It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Whenever someone on this site wants to bash a game they claim that this or that game lacks "depth." Of course, they never explain what "depth" is, we're all supposed to just know. More often than not I see the word "depth" conjoined to the word "complexity" almost as if they are mutually exclusive. The idea being that a game that is complex is automatically deep and a game with depth must be too complex to simply pick up and play. Of course, anyone that's ever actually looked at the rules for Chess or Go knows that this simply isn't the case since both games have depth that has lasted centuries and rules that fit on a single page.
So just what constitutes "depth?"
At what level of complexity is a game considered to have "depth?"
Is there a scenario where complexity limits depth or, vice versa, where elegance enables depth?