hm dudes... comparing depth in chess and depth in running is likely to go nowhere... it's like wondering whether tennis players are better than football players...
I give my definition of depth, which somewhat unifies all what you all say in different ways:
A game has certain depth when its skill progess curve does not become flat too quickly over the time.
corollary 1: tic tac toe has zero depth. Pacman has pretty small depth. Chess and running have both huge depth. If you doubt about it, let's try to read an handy chess book or let's try to run a marathon...
corollary 2: in a game with depth, a beginner should be pulverized by an experienced player.
corollary 3: a game with depth should not be too easy to play because difficulties break the flatness of the skill progess curve.
In particular, in Xonotic, make movements easier probably does not increase the depth of the game. But, this doesn't neither imply that this will decrease its depth.
I give my definition of depth, which somewhat unifies all what you all say in different ways:
A game has certain depth when its skill progess curve does not become flat too quickly over the time.
corollary 1: tic tac toe has zero depth. Pacman has pretty small depth. Chess and running have both huge depth. If you doubt about it, let's try to read an handy chess book or let's try to run a marathon...
corollary 2: in a game with depth, a beginner should be pulverized by an experienced player.
corollary 3: a game with depth should not be too easy to play because difficulties break the flatness of the skill progess curve.
In particular, in Xonotic, make movements easier probably does not increase the depth of the game. But, this doesn't neither imply that this will decrease its depth.
Fat.bot.Slim
