Print

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

A+

A

A-

B+

B

B-

C+

C

C-

D

F

[DFAddict]

I didn't know I was going to spark such a controversy about grading rubrics.

[alway]

Then there is the screwed up grading scale used around here...
92-100 A
85-92 B
72-85 C
64-72 D
0-64 F

[Amalgam]

A+. I considered just giving it an 'A' "just to be fair," but then I thought for a while.

WARNING: NERD RAEG >:(((((((((((((((

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(Shit, no paragraphs either! Flee before it's too late!)

How does DF compare to other existing games? For starters, NO recently developed commercial game can compare to it, at least in my book. That's not elitist, it's just a fact: I can't enjoy any of the watered-down garbage that the industry is churning out right now (eww, garbage water.) as much as I enjoy freeware titles... With some exceptions. I mean, it's not all bad, some games (Morrowind, Diablo I & II, a few others) are actually superb. They're not easy to come by though and I can't think of a single title from 2009 that doesn't just manage to be a good game, but stands out from the rest of them in a way that makes it a completely unique experience. Games should be creative and unique, and DF does a good job at that. That rule doesn't just apply to games either, it applies equally to all forms of art, though perhaps in different ways. You can ask two artists to paint a picture of a wolf, and though they'll technically be painting the same thing if they're good artists it'll look different. Actually, this is almost guaranteed, drawn art is largely intuition whereas games can be broken down into different mechanics. Learning how to apply intuition to mechanics is harder because it's *not* required to make a game, games just haven't evolved to that point. It's easy to say, "Oh, the goal of the game is to collect n of x and do y with it," which is the drawn art equivalent of a stick figure scratched into the side of a cave wall that's been stained with the urine of a dozen primitive peoples. This kind of simplicity is especially apparent in flash games, once you've played enough of them, you've played them all. I particularly loathe the kind that try to use a single gimmick to pass themselves off as unique but still play like every single other platformer or shmup on the web. Sadly, these kinds of things are passed off as games every day. To make good art you need to learn how to apply your own sensibilities and, yes, even adapt the sensibilities of others to fit your own ideas. Making good art does NOT involve shamelessly copying other's successful formulas without bothering to give it your own personal touch, something that you feel works well that you came up with on your own. I see a lot of this "magic touch" in games like DF.

But whatever.

As for how DF compares to other freeware titles, it is definitely up there with the best of them if only because it does thing that no game has done, ever. A great number of features in DF have probably only been imagined until now, never put down on paper. DF's world gen and legends mode in particular is impressive because it creates a unique world and simulates interactions between every single one of it's denizens at a personal level. Or at least that's the vision. It's not quite there but HOLY FUCK it exists! This is the kind of stuff I dreamed about when playing old RPG titles, I wanted a BIGGER and more detailed world. This has of course been attempted before, but games like Oblivion and Fable 2 completely miss the point. (Sorry, probably should have spoilered that too... >.>)

[Radivnal]

*inserts two cents*

     I have to say I'm with Amalgam on this one. There are only so many times you can be sent on an "epic quest" to hunt bears to prevent the farmers' sheep from being eaten before you start hitting the deja vu "glass ceiling". Dwarf Fortress manages to circumvent that glass ceiling from the beginning with its long-heralded motto: Losing is fun! I honestly can't think of another game which encourages the chaotic tumult of kitten-butchering dwarf-berserking apocalypse...at all...ever...

     Dwarf Fortress is one of the rare few games I've experienced in which the game itself (effectively a "simulation" game) created a truly "sandbox" effect. Sure, there are a healthy number of simulation games floating about...but nothing to this level of detail, and certainly nothing to this level of detail during its alpha stage. The honestly surprising thing about DF is that, despite being graded during its alpha stages, it's easily competing for the attention of gamers (those that have climbed the learning 'wall') against the mainstream, big studio productions.

     I think we all need to take a step back from the apparent contraversy for a moment and realize the purpose behind a game, which is to be fun and entertaining. I think we can generally agree that DF accomplishes an acceptable awesome level of "Fun and entertaining"...but we have to remember that it's being developed by one programmer and one writer and still in its infancy, which are monstrous hurdles in themselves.

[G-Flex]

*inserts two cents*

     I have to say I'm with Amalgam on this one. There are only so many times you can be sent on an "epic quest" to hunt bears to prevent the farmers' sheep from being eaten before you start hitting the deja vu "glass ceiling". Dwarf Fortress manages to circumvent that glass ceiling from the beginning

I disagree. Ideally, yeah, this is true, but right now, Dwarf Fortress suffers from an extreme lack of long-term goals for the player. The only thing you can really do in a long-term fortress is build giant pointless structures, and adventure mode (by Toady's admission) is hardly even playable right now, partly due to the fact that the only actual things you can do for anyone consist of the same kind of "epic quest" to go kill an enemy of the given civilization.

I'm not trying to insult the game here; it's highly incomplete, and what's already been done with it is pretty great to begin with. However, I don't understand why people can give a game an A++++ rating when one of its two gameplay modes is nigh-unplayable and most of the game is severely incomplete or full of features that are obviously bugged or missing.

[Lukas]

Then there is the screwed up grading scale used around here...
92-100 A
85-92 B
72-85 C
64-72 D
0-64 F

lol yep we have the same here in the local public schools. I forget what Guilford College goes by though (in GPA scales)

[Haven]

It's easy enough to rate if you rate it as an alpha. As just a game, I can sit down and compare it with all the other games in my library, and realize it has a lot more going for it than they do already. I could take any generic fantasy game if I wanted to, say...

• Travel generic landscapes!
• Explore generic locations!
• Swing and fire generic weapons and spells, to do generic damage!
• ...to generic enemies!
• Do the same plot over and over again!
• Say goodbye to affecting the landscape!
• 23 spawns of 'Peasant', everyone's favorite generic flavor character!
• Up to seven variables represent the sum total of all your NPCs' generic personalities!
• Fight premade plot enemies for a true challenge!
• Don't throw generic vomit!

And these are the games I like and play when I'm not playing DF, so I can't really set with giving them high scores and leaving DF behind. The only reason they aren't in the dust is because of...

• Play Online!
• Do plots once or twice!
• Fight in Real Time!
• Graphics on High!
• Play online some more!

So yeah, I gave it an A. What happens when v1 arrives? Rank Inflation.