Awesome Dwarf Fortress video tutorial.

[Smarts]

games like this

What kind of game is this, anyhow? I understand the Adventure mode of the game is a Roguelike, but also that the Dwarf Fortress mode of the game is an in-depth strategy game, and games like that should ideally make interpreting the information on-screen and reacting to that information as painless as possible, I would have thought.

Anyone remember Star Wars: Supremacy? I'm reminded of it here. A fundamentally sound and entertaining strategy game locked inside the puzzle-box of its' interface.

 

[Temoid]

I have just played DF for about 10 hours (with the pretty tileset featured on page 2), most of which which was spent watching and giving a couple of commands here and there. Off the top of my head there are only few keys you have to remember:

p - designate stockpiles for various items
d - designate either mining, trees to be chopped, stairs carved, etc
b - build structures
q - change status of any building, queue items to be produced in a building, deconstruct building, etc
z - status, with Animals, Kitchen and 2 more.
u - dwarf list from which you can center on dwarves and give orders

Virtually everything in the game can be done with the above controls, which become quite intuitive fast. The game isn't exactly pure fun, but rather it provides satisfaction/contentment as your fortress grows/construction advances/mechanisms and plans are completed.

There is nothing to imagine here, the game is a survival/architecture simulator with huge amounts of depth and complexity - complexity you don't have to invoke right away. You can just build a small cave with a farm and some beds and not bother building windmills/forges/vast irrigation systems/traps/etc.

So you either like it or you don't. Calling this game a larp simulator like Oblivion makes you look like a tremendous retard, so shut the fuck up please.

 

[asper]

You people really need to ditch that strange preoccupation with graphics. This "it's not year X" "argument" is just too dumbfuckish to even read.

It's stupid to read people who hold to their backwards way when the adding of graphics and an intuitive user interface could only result in a benefit for the game.

Agreed on the second part of that sentence. First part is dumbfuckery; ASCII is "backwards", "elitist", etc. etc.

In any case none of you (phantasmal, 1eyedking) have any interest in games like this, so to each his own, eh? It's not like DF is shoved down your throats by force.

True to the Codex mentality, I have no problem with someone liking a game, I have a problem when someone says that game is good. Did you know that this kind of games share a lot in similarity with Oblivion where you have to be imagining things that don't exist so as to 'enhance' the experience? It's OK to imagine what the Vault Dweller would really look like in a momentary lapse of musing, but when you have to imagine what the fuck a smiley face flying around the screen is, something is obviously wrong; as wrong as imagining Pac-Man as some sort of interstellar ghostbuster who must collect as many glowing stones of iridium as possible to keep his multi-leveled spaceship from running out of fuel.

I don't imagine a sprite, some polygons, or a 3d model to be a real dragon more than I have to imagine the letter D to be a real dragon.

How do you play games? You're having a realistic film of the game's events going off in your head all the time or something? Also when playing tetris?

Also, you're saying here that a game cannot be good simply because of its graphics. Coming from someone who doesn't play roguelikes. Well done.

And wtf does it mean that a game is in the "hobbyist genre"? And why is it "elitist"? This is just more of the same bullshit from people who think that something is "hard" when it doesn't have sprites.

Are you dumb? You just tagged yourself a snob. Congratulations, motherfucker.

Thx!

 

[Smarts]

It's just the way to please people who find the ASCII to be some insurmountable barrier.

Not necessarily insurmountable; just an extra and unneeded layer of difficulty on top of what looks like a pretty complex game already.

Things like making the graphics more representative, or moving from a keyboard-based to a mouse-based interface, would make this an awful lot easier for those of us who do like strategy/management games, but don't play roguelikes and thus aren't used to this kind of interface.

Wouldn't you agree that making this game easier to use, making it more accessible to a wider audience, is a good thing? Wasn't this thread started with the intention of getting more people to play it?

 

[asper]

Hey, I didn't start this thread, this is not my DF LP And yes, I absolutely agree that there should be graphics for those who want them (and there are a few tilesets already available). What I'm arguing against is silly ideas like having to learn an ASCII table by heart to enjoy DF, that you have to imagine a lot of shit, that it is "hard", or that you're an elitist faggot if you do enjoy it.

 

[Smarts]

Hey, I didn't start this thread, this is not my DF LP

You didn't? Ah, so you didn't.

I will say that because something isn't hard for you, doesn't mean it won't be hard for everyone. Maybe this is because of familiarity; maybe it's something to do with the way brains are wired; maybe it's just because I'm not so smart. I know I came to computing late. Never really got into text adventures or uis. Playing DF, with standard graphics and using the keyboard, feels mentally and physically uncomfortable, like playing with one arm tied behind my back. I look at the screen, and I see... nothing, for the first few moments; I can see the green, the yellow, the grey, and I can infer what this means (god help me if this game was in monochrome). I can see things moving around, and surmise that they are units, but without a recognisable image, I have trouble making the mental connections as to what they are. Without the ability to move a cursor over them with the mouse and click them to learn their identity, building up that level of association will take time. If I see a letter that is a unit and it isn't moving, especially at the beginning when things are green and brown, I'm not likely to notice it, because it will blend into the screen of ASCII characters and not catch my eye.

This irritates me, because I want to get into this, but it ain't happenin' very quickly.

 

[Dmitron]

I have no problem with someone liking a game, I have a problem when someone says that game is good.

1eyedking is a moron

 

[Balor]

Well, while I have absolutely no problems with ASCII, I can understand people who do.
However, when they say "Isn't it so easy to make tileset?" - I can answer - No. It requires skills that Toady might simply lack, and making it would require a lot of time that would be much more productively spend coding.

Remember, we are talking about nonprofit, two-man (with Threetoe basically providing inspiration and nothing more) team.

Yea, the game right now is not exactly intuitive and accessible to 'wide audiences'... but it was never intended.
Toady himself said - the main reason he started this project because he wanted to make a game that he himself would play.
When it turns out that lots of people would also like such game, and donations quite sufficient for it to become a 'full-time job'.
I think that streamlining the interface would do much more for playability then for Toady to make an official 'tileset'.

I wonder why would he not ask someone (like mayday) to provide voluntary (I mean, free) tileset support... perhaps he refused?
After all, simply adapting one of tilesets is one thing - but it would have to updated each time a new creature added, severely liming creativity.

And btw, I myself find ASCII to be better. Why? Because with it, DF is more like a book. You would not call all those who read books elitist pricks, would you? If you do, please return to Bethsoft forums.
When you add tilesets, it puts a reign on your free flight of imagination, giving you something to associate dwarves, monsters, etc with... and it is of understandably crappy quality.
Therefore I prefer ASCII over tilesets.

 

[Elric]

Well, that's basically what I'm against: games should have a minimum degree of graphical representation so that players do not have to waste their time to scroll around with an X to find out what a floating E means. Why should I when in a tile-based game that could perfectly have been a bitmap? Fuck, I mean, it's not like I'm asking for bloom, dynamic lighting, or bump-mapping; hell, not even 3D vectors.

Because even poor graphics requires art assets. The sheer number of bitmaps that would have to be created to fill the game would create a rather large time investment for whoever was working on them. Neither of the two men working on this team are visual artists, and there's no sense having them devote days that could be spent adding to the gameplay to adding some graphics that would look like shit anyway.

IMO this is true of quite a few roguelikes. A lot of them like ADoM or Incursion are 1-man projects. Its perfectly reasonable for them to eschew graphics because they have no talent or training in creating them, not because they're being "elitist." I'll take a "@" as the representation of my character and "o" as the representation of an orc over crudely drawn stick figures any day.

 

[Kortalh]

I tried Dwarf Fortress maybe a year ago, and at that time I would've totally agreed with 1eyedking... but after giving it another shot today with the MayDay graphics mod (linked earlier, here: http://mayday.w.staszic.waw.pl/df.htm) I don't find it hard to figure out at all.

The interface system is a little confusing at first, but after 20 minutes or so, I've got it mostly figured out (thanks to the video tutorials).

Would it be better with more improved graphics? I think so. But I think it's completely fine with the MayDay mod.

It would be nice if the programmers increased the size of the individual tiles so that they could hold more detail. It would also be nice if there was room to add more tiles to the tileset, rather than sharing similar ones for different terrains and such. Then, if the fanbase were so inclined, they could create a high detail, robust graphics set. Maybe that's already possible -- I don't know -- but it's certainly not necessary in order to enjoy the game.

 

[poocolator]

It's all about playing fortress after fortress, to get a handle on things. You eventually learn how to play the game without dying before the first winter. The game does eat up a lot of time, though. I can attest to this because I even used to play it during class, on my laptop >.< maybe that's why I fucked up my school term... hmm...

 

[Lim-Lim]

Been playing this for three days straight now. It's pretty good, and it's very mesmerizing to watch those little dwarves go.

 

[1eyedking]

Remember, we are talking about nonprofit, two-man (with Threetoe basically providing inspiration and nothing more) team.

Fair enough, as long as they don't say their game is better than others.

Yea, the game right now is not exactly intuitive and accessible to 'wide audiences'... but it was never intended.
Toady himself said - the main reason he started this project because he wanted to make a game that he himself would play.
When it turns out that lots of people would also like such game, and donations quite sufficient for it to become a 'full-time job'.
I think that streamlining the interface would do much more for playability then for Toady to make an official 'tileset'.

Yeah, seems like Toady forgot about the invention of computer mice. And sprites. And drop-down menus. And windows. And graphs.

Sounds like he could learn a lot from one-man teams like Chris Sawyer.

And btw, I myself find ASCII to be better. Why? Because with it, DF is more like a book. You would not call all those who read books elitist pricks, would you? If you do, please return to Bethsoft forums.
When you add tilesets, it puts a reign on your free flight of imagination, giving you something to associate dwarves, monsters, etc with... and it is of understandably crappy quality.
Therefore I prefer ASCII over tilesets.

That's where I disagree: books are books, videogames are videogames. A minimum degree of graphical representation is necessary in games for immediate feedback: Torment wouldn't have been the same had TNO been a walking smiley, had the Mortuary been nothing but slashes, squares, and commas, had Morte been a flying zero and Sigil but geometric figures. Still the game left *plenty* of room for imagination.

It's OK to use symbols and colors when there are only six unit types and two teams like in chess, but when you move on to greater scopes it becomes a necessity.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

So what's the plot in this game?

 

[Virtz]

Yea, the game right now is not exactly intuitive and accessible to 'wide audiences'... but it was never intended.
Toady himself said - the main reason he started this project because he wanted to make a game that he himself would play.
When it turns out that lots of people would also like such game, and donations quite sufficient for it to become a 'full-time job'.
I think that streamlining the interface would do much more for playability then for Toady to make an official 'tileset'.

Yeah, seems like Toady forgot about the invention of computer mice. And sprites. And drop-down menus. And windows. And graphs.

Or he tried that before and decided it was a failed concept paired with such complexity (see Slaves to Armok I).

And btw, I myself find ASCII to be better. Why? Because with it, DF is more like a book. You would not call all those who read books elitist pricks, would you? If you do, please return to Bethsoft forums.
When you add tilesets, it puts a reign on your free flight of imagination, giving you something to associate dwarves, monsters, etc with... and it is of understandably crappy quality.
Therefore I prefer ASCII over tilesets.

That's where I disagree: books are books, videogames are videogames. A minimum degree of graphical representation is necessary in games for immediate feedback: Torment wouldn't have been the same had TNO been a walking smiley, had the Mortuary been nothing but slashes, squares, and commas, had Morte been a flying zero and Sigil but geometric figures. Still the game left *plenty* of room for imagination.

Difference is that we were in a unique world in PST. It doesn't make as much of a difference when we're looking at mostly generic fantasy, we've seen it a thousand times, doesn't make a difference if we see it again, especially when it's randomly generated. I'm fairly certain Daggerfall would be pretty much the same if it was ASCII. Might have even been more complex and less buggy.

It's OK to use symbols and colors when there are only six unit types and two teams like in chess, but when you move on to greater scopes it becomes a necessity.

Then go ahead and create 241*3 pictures for all creature types and their skeletal and undead counterparts. It's not that simple a job, especially not for a mathematician working as a programmer. And looking at how Slaves to Armok I looked or how he imagines kobolds to look, I'm pretty glad he didn't bother.

 

[1eyedking]

Or he tried that before and decided it was a failed concept paired with such complexity (see Slaves to Armok I).

Such complexity? Pfaugh. I bet you masturbate at how many CPU cycles the game consumes when dwarves start wandering around aimlessly while digging, or when a dwarf goes apeshit for no apparent reason and starts murdering others and you've got to recur to incredibly complex engineering such as trapping him in his own workshop.

I'm sorry, all this guy's made is a reasonably well done 2D particle system, but he fucking utterly sucks as a game designer and should go back to math as soon as possible.

Difference is that we were in a unique world in PST. It doesn't make as much of a difference when we're looking at mostly generic fantasy, we've seen it a thousand times, doesn't make a difference if we see it again, especially when it's randomly generated. I'm fairly certain Daggerfall would be pretty much the same if it was ASCII. Might have even been more complex and less buggy.

This is one of dumbest things I've heard in a long time. Just make two or three games in different settings each, and forget about making a sprite ever again because from then on all games should be roguelikes.

"Hey asshole. I've seen generic ASCII graphics a thousand times, and it doesn't make a difference, so you might as well make it pure text on a black screen and be done with it." How stupid does that sound?

Then go ahead and create 241*3 pictures for all creature types and their skeletal and undead counterparts. It's not that simple a job, especially not for a mathematician working as a programmer. And looking at how Slaves to Armok I looked or how he imagines kobolds to look, I'm pretty glad he didn't bother.

Fuck no, that game isn't worth it, I should be able to get some support for what I do but when a fucker uses the same ASCII symbol at the world map and at the local region, offers no transparency support, and all I've got to import the images into the game is a buggy .txt file, you just gotta say no.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Uh, what exactly would be your example of a game with MORE complexity on a computer? I sure as hell can't think of any that even come close.

 

[Virtz]

Such complexity? Pfaugh. I bet you masturbate at how many CPU cycles the game consumes when dwarves start wandering around aimlessly while digging, or when a dwarf goes apeshit for no apparent reason and starts murdering others and you've got to recur to incredibly complex engineering such as trapping him in his own workshop.

"For no apparent reason", haha.

The game generates the world based on data in the "raw" files, simulates wars, civilization migrations, liquid flow, keeps track of temperature, weather (one that actually works, not just showers the world with meaningless particle effects), has characters who actually work, eat, sleep, make friends, lovers, etc. and may go postal if they feel their life is particularly shitty (hint: select a dwarf using v, press p, then z and enter to view their thoughts, there's no such thing as "no reason"). Health is especially complex, as it keeps track of breathing, pain, bleeding, broken limbs and even things as minor as individual fingers (with the next version also teeth, hair, fur, skin, etc.).

I'm sorry, all this guy's made is a reasonably well done 2D particle system, but he fucking utterly sucks as a game designer and should go back to math as soon as possible.

Obviously any ol' game dev could do everything he's done. What a shame they actually haven't.

And he sucks so much as a game designer he's living off donations from people who liked his game enough to pay.

This is one of dumbest things I've heard in a long time. Just make two or three games in different settings each, and forget about making a sprite ever again because from then on all games should be roguelikes.

"Hey asshole. I've seen generic ASCII graphics a thousand times, and it doesn't make a difference, so you might as well make it pure text on a black screen and be done with it." How stupid does that sound?

Very. Way to miss the point. Allow me to attempt explaining again. There are no truly unique, well-written characters, they're all randomly generated. There is no story, the world is generic high fantasy everyone and their mother is fully acquainted with. What exactly is it that we're missing out on by not seeing/hearing this other than graphic whoredom? And you apparently don't even like the gameplay because shit happens "for no apparent reason", so how the fuck would graphics help?

Also, I'm not saying every game should have ASCII graphics, you're the one saying anything complex without greater graphics sucks. I'm saying that is not necessarily true. Graphics are, in my opinion, optional, as they do not always add anything worthwhile to a game and sometimes may even hinder it (again, see Slaves to Armok I for a version of Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode more focused on graphics). Seeing that generic goblin with an axe is about as relevant to me as Oblivion's 5th layer of bloom compared to having the developer program in new gameplay features.

Fuck no, that game isn't worth it, I should be able to get some support for what I do

...that's what the forum is for?

but when a fucker uses the same ASCII symbol at the world map and at the local region,

Yes, how dare he use the same symbol for trees here and there. Also, irrelevant to creature graphics.

offers no transparency support,

Because there's obviously nothing a 16x16 sprite needs more than transparency.

and all I've got to import the images into the game is a buggy .txt file, you just gotta say no.

Unlike the people who have actually made something rather than bitch all day about there being no graphics.

 

[Smarts]

The game generates the world based on data in the "raw" files, simulates wars, civilization migrations, liquid flow, keeps track of temperature, weather (one that actually works, not just showers the world with meaningless particle effects), has characters who actually work, eat, sleep, make friends, lovers, etc. and may go postal if they feel their life is particularly shitty (hint: select a dwarf using v, press p, then z and enter to view their thoughts, there's no such thing as "no reason"). Health is especially complex, as it keeps track of breathing, pain, bleeding, broken limbs and even things as minor as individual fingers (with the next version also teeth, hair, fur, skin, etc.).

Yes, we know. On the other hand, the game contextually changes the ui panel every time you access a submenu with a keypress. Why would this be difficult to do with a mouseclick on an onscreen button instead of a keyboard button?

Graphics are, in my opinion, optional, as they do not always add anything worthwhile to a game and sometimes may even hinder it (again, see Slaves to Armok I for a version of Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode more focused on graphics).

To quote myself at the top of the page:

I understand the Adventure mode of the game is a Roguelike, but also that the Dwarf Fortress mode of the game is an in-depth strategy game, and games like that should ideally make interpreting the information on-screen and reacting to that information as painless as possible.

Images, as a rule, are easier to imterpret than characters. We might disagree as to the amount a graphical facelift would help Dwarf Fortress's accessibility, but if you're going to claim it would not help at all, then you're pretty much talking nonsense.

I'm starting to get a handle on the game after switching to Mayday's tileset, for example.

 

[1eyedking]

Uh, what exactly would be your example of a game with MORE complexity on a computer? I sure as hell can't think of any that even come close.

It's actually a long list, but I'll mention a few: Jagged Alliance 2, Fallout, Civilization, SimCity, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum, Master of Orion, etc.

"For no apparent reason", haha.

Yes, for no apparent reason other than "it happens once during their lifetime". Brilliant game design.

The game generates the world based on data in the "raw" files, simulates wars, civilization migrations, liquid flow, keeps track of temperature, weather (one that actually works, not just showers the world with meaningless particle effects)

Taking more than 10 minutes to generate, when what you actually get is a goddamn map. Sounds like 'soil erosion' to me: it pretty much doesn't fucking matter much when you're playing the game (unless you enjoy reading 'legends' in fractured english).

[it] has characters who actually work, eat, sleep, make friends, lovers, etc. and may go postal if they feel their life is particularly shitty (hint: select a dwarf using v, press p, then z and enter to view their thoughts, there's no such thing as "no reason").

No shit? The Sims had that too, and it's the very definition of mainstream game.

Health is especially complex, as it keeps track of breathing, pain, bleeding, broken limbs and even things as minor as individual fingers (with the next version also teeth, hair, fur, skin, etc.).

Is there a need for that other than to be complex for the sake of complexity? It's stupid to waste CPU cycles calculating individual finger damage, calculations that tend to drive games into avoidable requirements and slowdowns.

Obviously any ol' game dev could do everything he's done. What a shame they actually haven't.

They haven't because most of the stuff in DF is a waste of time, such as the aforementioned 'finger damage system'. And guess what? There's Dungeon Keeper. And guess what else? There's The Sims.

And he sucks so much as a game designer he's living off donations from people who liked his game enough to pay.

Coming out of and into the red all the time, as he stated in one interview (read: loser).

Very. Way to miss the point. Allow me to attempt explaining again. There are no truly unique, well-written characters, they're all randomly generated. There is no story, the world is generic high fantasy everyone and their mother is fully acquainted with. What exactly is it that we're missing out on by not seeing/hearing this other than graphic whoredom? And you apparently don't even like the gameplay because shit happens "for no apparent reason", so how the fuck would graphics help?

For motherfucking graphical representation, I'm getting tired of mentioning it on every single post. It's much easier to attach to situations such as a cat following a miner dwarf into the mines when it's actually a cat and a dwarf and not a 'c' and a smiley because the relation is made faster. Unless, of course, you're a genius, which all of you DF players obviously are!

Also, I'm not saying every game should have ASCII graphics, you're the one saying anything complex without greater graphics sucks. I'm saying that is not necessarily true. Graphics are, in my opinion, optional, as they do not always add anything worthwhile to a game and sometimes may even hinder it (again, see Slaves to Armok I for a version of Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode more focused on graphics).

Anything graphically complex, goddamit. DF, no matter what, looks like a fucking error screen no matter how you see it, even when you know what each symbol is supposed to be, for the simple fact that they're still symbols.

Seeing that generic goblin with an axe is about as relevant to me as Oblivion's 5th layer of bloom compared to having the developer program in new gameplay features.

As long as they're relevant. What I see now is nothing short of a glorified mishmash of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims (and a particle system), with none of the charm and personality of either.

Yes, how dare he use the same symbol for trees here and there. Also, irrelevant to creature graphics.

Yes, symbols such as lakes and rocks being the same, drawers and river junctions, furniture and cities, levers and names, and the list goes on.

Because there's obviously nothing a 16x16 sprite needs more than transparency.

With a little imagination you should have figured out it's uses for rain, water, magma, miasma, smoke, mist, etc. Surely you have lots to be able to picture seven dancing smileys on a screen with letters flying around as some sort of dwarven party.

Unlike the people who have actually made something rather than bitch all day about there being no graphics.

Whatever. Enough elitism for a day.

 

[Melcar]

There is just not enough bloom.

 

[Kortalh]

It's actually a long list, but I'll mention a few: Jagged Alliance 2, Fallout, Civilization, SimCity, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum,Master of Orion, etc.

I would add to that list stuff that's similar in theme to DF: Tropico, Europa 1400: The Guild, Children of the Nile, Caesar, Settlers, Dungeon Keeper, Cultures, and Diggles -- the latter of which is very similar to Dwarf Fortress, only using 3D graphics.

Taking more than 10 minutes to generate, when what you actually get is a goddamn map.

10 minutes? Unless I've got some sort of super genius world-building computer (and I don't), it only took me about 20-30 seconds to generate a new world.

Is there a need for that other than to be complex for the sake of complexity? It's stupid to waste CPU cycles calculating individual finger damage, calculations that tend to drive games into avoidable requirements and slowdowns.

I like it -- maybe the individual finger level is a bit far, but having unique types of injuries makes the healing (or dying) process a lot more enjoyable than just watching a counter tick from 20/100 HP to 100/100 HP.

It would be nice, though, if there were a better representation of it. With so much data, it really needs to be displayed in a more intuitive manner. The dwarves' inventories, too, would be nice to see in a Diablo-style paperdoll interface.

Coming out of and into the red all the time, as he stated in one interview (read: loser).

Which is still better than most people can say for themselves. Keep in mind, also, that even the more successful authors often have to keep a day job to get by -- same goes for most indie bands. Making a living in the entertainment industry is usually a pipe dream, and considering that Dwarf Fortress is on a voluntary donation system, I'd say he's doing quite well indeed.

Also, I'm not saying every game should have ASCII graphics, you're the one saying anything complex without greater graphics sucks. I'm saying that is not necessarily true. Graphics are, in my opinion, optional, as they do not always add anything worthwhile to a game and sometimes may even hinder it (again, see Slaves to Armok I for a version of Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode more focused on graphics).

Graphics arguably may not add anything to the functionality of the game, but they certainly could add to the fluidity of it.

For example, even though I'm using the Mayday graphics mod, I have a storage room filled with a bunch of / symbols. I'd been building arrows in my workshop, and also recently purchased a bunch of swords from an Elf trader. They're both the same color, and I don't know which are which. How do I find out? I have to hit K and highlight every single one of them to see the name. This could be a much simpler process if the swords had a sword graphic and the arrows had an arrow graphic.

Is it necessary to play the game? No. But it's certainly more enjoyable to play the game than to frequently stop and double-check what things are.

In fact, using your "they're all generic creatures" argument, it would be much more accessible for a goblin to be represented by a graphical goblin image than the letter 'g'. Imagine playing for your first time and seeing a little green guy running at your base -- "Hey, that looks like a goblin," you'd think. Now imagine a little letter 'g' running at your base. Pause the game, switch to cursor mode, bring your cursor over to the 'g', read the text. The graphical approach is certainly the more accessible version, and you wouldn't be surrendering any gameplay quality in order to add it.

Is it necessary to play the game? No. But certainly you can't argue that making a game more usable -- even for the experienced player -- is a bad thing.

Yes, symbols such as lakes and rocks being the same, drawers and river junctions, furniture and cities, levers and names, and the list goes on.

Red Sand deserts and Magma are a frustrating one for me -- same symbol, same color (at least in the Mayday mod, anyway).

 

[Talby]

I've been meaning to set aside a weekend to get to grips with this game and learn how to play. It looks really interesting.

That said, the game could benefit from a really good graphics tileset and a more intuitive interface. But it's still fine as it is.

 

[Virtz]

Yes, we know. On the other hand, the game contextually changes the ui panel every time you access a submenu with a keypress. Why would this be difficult to do with a mouseclick on an onscreen button instead of a keyboard button?

Actually I imagine it'd just be sort of tedious. There is mouse support in the game currently, it's just currently limited to designations. I suspect it'll be further expanded upon with the planned-for-later UI overhaul (from what Toady One mentioned, he prefers to leave the UI for when all major features are implemented).

It's actually a long list, but I'll mention a few: Jagged Alliance 2, Fallout, Civilization, SimCity, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum, Master of Orion, etc.

Not counting the SimCity series and possibly MoO3 (which I haven't played, but its complexity/micromanagment requirement is infamous), I don't see that much complexity among those, let alone enough to compete with DF.

Yes, for no apparent reason other than "it happens once during their lifetime". Brilliant game design.

You have no fucking clue what's going on. I've been running a fortress for 5 game years and no one went mad. Having someone go berzerk means you failed to keep them happy.

Taking more than 10 minutes to generate, when what you actually get is a goddamn map. Sounds like 'soil erosion' to me: it pretty much doesn't fucking matter much when you're playing the game

It's called replayability. Having a unique and moddable world every time makes it more replayable than having to play through the same world every time.

No shit? The Sims had that too, and it's the very definition of mainstream game.

So being in a game with simplistic gameplay makes the element simplistic? Guess procedural animations are simplistic as well then, seeing how they were done in Spore.

Is there a need for that other than to be complex for the sake of complexity? It's stupid to waste CPU cycles calculating individual finger damage, calculations that tend to drive games into avoidable requirements and slowdowns.

What really does bring DF to a crawl is path-finding, which has to be multidimensional, consider temporary obstructions, path costs and has to be accurate for large distances. Individual body parts do not strain the CPU till they're put to use (combat,wound healing). See Slaves to Armok I, it's basically got what the next version of DF will have in terms of health complexity (hair,skin,flesh,bones), except it doesn't slow to a crawl because it doesn't simulate other things DF does.

And a game where people have realistic battle scars like a few lost teeth, an eye or a finger is simply more believable than a game where everyone looks like they were just fist fighting through all the wars and got off with a few bruises and at most a scar.

And guess what? There's Dungeon Keeper. And guess what else? There's The Sims.

Wow. That's like saying any dev could make an IL-2-like game because they managed to make a Terminal Velocity clone.

Coming out of and into the red all the time, as he stated in one interview (read: loser).

Because doing work he hates in order to have more money and less time to do what he likes would make him awesome, right?

For motherfucking graphical representation, I'm getting tired of mentioning it on every single post. It's much easier to attach to situations such as a cat following a miner dwarf into the mines when it's actually a cat and a dwarf and not a 'c' and a smiley because the relation is made faster. Unless, of course, you're a genius, which all of you DF players obviously are!

Look at it this way - I find it much harder to attach to a situation where a person's limb flies off and they're still standing there seemingly intact while their limb is lying next to them. Had it been a @ standing next to a z, it would be non-issue - it's not a graphical representation, it's a symbol showing something's standing/lying there, for more information examine it. A graphical presentation of that person would show "here stands a fully intact man", not to mention the issues related to equipment. I mean, how would you like it if you shot a guy's leg off in Solder of Fortune and this just produced a new leg out of thin air and disabled you from shooting that leg again?

And as much as I wouldn't mind if it actually did show what it's supposed to show so that the examine button wouldn't be needed, it's not going to happen with 241 creatures (and their undead/skeletal counterparts) to do this for. Otherwise I find graphical presentation a burden, much like I did with Gearhead (for other reasons).

As long as they're relevant. What I see now is nothing short of a glorified mishmash of Dungeon Keeper and The Sims (and a particle system), with none of the charm and personality of either.

Which means you do not appreciate the details. The game is pretty much about interacting with a simulation of a fantasy world. If that doesn't float your boat, it's not for you and no amount of graphics would help.

Yes, symbols such as lakes and rocks being the same, drawers and river junctions, furniture and cities, levers and names, and the list goes on.

Unless you're lost and forgot which screen you're looking at, I can't see how that's a problem.

With a little imagination you should have figured out it's uses for rain, water, magma, miasma, smoke, mist, etc. Surely you have lots to be able to picture seven dancing smileys on a screen with letters flying around as some sort of dwarven party.

Problem is there's no support for multiple images in one tile either. Otherwise you could simply do it the 16bit way - remove every other pixel.

I would add to that list stuff that's similar in theme to DF: Tropico, Europa 1400: The Guild, Children of the Nile, Caesar, Settlers, Dungeon Keeper, Cultures, and Diggles -- the latter of which is very similar to Dwarf Fortress, only using 3D graphics.

While I'd consider most of these examples closer to DF's complexity than 1eyedking's examples, I still do not consider them as complex, simply because at one place or another they abstract out things DF handles in detail (with the exception of graphical presentation). Well, maybe besides Tropico, although I haven't played it that long.

For example, even though I'm using the Mayday graphics mod, I have a storage room filled with a bunch of / symbols. I'd been building arrows in my workshop, and also recently purchased a bunch of swords from an Elf trader. They're both the same color, and I don't know which are which. How do I find out? I have to hit K and highlight every single one of them to see the name. This could be a much simpler process if the swords had a sword graphic and the arrows had an arrow graphic.

Is it necessary to play the game? No. But it's certainly more enjoyable to play the game than to frequently stop and double-check what things are.

Enlighten me, as I do not know, what would knowing that accomplish? If I want to know what I've got in my fortress, I use the stock screen. If I want swords here and arrows there, I customize the stockpile to hold only either. Perhaps this'd be better with a different example, but I really cannot recall a moment in DF when I wished it had different graphics.

In fact, using your "they're all generic creatures" argument, it would be much more accessible for a goblin to be represented by a graphical goblin image than the letter 'g'. Imagine playing for your first time and seeing a little green guy running at your base -- "Hey, that looks like a goblin," you'd think. Now imagine a little letter 'g' running at your base. Pause the game, switch to cursor mode, bring your cursor over to the 'g', read the text. The graphical approach is certainly the more accessible version, and you wouldn't be surrendering any gameplay quality in order to add it.

First of all, in DF mode, the game tells you when a danger like a goblin or kobold appears/aproaches and most often they're of a colour in which you do not see other beings. Second, a simple graphical presentation does not spare you from examining the creature if you wish to know what they wield, what they wear and of what health they are, any of which can be vital (especially in Adventure Mode).

 

[Kortalh]

Enlighten me, as I do not know, what would knowing that accomplish? If I want to know what I've got in my fortress, I use the stock screen. If I want swords here and arrows there, I customize the stockpile to hold only either. Perhaps this'd be better with a different example, but I really cannot recall a moment in DF when I wished it had different graphics.

What it would accomplish? If I had 7 swords and 2 arrows, it would tell me I ought to queue up some arrow production. With just a bunch of / symbols, I don't know whether I have an over-abundance of swords, an over-abundance of arrows, or maybe they're all maces and I need to make both.

The alternative -- using the stock screen -- means I have to bring up the Status menu, navigate over to the Stocks menu, then scroll through a list of ~100 items (which aren't sorted), only to find that the bookkeeper may not have updated the number of arrows recently.

So, like I said... are graphics necessary? No -- I'm loving the game without them, for sure. But the text-based menu navigation system can be a cumbersome process when compared to having immediate visual feedback.