Print

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

[ImBocaire]

Speaking as someone who had no difficulty adjusting to the default Dwarf Fortress CP437 set (since I came into this game off of Nethack), I have to echo the personal-preference sentiment. My personal preference, based on familiarity, is the default set (although these days I use the excellent Hanuman square curses set. I have to say this is dependent on several factors.

First of all, I think that due to the presence of less immediately visual data, the curses tileset encourages a more cautious style of gameplay. I enjoy this more cautious playstyle. Someone else might enjoy making split-second decisions based on visual data without pausing (or at least without pausing for long); I enjoy pausing and confirming the identity of all participants in each event that requires my attention before making any decisions.

Second of all, I find most graphical tilesets to be too crowded. Graphical tiles simply have too much going on in each space for me to interpret them at a glance. To borrow an example from the New York Times interview of Toady, I actually have an easier time deciphering "♠§dg" (a dog chained to a tree, about to be mauled by a goblin) than I would of a tiny lineup of graphical symbols for tree, chain, dog, goblin. This is in the context of the game, mind you, where I'd have been watching the approach of the goblin and seeing the symbols (graphical or curses) flash. If the tiles were larger and the movement was more fluid (rather than warping from tile to tile) this wouldn't be the case, but, well, there you go.

And finally, my thoughts on curses vs. graphics in general. When it comes down to it, both the curses set and the graphical sets are displaying purely symbolic representations. The curses tileset is impressive for the amount of data it manages to convey with so few symbols at its disposal, and the graphical sets are impressive for the amount of differentiation they manage to cram into such tiny spaces. At the end of the day, though, a miniature picture of a human and an uppercase "U" both do the exact same job. The one purely functional advantage that graphical tilesets have over curses (removal of ambiguity, since that "U" might be a unicorn) is not really that much of an issue for anyone who's well versed in the game, since humans have very obviously different behavior from unicorns attached to them. Now, if there were a graphical set that somehow interpreted the state of each creature (changing their symbols based on, for example, how many limbs they had or what they were carrying), that would be a step towards a truly "graphical" (rather than symbolic) display.

...now, once full tile support is implemented, I'll be the first to scrape together a tileset based on multiple font faces for different types of map features & creature classes.
Never giving up codepage 437 in DF.  Never.

+1. Different typefaces and perhaps glyphs from different alphabets would go a long way towards removing the ambiguity from curses.

[EmeraldWind]

I initially played DF with the Ironhand graphics set for my very first fort, but then used ASCII when next fort was a non-serious 6 hour fort to explore in Adventure mode while waiting for the graphics for a new version.

I actually found I could interpret the ASCII really well and got used to it fast. I ended up preferring ASCII more in the end and still use it.

I agree that there is a problem when it comes to creatures. This goes double with the animal-men looking exactly like their normal counter parts. That said it doesn't really bother me, yet.

I would also like to set graphics get an overhaul to allow modders to change tile designations for things that can't currently be changed. If that ever happened I'd probably play DF in tilesets so I could show my friends DF.  Granted, the looks on their faces as they attempt to comprehend the ASCII is always funny, if a bit sad. Plus I also like to see Let's Plays and Succession forts use tilesets because it is easier to figure out what is going on at a glance that way. Sometimes overseers just don't describe what is going on in the picture you should be aware of.

So I like both, ASCII and Tilesets.  I sometimes wonder why there are big fights over this though. As the tileset supporters point out, they just need a little more support functionality and it isn't like better tileset support will kill the ASCII mode. 

[dizzyelk]

What I'd like to see is a tileset that doesn't try to put the whole critter on the tile, but just its head or something, so it can be easier to see what it is. To me, its just easier to see a brown 'd' than a blob of pixels that I have to look at for a good minute to figure out its showing me a dog.

[Tarran]

So I like both, ASCII and Tilesets.  I sometimes wonder why there are big fights over this though. As the tileset supporters point out, they just need a little more support functionality and it isn't like better tileset support will kill the ASCII mode. 

My theory is a few ASCII elitists and ASCII haters insult the other's style, people who feel offended on both sides pile up on the arguments, then things get hotter as insults unintentionally or intentionally fly... the arguments spill over into other threads and are ingrained in everyone's mind... things start over again...

...You get the point.

[Deathworks]

Hello!

NW_Kohaku: Yes, I have considered the possibility that there is a bias on my part involved. This is why I stressed that it was my impression and that I didn't have any data on this.

Leatra: At least in this thread, you are correct that the first shot was definitely fired by a person preferring ASCII. However, that was a first single voice after four or so other friends of ASCII named it as their personal preference without commenting on superiority.

The thing is, I have offered again and again the option of just saying that it is a matter of personal preference and that each side should respect the choice the other side has made and not deride them. You can check my posts in the thread. Since this is actually my honest opinion on the matter, I should be fairly consistent about this (however, I have sometimes described why I was okay with it or countered seemingly unfair claims). However, even if I get a respond agreeing with me, in the very same post, there may come again a claim of graphics being inherently superior. Or those using ASCII are called lazy or elitist/snobbish. I don't see how you can accept and respect the opinion of others and in the same breath claim that their choice is inherently inferior or ill-informed.

So, let me state this again: I believe that DF can be played both with ASCII and with graphic tilesets. And I believe that whichever option anyone chooses, we should respect it as their personal choice and should not deride them for choosing one or the other. If my post gave any other impression, then it is the result of my failure to convey my message clearly, for which I wish to apologize. Could we, please, agree on this?

Mike Mayday: ??? Sorry for going OT, but could you give me a hint there? Ever since we got the print mode settings, I couldn't get the tiles to look rectangular. With the default settings, they always came out square, turning off blackspace didn't have any effect on them anymore, so now I choose 800x600 as a resolution and use a stretched version of the 800x600 tileset which forces the rectangular display. It was really driving me nuts.

Yours,
Deathworks

[Mike Mayday]

Don't know what to tell you, man. I just downloaded 34.07, fired it up and the tiles are rectangular.

[Caz]

I used to play with ASCII. Then I found that the game was easier to see with tilesets. Instead of just 'shrub' you actually see a tile of a strawberry bush. Instead of a mysterious 'c' there is a tile of a cat. ASCII used to be the way to go but now that text is separated from tiles and creatures can have their own custom graphic... tiles are the way. More information at a glance and easier to look at.

[Matoro]

When I started DF, I used graphic packs, but after learnig game I switched to ASCII. Now I can't imagine playing DF with graphic pack. I just love ASCII. It has so awesome and nostalgig (Boatmurdered and other legends) feeling in it.

[NW_Kohaku]

NW_Kohaku: Yes, I have considered the possibility that there is a bias on my part involved. This is why I stressed that it was my impression and that I didn't have any data on this.

The thing is, if you can just say anything you want so long as you stress you have no data on it, then it allows for statements like, say, "I have no data on this, but I think you're actually an ewok in disguise."

Which is to say you're using it as a shield to say what you want to say while at the same time trying to disavow that it has any meaning so that you won't have any responsibility for your words, and so that you can completely deny them if they ever become inconvenient.  That's a little too convenient a trick.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

my personal experience can be summed up in two pictures

tileset dwarf

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

ascii dwarf

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

also this

What I'd like to see is a tileset that doesn't try to put the whole critter on the tile, but just its head or something, so it can be easier to see what it is. To me, its just easier to see a brown 'd' than a blob of pixels that I have to look at for a good minute to figure out its showing me a dog.

i find graphical tilesets hard to understand and not abstract enough. i could picture myself playing with a graphic tileset that represented creatures with simplified stickmen versions of themselves, but the disneyesque or chibbi aesthetics that is prevalent among tileset designers makes the sprites much more confusing and cluttered with superfluous decoration, and make df seem much less gritty. i don't particularly dislike disneyesque aesthetics, but when detailed dismembration is involved i'd rather have it photo-realistic, like ascii

[Angel Of Death]

I do not care if I'm playing on ASCII or a tileset. Unless the tileset was too bright or too scribbled.

[Rex_Nex]

I use tilesets, but I kind of feel like its a good 50%/50% on the forum. I dont know how the heck you came to the conclusion that you may be the only one who likes ASCII.

Tilesets are better if they are made in such a way that you can distinguish everything that needs to be distinguished. Otherwise, the only reason to use ASCII is if it is personally pleasing to you; I do know that the ASCII look is quite neat.

Otherwise, it isn't terribly logical to chose ASCII over Tilesets. Other then to fit into the whole elitist attitude ASCII players seem to have.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Otherwise, it isn't terribly logical to chose ASCII over Tilesets. Other then to fit into the whole elitist attitude ASCII players seem to have.

yeah, no.

[NW_Kohaku]

my personal experience can be summed up in two pictures

tileset dwarf

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

ascii dwarf

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

also this

What I'd like to see is a tileset that doesn't try to put the whole critter on the tile, but just its head or something, so it can be easier to see what it is. To me, its just easier to see a brown 'd' than a blob of pixels that I have to look at for a good minute to figure out its showing me a dog.

i find graphical tilesets hard to understand and not abstract enough. i could picture myself playing with a graphic tileset that represented creatures with simplified stickmen versions of themselves, but the disneyesque or chibbi aesthetics that is prevalent among tileset designers makes the sprites much more confusing and cluttered with superfluous decoration, and make df seem much less gritty. i don't particularly dislike disneyesque aesthetics, but when detailed dismembration is involved i'd rather have it photo-realistic, like ascii

Once again, I have to wonder at how people can say that ASCII is better for their imaginations, but when given as much freedom to draw any object they can manage to cram into the pixel limitations, they assume that they are incapable of coming up with anything but the two most popular versions of the graphical tilesets.

If you don't like the same dwarves as the most popular tilesets have them, draw your own. 

It's easy.  16x16 pixel tiles take 5 minutes, tops.  That's when I really take the time doing the shading, too.  Basic silhouette types are a minute, easy.

Trust me, you're not going to be confused by what something represents when you're the one who drew it, and it will give the game much more meaning to see your own little critters tramping around the field getting their arms cut off.

Besides, as I've said before, distinction is more important.  I can draw tilesets that represent creatures as simple bars of color, and as long as the color bars are distinct enough fields of color, I will be able to discern the data they impart far faster than with default ASCII. 

[Tarran]

Otherwise, it isn't terribly logical to chose ASCII over Tilesets. Other then to fit into the whole elitist attitude ASCII players seem to have.

Okay, what.

You're damning the entire ASCII community because of the actions and opinions of only a part of the ASCII community?

Besides, as I've said before, distinction is more important.  I can draw tilesets that represent creatures as simple bars of color, and as long as the color bars are distinct enough fields of color, I will be able to discern the data they impart far faster than with default ASCII. 

Just curious, have you seriously done so before?