Well, sorry about your Vista problems, can't help at all there (I'm sticking with XP... XP). Windowed mode isn't so bad though. If you have the user give information about their screen and whatnot (maybe akin to DF?) then it would work out okay, methinks.
You might want to try a more modern library, like SDL or something, which usually has a lot of good features for games such as more direct input, audio, etc. But I still don't know about them so, again, no help from me. Even if I knew about them, there are some things it's really hard to give instructions for, you know?
Toady's method of organization is pretty good, I think (better than me). But he probably goes a little further than what would normally be needed because he publishes his thoughts for other's to see and understand. Personally, I'd prefer to shorten things up a bit, using key concepts to refresh my memory and core principles so I can derive notions again if I need to instead of writing down everything. But I don't know, maybe writing everything down is a good exercise, it can get awfully messy up there.
"Fun Theory" is pretty hard. Here are some of my thoughts:
Unlike Armok, (well, I don't know, that was only suggestions for a first game) I don't think that it's all about violence. I particularly like DF because you can manage systems in a fantasy world, things like armies and industries, without the usual credentials required or any of the physical suffering caused by incompetence. So, yeah, I'd say I like playing as a god-like, manipulating entity (Loki?).
Limitations make the game more fun, because they're part of the system, they're the faults that you work around to achieve the goal. By adding more faults to wherever I start, I get a little more of that fake feeling that I accomplished something.
I'd say that a game is really fun, it's because the illusion of doing something real is deeper, rather than when the overall image conveyed is larger. So, you could make a game about conquering the galaxy, which could still be bad next to the immersive game about managing a small town.
Violence is just one way to get a game to fake the "possibility" of being able to do something in real life. If you saturate a person's mind with gore and the like, it stimulates some chemicals or whatever in their brain, produces adrenaline sometimes, you know. This real-world effect is part of the illusion.
Producing the adrenaline, fighting it out, and then standing over your enemies' broken bodies makes you think that you did it yourself, your own effort went into it and caused this result, even if it was just a game. Some nasty things happen if it goes too far, but anyways:
There are other possibilities. You can make characters with extremely realistic and complex personalities to also get a rise out of the player. Or, in my case, you can allow gratification types of things like pride in accomplishment.
So, basically, games have to have some kind of mental effect on the players to be fun (even horror games are fun!). Otherwise it's just a bunch of randomized memory operations.
Anyways, as far as your first game goes, I think combat is actually kinda hard to make fun. There has to be some place to create the illusion of doing work. It isn't easy to create without a complex system if you ask me. You might go for pure violence, but I think that would get boring, personally.
[ January 16, 2008: Message edited by: nerdpride ]