Too Much Depth in Games?
Are games too deep?  Have players come to expect so much variety in games that developers are now forced to create experiences that are far too ambitious?  I often wonder about this issue, especially in light of a product like Diablo II, which has five distinct character classes.  Most players will only play through the game with one character class, but conceivably you could go through the game five different times and have five totally different experiences.  Will anyone do that?  I doubt it.

I think a lot of developers have long wanted to reach for the holy grail of a replayable game – a single-player experience that players can keep going back to time and again.   You may remember that Westwood’s over-hyped Blade Runner promised something along these lines – “the most replayable game ever” – because many believe that replayability leads to better value.   Of course there is also the argument that adding branching stories, distinct character classes, and other pick-and-choose options to a game will make the experience that much more real for the player – you’ll feel as if the game is really molding itself to your choices.  But realistically, aren’t five sides in a RTS game just a few too many? (As is the case with WarCraft III).

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have five fully playable sides in a game.  But at what cost?  With more sides comes the need for more resources, more development time, and more play balancing.  A game that could be released in 18 months with two sides might take twice with four sides.  Is the wait worth it?  I’m not sure, but it pains me to see developers slogging away on unique aspects of games that most players won’t ever see.  Maybe games today are just too ambitious.