posted 03-01-99 01:21 AM ET        

I'll try to make this pretty concise (aka itll probably be long

Depth and Complexity although sometimes interchangable are very different aspects of computer games. A complex game isn't always a deep one, and of course this works vice versa. Ill stick to four of the games i know best in explaining this; StarCraft and Age of Empires for the RTS games, and Master of Orion and Romance of the Three Kingdoms representing TBSs. I wont even mention SMAC because honestly i haven't played it enough yet; you can of course take some of these theories and apply them to it if applicable or related .

In this relationship *depth's* connotations seem to bring greater respect but this is quite false. The diversity of users guarantees that what seems like droning repetition can be glorious gameplay to some. Likewise where some see 'depth' to others its superficiality.

So what are these ambigious terms anyway? I define them as

depth: the degree of possibilities that can be exploited creatively and feasably.

complexity: the sum of all game rules and possibilities.

Er, yea? Possiblities is just anything that can happen, at all, ever. Anything that can be moved, researched, built or grown, killed, unbuilt, changed or won is a possibility. Game rules are all of the variables, effecting everything from combat to diplomacy to just anything. Game rules are fixed tho and the player must work within them.

Its easy then to see the relationship between the two -- there has to be *some* complexity for there to be any depth. And ALL games will have some depth; after all, if its a game, you can win can't you?

Now how is this applicable to TBS games (finally)? Lets look at one. MOO had alot of complexity. You could customize ships with over 40 weapons, 10 shields, 10 computers, something like 20 special abilities, and 4 body types. Each ship could hold up to 5 weapons or abilities. Do the math! Star systems had distance from "x", habitability, population size, defences, mineral, life and lab bonuses. There was trade that increased % to years (turns) participated. Labs that gained or lost % to outlay in 'money' per year. Lots of stuff. Keep this in mind -- What about another genre, the game AoE? Well, there were four resources, food, gold, wood and stone. Wood gathered from large forests and small patches had different reserves. There were many ways of generating food -- hunting, fishing, berry gathering and farming. Gold could be mined or traded. There was a complex relationship between unit effeciency and the upgrade cost to get them (the next 'age'). Terrain gave ranged attackers bonuses firing downward. There were a good number of different units: slow high HP melee attackers, medium and fast speed melee and ranged attackers, siege weapons, and ships.

But how deep were they; was there anything beyond a linear relationship (400$ beats 300$)? How many of these great options could you really use? or were they superficial? Well, in AoE, each age obsoleted the previous ages' units. Axemen were of course worthless in the iron age. Barracks units in general were very unusable -- although very cheap the population limit (aka feasble possibilities) meant you never could amass enough to get through = number of archers. Plus they sucked against towers and walls.