Superficial play vs Deep play

[Forlorn Drifter]

It's definitely an interesting idea. I haven't ever put much thought into it, but there is definitely a barrier in some cases. The biggest I can think of is fighting games, where I've never personally felt like putting the time in to be more than a button masher. I just kind of play to beat the game once and go on. Whereas, with a beat 'em up, especially 3D ones (would brawler be the correct term?), I'll sit there and work it until I know it or master the game (100%, all trophies, etc.)

I also pretty easily get into the slide of deep play on the FPS genre, and shooters in general. I just have the feel for those types of games, I can get into them well after a while. Back in the day, when we used to play Halo, nobody liked playing SWAT against me because I would pop heads all day long.

RPGs are a weird one for me, as I'm somewhere in the middle. Some games I'll get down in the nitty gritty and really work them for their worth, while others I just kind of float through. How the leveling system is done, whether its Action or Turn-Based, etc, will affect that.

[GSZX1337]

I really enjoy RTS games from time to time, as well, but am completely ignorant of the way they're "suppose to" be played. As a result, I lose, a lot.

Man, I am the same way.

As for Superficial vs. Deep play, I think for me I play somewhere in the middle for most of the time with 8/16-bit games being the exception. With pre-5th generation titles, I just see the design documents form in my head as I play them. I guess that's passively deep.