W.r.t. the previous comment round, I tried to read the passage as if I have had no prior information on Arcen Games. A lot of games-blurbs that claim to have depth and replayability, and I doubt that many of them would have actually tried to carry out a game-state analysis to back-up those claims. Words like "great freedom" can also be a moniker for "a whole bunch of things that you could conceivably also do but either fail or have no net effect". Analogously, "variety of spells" being used to describe "fire-bolt, ice-bolt, and lightning-ball with largely identical mechanics". These implicit statements merely make a game sound good, with strict-truth being a bonus.
Sorry if I'm making myself a arbitrarily difficult sell.
At a price of $5, I and hopefully a significant number of people would buy it just for the ride (I hope that the mobile-gaming and flash-gaming industry haven't spoiled them).
I don't mean that in a snarky way: different things pique different people, so I'm just genuinely not sure what is the missing element for you and am trying to find out.
Categorising my reaction to the triumvirate, (1) is interesting-good, (2) is eh-evil, and (3) is fair-neutral (depends on what the unlock are). As you say everyone goes for different things - I'm a meta-gamer and am missing this from the blurb: "what's the game-state tree like?" That is, how many different paths can I walk in a game? This for me determines re-playability moreso than the difficulty or number of challenges (I'm not a completionist, though I don't mind getting the ones that are not masochistic). I'll give a few examples:
*
N(arbitrary game) = number of full & partial playthroughs ~ number of distinct methods to play + fun repeats + curios. * N(Bastion)=1+1+0. Play once through for the story, once again for all the remaining challenges at the same time. Fun, and it never sold itself as a long lasting game.
* N(Starcraft2 campaign)=1+0+0 Story not strong enough to bear repeating, so will play for all the marbles (achievements) at once. N(Multiplayer)<<100: same map structure, N-variations. Don't care about perfection.
* N(Civ5)~ 4+2+4. Almost all civs boil down to a single meta-tree that is a function of the chosen victory target (~4). Bonuses due to highly advanced terrain generator (tried to analyse the kind of climate model in the engine). Perlin noise is interesting, but AI is too dumb.
* N(4x-games) ~ number of factions - tedium of getting into a winning position...(<4 in general, sadly) I love the genre but the historical truth is that all arms races are the same, no matter what kind of explosions they make. There's also an innate problem with 2D, and papers-scissors-rocks red herrings.
* N(Sandbox)=0. Aimless. It's more interesting to write the sandbox game (N=0.5).
* N(RPG)=1 + breadth of character-development tree - grind factor. Very large variation, of course.
So, when you add mode, terrain, and progression variation together, you get:
*
N(AI-War)~ (number of game-changing options) + (number of distinct knowledge unlock paths) + (variation of galactic structure) + (1st order taylor-expansion of their interactions) - (% of game time spent in pause mode). Works out to about 15 or so? Hard to judge the mapping on realistic wormhole connections.
One can probably deduce that I've played exactly one choke-point galaxy map (cross) with Fallen Spire and 8 HWs. NB: In that vein, N(Carcassone)=1+0+x, N(SettlersOfCatan)=2+0+x, where x stands for multiplayer interaction.
Non-redundant randomisation isn't something that blubs generally answer, short of claiming butterfly effect or directly stating multiple ways to play. When randomisation alters your strategic decision (Barbarian invasion sacks half the continent, or a god sends a meteor down and creates an inland sea on Luminith) I agree that this is significant indeed.
Vis-a-vis, randomisation of a unit's damage is only significant at scales of Battle for Wesnoth. To their credit, kills by and on barbarians should count towards your final score.
P.S. drand() and irand(): it's more or less of a private maths thing on complexity of randomisation. I would use integer rand() to choose between one of several decisions, and real/double rand() when I actually have a utility function that takes in multiple factors.