Response to Endneo
About Complexity and Depth
First of all, you don't need to force a dichotomy complexity vs depth simply because people use indiscriminately both words.
It's a good exercise, as attempt to define them in a more accurate and efficient way, but asking yourself what's the difference doesn't mean that there is actually any necessarily. Signifiers with a big overlapping exist in language because also such signifieds/concepts can co-exist (and are overlapped too).
One can still suggest a more consistent or logical normalization, but this is not the case. Not when complexity gets twisted in such a way, and oversimplified, simply to make more (meaningful) room for depth.
An uppercut is more complex than a jab, a long pass is more complex than a ground short pass, (5x5)-5 is more complex than 5+5+5.
A game with 4 ground moves, 2 launchers and 4 aerial moves is more complex than a game with 15 ground moves without any special properties like launching or juggling. Because the type of possible connections between elements counts as well.
Nobody would say the second game is more complex, because complexity is related to the amount of elements/raw options, only.
An interactive experimental design of:
Independent Variable x Independent Variable -> Dependent Variable,
like the interaction between genetics and environment regarding some cognitive abilities, is more complex than a model:
Independent Variable + Independent Variable -> Dependent Variable,
like the time spent dressing and the time spent driving regarding the total amount of time you would need to arrive to a certain place.
In the first case genetics and environment affect the third variable, but at the same time environment affects genetics, because depending on the presence of certain stimuli, some genes will get expressed in the fenotype or not.
In the second case, assuming you drive always as fast as possible (but safe), the driving time won't be affected by how much time you needed to get dressed.
We already discussed about this and you agreed when I told you that the example with the Tom and Jerry machine doesn't take into account the objective of the machine, which wasn't merely to kill/catch Jerry, but also to entertain the viewer. It still implies a complex creative process.
Even inside the story itself, the overcomplicated machine is, in any case, not efficient, but it's still complex in terms of both: amount of elements and their interaction. It would simply have a wrong objective/it would be developed wrongly for such objective.
This machine is actually analogous to DMC's philosophy since DMC3. We don't try to merely kill Jerry/scarecrows, it's about how we do it (and it's definitely complex).
I am not against suggestions of different definitions of depth, but complexity has already a very essential meaning related to not only the amount of elements of a system, but also how they interact/how they are connected.
A system can have a certain complexity with superfluous elements. How should we express it in such case? Well, I just did it: you can use words such as precisely superfluous or useless elements for certain objectives.
As for depth, we can say that a game or a movie or a book are complex and deep. But you wouldn't say a car is complex and deep... Right? It's only complex.
This should suggest a more consistent way to define depth in our context. It's a consequence of the complexity of a system where we tend to learn, interpret, apply certain learned skills. And one can analyze, learn, interpret them more or less deeply.
Depth would be the potential that comes from the complexity of the game, movie, song, etc.; and you don't even have to use it necessarily to express such potential. Since it's already expressed by its complexity.
I personally use the concept of depth to say I played deeply X game (or not), for example. To express how much I have dug into the potential of the game. Sometimes we have to play deeply first to know the complexity of a game.
Of course there are additional meanings of deep, like the one thrown when something is perceived as nonsuperficial/mundane or part of the routine. Like a poem, which doesn't necessarily imply a lot of complexity (depends...).
But all this reaffirms why it's preferable to use the concept of complexity. Since it's more stable.
(I am not against using depth, since I know what most people mean with it... I am against the suggested redefinition of complexity to make depth fit better in this dichotomy).
About DMC5 and DMC4
In your example, one can use DMC5's shocking to lose height in some situations, and JC it into gun shot, or one could use ground trick and then another move to re-gain heigh quickly. Like Balrog's kick-stance launcher or high time, even if they don't hit the enemy. Even jumping/flush+air hike can work.
Of course not if the enemy is very high, but my point is that the example is misleading, because it's presented to prove the elements in DMC4 have a better synergy than in 5 becuase of the lack of reversals. Let alone the fact that your example must be necessarily with DSD... Otherwise you can still use helmbreaker.
Both systems for me have a similar complexity and synergy, and they excel in different areas.
While DMC4 has more types of movement options in the air, DMC5 has more options on the ground and a new type of trick that let's you land instantly with alternative uses compared to helmbreaker (which descends in the same point); DMC4 has lucifer and its unique way to control enemies' position with explosions, but DMC5 has DSD, which may not be as refined, but it's definitely more consistent and controllable, especially combined with Faust hat, which lets you explore more options than before without some big calculations and set-ups (this makes freestyle more complex, for example, at least in this aspect).
I could go on, but the idea is clear. We could even argue that DMC5 is maybe even more complex overall.
I wouldn't say DMC5 has a lot of superfluous elements either. In any case DT DSD options with other weapons are superfluous (to say the least) many times. However, in general, the elements in 5 have a good synergy.
Would reversals, inertia, some tweaks to gravity, make the system even more sophisticated and complex? Yes, of course. I haven't been tweeting such suggestions for nothing.
But a probably even worse issue with DMC5 is how it looks/plays. This is more related to how polished is the system than the system per se.
DMC4 doesn't only have a good synergy as system, it's also polished. When you execute or watch a high level combo, you perceive the elements as tight, precise, smooth. You feel like a surgeon (no, I am not talking about execution now, which is another topic) because of how everything "fits" and the pace.
Meanwhile in DMC5 a complex combo still can look somehow clunky. With reversals you won't solve this. With inertia alone you won't solve this. It's about many little things that need to be tweaked to make the game truly shine, despite its complexity.
It's not complexity and depth what DMC5 mainly lacks, regardless of how much better the game would be with reversals and inertia.
The problem is this overall clunky and unpolished impression that we get from it as players and viewers, especially when we have experience with previous entries.
Because of the JC, the floatiness, the slow recoveries, the inability to cancel guns fast, the slow start-up of some moves or proportionally slower animations, the hit effects, enemy movement and more.
First of all, you don't need to force a dichotomy complexity vs depth simply because people use indiscriminately both words.
It's a good exercise, as attempt to define them in a more accurate and efficient way, but asking yourself what's the difference doesn't mean that there is actually any necessarily. Signifiers with a big overlapping exist in language because also such signifieds/concepts can co-exist (and are overlapped too).
One can still suggest a more consistent or logical normalization, but this is not the case. Not when complexity gets twisted in such a way, and oversimplified, simply to make more (meaningful) room for depth.
An uppercut is more complex than a jab, a long pass is more complex than a ground short pass, (5x5)-5 is more complex than 5+5+5.
A game with 4 ground moves, 2 launchers and 4 aerial moves is more complex than a game with 15 ground moves without any special properties like launching or juggling. Because the type of possible connections between elements counts as well.
Nobody would say the second game is more complex, because complexity is related to the amount of elements/raw options, only.
An interactive experimental design of:
Independent Variable x Independent Variable -> Dependent Variable,
like the interaction between genetics and environment regarding some cognitive abilities, is more complex than a model:
Independent Variable + Independent Variable -> Dependent Variable,
like the time spent dressing and the time spent driving regarding the total amount of time you would need to arrive to a certain place.
In the first case genetics and environment affect the third variable, but at the same time environment affects genetics, because depending on the presence of certain stimuli, some genes will get expressed in the fenotype or not.
In the second case, assuming you drive always as fast as possible (but safe), the driving time won't be affected by how much time you needed to get dressed.
We already discussed about this and you agreed when I told you that the example with the Tom and Jerry machine doesn't take into account the objective of the machine, which wasn't merely to kill/catch Jerry, but also to entertain the viewer. It still implies a complex creative process.
Even inside the story itself, the overcomplicated machine is, in any case, not efficient, but it's still complex in terms of both: amount of elements and their interaction. It would simply have a wrong objective/it would be developed wrongly for such objective.
This machine is actually analogous to DMC's philosophy since DMC3. We don't try to merely kill Jerry/scarecrows, it's about how we do it (and it's definitely complex).
I am not against suggestions of different definitions of depth, but complexity has already a very essential meaning related to not only the amount of elements of a system, but also how they interact/how they are connected.
A system can have a certain complexity with superfluous elements. How should we express it in such case? Well, I just did it: you can use words such as precisely superfluous or useless elements for certain objectives.
As for depth, we can say that a game or a movie or a book are complex and deep. But you wouldn't say a car is complex and deep... Right? It's only complex.
This should suggest a more consistent way to define depth in our context. It's a consequence of the complexity of a system where we tend to learn, interpret, apply certain learned skills. And one can analyze, learn, interpret them more or less deeply.
Depth would be the potential that comes from the complexity of the game, movie, song, etc.; and you don't even have to use it necessarily to express such potential. Since it's already expressed by its complexity.
I personally use the concept of depth to say I played deeply X game (or not), for example. To express how much I have dug into the potential of the game. Sometimes we have to play deeply first to know the complexity of a game.
Of course there are additional meanings of deep, like the one thrown when something is perceived as nonsuperficial/mundane or part of the routine. Like a poem, which doesn't necessarily imply a lot of complexity (depends...).
But all this reaffirms why it's preferable to use the concept of complexity. Since it's more stable.
(I am not against using depth, since I know what most people mean with it... I am against the suggested redefinition of complexity to make depth fit better in this dichotomy).
About DMC5 and DMC4
In your example, one can use DMC5's shocking to lose height in some situations, and JC it into gun shot, or one could use ground trick and then another move to re-gain heigh quickly. Like Balrog's kick-stance launcher or high time, even if they don't hit the enemy. Even jumping/flush+air hike can work.
Of course not if the enemy is very high, but my point is that the example is misleading, because it's presented to prove the elements in DMC4 have a better synergy than in 5 becuase of the lack of reversals. Let alone the fact that your example must be necessarily with DSD... Otherwise you can still use helmbreaker.
Both systems for me have a similar complexity and synergy, and they excel in different areas.
While DMC4 has more types of movement options in the air, DMC5 has more options on the ground and a new type of trick that let's you land instantly with alternative uses compared to helmbreaker (which descends in the same point); DMC4 has lucifer and its unique way to control enemies' position with explosions, but DMC5 has DSD, which may not be as refined, but it's definitely more consistent and controllable, especially combined with Faust hat, which lets you explore more options than before without some big calculations and set-ups (this makes freestyle more complex, for example, at least in this aspect).
I could go on, but the idea is clear. We could even argue that DMC5 is maybe even more complex overall.
I wouldn't say DMC5 has a lot of superfluous elements either. In any case DT DSD options with other weapons are superfluous (to say the least) many times. However, in general, the elements in 5 have a good synergy.
Would reversals, inertia, some tweaks to gravity, make the system even more sophisticated and complex? Yes, of course. I haven't been tweeting such suggestions for nothing.
But a probably even worse issue with DMC5 is how it looks/plays. This is more related to how polished is the system than the system per se.
DMC4 doesn't only have a good synergy as system, it's also polished. When you execute or watch a high level combo, you perceive the elements as tight, precise, smooth. You feel like a surgeon (no, I am not talking about execution now, which is another topic) because of how everything "fits" and the pace.
Meanwhile in DMC5 a complex combo still can look somehow clunky. With reversals you won't solve this. With inertia alone you won't solve this. It's about many little things that need to be tweaked to make the game truly shine, despite its complexity.
It's not complexity and depth what DMC5 mainly lacks, regardless of how much better the game would be with reversals and inertia.
The problem is this overall clunky and unpolished impression that we get from it as players and viewers, especially when we have experience with previous entries.
Because of the JC, the floatiness, the slow recoveries, the inability to cancel guns fast, the slow start-up of some moves or proportionally slower animations, the hit effects, enemy movement and more.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario