Depth vs. Complexity

[Zloth]

From the reserve power section of Star Fleet Battles rulebook:

H7.34 Shields: Reserve power can be used to raise or reinforce shields under certain conditions.

H7.341 Reserve power can be used to raise shields after a transporter action has been declared and before it is resolved (G8.23).

H7.342 Reserve power can be used to reinforce a specific shield (D3.342) even after damage is scored (i.e., the number of damage points is known) on that specific shield and before the damage is applied (H7.134). It cannot be used to raise them (H7.345) in this case.

H7.343 Reserve power can be used to provide general reinforcement (D3.341) after a transporter action is declared or completed (G8.23). Note that this can be done only in increments of two energy points.

SFB is as complex as you can make a game and still be commercially viable, IMHO. I would also say it's the deepest game I know, too. X4 is the most complex and the deepest video game I know about, though I wouldn't be shocked if EVE and/or Dwarf Fortress beat it. Both of those are extremely complex, too.

Over in the June topics, a discussion started up regarding complexity vs. depth. I personally agree that depth and complexity aren't the same, but they sure are strongly linked.

I would say a game is deep if the game has a lot of strategies that can work. That doesn't have to be some overall strategy for the game, it can be strategies found down in various subsystems for the game. Perhaps three games have sword crafting systems. In one system, you just get the recipe, put in the materials it says, and out comes the sword as specified. In the second, you can replace the iron with star iron, which makes a much better sword - but you've only got so much star iron, so it might be better used in a recipe you find later. The third also has the star iron choice, but the star iron becomes plentiful in Act 3, and even gets replaced by true iron in Act 5. The second game is clearly the deeper game because you've got a real choice to make. The third game is roughly as deep as the first because, in the third game, the replacement of materials isn't a proper choice, it's just a way for the developers to correct for inflation by making the statistics better.

But to have those extra choices, I think you've got to have extra complexity. Maybe the complexity is easy to understand and maybe it's hard, but there's got to be more. The only way I can see making a game deeper and lowering the complexity would be to take some complex system out that doesn't add a lot of strategies and putting in an easier-to-understand system that adds quite a few more. Overall, though, games with more depth are very likely to be more complex as well.

That's what I say, anyway. Is that how you folks are thinking of all this? Perhaps... wait a minute, what's the point of this paragraph? To give you permission to disagree? HA! Pound away.

 

[Pifanjr]

I thought I would look up the definition of depth and complexity in game design and discovered that there are quite a lot of opinions about these terms.

You gave a definition for depth, but none for complexity. I would propose we define complexity just as the number of rules/mechanics in a game.

But to have those extra choices, I think you've got to have extra complexity.

Only if the game is well-balanced. According to your definition of depth, a game is only deep if the strategies you can perform within the game actually work. There are quite a lot of games with strategies that can't work because of a single mechanic or rule that can be (ab)used to counter those strategies. By removing that mechanic/rule you could increase the number of viable strategies. Of course you might increase the number of viable strategies even more by only tweaking the abused mechanic/rule.

This is mostly a problem in PvP games of course, where it's much more likely that your opponent is abusing mechanics. However, in PvE games, if there are a lot of viable strategies for a game but one strategy is clearly superior to all other strategies, the game's perceived depth is going to be a lot smaller as well.

 

[Hveðrungr]

An oft-cited example is that Go is simple but deep. There are very few rules, but there are always many options to choose from each time you wish to make a move. So I don't think that depth does require complexity. Complexity can add to the number of available options, but as in Go, you can also gain depth by increasing the decision space. Go would be very shallow if it only had a 2x2 or 3x3 grid. But because it has a 19x19 grid the decision space is enormous. In computer games, I think that's the benefit of open worlds. They massively expand the decision space without having to add complexity (new rules).

However, I think that immersion does require complexity. No one would mistake a go-ban for a simulation of geostrategy, its ostensible “theme”. Chess, slightly more complex, can feel somewhat like a battlefield simulation, but not much. To feel more immersed, there must be more complexity that follows consistent rules. This is where the immersive sim gains its verisimilitude: it's not just about the first-person perspective, but the complex rules that provide a believable world for the player to inhabit. Extremely detailed wargames may not actually be that deep, in that the correct play may often be relatively pre-ordained, but they are extremely immersive because so many details are included in the ruleset. So overall I think there's this third value of immersiveness that is not the same as depth but is more closely related to complexity.

 

[Brian Boru]

depth and complexity aren't the same, but they sure are strongly linked

Depends. Go is maybe the deepest game there is, and is absolutely simple to learn. Chess is also pretty straightforward to learn, but it sure is deep—is it the most-written-about game?

a game is deep if the game has a lot of strategies that can work

I like that definition.

to have those extra choices, I think you've got to have extra complexity

Civ 4 economy choices are probably a good example of real depth. I spent the first year using the cottage economy which everyone recommended. Second year I moved to a food and specialist economy which a few people liked. Then I developed my own style of economy based on maximizing production, and hardly built a cottage or farm since, once there was enough food for reasonable growth.

Point being, those farms and specialists and production sources were always there, and could play a part in whichever economy you chose—ie a natural part of the game, not extras added to introduce depth.

define complexity just as the number of rules/mechanics in a game

I like that definition too

There are quite a lot of games with strategies that can't work because of a single mechanic or rule that can be (ab)used to counter those strategies

Right, the ever-present rush tactic abuse in RTS games.

open worlds. They massively expand the decision space without having to add complexity (new rules)

Indeed, the degree of tactical choice enabled by OW introduces the options for different strategies. Add in another simple mechanic like crafting and you have another surge in choices, both tactical and strategic. While you're at it, slot in a bunch of in-game buddies you can call on—or not.

Each of those elements is very simple, but the amount of depth they add via their numerous different combinations is a lot.

there's this third value of immersiveness that is not the same as depth but is more closely related to complexity

Hmm, yeah… like those grand strategy games, maybe? I never took to the Paradox-style games as their complexity was much more than I wanted in my entertainment. Or are you thinking more of say Euro Truck Simulator, which from what I've seen of it—I own it, haven't played it—the immersion is the main draw, achieved in a very simple way.

So again, depends I guess

 

[Johnway]

For me personally, i prefer depth over complexity. if a game becomes too much like work, studying or number crunching it will bore the hell out of me. Depth imo is easy to learn but plenty to master and has options to explore and go far in. by the very bottom of the depth lies the complexity some people crave.

Path of exile comes to mind. You could (in theory) build any class with any skill and customize it in such a way to suit your play style. But if you really want to do well in end game you'll either have to get a build guide or opt to learn the complexity and nuisances of the game mechanics, crafting and wording etc and that is mind meltingly difficult. No surprises that most people just follow someone elses build guide and use that.


Chivalry 2 / fighting games come to mind. its simple enough. One button to slash, stab, overhead swing, block and alternate buttons to for attacks from the other direction. The game becomes complex when you learn how to feint, counter and use drags to get through a players defenses and that takes time. There is a hardcore set of players that do truly incredible things and that takes time and practice. For more casual players, you're prey and will probably spend much of the game dead at the start.

 

[Frindis]

Been playing tons of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom and I would say that the game is both deep as it is complex. It is deep (and not only because the world is two-layered) because of the many different ways you can approach the game when it comes to exploring, especially when you consider the vast amount of different items you can use to manage a task.

The complexity comes because of the different ways you can combine different items to do a task. Each food item has its buff (more HP, speed, armor, resistances..) Some items like a sword and shield let you put different items on it to further expand on the usage. Some items change how they work related to what you use to manipulate them. To give an example: You can use something called a glue system to glue different items together, and then you have another system that lets fuse different items, like another shield on a shield or a spike on a shield.

So, you can for example glue a fire crystal to your sword, and use that sword to light a fire in your hot air balloon. At the same time, you can also use that sword to ignite a small rocket that you have glued to a wooden foundation that was glued to your hot air balloon which then propels the hot air balloon even faster to the sky.

This makes me believe that it would be correct to say that this game is both deep and complex, but that the complexity will depend on how much you tinker around with the different game mechanics.

 

[Hveðrungr]

Hmm, yeah… like those grand strategy games, maybe? I never took to the Paradox-style games as their complexity was much more than I wanted in my entertainment. Or are you thinking more of say Euro Truck Simulator, which from what I've seen of it—I own it, haven't played it—the immersion is the main draw, achieved in a very simple way.

I was indeed thinking of GSGs as well! (I have been playing them since the very first one, 2000's Europa Universalis 1, so they live rent-free in my brain. I had even played the Svea Rike boardgame that Crusader Kings was later based on lol. Yes, I am old.) They are deep and complex, but I actually think quite a bit of the depth arises from the sandbox / open-world elements, not from the complexity. You could streamline some of the complexity of a GSG and it would still be as deep (still have as many options for what you can do), but it would be less enjoyable because it would be less immersive.

Truck Simulators are another excellent example. I'm not a player of them but as far as I can see they're not exactly deep per se. You mostly drive from Point A to Point B to fulfil whatever contract you've been given. But they are extremely immersive because of all the complex details that have been embedded into them.

Racing simulators likewise. Mario Kart is very simple and not immersive (though still enjoyable). Assetto Corsa Competizione is very complex and very immersive.

Edge-case examples, like deep-but-simple Go and shallow-but-complex Truck Simulator, are useful for stress-testing these hypotheses. Can anyone think of a very immersive game (in that you can completely suspend disbelief and believe you are really an agent in the world, not that you enjoy it very much and lose track of time lol) that is nonetheless very simple in its rules and mechanics?

 

[ZedClampet]

The third also has the star iron choice, but the star iron becomes plentiful in Act 3, and even gets replaced by true iron in Act 5. The second game is clearly the deeper game because you've got a real choice to make. The third game is roughly as deep as the first because, in the third game, the replacement of materials isn't a proper choice, it's just a way for the developers to correct for inflation by making the statistics better.

Just as another way to explain it, I think it is easier for sandbox players to understand if you get rid of scarcity, which is a rare commodity in sandbox games. Some items may be more difficult to get, but are only scarce if you are lazy. Also, a player has no idea what is available in Act 3 when they are crafting in Act 2, so you end up talking about actual versus perceived depth. In my opinion, in the example given, both 1 and 3 have the same amount of depth unless there is a way for the players to predict the future.

It adds more obvious depth if the choice of crafting materials doesn't just result in one of them being clearly better, but each one contributes to a different strategy. Consider all the different attributes an arrow could have. It could fly farther or it could fly more accurately or do a different type of damage, etc. As an example, in Soulmask, the crafting has some complexity but little depth because you may have a dozen optional ingredients and steps in the process, but none of them makes any difference in the final product. If you add feathers from one type of creature instead of another, your arrows are going to be the same either way. And if your chosen ingredients mean you have to take additional steps and use more crafting tables, it still doesn't add anything to the final product. They've build a system complex enough to support depth, but the depth hasn't been added. At the end of the day, you've just made an arrow. It has the same accuracy, range and damage as any other arrow.

Side note: that game has just entered early access. I'm assuming they will add the expected depth later. Seems weird to have built a complex system that basically adds nothing except for, possibly, immersion.

 

[ZedClampet]

Can anyone think of a very immersive game (in that you can completely suspend disbelief and believe you are really an agent in the world, not that you enjoy it very much and lose track of time lol) that is nonetheless very simple in its rules and mechanics?

I'm having a hard time telling the difference between the two. IMO this is more about the user's imagination (or possibly mental health) than about the rules and mechanics. I equate enjoyment and, especially, losing track of time to immersion, possibly because I have never "completely suspended disbelief and believed I was really an agent in the world." I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't become immersed in Mario Kart unless they have an aversion to fantasy. Immersion is probably related to personal preference more than to complexity/freedom formulas.

That said, I believe that Supermarket Simulator and Powerwash Simulator (along with many other games of these types) would fit your criteria for simple games that are immersive. Very simple rules and mechanics, and yet ample player freedom.

 

[Hveðrungr]

I believe that Supermarket Simulator and Powerwash Simulator (along with many other games of these types) would fit your criteria for simple games that are immersive. Very simple rules and mechanics, and yet ample player freedom.

I've not played them, but my experience with simulators is that they either have very detailed simulations of their world, with lots of underlying rules, in which case they are immersive, or they are clearly games that no one would mistake for reality. Papers, Please, for example: I liked it a lot, but I was always very aware that I was playing a game.

I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't become immersed in Mario Kart

Really? You think that someone (who wasn't schizophrenic) could start playing Mario Kart and come to believe, if only briefly, that they existed in that world, that the game world was real, and that it was jarring to return to the real world and find they did not in fact exist in the game world? I've absolutely had that experience, especially in immersive sim RPGs—Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a good example—but I cannot imagine having it in Mario Kart. And I use Mario Kart as an example partly because I love it, have played many versions of it, have become engrossed it in for hours at a time, but never felt that I was actually Mario, really existing as an agent within the world, having in-game motivations. In KCD I would often find myself doing things because [my] Henry would do them, not because I was playing a game and I was optimising my performance but because I was immersed in that character and acting realistically as him within his realistic world.

 

[ZedClampet]

Really? You think that someone (who wasn't schizophrenic) could start playing Mario Kart and come to believe, if only briefly, that they existed in that world, that the game world was real, and that it was jarring to return to the real world and find they did not in fact exist in the game world? I've absolutely had that experience, especially in immersive sim RPGs—

Why not? People become immersed in Prey where you are being stalked by invisible monsters and have a foam gun as a primary tool. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.

But what you are describing has never happened to me, and I didn't realize that it happened to anyone who was mentally healthy.

...but never felt that I was actually Mario, really existing as an agent within the world, having in-game motivations. In KCD I would often find myself doing things because [my] Henry would do them, not because I was playing a game and I was optimising my performance but because I was immersed in that character and acting realistically as him within his realistic world.

I'm sorry. That's just bizarre. I never realized people who said they were immersed were having psychotic breaks from reality.

****
I'm being serious. I never knew this is what people meant when they said "immersed".

So I did some research and psychologists apparently call it presence and say "Characteristics of games that facilitate immersion can be grouped into two general categories: those that create a rich mental model of the game environment and those that create consistency between the things in that environment."

This is a summary from Psychology Today, which isn't the most reliable place to get psychology information, but it's what I found.

Anyway, apparently immersion is pretty rare, and only some people are susceptible to it, like only some people are susceptible to Stockholm syndrome and other fascinating things the brain does. Engrossment is what I experience. I had no idea people were actually losing touch with reality. That sounds fun, I guess. My brain won't do it, so I'll never know.

 

[Hveðrungr]

@ZedClampet How interesting. May I ask:

1. Do you have an internal monologue?
2. Close your eyes and think of an apple. Which of these best reflects what you see?
   
   

 

[ZedClampet]

@ZedClampet How interesting. May I ask:

1. Do you have an internal monologue?
2. Close your eyes and think of an apple. Which of these best reflects what you see?
   
   

I have non-stop internal monologue and I see picture #5. Sometimes I can picture things as well with my eyes closed as with my eyes open.

I can't imagine not having an internal monologue. Yikes. Maybe that blocks my ability to enter an immersive state? Perhaps my brain needs to be quieter as with meditation?

Any other questions, doc?

 

[Colif]

Path of exile comes to mind. You could (in theory) build any class with any skill and customize it in such a way to suit your play style. But if you really want to do well in end game you'll either have to get a build guide or opt to learn the complexity and nuisances of the game mechanics, crafting and wording etc and that is mind meltingly difficult. No surprises that most people just follow someone elses build guide and use that.

that game would be my definition of complexity
Grim Dawn (if it had a tutorial) would be an example of a deep game.

i like games that add layers as they go instead of games where you need to know everything from start. Most ARPG are like that. But then most it helps to read a guide before hand so you don't waste time with skills that suck.

Zed, can you stop thinking so loudly, some of us are trying to sleep

Do you hate those nights where brain just won't stop thinking about pointless things? I avoid them by just staying awake until I can't.

 

[Hveðrungr]

I have non-stop internal monologue and I see picture #5. Sometimes I can picture things as well with my eyes closed as with my eyes open.

I can't imagine not having an internal monologue. Yikes. Maybe that blocks my ability to enter an immersive state? Perhaps my brain needs to be quieter as with meditation?

Any other questions, doc?

No, I was just curious! I've heard about people without an internal monologue and who couldn't visualise things, so wondered if that might be linked to not being able to immerse oneself. But apparently not, at least not in your case. The human mind is a fascinating thing, isn't it.

 

[Colif]

SO some people aren't constantly thinking? I guess if you never had it you wouldn't miss it.
Nice and quiet.... not a thought in their heads...

 

[ZedClampet]

SO some people aren't constantly thinking?

Apparently not. That's another thing I learned today.

Also for you and @Johnway , I the first time I tried to play Path of Exile I was playing co-op, and I got to the skill tree and thought, "Yeah, this isn't happening."

If I had been playing solo, I might have started reading..

 

[Hveðrungr]

SO some people aren't constantly thinking? I guess if you never had it you wouldn't miss it.
Nice and quiet.... not a thought in their heads...

As I understand it, they are thinking, but their thoughts aren't formed into propositions that are narrated internally by their own voice. Their typical reaction when they hear that the rest of us do have internal narration is a horrified feeling that we must all be schizophrenic—very similar to Zed's reaction to me being immersed in a game world, which was what made me wonder if the two phenomena were linked.

Of course, maybe I am schizophrenic, but I think that if I were then the voices in my head would have told me by now.

 

[Colif]

Also for you and @Johnway , I the first time I tried to play Path of Exile I was playing co-op, and I got to the skill tree and thought, "Yeah, this isn't happening."

If I had been playing solo, I might have started reading..

I have tried to play that a few times, I actually bought into it before it was released... long ago. I just always got to about same point and got bored. Years would pass, I would try again. It was on my PC until a few months ago when I realised I wasn't going to try again.

damn I didn't mean to hit post...

So half the world thinks the other half are crazy... problem is no one can decide on which side they are.

 

[Hveðrungr]

Path of exile comes to mind. You could (in theory) build any class with any skill and customize it in such a way to suit your play style. But if you really want to do well in end game you'll either have to get a build guide or opt to learn the complexity and nuisances of the game mechanics, crafting and wording etc and that is mind meltingly difficult. No surprises that most people just follow someone elses build guide and use that.

The reason I no longer play Elder Scrolls Online is that it feels like every time I log back in after a few months they've changed the skill trees, reset my skills, and refunded my points. So instead of being able to log in for a few dungeons every few months, as I would like to do, logging back in always turns into a chore of having to research which skills I want to put my refunded points into. I have to spend a few hours of stat grinding just to be able to do a few hours of playing, and that trade-off isn't worth it.

 

[ZedClampet]

As I understand it, they are thinking, but their thoughts aren't formed into propositions that are narrated internally by their own voice. Their typical reaction when they hear that the rest of us do have internal narration is a horrified feeling that we must all be schizophrenic—very similar to Zed's reaction to me being immersed in a game world, which was what made me wonder if the two phenomena were linked.

Of course, maybe I am schizophrenic, but I think that if I were then the voices in my head would have told me by now.

To better state my position, I don't think immersion equals mental imbalance anymore than a dream would. I'm just wondering if there are some underlying aspects of mental functioning that allow both. In one person (who can be immersed) it's functioning in a healthy way, allowing for only a controlled break from reality, and in the other person it isn't. Or maybe it's just a matter of becoming so engrossed that you enter a sort of waking dream state.

 

[BeardyHat]

I would say a game is deep if the game has a lot of strategies that can work.

Yes and I would say that requires some complexity, but not going overboard. The rules you cite for Star Trek are definitely overboard on the complexity aspect and don't necessarily lend to depth, because of my one main complaint about complexity: Complexity is often a function of memory and simply recalling when you can and can't do certain things.

I'm going to use Warhammer: Age of Sigmar as an example as I've played a lot of it. It has tons of mechanical complexity, both in the units themselves, their interactions and then the overall general rules. The game feels like it can lack depth, because a lot of playing it comes down to rote memorization, as well as understanding pre-battle choices.

To begin with, there are 6 phases to a turn in AoS, as follows:

1. Heroic (Cast Spells, perform Heroic actions)
2. Movement
3. Shooting
4. Charges (Attempting to move into combat)
5. Fight (Here's where some depth lies with an alternating active player/opponent choosing who fights first)
6. End Step/Battleshock (bookkeeping phase)

In Age of Sigmar, the last army I played has generally about 12 units on the table. Each of these units functions different and often, each of them has different things they can do in each phase. Maybe 2-4 of my units do something in the Heroic phase, Some of them others in Movement, again others in Shooting, more in Charges, Definitely some in Fight and some in the End step. It's not always the case that you have a unit doing something on each phase, but all armies are different. My army generally focuses on Heroic, Shooting, Charging, Fighting and End Step.

So here comes my issue: My memory generally sucks, so a lot of the game comes down to me, struggling to remember what does what, when it does it and what it does. In this case, I don't feel like the complexity is actually lending anything to depth, because I'm not really making any choices (most choices were made in the pre-battle), I'm just struggling to recall all the complex rules my army has and how they interact with each other and with my opponent.

Now often, it's also the case that due to the complexity of the game, there are simply some bad match-ups. It might be the case that the opponent I'm facing simply has an army that is capable of shutting down a majority of the things that I can do, which I can potentially play around, but when my bread & butter is non-functional, there's not always a ton to be done but simply play your best and chalk things up to a loss. You should have made better choices in the pre-battle phase if you didn't want this to happen.

But here comes the part about those pre-battle choices: They're false. We see this over and over again, not only in Age of Sigmar, but in plenty of computer games, as well. Things like early World of Warcraft and its talent system, where people go about it, number crunch it and figure out what the most optimal things are. Often times, the complexity gives you that illusion of choice and picking a strategy that seems fun to you, only to discover it suboptimal and because of those choices, you actually do not stand a chance at having any success in the game. You will never succeed, because you didn't pick the most points, mana, cost, etc, efficient thing in the game, so chalk that up to making the wrong choice and move on. Sure, eventually your choice might become viable when the devs inevitably buff or nerf a thing, but it's completely dependent on that and now your choice has become the optimal one that everyone uses and must choose, otherwise they're the dreaded, suboptimal.

I'm not saying that complexity is bad or wrong, you absolutely need at least a little bit of it in order for something to have some appeal and lend a little bit of extra depth. Plenty of people go overboard on the complexity boat and end-up in this situation where complexity becomes an albatross, because those people who like to crunch numbers and find the optimal thing will get angry when you realize that extreme complexity isn't actually lending anything to your game and instead, taking away choices from players for fear of being suboptimal.

Depth comes from choices you're allowed to make within the system itself and how those choices come about. For this, I want to take the other tabletop wargame I play a lot of, which is Bolt Action. Bolt Action is very simple by comparison to Warhammer; each army is generally the same (a rifle is a rifle, a tank a tank, etc), with the only exception being a couple of army wide rules that may be more or less powerful depending on faction and give certain advantages in certain situations. There is some complexity there in terms of tank faces (a tank is harder to penetrate from the front, where most of its armor is) and there are some optimal strategies because of the way the game is designed (more machine guns are better, even if they don't make historical sense), but by and large, I think the depth comes from the activation system and the strategic choices within.

For example, Warhammer has an activation system of I Go, You Go, meaning I start my turn and do all the above listed phases and you have to sit there and watch while untoward things happen to your units (making correct choices in how to place them has an impact, however), then You Go and the same happens. Bolt Action by contrast has a dice activation system; each player has a certain amount of dice depending on their amount of units (1 Unit = 1 Die), all of which are thrown into the same bag and then drawn out one at a time. Whoever has their dice pulled, gets a choice to activate any of their units or, if you have units off the table, instead of trying to bring them on to the table, you may choose to give them a Down order, so they stay off. This has the affect of making your opponent think about what units they want to activate when they have the opportunity, because my units could come in and execute a flanking action if you've left yourself exposed.

What's interesting about this is that you never know what you're going to get and you really need to think on the fly; pre-battle choices still exist, but are minimized, because generally everyone is following the same rules of list construction, with a little bit of wiggle room. There are absolutely "cost efficient" units you may use, but they're few and far between and generally limited in their use due to community rules (No more than one flame thrower, for example). The game comes much more down to maneuvoring and thinking ahead; what are your overall goals? What do you do if your opponent gets a die? What if they get a run of die? What if you get a run of die? Do I want my opponent to get one, so they have the potential of making a movement mistake and I can flank them? What units are strategically important that I need to protect or kill? And as the game goes on, your choices grow, because now you may have units that are pinned down or unable to act, so you need to think about how to get them out of that situation.

This, to me, is depth without complexity; we have some complexity to facilitate depth, but not complexity for complexity's own sake. The depth comes from the strategic decisions you make within the battle itself and the RNG associated with who is going to be able to move and when. I do not feel rewarded and do not feel like I'm engaging in something particularly deep when all I need to do is rote memorization, rather than thinking about the battle at hand and how I want to execute an overall strategy; which isn't to say that Age of Sigmar has none of that, it certainly does, but memorization is hugely important to success.

And to reiterate, if depth comes from the choices you can make and excessive complexity often leads to false choices (due to being suboptimal), then it strikes me that excessive complexity is actually prone to providing less depth overall, because you need to make the correct choices in order to be successful.

However, I think that immersion does require complexity.

To some extent, but not excessively so. I can certainly find myself immersed in plenty of things that lack excessive complexity. For example, you cite Kingdom Come: Deliverance, one of my favorite games of all time and while it is complex, yes, it is still a game, first and foremost. Henry is fragile, but takes more punishment from swords and arrows than a normal human would, not to mention the "Magical" potion system to heal yourself, as well as confer other benefits. We don't see any need for Henry to use the bathroom ever, or rest for an inordinate amount of time after fighting or doing a cross country run or ride; Henry (and his horse) can carry several sets of full plate armor, whilst also wearing a full set himself. KCD is certainly complex, but the developers also sought to make a fun game and an interesting story, rather than kill us with complexity that ends-up being totally unnecessary and wouldn't add to the depth of the game.

Hopefully this post makes sense, I've been thinking about it since I saw this thread go up yesterday and trying to get my thoughts down, in between taking care of kids.

[Mod edit: changed KC to KCD.]

 

[Hveðrungr]

This has been such an interesting discussion.

Or maybe it's just a matter of becoming so engrossed that you enter a sort of waking dream state.

Did you never have that experience with books as a kid? I would frequently be reading a book and become so immersed in what I was reading that I would feel dissonant upon having to stop. I remember one particular time, when I was probably about 9, I read Jenny Nimmo's The Snow Spider in one sitting. (Literally: I sat on my bedroom floor.) When the book finished I felt disoriented to be reminded that I was not in fact living in fantasy Wales. I remember lifting my eyes from the last page and having a sensation of returning to reality, of the blurred, greyed world gradually coming back into focus and colour.

I don't have that as strongly now I'm older (sadly?). But a good immersive sim can bring me back to it. In particular, I played Oblivion for the first time when I was single and had a few months between jobs. For a few weeks I basically woke up, turned the computer on, played Oblivion until the evening, then went to bed. I was totally immersed in the game world during that time. Was it healthy? Lol, no, of course not. But I don't really regret it. It was an amazing experience to be so totally immersed in the game world.

---

@BeardyHat I understand what you're saying about KCD (or is that KCgrin?) not being a perfect simulation, that there's still a lot that's gamified, but we agree that it's a lot more of a simulation than most RPGs, right? I mean, you say “We don't see any need for Henry to use the bathroom ever”, but he does literally have to go to the bath-house because he's got dirty from traipsing through the mud! I even downloaded a mod to reduce it because I was fed up of having to bathe just because I walked to town and back lol. No other RPG has that.

Or compare the depth of its clothes systems and the different items you can wear to other RPGs: KCD is vastly more complex.

Look at all those clothing slots! Twenty of 'em! Look at all those stats that are impacted by the choices you make about filling those twenty clothing slots! I loved KCD, and I think it managed to wear its complexity lightly for the most part, but I don't think there's any denying that it's a complex game.

 

[Colif]

this is too deep and complex for me right now, where is the wading pool?

 

[BeardyHat]

@BeardyHat I understand what you're saying about KCD (or is that KCgrin?) not being a perfect simulation, that there's still a lot that's gamified, but we agree that it's a lot more of a simulation than most RPGs, right? I mean, you say “We don't see any need for Henry to use the bathroom ever”, but he does literally have to go to the bath-house because he's got dirty from traipsing through the mud! I even downloaded a mod to reduce it because I was fed up of having to bathe just because I walked to town and back lol. No other RPG has that.

Or compare the depth of its clothes systems and the different items you can wear to other RPGs: KCD is vastly more complex.

Look at all those clothing slots! Twenty of 'em! Look at all those stats that are impacted by the choices you make about filling those twenty clothing slots! I loved KCD, and I think it managed to wear its complexity lightly for the most part, but I don't think there's any denying that it's a complex game.

And I feel that KCD proves my point: too much complexity or complexity for its own sake can ruin a game. KCD hits a sweet spot where it's complex, but still very fun and interesting.

I don't think complexity is a bad thing and I do agree that it lends depth, but it's possible to go off the deep end with it.