What is "Depth"? (My view on the subject, and how it translates to Smash 4)

[Orngeblu]

Depth is something that's been on my mind for a long time, and I think it's miss-used very often, as a measure of some sort whether they understand what actual game-depth is or not. I recently got the urge to say something about depth when I read a claim about have Smash 4 has minimal depth, because it lacks advanced techniques or technical skill, which is false. I've seen comments like these before, plenty of times.

Advanced techniques do indeed add depth, but it is not the end-all to whether or not Smash 4 has any depth.

I'd like to hear the community's thought on depth, as well, so feel free to discuss or debate.

I'm going to start off by explaining what I think depth is, and how it translates to Smash 4. I am going to split this into multiple sections, and I'm sorry if this looks really messy, I am not good with formatting. Feel free to clean it up for me if you wish!

--

More options means more depth.

Smash in general is a deep game, even Brawl and Smash 4, as shocking as that may sound. Being able to use moves in many different ways, for many different situations, to cover other options, making good and quick decisions in high-pressure situations, and etc, to outplay/out-think your opponent is vital in Smash Bros. as a whole, and is one of the things that defines depth.

Game knowledge.

Game knowledge comes in many forms.

Character Knowledge, their movesets and how they can be used like I said above, frame data, move priority, the properties of moves, followups, how to auto cancel some moves properly, and etc. Though I don't really go as deep to research frame data, the general hitboxes and timing is pretty much burned into my brain the more I use them.

Match-up Knowledge, the counter-part to character knowledge, is knowing how to go about playing specific character matchups. Knowing what you can do to that character, what they can do to you, how to/what to avoid during said matchup. There's a lot of variables, and it varies depending on the matchup, but that's the gist of it.

Game mechanics/fundamentals (Also apart of knowledge). There are also many techniques that are often overlooked, and they can be found in every Smash game. I can really only name them rather than go in-depth with each, but they contribute to the options the game offers in situational ways. Pivot Back Aerial, Pivot Tilt, Pivot Grab, B reversal (can also be used for mind games), Stutter Step (very minor, imo, almost non-existant), DACUS (Removed in patch 1.4.2, but honorable mention for Brawl), and etc. These do also contribute to technical player in one way or another.

There may be more I might have missed, I almost forgot pivot grab, I'm bad at trying to list everything off the top of my head.

Stage knowledge, while it may be the minority, can sometimes give you a little leverage and potentially make the difference in a tournament match. It could be as little as a stage-specific technique for Marth, on Smashville where he can dash almost immediately on the platform at the peak of his jump, or even more significant than that, but that's something for someone with their own character knowledge to explain.

Technical Skill.

I'll admit Brawl and Smash 4 has very minimal amount technical skill, but that doesn't mean Sm4sh doesn't have a lot of depth. Everything I explained above contributes significantly to the depth of the game. Especially the techniques I mentioned in the Game mechanics/fundamentals, which offer technical skill one way or another.

I think the closest to get to a very technical style of play is Zero Suit Samus, or at least, that is our I play her. She's got a lot of mobility with her Down Special, and Neutral Special B reversal mix-ups. I just recently picked her up, and her kit is very versatile but I find it kind of hard to lane kill moves on her. Perhaps if I had a C-stick, I could do turn-around Dsmashes in a pinch and follow into a kill after that. ZSS is a very deep character.

Honorable mention: The Mental game.

Knowing your opponent, their habits, etc, and how to manipulate that knowledge in your favor is another factor in player skill. It's a trait dependent on the player, and usually isn't found in low skill levels.

At higher levels this either might be found more often, or less. I'm not really sure, but at high level play, players have less habits, and they know how to adapt, so it is much harder, but still possible in the hands of a good player.

I'm able to manipulate For Glory players a lot of the time, but I am a veteran player, and For Glory isn't all top-notch players, rarely do I find one, but my point is I can manipulate lower level players who spam roll, through pressure, but low level players are easily manipulated by mid-high level players like me if done properly. Higher levels will require different and more complex methods.

All-in-all, there are many things that contribute to the depth, and not just Smash.

 

[HeroMystic]

"More options mean more depth" is something I'm not comfortable stepping into due to the fact that not every option can be equal in meaning, and it's not something I'd like to devolve this topic into because it's down a beaten path. Instead, I want to speak of what I believe is depth.

I believe depth, in a sentence, is the amount of knowledge that can be accumulated and utilized from a certain state of the game.

For example, Player A and Player B are both beginning a match. Player A opts to stand still. Player B opts to approach. Player B can dash, walk, jump, or roll to approach. Player A can shoot projectiles, shield, spotdodge, or throw out a defensive attack to stop Player A's advancement.

Which option is best for either player? There may not be a clear answer and it really depends on how each option is utilized. If Player B is dashing, Player A may shoot projectiles. If Player A is shooting projectiles, Player B may roll or jump. Interaction like this is really basic but solid in understanding depth.

I feel Smash 4 has a lot of depth from my definition of it, and it mostly comes from the fact that stage control is more important in Smash 4 than in any other Smash game thus far. Being on cornered at the stage makes you far more limited than being in the middle of it, and being on the ledge, for most characters, is a heavy disadvantage, but not so much that the advantageous player is in a dominant position. "Do I roll onto the stage? Do I jump onto the stage? Do I get up and attack?" Every option the defender has to make is an inherit risk at that state of the game, and the offender has to not make a mistake to capitalize on that risk.

I feel the character interaction and shifts in player-momentum in Smash 4 is the most exciting part of this game, and I hope it continues even when the meta develops.

 

[BlueXenon]

I think you should delete the following:
"Edit: Fixed some typo's, and changed Sm4sh to Smash 4 because it sounded so unprofessional, sorry about that."

"I'm afraid this thread won't really last, or will be worthless to most people who read this, but I just felt like expressing my thoughts to the SB community. We'll see."

I'll admit Brawl and Smash 4 has very minimal amount technical skill

This statement is half false. I agree that so far, Smash 4 requires very minimal execution, but that is definitely not the case with brawl. I know you mostly played brawl on wifi and that likely influenced how you perceive the game, but offline brawl is significantly different and requires a tremendous amount of executional skill.

 

[ATH_]

A game with very good depth is one that is easy to learn, but difficult to master. Every smash game shares this aspect, which is great. It is exceedingly easy to learn, however, extremely hard to master due to ATs and mindgames. Reverse-psychology takes a role as well.

 

[Slugginz]

I've never took a side in the 'Melee vs. Brawl' type discussions. I feel that all the games are great and are all almost equally as good.
I say this because as you mentioned people will say that Melee has more depth simply because of the higher amount of advanced techniques and competitive play but I really don't see that.

I feel Smash 4 brings a lot to the table when it comes to depth and a competitive edge. The game relies a lot on mind games and being able to trick or outsmart your opponent. I think the variety of characters alone create a large amount of depth for people to learn and master characters.

 

[Thinkaman]

Options constitute breadth, the exact inverse of depth.

Edit:
As appealing as it is to mic drop and walk away, I'll elaborate.

Depth and breadth are not specifically properties of a game per se. They are properties of decisions, or specifically decision trees. Now, decisions are what constitutes gameplay, so this might seem like splitting hairs--but recognizing this helps understand the functional definitions of these two terms.

Depth refers to how many layers a decision tree has. How many moves ahead are the players thinking?

Breadth refers to how many paths a decision tree has at each layer. How many moves, at each step, do players have to consider?

For any bound cognitive space, including any context where humans are playing a non-degenerate real-time game, increasing one can only come at the cost of decreasing the other. Period.

Fighting games tend to be structured to present situations that collapse into dominant (or direct) and counter (or indirect) strategies (or categories of strategies). This creates yomi states, which are a special type of depth. (Fractal depth) It isn't really possible to have "deeper" or "yomier" yomi, since all yomi is fractal; you can only change the % of the game is that focused on yomi.

Fighting games, including smash, actually have very little depth outside of yomi, which they have tons of. They are games about who can think 10 moves ahead better--they are fast-paced duels always fixated on the single next move.

 

[chipndip]

Options constitute breadth, the exact inverse of depth.

That isn't a true statement.

Or rather, it is a true statement up to a point. You need options to create depth. TOO MANY options makes everything a coin-flip or a mash-fest, so it's not a game of minds, but it's instead a game of chance. A game of chance is shallow, but a game of minds is deep. To create the latter, you need a balanced amount of solid options. Not too many or too few. Not too simple or overly complex. Not too weak or too strong. That's the hard part about making a good fighting game.

 

[Slugginz]

Options constitute breadth, the exact inverse of depth.

The options given in the game are solid. They are the right number of options to allow a deeper gameplay experience because the game is designed around all the choices you can make.

 

[<π]

I'm sure most of you guys have seen this already but these are my opinions on depth in smash from months ago.

Depth isn't about how many options are avalible, but the weight and meaning of those options. Having 100s of options when there is only one best option in that bunch doesn't equate to any depth. Having 10 options where each one has a advantages and disadvantages over one another means those are deep options.

Just having a lot of options isn't enough to call something deep. At least not by the traditional definition of depth in games.

 

[Thinkaman]

I edited my post with additional commentary.

I'll just add here that the layman usage of depth as "something I can think about a lot" is misleading and functionally useless.

 

[Pazzo.]

While not as technical, Smash 4 offers new ways to utilize the options already halmarked by the series. Want to off-stage edge-gaurd? Well, the new ledge trump allows for a safe return. Side note: we need more of this.

While not as complex as Melee, Smash 4 has a good amount of depth.

 

[<π]

Options constitute breadth, the exact inverse of depth.
Depth refers to how many layers a decision tree has. How many moves ahead are the players thinking?

Breadth refers to how many paths a decision tree has at each layer. How many moves, at each step, do players have to consider?

For any bound cognitive space, including any context where humans are playing a non-degenerate real-time game, increasing one can only come at the cost of decreasing the other. Period.

Fighting games tend to be structured to present situations that collapse into dominant (or direct) and counter (or indirect) strategies (or categories of strategies). This creates yomi states, which are a special type of depth. (Fractal depth) It isn't really possible to have "deeper" or "yomier" yomi, since all yomi is fractal; you can only change the % of the game is that focused on yomi.

Fighting games, including smash, actually have very little depth outside of yomi, which they have tons of. They are games about who can think 10 moves ahead better--they are fast-paced duels always fixated on the single next move.

I stand corrected.

 

[chipndip]

snip

You can add breadth without losing depth, seeing how each stage is a tree branch from one main trunk. You can always add another branch without losing the length of the previous ones, since each branch is mutually exclusive.

If I could possibly block, counter, or dodge an attack, each possible option comes with its own set of mutually exclusive what-if scenarios on how it'd play out if I picked that one option. Adding a new mechanic doesn't suddenly shorten the string of possibilities per mechanic, nor does removing one or add one. We might pay more/less attention to them and thus consider more or less consequences in each action, but that doesn't mean there's objectively more or less possible outcomes to be had, so you can still technically gain more breadth (possible options right now) without losing depth (possible scenarios in each option in an "if -> then -> then..." format).

This holds true as long as options clash less, however. So if I have "block" and "super-duper block", in which case the latter is a block that blows my opponent out yonder while blocking all damage when available, while block is just a block, as long as I have access to the latter, I simplify the game because "block" and all future branches associated with it in the given instance of "opponent is attacking me" are no longer considered. Just "super-duper block". That simplifies the match in its current state, but since the only thing like that is "perfect shielding", which doesn't fully interfere with the niche of a standard shield, Sm4sh avoids this scenario clean. The main objective is too add as much depth as possible without convoluting the game with mechanics.

 

[Thinkaman]

You can add breadth without losing depth, seeing how each stage is a tree branch from one main trunk. You can always add another branch without losing the length of the previous ones, since each branch is mutually exclusive.

This is is true in an absolute context, but not one of a bound focus. Humans can only traverse the a fixed, limited, finite amount of the tree for any given amount of time. Forcing them to focus on more options can only come at the cost of focusing less on the next steps, because focus is finite.

 

[Raijinken]

I like the OP, and would also like to mention that Peach is another very technical character at the higher levels (see this match).

Another thing I feel is worth pointing out: past a certain necessary level of technique needed to differentiate a practiced/skilled player from another player of equal tactical prowess with less reflex, any technique on top of that is simply an extra gap-widener. One of the many critiques of Melee is that the barrier to entry in competition is so high because of that additional technique. Some players prefer it, some (including myself) dislike it, and by and large that seems to be determined by one's own skill at said techniques.

But regardless of the amount of technique required for skilled play, Smash4 has sufficient depth and breadth to allow a knowledge advantage to shine through, and enough technique to allow character control to shine through. And it's fortunately rather difficult to win with just one or the other.

 

[Orngeblu]

Great posts, guys, this is helping me have a better grasp on the concept. Especially HeroMystic, <TT, and @ BlueXenon (Yo)

@ Raijinken Ah, you're right, I did forget Peach. She's very technical in Brawl, and from the looks of it, Smash 4 as well, though I haven't played many, I know a good Peach player, and I've played a few matches with him.

 

[Nick T]

Far too often do people confuse the term depth with what really is complexity. Complexity is the knowledge required in order to play the game. As you said, Smash has less technical skill than other fighters, therefore giving it less complexity. Depth on the other hand is the amount of meaningful decisions(key word here is meaningful, meaning each decision has trade-offs and gives the player some way of weighing one's options.) and variety that come out of a single ruleset. The amount of tools you have at your disposal and the diverse cast of characters as well as stages make Smash a very deep game. That being said, fighting games in general are typically very deep mechanically. The relationship between the two is similar to the relationship between money and a commodity. More money(or complexity) will typically allow for more of the commodity(depth), but in the end its all about getting the best deal(getting the most amount of depth for the least amount of complexity possible). This inverse relationship is what is referred to as "elegance in design" and this is where I believe Smash excels.

 

[chipndip]

This is is true in an absolute context, but not one of a bound focus. Humans can only traverse the a fixed, limited, finite amount of the tree for any given amount of time. Forcing them to focus on more options can only come at the cost of focusing less on the next steps, because focus is finite.

I made sure to account for that in that post. Not sure if you didn't read or are just reiterating it. Maybe you didn't realize that I was accounting for that. Still, how much one can focus on an increasing amount of variables is up to the player, but the overall depth/breadth of the game isn't influenced by that, per say. Rather, the effects of the game's depth/breadth is felt due to that.