I'm pretty much done with linear shooters.

There is no depth in the likes of Assassin's Creed, Skyrim, GTA or Saints Row. sooo yeah. they do offer way more depth.

what is 'depth' to you?

would 1000 craftable items all of which affect game play vs 10 craftable items be 'depth' to you?

help me understand your concept of 'depth' in a game like Quake

How do those 1000 craftable items affect gameplay? Having a sword for level 1 characters and a sword for level 2 characters has just as much depth as a game with only one sword for both.

How many of those options are viable at any one point at the time?

Giving you thousands of options is meaningless. What matters for depth is the ammount of interesting and meaningful choices a player can make at any point in time. Super Mario 64 doesnt offer any crafting, or upgrade systems, yet no one questions its depth. Simply because there are so many different ways to reach your objective.

Chess doesnt drown you in feature bloat like Magic The Gathering does. But despite that it offers more depth. As a chess player has more viable actions each turn than an MTG player.

I read the first 5 words of each paragraph and did not find what I asked for,.

I am asking you to define for me what you see as depth. NOT what is NOT depth.

try again'

make your effort worth my time, put some effort into it

Read the second sentence in the third paragraph. I even bolded it for you

Copy pasting: "What matters for depth is the ammount of interesting and meaningful choices a player can make at any point in time."

what is 'meaningful choice' vs a 'non meaningful' choice in your mind?

if I can make a 'choice' between 1000 different craftable items ALL of which have DIFFERENT affects on ACTUAL game play how is that less depth then looking at a door and having 4 options of how to get in the room?

again..put some effort into this, dont start telling me what things arent..I want to know what things ARE

put some effort in explaining about a crafting system of 1000 times all unique, all different, all AFFECT game play in different ways is somehow less 'deep' then a shooter and please...try hard on that

A meaningful choice is one that impacts how players interact with the world around themselves. A machinegunner squad in a good RTS might mean more than just extra damage, said unit can open up opportunities for the owner and new challenges for the attacker, and not just because of some extra damage. But mainly through zone of control, area denial, the ability to protect infantry and suppressive fire. A sniper can assassinate high profile targets, which opens up a new range of viable strategies and tactics for both players, for the owner to use, and for the opponent to counter.

If you read my previous sentences, you would have known what I asked you! But since you didnt answer my question I will ask again.

To what extent do these 1000 unique items affect gameplay? Is it actual substantive stuff that changes how a player approaches combat and hteir combat tactics or is it boring stuff like +1 defense or +1 damage? Saying 1000 items that affect gameplay isnt nearly enough information, which is why I kept asking about that.

It might help to sort out each player's definition of "depth" by citing examples. Personally, I prefer not to use the term. I prefer more specific terms like weapon customization, player-NPC interaction, in-game achievements, etc.

In a linear shooter, having too much of the above can be detrimental because it takes focus away from the action. They're more useful in a more open-world/sandbox shooter where there are more breaks in the action and proper attention can be devoted to them.

ok here is an example of how a few of the 1000 unique items affect actual game play.

I need food, I can look for food with my hands in the grass and get some food but that is time consuming. if I had the right tool I could get the food AND some seeds to grow more so that I dont have to spend as much time hunting for food.

Ah but to make the right tool I need to make a tool, well depending on what I make it out of will determine how good it is, how long it will last, also depending on my skill will determine how strong it is and how long it will last (in addition to the material). I need certian tools in order to make the forge in order to make the tools that I need so that I can get the seeds so that I can grow a farm so that I can spend less time hunting for food.

That is just one SMALL example of about 20 different decision trees in just getting good food. of which didnt even touch on cooking, hunting and the tools required for that area of game play.

In one game I play there is about 20 tools you need to make to successful hit enough to build your base

you might call that boring and on that I would concede that some find it boring...but to call it 'not deep' is being silly

@Maroxad

here is another example.

I am going out to adventure off my property,

(decision) which weapon do I bring? because blunts are better toward some beasts while slashing is better on others

(decision) do I bring a high quality weapon made of my good material because the beasts will be hard or do I not risk loosing it?

(decision) should I bring ranged weapons?

(decision) which ranged weapon?

(decision) how many arrorws?

(decision) the good arrows or the regular arrows?

(decision) which direction are we going?

(decision) are we going to be out long enough to justify bringing food and water?

(decision) Armour? ok well that is a whole sub subject right there

this is just the decisions to leave camp for a day trip.

What you define there has depth. And the bolded is why.

But so many of these open world games with crafting, offer a lot of things to craft but they all are the same means to the same end. The only difference being some slightly differing statistics and

What you defined sounds a bit like Dwarf Fortress, not shallow. But it is also not how most open world games play either. It is not your game I am pissing on, it is stuff like Skyrim, GTA, and their legion of wannabes.

ok step back a second....too funny.

you said:

'offer a lot of things to craft but they all are the same means to the same end.'

and what exactly are the different 'ends' in quake do tell...

sandbox games even the ones with limited crafting, limited variety have more 'end results' then ALL shooters.

think about this what is the 'end result' you speak of in Quake?

Quake Combat goals vs Wurm (random example)

kill target vs kill target but a billion more decision trees involved in with what to use, and how to make

Quake Farming vs Wurm

Quake does not have farming

Quake Buil.ding vs Wurm

Quake does not have building

now I am not asking you to like wurm or even like sandbox games but to call quake 'more deep' then wum is absolutely completely absurd.

In old school FPS here are some things you need to think about

Risk vs Reward: Secret areas usually contain rewards such as ammunition, health supplies, armor, items.

Ammunition: Should I use my BFG here or should I use my rockets, or perhaps my chaingun?

Traversion: Does this game feature rocket jumping? Should I use rocket jumping, is the time saved, encounters skipped worth the ammunition and health loss? What are the other methods of transportation? Should I go for any of those instead?

Combat: How should I approach this group, what weapon should I use, which weapons should I use? Do I have any backup plans if things go badly? Are they worth fighting, is it worth taking damage?

dude...there is more decisions to be made on what weapon to bring on a hunt then there is in the entire engine of an FPS.

and that doesnt even touch on Armour lets alone what food, drink, animal to bring

and that is JUST combat.

there is absolutly risk vs reward decisions to be made in sandbox games, not all of them but many of them

@Maroxad

here is an example of the supply chain for Banished. Now Banished is a stradegy game grant you and the products you make mostly are just for sale but its a good graphic to make my point.

The decision tree in this graphic is some sanbox games ONLY covers weapons and armour of which have different uses and different properties thus different choices of what to bring and when and against what. Call sandbox games all matters of nasty words all you want most of said words I will not care to resist or challenge but to call an FPS to have more 'depth' then a sandbox game is the most insane thing I have heard today

By end I mean, you swing them and they do damage. What seperates an axe and a sword in skyrim are the numbers linked to them, texture, mesh and sound effects. In Quake A rocket launcher does not only do damage, but can also be used for traversal and area denial. Whereas the Heavy machine gun which is a beam and has an entirely different behaviour and characteristics.

sorry but not following you, sandbox games often have a variety of weapons with different uses and different stats.

that said think on this.

there is more to game play then just combat.

if the combat decision tree it larger in a sandbox game then the combat decision tree of an FPS (which it is) then that is sad (in the area of 'depth') becuase that is JUST COMBAT. that doesn't even address cooking, farming, building.

The only thing FPS has on sandbox games with more decisions is the actual act of combat itself. everything else sandbox has A LOT more decisions to make.

I think I am done with this conversation of how Quake is more deep then Wurm. its a stupid conversation

You are confusing complexity with depth. Not all the things you listed are exactly deep mechanics, and some of the things overlap, and can be summed up as which weapons do I bring?, how much ammo?, what utilities?. There is more to depth than combat, but when every single component of the game is shallow, no ammount of features will save it, the game is still shallow. And keep in mind, I am massively oversimplifying quake's depth. For the sake of not making overly long posts.

Character skills and levels, as well as long crafting processes are not deep.

Not to mention, I did mention more than combat, Quake has depth in Combat, Resource Management and in the case of multiplayer, map control.

And for hte record, I do like sandbox games. I like games like Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, even BotW. I just dont like the mostly shallow AAA open world industry, where they flood the game with shallow boring diversions in place of competent mechanics. Wurm does not excuse Asscreed, Fallout 3, Fallout 4, Fallout New Vegas (I stilll love this one though), Mass Effect Andromeda, Far Cry, GTA, Saints Row, and every other open world game that has the depth of a swimming pool.

"You are confusing complexity with depth. ..."

explain that statement in depth.

how can something be complex but not deep at the same time? Depth is number of decisions, complexity is number of decisions.

also...a game having depth does not mean its good.

Wurm (for example) could be a horrible game, but it is absolutly more 'deep' then Quake

i feel the exact opposite

i am done with open world games

How something can be complex without being deep? Easy. By making the player go through a lot of needless hurdles that ultimately dont add anything meaningful to actual player choice. Making your iron ore into iron ingots just adds another layer of complexity to a game while not really adding any depth (it does add to immersion though). Same with Dial-a-combos which many spectacle fighters and fighters have.

Dwarf Fortress, Liberal Crime Squad are amazingly deep and even complex sandbox games. But they are not deep because they are complex games with a lot of rules. They are deep because of the situations that can occur because of said rules. But other games are pretty damn complex, but have very little actual depth. Take Diablo 2 for instance. Point is, while a more complex game does allow for more depth, but it is up the game devs take advantage of said complexity to make depth.

first off there is nothing in Quake that is 'meaningful' and if anything decisions in Wurm are more 'meaningful' then in quake but that aside,

your defintion of the difference stinks.

both words are based on how many decisions you need to make given a variety of outcomes based on those decisions. Sandbox games have more decisions to make for a larger variety of outcomes then do FPS games.

you need to let it go and find something else to pick on sandboxes for of which there is plenty, 'deep' is just not one of them

No, resource management, especially in a competitive or speed run settings are meaningful. Wasting too many resources at one section can stop you from using said resources elsewhere. There is a reason people are still discussing and discovering new strategies for these games even today. Don't let the simplicity fool you. The simple tools provided in these games allow for a surprising ammount of depth.

My definiition is actually a commonly used one. Nice try though.

Sorry, not sorry. Most Open World games are not deep. And why are you now trying to derail it into sandboxes, which are usually open world, but not always.

I am done with repetitive games.

@tryit: You're confusing variety for depth, the two aren't the same.

@pc_rocks: 1st Riddick is awesome and I don't see how you got bored with it but enjoyed TLOU. Riddick: EFRBB has more mechanics than simply run of the mill shoot your way and was definitely more enjoyable then TLOU"

Agreed. That game is great and how is it a linear shooter.

Also, just like film, there are formula games that are still enjoyable Imo. To each their own. I don't make threads often and don't post wondering if others feel as i do about games. I don't really care how others feel about the games i play because others arent buying them for me.

Like any genre, playing too much can make it can seem stale and boring.

Recently I've been playing a load of open world games and I'm starting to get fatigued and crave a linear shooter or action game.

I though all games are by nature, repetitive.

Some are much more repetitive than others. Compare the mission design and variety of something like Mafia 3 to Hidden & Dangerous 2. Big difference there.

hidden and dangerous 3 need to be happen by warhorse studio.

Won't happen. Warhorse is now an independent studio while Take Two owns the IP.

It doesn't need to be called H&D then.

Just make a damn WW2 tactical/stealth shooter with a great and varied sp campaign, like the H&D games had.(mission types included espionage, sabotage, search and destroy, town liberation, prisoner rescue, retrieval of enemy officers and documents, partisan assistance and assassination...)

Call it whatever they hell they want. And the Czechs are the men for the job when it comes to tactical shooters.

I agree to an extent. I found Wolfenstein 2 to be pretty boring. Same with Wolfenstein The Old Blood and New Order. Doom also kind of became a slog for me. Although, I found Far Cry 4 fairly boring after a bit, and the same with Borderlands Pre-sequel.

I think it's just the generic first person shooter experience that does it for me. Always the same enemies, without much variety combined with mostly crappy stories.

I was playing through Metro Last Light Redux the other day and still love it. It helps that it's based off of a book and actually has a pretty good story behind the whole thing, though. I think the horror atmosphere really helps, too. Along with the variety in the game, ie stealth(albeit kind of broken) versus human enemies and the surprise attacks from the creatures.

You haven't played the new AC, then. It actually has quite a bit of depth to it. They added bow mechanics, so you can silently headshot enemies, along with sneaking up on them, employing various traps on bodies and being able to move corpses also helps. The revamped combat system with a light attack, heavy attack, and blocking system with the ability to use any type of weapon from daggers to scythes to giant hammers also makes a huge difference.

I will agree with the others, though. And the old AC games had the depth of a puddle, also.

I haven't I gave up on AC quite some time ago. Lack of depth being one of the many problems I had with that franchise.

imo only good AC was 4. AC2 was almost as overrated as COD4. people like those games because they were first game in respected franchise which sequel copy paste over and over.

That's one way to go about it but I doubt they will focus their attention anywhere from KCD for sometime and even then they will probably work on a sequel to that as now they have a base of assets and code to build upon. I highly doubt at this point in their life they will again immediately work on something drastically different and start from scratch.

COD 1 and 2 for PC were masterpieces. Multi-player was amazing. MOHAA with spearhead is when MOH peaked. After that it's pure shit.

@n64dd: I disagree. The first MW game was loads of fun. Both SP and MP. I do understand that it’s important to adhere to internet directive 246363/b that we must hate all CoD/MW games though so I’m deeply ashamed for enjoying them.

how was COD1 masterpiece? it was same scripted linear on rail shooter. COD1 is basically better version of COD campaign.

COD2 is longer and little less linear/scripted than original. didnot care about MP.

Multi-player is where it's at in those games.

i rather play counter strike for MP.

no its not...not remotely

you are just making up random definitions

but I will say this Maroxad thinks that Quake is has more depth then Eve Online

I am no longer participating in this insanity

words like 'complexity' and 'depth' are related to this:

the number of possible decision trees (decision trees are multiple choices to get the same outcome, so MULTIPLE decision trees means you have multiple options of which each multiple option has its own decision tree with its own variety of choices)...

....for a large variety of possible outcomes.

Quake is not that, Wurm is that.

Quake 2 have actually more dept than 90s percent of todays open world RPG with side quest.

its level design is phenomena.

words like 'complexity' and 'depth' are related to this:

the number of possible decision trees (decision trees are multiple choices to get the same outcome, so MULTIPLE decision trees means you have multiple options of which each multiple option has its own decision tree with its own variety of choices)...

....for a large variety of possible outcomes.

Quake is not this

wurm is this

Shooters mostly bore me anymore. I do prefer linear shooters to open world games, though. Linear is almost always better in all of the big genres popular on consoles, imo.

@tryit: I have not played Wurm, but in all of the open world games that I'm familiar with, you either have multiple paths that all lead to exactly the same outcome, or you just have a large map to wander around in to activate specific quests that pretty much play out the same way every time you play the game. Major AAA games are just too scripted to benefit from being open world, imo. Scripted events just play out a lot better in linear environments because it's a lot easier to develop a quality level with multiple paths to a specific goal than it is to pull that off in an open world.

Sandboxes and open world environments do have their place, but it works a whole lot better in a game where you also create your own objectives and story, imo. Paradox makes very good sandbox games, and even something like Sid Meier's Pirates! manages to be a lot deeper than a game like Assassin's Creed 4.

can you give examples of your claim because I play open world games and I dont see that.

at least not compared to something like Quake.

I mean how many possible outcomes are there in Quake exactly? and how does 7 days to die not have a LOT more possible outcomes?

I am starting to think a lot of people here claiming they know what open world games are like really have no experience with them at all. and no I dont mean JUST not playing ANY of them but not even watching videos