Player Convenience VS Game Depth

[Jocko]

While XIV's servers are down to implement the upcoming patch, I thought it would be nice to start a discussion of sorts:

Which is more important to you and why - Player Convenience or Game Depth?

I would like to preface this by saying these two things are not mutually exclusive ideas, but for the discussion, I'd like to talk about your personal preferences for design decisions regarding those two concepts.

So, here are a few example of this sort of give and take scenario (Some of which have been stolen from other threads):

A piece of equipment is released that is desirable, something that people would actively try to obtain. The crafting of this weapon requires Frog Skin, a material that can only be found one way; by killing Mud Frogs. However, there's a catch: Mud Frogs don't spawn unless it's raining

How do you feel about that scenario? Would you be annoyed that you can't farm these creatures when you choose, feeling that it's a mechanic that wastes your time or holds you back, or do you like the idea that there are creatures that have environmental habits, giving them a small touch of personality?

Another example:

In some corner in the world map is a unique crystal cavern, an area that is visually unique from other caves found in the game. Here, a specific mineral can be mined that is useful for crafting a series of high level equipment. However, this cave is also home to very powerful mobs that simply can't be killed, forcing you to stealth by them to get a chance at this valuable ore. If you're seen and killed, you'd be sent back to your previous home point, forced to have to make the journey again

So how about this one? Do you find that having to sneak like that, something that is a little reliant on luck, is an aggravating concept that shouldn't get in the way of you obtaining materials, and that the walk back is nothing more than a waste of time? Or do you find the high risk - high reward idea thrilling, and the potential nuisance of having to walk back an extra thrill to traversing the cave?

These are just a few example, of which I'm sure many others could come up with better ones, but I feel they get the point across. And as I said before, they are not mutually exclusive ideas, and could be implemented in ways that incorporate both mindsets, but I'm wondering which side most of the playerbase here leans towards.

[Roj]

How about "they are both of equal importance". The end.

[Rokien]

Game depth all the way, all this handheld stuff is terrrible.

[KamikazeMan]

Game depth. I've put up with XIV long enough to work around any inconvenience.

[Wolfie]

Not only are the two concepts not mutually exclusive, like you've said, you also can't judge them on a superficial level based on only one or two criteria. Using your mud frogs example, how often does it rain? What is the drop rate on the skins? How many mud frogs spawn? In how many areas do the mud frogs spawn? Is there a similar item I could get elsewhere? Does it actually take skill to kill these monsters, or do you just have to wait until you get lucky with weather patterns?

The level of 'accessibility' and 'convenience' is a little arbitrary, but a good bottom line should be "if player X wants to do activity Y, he should be able to put in the effort to do it at any time and walk away with at least some semblance of progress by the time he stops playing."

[Jocko]

I was purposefully trying to not go to deeply into each scenario, we could talk and plan all day on rates and semantics (And I would probably enjoy that). The core idea I wanted to bring up with the frog example was how players felt about content that was limited in various ways for the sole purpose of immersion, character, flare, and world design. Of course I'd like to assume that the developers would be able to implement that kind of content with optimal enjoyment, but I want to know if anyone wants that type of content at all.

Perhaps a better example would be the airships. Right now they're simple cutscenes, but what if they were actual rides? In that case, it takes longer for a character to get from point A to point B, but it creates a more natural sense of time and progression.

I guess the reason I brought this up is because, from what I've noticed on these boards, a lot here have little interest in trivialities such as mob behavior, exploration and the like, and instead seem to only want complexity in the battle system, everything else made to get them from battle encounter to encounter as simple and quickly as possible. I'd argue, though, that knowing the little intricacies of the game world, collecting that knowledge, and using it to your advantage (In the case of the mud frog example, learning weather patterns and planning around them) is just as much a 'skill' as knowing when to get off a specific WS, and comes with it's own sort of enjoyment.

[Lux_Rayna]

How about "they are both of equal importance". The end.

Agree. Thread over?

I mean its a weird question; as you said depth and convenience are not mutually exclusive so why the either/or question? Lulz? Curiosity? Sociology homework?

I think you needs to define "game depth". Inconvenience =/= game depth imo. If you want a perfect example I'll use Pokemon Gold/Silver/HGSS. They came up with the awesome of idea of a day/night cycle. Cool. They came up with the not-so-awesome-still debated idea of having morning pokemon, daytime pokemon, and nighttime pokemon. Now here is the question: depth or not depth? Its surely inconvenient, but does it really add game depth? IMO, no.

I say no because the system is still the same, catch pokemon. These pokemon are obtained the same way, Game freak just made it more inconvenient to get to them. Ppl call it depth because of "zomg realism," but I contend that realism does not translate automatically into depth. The system is the exact same except they split the pokemon between daytime and nighttime. How does that make the game any "deeper" than before? It just means now instead of going to that next gym, you wait around and not play all day so you can catch a pokemon you want/need. How is that depth?

Now let me give you an example of what I consider game depth: the old FFXIV crafting system (thats making a comeback now). This is what you'd call true game depth. It changes the gameplay rather than change what the player can or can't do. To craft a weapon you need to craft parts. To craft parts you need different materials. To get different materials, you need access to different classes/tools/ppl with those resources. The result is a vast market of potential goods and services, and an encouragement by the game for players to interact or dabble in different areas. Adding this system back in for the new gear is what i would call depth. It really *adds* something to the game, and doesn't just inconvenience the player for no good reason.

So really, we need to define depth in your OP. Imo, your example isn't depth but closer to the pokemon example. It adds content, but does so in a way that artificially restricts the player, rather than actually add something to the game experience. My question to you is how you would define depth.

[Wynn]

While I'm not particularly opposed to the scenarios presented, to me they don't say depth so much as they say tedium for tedium's sake. When I think of depth, I think of numerous choices and robust systems. Waiting for a specific environmental condition to do something is neither and gives me not so pleasant flashbacks of trying to unlock summoner in XI. Just my opinion.

[Jocko]

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I seem to be getting answers to my question. Some of you seem to look at the frogs example as nothing but a time sink, and I'm not saying that's wrong. I, personally, look at that as something that gives that particular piece of the game a memorable characteristic. In the pokemon example given above, I look at it like this: The pokemon you can catch change depending on the time of day. You say you don't like this because it prevents you from catching a specific pokemon the second you want it, and that is a valid complaint, but on the other hand, players will have a different experience depending on what time they first get to that part of the game, or perhaps when they traverse that area once more at a different time, they're pleasantly surprised to find a number of new pokemon they hadn't seen before. Mechanically, it can be aggravating for someone such as yourself, but aesthetically (Is that the correct word?), someone such as me finds it a novel idea. So, which of those concepts is more important to you? That's really what my question is.

[Kiote]

I have found that the majority of people on these forums are far more inclined to sacrifice the depth of the world for the convenience of travel. Beyond that specific circumstance I have always found people begging for a more in depth and thought provoking experience.

People do not want to travel long distances and they do not want to stand around waiting, but while they are on the move and while they are participating in some activity they want it to be as in depth as possible. The community has even said they want simple things like wandering NPCs and mob behavioral characteristics. These are the little things that make a world feel alive. Your example of the Mobs that spawn in the middle of the rain is a good example. The community has come together to ask for more situations like that. Specifically, more enemies that only spawn at night.