and examples here.  We might throw the terms around too much, but I do think there's some thing to be said for games that have some amount of depth and complexity. 

If we have to differentiate between "depth" and "complexity", then I'd have to agree with what others have said:  depth is the amount and variety of game play options in a game.  complexity is the amount of resources and design that went towards creating those options.

Most MMOs have secondary advancement paths for crafting, harvesting, etc. and mini games like fishing and gambling.  However, these paths are always secondary to the leveling treadmill and they never really have much "meat' to them.  So, you could say that this is one example of a lack of depth and complexity.

Originally posted by Venger

 

Newer mmos have done pretty good with combat depth, lots of classes, lots of skill options, and combo options but they have all but completely failed with non combat features.  So you are left with little more then hacking and slashing your way from one end of the map to another for no other reason then to get the next shiny item.  They have become very console rpg. A -> Z then your done.

This is a good point that I'd have to agree with.  Newers MMOs have developed a deeper combat system when compared to older MMOs.  However, I personally feel like this is one area where a more simple, stream lined design would be better.  Think about it, FPS and hack an slash games are fairly simple (when it comes to combat) yet they really are engaging and challenging at times.  In MMOs, even with all the strategy and UI, combat still feels very detached, slow, and clunky.  It basically boils down to following a limited number of basic formulas.

So yea, I would agree that there is a fine linie between complexity and simplicity.

Complex is when you are an ogre in classic EQ, you are in the middle of a forest, without any idea about what direction to go, knowing soon will be dark and the skeletons will appear that will kill you with a single blow, and you will have to search for your body, naked. And not a city where you can go to, because everybody hates you and kills you in sight. And no teleports, no magical stone. No nothing. This is complex and depth.

Lets see if this can clear things up. Lets look at tradeskills in three very different games. EQ1, Vanguard, and WOW. First up EQ1. EQq1 had a tradeskill system that had a lot of depth and no complexity. Crafing in EQ1 was a matter of placing components in a container and hitting the combine button success was determined by a skill check against your skill in that craft. Simple uncomplex. easy to understand. It had depth though. A level 1 could log in and create items desireable by level 50's. Many low level products were used as components in subcombines of higher level recipies thus creating a market for low level items. Cfaters were largely dependant on each other as they rose in level. It was very often  difficult to level a craft without obtaining materials created by other crafting professions. Its biggest flaw was that many of the same recipies that were used to skill up were also recipies that created useable items. And so these items that normally would have commanded a decent price on the market were essentially worthless because everyone mass produced them to skill up.

Vanguard: Vanguards tradeskills were complex but had little depth. The crafting process in Vanguard was a mini game unto itself with its own stats. It lacked the depth of EQ1 though. While there was some minimal interdiscipline dependance and some items created at lower levels were used in higher level recipies it was nowhere near the scale of EQ1 crafting. The big problem with Vanguards crafting was in an attempt to fix the big issue of mass producing skill up items in EQ1 they accidently did away with a lot of the depth.

WOW: WOW crafting is simple and has no depth. The crafing method in wow is click the combine button is even simpler and easier than in EQ1. Very few items made from crafting are actually worth selling on the market and very few actually are used in by other crafts or other recipies. there is no failure in WOW crating only whether or not you get a skill up. Yes there are some crafts and items that are marketable in WOW, or used in other tradeskills, but nowhere near the scale that it was in EQ1.

Complexity refers to the mechanics in which the task is done, whether that is tradeskills, pve combat, pvp combat or raiding. Depth refers to having multiple avenues to achieve the same end the more possible ways to accomplish a particular task the deeper it is.

Originally posted by altairzq

Complex is when you are an ogre in classic EQ, you are in the middle of a forest, without any idea about what direction to go, knowing soon will be dark and the skeletons will appear that will kill you with a single blow, and you will have to search for your body, naked. And not a city where you can go to, because everybody hates you and kills you in sight. And no teleports, no magical stone. No nothing. This is complex and depth.

hehe, /agree

Been there, done that in classic EQ in the early days. Was mad fun too.

For me those two words have the following meaning:

complexity: The game is complex when the routes that lead to a goal (for example solving a quest) are hard to find and implement. The complexity is dependend on the number of dimensions you have to use and the number of constraints attached. Dimensions are options that are available to you and your character. Moving is one dimension, the magic system is another dimension, crafting yet another. Constraints could be time, hitpoints, permitted action sequences or simply your experience and reaction time. Complex routes can be split into subgoals which by definition are also complex.

Example for a simple quest: Go and talk to x, where x is a few meters away without any constraints like time limit etc.

Example for a complex quest: Go and talk to x, where x is behind a volcano. You will have to build or buy yourself protection against the heat, get passed the lava and volleys of rock and get a key that is guarded by a dragon (sneaking past it or killing it) while under a time limit. Of course the subgoals will be unknown when you get the quest.

depth: For me this has to do with the semantics of my actions. Actions should have consequences. The game world should be like a net where everything is connected. Actions at one place would have consequences everywhere else in the net. The more variables that influence your actions and the more consequences your action will have, the more depth does the game have.

Example for a shallow action: I kill a boar somewhere deep in the wilderness that spawns back 10 seconds later. Noone is influenced, the game world doesn't change and there is no reasoning for the action itself except because of superficial rules like XP gathering.

Example for an action with depth: My guild is fighting another guild. Its a war of atrition where the number of healing potions is the deciding factor. Thus I move into enemy territory and try to destroy the enemy herb farms. Building a farm and growing the herbs for the potions needs a minimum of three days. If I manage to destroy their farms the consequence will be that my guild will crush the enemy guild and gain control over the area.

I believe that most of the people that are unhappy with the "modern" shallow and simple MMOs are looking for complex games with depth as I have described it above. I know I am.

I bash games often due to lack of depth and complexity, so I feel oblieged to explain, with examples.

COMPLEXITY:

Can be anything. Classes should be complex, meaning you have many, and each plays unique. Also, each class must a) have specialization so yours isnt like anyones and b) must have really new spells/attacks over time, and not just "Generic Fireball 321". Vanguard has some good classes, alas they dont grow more interesting beyond level 20, where you have seen everything you get. But the idea of the classes is great, since each is really unique. Races can be complex, since you get many diverse, not just "Elves, Humans, Dwarves". The highlight of class complexity certainly was pre-NGE SWG which was skill based, so you could select from all kind of skills. And it had non combat classes even! That was real complexity.

Complexity is "things you can do". Everquest II has the greatest complexity in that, the sheer amoung and types of quests in vast, also the amount of other things you can do besides quests. Types of quests means the goals, the ways to solve things and how long they are.

Complexity is generally the technical side that you have many different things to do and choices to make, and not every character is a copy cat of every other. It means you can reroll a new char and experience something very different.

Complexity also is making a world with many different and interesting races and cultures, designs, gear and background so you can find something you can attune to.

DEPTH:

It means the quests, lore and background is rich and interesting. The quests are interesting enough to make you read them, like in LOTRO. Also like in LOTRO you are not just told events, you experience them in the quest, like in a theatre play you take part. It means not to just send you to "kill 10 Wolves to make a wolf snout soup" or whatever. It means to think about the story, the motivation of the player to really finish it. And also it means to make a world design and landscape where you feel in a world not in a mere stage. Vanguard for instance feels very much like a stage with all the lack of NPC activity, whereas WOW cities feel very alive.

Depth is when you really feel in a world you can imagine to exist. SWG had depth, EQ2 had depth also. The main part of depth is good story telling, which is a hell of a difficulty to achieve, because any bloke can create quests, but few have the skill to weave it all into a rich carpet of stories. A typical depth-killer is leading people like through an amusement park, from highlight to highlight, and thats a big malus for WAR in my book. A good portion of humor also creates depth.

Hope that gives a hint. ^^

Originally posted by Yunbei

...

COMPLEXITY:

....

Complexity is "things you can do". Everquest II has the greatest complexity in that, the sheer amoung and types of quests in vast, also the amount of other things you can do besides quests. Types of quests means the goals, the ways to solve things and how long they are.

Complexity is generally the technical side that you have many different things to do and choices to make, and not every character is a copy cat of every other. It means you can reroll a new char and experience something very different.

Complexity also is making a world with many different and interesting races and cultures, designs, gear and background so you can find something you can attune to.

DEPTH:

It means the quests, lore and background is rich and interesting. The quests are interesting enough to make you read them, like in LOTRO. Also like in LOTRO you are not just told events, you experience them in the quest, like in a theatre play you take part. It means not to just send you to "kill 10 Wolves to make a wolf snout soup" or whatever. It means to think about the story, the motivation of the player to really finish it. And also it means to make a world design and landscape where you feel in a world not in a mere stage. Vanguard for instance feels very much like a stage with all the lack of NPC activity, whereas WOW cities feel very alive.

Depth is when you really feel in a world you can imagine to exist. SWG had depth, EQ2 had depth also. The main part of depth is good story telling, which is a hell of a difficulty to achieve, because any bloke can create quests, but few have the skill to weave it all into a rich carpet of stories. A typical depth-killer is leading people like through an amusement park, from highlight to highlight, and thats a big malus for WAR in my book. A good portion of humor also creates depth.

Hope that gives a hint. ^^

Good description of Depth.

In a Deep MMO there are back stories and plot stories and Lore which make the world seem like it has an actual history and culture of its own.  What's more, if it is done well it makes you feel like a part of it.  And done really well, it makes you feel like your input actually matters to it.

Complexity is the interactions within the game and can include elements of depth.

For example a story with depth might include the history of one of the races that goes back hundreds of years and explains why they act one way and not another.  Complexity would then involve exceptions to that rule based on little subtleties you can pick up along the way and who you are and what you want.

Interesting thread, I'll throw in my 2 cent.

Depth: options and detail of contents (may it be multi-branch quests, lore, etc...).  I personally think when describe depth in games such as MMORPG, it means that there's more to meet the eyes.  That is, the story offers options in how players can approach the game.  Most MMO are just "games", but there are only a few of those can grow to be evolving "worlds".

Complexity: the actual mechanic of the options and contents (include the elements needed to finish the contents).  This may refer to the steps to defeat dungeons, combat (pvp/pve), questing.  Complexity can be clearly visible or not (that is, for players to figure out).  Some complexity are easier than other to figure out by the players.   Complexity also can refer to the challenges set in a certain way which offers a overall more difficult challenge for players to solve.