Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gatleos]

One thing that will definately happen is that every civ will be playable in fortress mode from humans to kobolds.

Lobstermen. The long-term core goals list mentions procedurally-generated playable civilizations, and the example given is lobstermen.

[YetAnotherStupidDorf]

There are two possible scenarios where we will be in 10 years:

Optimistic: Slaves to Armok: Good of blood Chapter II: Dwarf Fortess is dead already for 5 years (in fact the sooner the better) and we track, comment and play with Chapter III that will have, for example, those newfangled things that are fad among youngsters like "multithreading".
Pessimistic: DF is still dragging in development and is more and more irrevelant in world of 64-bit 1024-core machines. Due to amount of new features and bugs, average FPS at embark is 10, if not crashing outright.

[KFK]

I'm not sure about these predictions of people leaving in droves for the 'next big thing' or what have you, not because I think that people wouldn't leave, but because I have my doubts that another Dwarf Fortress will actually emerge....

I'm not saying I'm necessarily right - someone could be working on a Dwarf Fortress beater even as I type this - I'm just adding my $0.02 on that particular topic.

I tend to think that a DF alternative only looks crazy because Toady has made it look crazy. Let's not forget that part of why DF development looks so damn difficult IS because Toady's ambition exceeds his talents. A project like DF is very well suited to "divide and conquer" if properly considered, and that would be a lot easier with DF itself as a blue-print. This works against Toady in at least two ways: A) His unwillingness to work with others to simply speed things up, B) That others can get the results he wants faster and easier than he ever will by doing things he'll never think of. And I have to stress that the DF community is not a substitute for B).

But I'm labouring the point. Toady's work on DF is probably best compared to a hermit challenge. A hermit trying to build a fortress fit for dozens, but not letting others help with the digging and masonry. Up until now, that's the only way we've ever seen someone play, and that's the frame of reference we're using.

The question is whether or not there's a motivation for a team to tackle something like this. I think the financial incentives are there, but this knowledge hasn't quite gotten to the right people.

[mallocks]

But I'm labouring the point. Toady's work on DF is probably best compared to a hermit challenge. A hermit trying to build a fortress fit for dozens, but not letting others help with the digging and masonry. Up until now, that's the only way we've ever seen someone play, and that's the frame of reference we're using.

Well that's really why I caveated my statement; ultimately it's unknowable until something similar to Dwarf Fortress happens. Personally I do believe that such a game can only really be the construct of an extremely dedicated mind, but if there's suddenly the money to put a team together who will work at it as a job rather than as a goal, then who knows?

[KFK]

Fair enough, but I think that says more about how DF is being developed than how it can be developed. While I agree that it's ultimately unknowable, that doesn't mean all bets are off in terms of speculation. I can make some educated guesses based on my own experience in game development, as well as the development of complex nature simulations. You don't need to take my word for it though. You can go on Steam and find a dozen strategy games that feature a mix of micro and macro management: the Total War series comes to mind. If you could construct --more or less arbitrarily-- your various settlements in each province out of whatever material happens to be available, how different is that from what DF is trying to become? Something to think about, as User Generated Content gains momentum, this and more could be features in the next Total War game.

From there it's just a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you need to go in order to be happy. As I said in another thread, there will be die hards for whom DF will always be relevant because of attention to details only they really care about.

[Roflcopter5000]

KFK, you bring some interesting points to the field, but I think you under-estimate the advantages that Bay 12 has -because- it is only two men.

1) Bay12 doesn't have to deal with a publisher. This game is being developed iteratively, and is funded through donation. The reason the gaming world isn't littered with games with DF's depth is not because Toady is the first man to conceive of such a thing. He's just the first guy to come along and be willing to go all out, and get lucky enough to have a huge group of people notice and believe in what he was trying to accomplish. The world is littered with side projects that could have become something like DF, and did not. A major publisher would never go for a game that took this long to develop, multiple people can cut the time down, but attempting to at some point meet a deadline would vastly limit the scope of the project, and convincing your investors to back a project that has little to no -proven- mass market appeal won't cut it. DF doesn't count as proof of mass market appeal (to the people who make these decisions) because it has experienced exactly no market success.

2) The unity of vision present in DF is completely astounding. I think, in terms of complexity and man-hours spent on development, it is fair to compare DF to an MMO. You simply -do not- see this kind of coherent play experience in an MMO. You can very much observe the seams at which various things are stitched together, and MMOs suffer because of this. There is no infighting in Bay12 (or at least none observable), and Toady is a very un-compromising developer. A frequent complaint, and a valid one, is that the UI should be over-hauled, and Toady's "excuse" about the game being nowhere near feature complete is often over-looked... But it's not just a matter of the effort of re-designing the UI to include new features. The UI changes how players interact with the game, it is in and of itself a core game-play mechanic, and changing it -will- effect the development process. Console games are the most extreme example I can think of of UIs changing how a game is developed, but this applies to all games to a greater and lesser extent. Toady knows this is going to affect how things play out, and despite an enormous amount of pressure from the community, he is waiting to re-work it until he feels it is the right time. And DF will be the better game because of it.
When you involve additional people in a design project of any sort, you introduce a whole new bit of meta-design bologna. You have to deal with how people communicate, certain departments prioritize things around the considerations of other departments, and you lack a big picture. One man can try to lead a larger team, but you lose something in the transition. You can gain a great deal too, don't get me wrong... Toady would not have been able to make DF without Threetoe, for example.

3) Speaking back to the unity of vision, but on a slightly different note... This game is amazing solely because it is the realization of a dream. We are witnessing the birth of the game that is -the game- that most of us have wanted to play since we first sat down in front of our very first video game. Bay12 literally refuses to make anything less. And you will never find that level of dedication in a profit motivated organization.

I think DF lends itself exceptionally well to the strengths that Bay12 has, and vice-versa, and I don't believe that another game of this type will be seen for a great long while. I think that in order to develop a game with the depth of DF, the business model for game development would have to change pretty substantially, to allow for more of an iterative design backed by subscription fees sort of process. Because nobody is going to invest the man-hours to make a DF killer when it's only selling in one-shot packages for $60. It's not a financially sound plan.

[Cruxador]

Fair enough, but I think that says more about how DF is being developed than how it can be developed. While I agree that it's ultimately unknowable, that doesn't mean all bets are off in terms of speculation. I can make some educated guesses based on my own experience in game development, as well as the development of complex nature simulations.

Bethesda tried to do what Toady is doing at the moment, with Radiant AI. They failed, and had to disable it before shipping.
Years ago, with Daggerfall, they made worlds randomly, like Toady does now. They couldn't make the worlds compelling, and scrapped the concept for Morrowind.
Bethesda, quite probably the single biggest fantasy developer in the business, couldn't do a tiny fragment of what Toady is doing. I really doubt some other group is going to spring out of the ground with the ability to do what Bethesda can't.

You don't need to take my word for it though. You can go on Steam and find a dozen strategy games that feature a mix of micro and macro management: the Total War series comes to mind. If you could construct --more or less arbitrarily-- your various settlements in each province out of whatever material happens to be available, how different is that from what DF is trying to become? Something to think about, as User Generated Content gains momentum, this and more could be features in the next Total War game.

You think people will be able to dig down to hell and engineer magma cannons in Total War? This patently ridiculous. It's not even similar. The closest to a "DF killer" that we can get is things like Minecraft and Terraria, that go "oh hey, turns out people like building things" and then incorporate that into a totally different type of game.

From there it's just a matter of how far down the rabbit hole you need to go in order to be happy. As I said in another thread, there will be die hards for whom DF will always be relevant because of attention to details only they really care about.

Why would someone prefer a game that's the same thing but with inferior attention to detail, when they could just play Dwarf Fortress?

[KFK]

@RoflCopter

I'm not so much underestimating the advantages of how DF is developed so much as explaining why the idea of a mass market AAA games similar to DF is one that's not as far fetched as some would think, and one that may need to be taken very seriously if the community is going to thrive beyond those aforementioned die-hards.

1) I wouldn't characterize this hypothetical game as being like Dwarf Fortress. Not to investors at least. I'd pitch it as Minecraft meets Total War. Not just games with name recognition, but they also have customers. They're popular with people that pay for games. That's what investors want to hear. As for the scope of the game, that's a rabbit hole question, and I've addressed that (though obviously not to Crux's satisfaction). It's not that unworkable if you know how to talk to the bean counters.

2) Comparing DF to an MMO is fair superficially, but they have completely different development methodologies. In most MMOs the content is created by game designers, and the actual game engine supplies very little. Procedural generation means that content is created by a set of rules in a computer. The designer doesn't touch it directly. In other words, you can have 100 different developers working on implementing various procedures, and you'd never see any of the cracks as long as they understand the spec they are working to. One of the reasons MMO companies don't implement more procedural content is a question of server load: it has to either be client side (which limits what they can do for security reasons) or server side, in which case all procedures need to be multiplied by a million.

For the record, I agree with Toady's reasons for waiting on matters of presentation, but I have concerns that a large number of supporters could be scooped up by another developer in the mean time.

3) I'm going to cut you some slack, because I don't think you intended that to be insulting. Dedication is one thing all successful game developers have in common. Toady is a statistical anomaly in the way things worked out for him, and there seems to be a sense that only this statistical anomaly could produce another Dwarf Fortress. I just don't see how that's necessarily true, and it's not because I'm being dense.

Lastly, I don't want to give any greedy developers some bad ideas, but the possibility of milking such a game with expansions is mind boggling. So I'll concede this point: selling this type of game as a one shot $60 package doesn't make good business sense.

[Cruxador]

1) I wouldn't characterize this hypothetical game as being like Dwarf Fortress. Not to investors at least. I'd pitch it as Minecraft meets Total War. Not just games with name recognition, but they also have customers. They're popular with people that pay for games. That's what investors want to hear. As for the scope of the game, that's a rabbit hole question, and I've addressed that (though obviously not to Crux's satisfaction). It's not that unworkable if you know how to talk to the bean counters.

So you're suggesting that a game could incorporate some things vaguely like unto what DF has, and this would make money. That seems to me like it has no bearing on anything. Even if DF players play this other more commercial game, it's not like they won't continue to play DF, even when they've all but forgotten the other game. A lot of people liked Dungeon Keeper, but it's basically gone now. And Evil Genius is all but forgotten. Dwarf Fortress is in active development (and will be indefinitely), and continues to draw crowds.

For the record, I agree with Toady's reasons for waiting on matters of presentation, but I have concerns that a large number of supporters could be scooped up by another developer in the mean time.

Why would that happen? Minecraft came out, and Toady's donation revenue kept increasing. There's nothing to indicate that other small games of similar nature would do any more damage to Dwarf Fortress.

3) I'm going to cut you some slack, because I don't think you intended that to be insulting. Dedication is one thing all successful game developers have in common.

As far as I know, Toady is the only one who spends just about every waking hour (beyond the few needed for essential errands like buying food and eating) on his work. The only other person I can think of on the entire internet with that level of dedication is Andrew Hussie, and he excels in his domain as well. If you can think of additional people with this sort of lifestyle, feel free to list them. But nobody working for a wage is doing this. Most people spend time having families and social lives, or playing video games, or just browsing the internet. They may be dedicated to their jobs compared to the guy at behind the counter at the 7/11, but people as dedicated as Toady are not a normal thing.

As a side note, the patronizing tone does no credit to your argument.

Lastly, I don't want to give any greedy developers some bad ideas, but the possibility of milking such a game with expansions is mind boggling. So I'll concede this point: selling this type of game as a one shot $60 package doesn't make good business sense.

Let's look at this genre as it stands: Two major games are available, a third is on its way. Dwarf Fortress is totally free. Minecraft takes a one time cost (20 euros now, used to be 10 euros), and gives all updates free. Terraria is planned to have a one-time cost and free updates.
Minecraft already catches flack for the ratio of money required to content, not in small part because it compares unfavorably to Dwarf Fortress. Only its low cost and the state of other genres causes people to pay for it. If a game was made that cost the full $60 of a AAA game, it had better have everything Dwarf Fortress has plus fancy graphics, or people will just pirate it or not even play it. Dividing content out across expansion packs will only result in lost money, when nobody buys them. People in this genre of game are used to getting their updates free, and even in the general market, expansions aren't selling.