1) Write a 1-2 paragraph summary of the assigned reading. (6 pts)

*Depth in Strategic Games *****focuses on defining d, to depth, in games. Depth is a concept that mentioned informally and frequently when talking about a game’s design, but it lacks a clear definition. The authors propose the notion that depth is not a binary concept, as in something a game can or cannot have; instead, all games have varying degrees of depth. A lot of their research right now is very theoretical, and they have yet to build a system to actually evaluate their technique and seek true answers to their questions. Their project acts as a start to the exploration of exploring how depth manifests in games, and if a precise definition of d can be calculated. A core question of their research is: is there a specific structural quality that is shared by games with great depth? In order to begin their research, they looked and unpacked a variety of different properties found in games, such as state space, branching factor, and computational complexity. The formal model they used to measure depth in games is called a strategy ladder, which allows the researchers to explore the consequences of depth, which acts as the evidence that a game has a high degree of d. The strategy ladder enabled the researchers to use computational problem-solving to achieve a greater degree of precision and flexibility.

2) What, if anything, did you find exciting or inspiring about the reading? What do you feel the

authors did well? Were there any points that you agreed with? (2 pts)

I think it’s cool that they’re trying to come up with a computational model for something that is pretty quality-based, in my opinion.

3) Was there anything that was confusing or unclear? Were there any points that you disagreed with? (2 pts)

Honestly, the majority of this paper went over my head. I had trouble understanding what was actually going on in the testing, as written about in the Rolling Out a Strategy Ladder to Measure d. Also, I feel as though this research paper seems a little premature since they mentioned a bunch of times that they don’t have any conclusions yet and a lot of elements of the research aren’t quite solidified yet. Maybe they could’ve held on publishing then?