作者：Richard Terrell

深度是一个非常简单的理念，但是我们却很难去定义它。因为“深”是一个形容词，它可以用于形容各种不同的对象，包括深奥的故事，深度的情感，深度策略，有深意的想法以及深层次的游戏玩法等。深度是一个较为常见的术语，它可以用于各种不同的复杂系统中，或许这也是我们难以定义它的重要原因。

赋予故事深度与赋予游戏玩法深度的元素并不相同。不同系统创造深度的方法也各不相同。我将通过这系列文章进一步解析深度，特别是游戏玩法中的深度。

来自复杂性的深度

为了理解深度我们需要先理解复杂性。复杂性是指任何作品中的“各种元素”的总和。如果是故事，那么“各种元素”便是指角色，背景，事件，行动，目标等。而音乐则是歌曲，音调，乐器，音符，韵律等。

而游戏玩法的复杂性则是所有控制着游戏玩法的规则，包括机制，敌人元素，关卡元素等。我们都清楚不管怎样我们都能够为作品添加更多复杂性。所以我们必须牢记我们并不是为了复杂性而创造复杂性。大多数复杂性的存在都具有一大特殊目的：创造意义。

深度便是一件作品存在的意义，而这种意义主要体现在表达与交流上。就像我之前曾经提到的，创造无意义和混乱的内容非常简单，但是创造有序且具有意义的内容却极端困难。这也是为何艺术家需要耗尽一生而精益求精的重要原因。

关于媒体间的沟通我们还有许多需要学习的地方。意义是源于作品的复杂性。这种意义是通过理念，经验和情感等方式表现出来。与复杂的参数一样，深度/意义是建立在那些彼此间相互支持并能够达成共鸣的较小部件的基础上。因为艺术形式多种多样，所以复杂意义便需要作品本身也能够体现出复杂性。

换句话说，一款作品只能够呈现出与其复杂性同等复杂的意义。你不可能只用一个句子便传达出整本书中所有有价值的信息。但是如果“一个机器上运行着越多零部件”（复杂性），那么创造者犯错且失败的几率也就越高。

如果一件作品具有深度，我们就会花更多时间去探索，思考，测试或不断挖掘其中更多的意义。简单地说，我们之所以会将深度与探索和时间结合在一起便是考虑到突现和复杂性的本质。

越来越复杂的想法也让我们开始传达更多复杂性。而为了体验并理解这些想法，我们就必须了解复杂性。就像我经常说的，学习是一个缓慢而又神秘的过程。除此之外因为突现的性质，我们添加到作品中的每个复杂性都能与其它复杂性更紧密地连接在一起。寻找并创造这种连接便是我们找寻意义的一种方式。所以同样的，随着复杂性的提升，系统突现的可能性也随之迅速提高，而玩家探索作品深度的任务也相继加重了。

我们必须花大量时间去学习，探索，衡量并评估各种可能性。我们也希望所有的投入能够得到有价值的回报。我们所寻求的回报更为细微，或者是用一种新的角度去看待想法，或者是用一种新的方法去思考理念，又或者是我们所说的“更深的”认知水平。

我认为更深的认知水平非常重要，因为意义和共鸣能够帮我们整顿杂乱的复杂性；换句话说，我们更喜欢将随机性与无意义细节清晰有效整合在一起的世界。如果我们在搜索模式时不会被各种细节压得死死的，我们便能够感受到游戏的乐趣；而当细节创造了意义，我们的思考和理解能力也将得到加强。

深度是一种组织有序的结构，能够帮助我们更好地将复杂性和细节带到游戏环境中，并以此传达更多意义。如果有更多复杂性相互支持着并达成共鸣，那么这件作品也将变得更有深度。

新定义

大约在两年前我阐述了深度这一术语在游戏玩法中的应用。我将深度定义为游戏系统或场景中的来回反动抵消策略。这就意味着更有深度的游戏在机制关卡的一开始便具有更多推拉行动，并将支持更多紧急战术和策略关卡。尽管我认为这是用于思考游戏深度的方法，但是它却不能清楚地涵盖整个问题。

游戏深度/意义主要是以相互作用为中心。因为游戏是带有目标的互动系统，我们可以根据如何在游戏中取得胜利去评估其中的每个行动和情境。换句话说，游戏玩法的意义便是来自于我们对于游戏互动性的目标探索。

所以问题便在于我们如何才能从游戏体验中获得最多意义？我们该如何做才能让玩家在某个游戏情境中感受到意义？什么是有意义的游戏玩法？较为简单的答案便是克服技术类游戏中的挑战。当玩家在游戏中失败率高于成功率时，他们就需要投入更多努力去获得成功。为了让自己的努力得到回报，玩家就需要更加专注并使用自己的技能（DKART）并以此寻求胜利。

我们将以两种不同类型的游戏进行分析：益智游戏和复杂的多人游戏。益智游戏的复杂性（规则）的目的是让玩家难以察觉到获胜策略。换句话说，玩家在了解游戏规则并测试系统前很难找到最合适的解决方法。益智游戏属于线性或较为直接的游戏，通过提供给玩家各种挑战而推动着他们努力找出许多可能没有解决方法的答案。

我曾经将益智游戏分成两大类：具有深度的和复杂的。在复杂的益智游戏中玩家不需要考虑太多规则和动态元素。就像玩七巧板（游戏邦注：由七块板组成的益智游戏，玩家可以以此将其拼成各种图形），比起使用DKART技能，玩家更需要的是耐心，如此才能最终将所有拼图组合在一起。而具有深度的益智游戏则更有深意，因为玩家必须思考功能和规则等问题才能最终解决游戏谜题。

在面对具有深度的益智游戏时，玩家将面对动态化的紧急系统。通过理解具有深度的益智游戏的规则集合，玩家便能够更轻松地掌握系统和设计解决方案的深度问题。通过解决谜题玩家便能够粉碎盲目的试错法所造成的混乱局面。这便是具有深度的益智游戏体验的好处。

而多人游戏中的深度则有所不同——即更加开放。当人们说多人游戏具有深度时，他们指代的是游戏具有各种有趣的选择。当游戏能让玩家在探索游戏玩法时面对各种不同的选择时，我们便能够看到在一个基于目标和游戏玩法的游戏环境中同时存在着各种不同的复杂性，机制和选择。之前我也曾经讨论过为了达到这种平衡需要各种元素，而最重要的则是相互作用。这也是我为何会使用深度这一词去描述具有来回抵消游戏玩法的主要原因。

当我思考没有多人游戏那种抵消策略的益智游戏时，我认为它们都是富有深度的游戏，我也意识到有必要改变我对于游戏深度的定义。我更喜欢根据深度是如何应用于其它艺术作品以及各种类型的电子游戏中而定义游戏深度。

比起专注于游戏玩法中呈现了何种抵消作用或它们如何来回作用，我更希望通过平衡互动性和相互作用去定义游戏深度（更加侧重互动作用）。这种平衡是基于游戏环境而言。这种平衡将赋予游戏意义复杂性，因为它们是互动设计的组成部分，处在游戏玩法的核心位置。我们能够通过平衡有趣的选择而更好地传达这种平衡，并且同时也存在着各种变量。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Depth From Complexity pt.1

by Richard Terrell

Depth is a fairly simple concept that many have a hard time defining. Because “deep” is an adjective you’ve probably heard the term applied to many different subjects from deep stories, deep emotions, strategic depth, deep ideas, to deep gameplay. Depth is a general term in that it can be applied to a wide range of complex systems; perhaps this is why it is so hard to pin down.

What makes a story deep is not exactly the same as what makes gameplay deep. And how different systems create depth is unique to each system. In this article series we’ll examine depth, specifically the depth of gameplay. It’s been a few years since I last wrote about depth. It’s time I made one, hopefully final, clarification on this elusive term.

Depth from Complexity

To understand depth we start by understanding complexity. Complexity is simply the amount of “stuff” in a work. For stories this stuff is characters, settings, events, actions, objects, etc. For music it’s melodies, keys, instruments, notes, rhythms, etc.

For gameplay complexities are all the rules that govern gameplay and include mechanics, enemy elements, level elements, etc. We all understand that for better or for worse it’s possible to add a lot of complexity to a work. So, it’s important to remember that art isn’t about complexity for the sake of complexity. Most complexity has a specific purpose: to create meaning.

Depth is the meaning of a work, and meaning is what we value in expression and communication. As I explained in part 6 of my series Design Space: Infinite Undiscovery to create meaninglessness and chaos is easy; to create and convey order and meaning is extremely difficult. This is why artists can spend a lifetime refining their craft.

There’s just so much to learn about communicating through a medium. Meaning is derived from the complexities of a work. This meaning comes in the form of concepts, experiences, and emotions. Like sophisticated arguments, depth/meaning is built up on smaller parts that support and resonate with each other. With art of all kinds, complex meaning requires complexities in the work itself.

Put another way, a work can only convey meaning that’s as complex as its complexities. You can’t communicate an entire text book worth of information in a sentence. And with more “parts running in this machine” (complexities) there are more chances for things to break and more chances for the creators to make mistakes.

A work with depth is commonly thought of as something one can spend a considerable amount of time exploring, mulling over, testing, or otherwise engaging with to uncover more meaning. Put simply, the reason we associate depth with a sense of exploration and time consumption is because of the nature of emergence and complexity.

Increasingly complex ideas take more complexities to convey. To experience and mentally grasp these ideas, we have to learn the complexities. As I often say, learning is a slow and somewhat mysterious process. Furthermore, because of emergence, every bit of complexity we add to a work increases the amount of connections it can have to the rest of the complexities. Looking for and making these connections is simply a part of the pattern seeking journey we take to find meaning. So in the same way that the emergent possibilities of systems grow at rapid rates as the complexities increase, so too does the task of exploring the depths of a work.

Taking the time to learn, explore, measure, and weigh possibilities is a lot of work. We often invest the time to do this work hoping that the payoff will be worth it. The payoff we look for is more nuance, a new angle on the ideas, a new way to think about the concepts, or what we uncoincidentally call a “deeper” level of understanding.

I believe we value such deeper levels of understanding because meaning and resonance brings order to the chaos of complexity; in other words we enjoy entering a world where the vast collection of random, meaningless details come together in a very clear and stable way. We enjoy when details don’t overwhelm us as we search for patterns; when the details create meaning our ability to think and understand is strengthened.

Depth works as an organizing structure that helps us put complexities and details into the contexts that convey the most meaning. The more complexities support and resonate with each other, the deeper the work becomes.

New Definition

Almost two years ago I made a clarification on the term depth as it applies to gameplay. I defined depth as the amount of back and forth reactionary counters in a gameplay system or scenario. This basically means that deeper games have more push and pull of gameplay actions starting on the level of mechanics which then support the more emergent tactical and strategic levels. While I think this way of thinking about gameplay depth works, it doesn’t frame the entire issue clearly enough.

Gameplay depth/meaning mainly revolves around interplay. Because games are interactive systems with goals or goal like objectives, every action and situation can be evaluated according to how well it achieves victory. In other words, the meaning of gameplay comes from goal seeking interactivity.

So the question is, how do we get the most meaning out of our gameplay experiences? How do we give the player agency in a context that is meaningful? What is meaningful in gameplay? The simple answer is overcoming challenging in skill-based games. When it’s easier to lose than win, players have to exert effort to win. To leverage one’s effort, players focus and use their skills (DKART) to seek victory. I explain more on the beauty of gameplay here.

Consider two different types of games; puzzle games and competitive multiplayer games. The complexities (rules) of a puzzle games are designed to make winning strategies difficult to perceive. In other words, it’s hard to find the optimal solutions until you learn the rules and test the system. Puzzle games are generally very linear or straightforward games that challenge players to find the few solutions out of the many possible non-solution outcomes.

As you may remember, I commonly put puzzle games into two different categories; deep and complex. With complex puzzles players have few rules and dynamics to consider. Like solving a jigsaw puzzle, patience is tested more than DKART skills as time is needed to match up all of the pieces. But deep puzzles are deep because players can come to the solutions by thinking in terms of function and rules.

By reading deep puzzles players embrace the dynamic, emergent systems. By understanding how the rules of deep puzzle games come together in a structured way, players learn the depths of the system and devise solutions more easily. Reading puzzles let’s players shatter the chaos of blind trial-and-error. This is the payoff of deep puzzle gaming experiences.

We think of depth a bit differently for multiplayer games, which tend to be more open. When most say that a multiplayer game is deep they mean that the gameplay is of interesting choices. When players have different viable options to explore the gameplay is balanced in a way that allows for many different complexities, mechanics, and options to coexist in a very goal-oriented, gameplay focused environment. And as we learned from the conclusion of my article series on interesting choices, there are many parts that are necessary to achieve this balance, but none more important than interplay. This is why I was comfortable using the word depth to describe gameplay of back and forth counters.

When I considered that puzzle games don’t have counters in the same ways that multiplayer games do and that both types of games can be deep, I realized that I had to tweak my definition of gameplay depth. I’d rather define gameplay depth in a way that aligns with how the term applies to other art works and various genre of video games.

Instead of focusing on what kind of counters are present in the gameplay or how they go back and forth, I want to step back and define gameplay depth as a balance of complexity and interplay (with more weight on interplay). This balance is framed in the context of gameplay. This balance gives the complexities in a game meaning because they are part of the interplay design, which sits at the core of gameplay. This balance is most easily expressed as the balance of interesting choices, but other variations exist. (source:GAMASUTRA)