Print

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

[Gatallorsith]

Sorry but I have to ask. 

Is there the will to give dwarf fortress a graphic engine (possibly?) similar to the one of Gnomoria? To me It seems just perfect.
What is the problem? Toady doesn't want it, or It would be too costly, or there will be technical problems in the "future of the fortress"?
You know..he could even do a kickstarter for It, and I'm pretty sure It would surpass his expectations A LOT.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

PS: and just to be clear, I LOVE this game and I love Toady. In the same way I'd love to see the project go further, though.

Regarding the time or money problematics, that's why I suggested a kickstarter. It hasn't to be Toady the one working on the graphic engine, he could easily hire someone he trusts to do the work (hence the kickstarter objective)
You know as well as me he could set up a very large amount of money and still reach it. There would be no problems even trying to do so and failing.

[Descan]

 Have you looked up Stonesense?

[Brewster]

Why don't you go play A Game of Dwarves, and we'll stick with Dwarf Fortress? 

[ExecratedDwarf]

It's not just about money or time or effort. It's all of those things combined. If Toady was to focus on graphics he'd be unable to dedicate time, money and effort to anything else. By ignoring graphics, he has been able to create a game so complex that people with genius level IQs rage quit on a regular basis. But they always come back for more. I don't know anybody that has played that other game for longer than a couple months.

[Ultimuh]

Why don't you go play A Game of Dwarves, and we'll stick with Dwarf Fortress? 

Because it's not buyable yet? 

[Triaxx2]

Why? because DF uses a true top down view, not an isometric one.

[ExecratedDwarf]

Why don't you go play A Game of Dwarves, and we'll stick with Dwarf Fortress? 

Because it's not buyable yet? 

You most definitely can buy it. Granted you're paying money for something incomplete. And it's also likely that it'll never be completed. But it has isometric graphics!

[Trif]

Well, to answer your question: Yes, there is the will to improve the interface (which might include some sort of graphics), but we don't know when or how that will happen. The problem is that you can't display the level of detail in DF graphically and that updating the graphics takes a lot of time as long as you still improve the game. As an example, look at Slaves to Armok I - it had 3D graphics, but they really slowed the development, so it didn't really go anywhere.

And a kickstarter isn't really necessary since Bay12's business model of "We make games and you can give us money if you want" works pretty well as it is. Toady and Threetoe don't really care about money as long as they can continue making the game.

[Adequate Swimmer]

Processing power spent on graphics can't be used to do the math, eg. run the actual game. Even if you utilize the gpu as much as you can, it all has to pass through the same set of wires sooner or later.

Simple graphics is one of the reasons DF can simulate stuff like ecosystems and materials.
Most DF clones cut down on both simulation depth and gameplay to allow for improved graphics.

[sadron]

I say DF would lose its charm if we went to non-tile based (especially the ASCII!) graphics. Tens of thousands of people play it anyway! I'd call DF successful as it is!

[Hammerstar]

I use Ironhand's graphics set, and I think that's about as good as it needs to get, and it already slows me down sooner than playing with the vanilla look. Given a choice between all the simulation aspects and better graphics, graphics lose.

[MadocComadrin]

I say DF would lose its charm if we went to non-tile based (especially the ASCII!) graphics. Tens of thousands of people play it anyway! I'd call DF successful as it is!

What about 3d models of various ASCII glyphs?

[Gatallorsith]

It's not just about money or time or effort. It's all of those things combined. If Toady was to focus on graphics he'd be unable to dedicate time, money and effort to anything else. By ignoring graphics, he has been able to create a game so complex that people with genius level IQs rage quit on a regular basis. But they always come back for more. I don't know anybody that has played that other game for longer than a couple months.

Well, to answer your question: Yes, there is the will to improve the interface (which might include some sort of graphics), but we don't know when or how that will happen. The problem is that you can't display the level of detail in DF graphically and that updating the graphics takes a lot of time as long as you still improve the game. As an example, look at Slaves to Armok I - it had 3D graphics, but they really slowed the development, so it didn't really go anywhere.

And a kickstarter isn't really necessary since Bay12's business model of "We make games and you can give us money if you want" works pretty well as it is. Toady and Threetoe don't really care about money as long as they can continue making the game.

Thx for the anwers.
Tbh I'm not so sure It will slow down development in any sensible way with the actual state of the game.
Regarding the time or money problematics, that's why I suggested a kickstarter. It hasn't to be Toady the one working on the graphic engine, he could easily hire someone he trusts to do the work (hence the kickstarter objective)
You know as well as me he could set up a very large amount of money and still reach it. There would be no problems even trying to do so and failing.

Processing power spent on graphics can't be used to do the math, eg. run the actual game. Even if you utilize the gpu as much as you can, it all has to pass through the same set of wires sooner or later.

Simple graphics is one of the reasons DF can simulate stuff like ecosystems and materials.
Most DF clones cut down on both simulation depth and gameplay to allow for improved graphics.

First of all in the actual state of the game there's A LOT of potential optimization. And when I say a lot I mean there's none..not to mention unnecessary (at present) whole parts of the game (don't ask, I'll not talk about them here)
Tbh Idk how much cpu intensive graphics like the one of gnomoria can be, but I'm totally sure DF CAN be incredibly better than its actual state in that regard (if needed)


PS: and just to be clear, I LOVE this game and I love Toady. In the same way I'd love to see the project go further, though.

[Adequate Swimmer]

I agree on the optimization bit, but any bit of freed up resources should go into Operation FPS Death

[Trif]

Well, to answer your question: Yes, there is the will to improve the interface (which might include some sort of graphics), but we don't know when or how that will happen. The problem is that you can't display the level of detail in DF graphically and that updating the graphics takes a lot of time as long as you still improve the game. As an example, look at Slaves to Armok I - it had 3D graphics, but they really slowed the development, so it didn't really go anywhere.

And a kickstarter isn't really necessary since Bay12's business model of "We make games and you can give us money if you want" works pretty well as it is. Toady and Threetoe don't really care about money as long as they can continue making the game.

Thx for the anwers.
Tbh I'm not so sure It will slow down development in any sensible way with the actual state of the game.
Regarding the time or money problematics, that's why I suggested a kickstarter. It hasn't to be Toady the one working on the graphic engine, he could easily hire someone he trusts to do the work (hence the kickstarter objective)
You know as well as me he could set up a very large amount of money and still reach it. There would be no problems even trying to do so and failing.

Sure, Toady could get tons of money, but if that was his goal, graphics and interface would have been improved years ago. He and Threetoe just want to make a game that they can play without getting bored of it. Making money was more like a convenient side effect, and they get enough to keep going.

But before everybody starts repeating arguments that always get mentioned in this type of threads, I'll quote what Toady said about releasing an API (which basically means that the players get to do the graphics):

Spoiler: huge Toady quote (click to show/hide)

Somebody reported a post in this thread...  it didn't really matter which one.  A bit of chilling would be good.  There are a few people that have failed to chill.  There are quite a few statements here I'd respond to in person myself, and some very sharply, but internet discussions are more fragile and more prone to derailment.  So I'll try to stick to what seems to be the core of the matter.

Which for me (and granted, I'm picking a recent post -- I've read the thread, but don't remember when this came up first in this thread) is along the lines of what Jamuk said.  I'm being asked to assume risk.  I don't accept assessments of the risk as extraordinarily slight -- I've seen no sound basis for those assessments here.  I also don't think the currently proposed licensing/obfuscation method of putting the cat back into the bag would work -- with a principal downside being that it requires me to turn into an asshole who, after initially sanctioning the process, breaks everything that people have been working on.  Publishing an API and then trying to reel it back in just seems completely unworkable and irresponsible to me.  So the point is to assess risk upfront and then make a decision I can live with.

And right now, I have no idea what would happen.  This isn't the same as leaving my math job or adding the Z coordinate.  The first was a decision I had to make personally for my quality of life, and the second was a calculated risk which I didn't really have strong misgivings about (though some people are still pro-2D version, I think I can get most of them what they want over time in terms of gameplay difficulty, etc., though it'll never feel like it's quite on that rail again most likely).  Do I accept that third parties could improve the interface?  Of course.  Do I think I could do better than a third party myself, even over time?  No, not at all, though I can certainly improve on what I've got now to a large degree even without external input (which I, of course, love to receive).  So, initially, there's some attraction to the third party interface idea.

However, reflecting on the position I'd be in, there are things not to like about it.  How many threads were there about broken utilities when this version came out?  If more than half the player base comes in off a third party interface (and given how much the current interface sucks, and how much it is a source of first time downloaders dropping the game, this is not only imaginable, it is very, very likely), how would it be if it broke at each release?  There's no way to mitigate that without my direct involvement -- imagine a release down the line where you can suddenly move dwarven armies around on the world map, with a tactical view and various options.  That interface can't write itself, and it wouldn't be a quick patch, though certainly dedicated people, assuming that about whoever is maintaining the front-end at that time, can pull things together rapidly.  The pressure on me to work directly with them to get the interface out at the same time as the game itself would likely be immense and disruptive, given what little evidence we have from broken utilities.  That's not to say that I often get requests to work with utility writers (other than from the writers themselves, who I generally accommodate), but this would be at a different order of magnitude.

So what's the exact risk there then?  First, I don't want to work with other people.  So, assuming I don't do that, there's now a constant amount of pressure on me and a general disruption in the forums.  The latter could be mitigated with some announcements/guidelines, etc., but the pressure wouldn't go away.  Monetarily, it's impossible to say what on earth would happen, but if I supported the third party interface directly pre-release, I'd likely make more money, but I'd be unhappy.  If I didn't support it directly, but it was there, I'd still likely make more money, but I'd be unhappy.  That's not to say that I don't want to grow the audience and allow more people play the game, but I want to do it in a way with which I feel satisfied, even if that ends up being slower or just plain worse than a hypothetical third party alternative.  If someone, as a potential donor, thinks that's unreasonably selfish, that person shouldn't send me any more money than he or she thinks I've deserved for his or her enjoyment, just like everybody else.  Despite my dedication to this project, I'm unwilling to sacrifice my enjoyment of working on it for anything, including its quality or even its future release if it comes down to that.  That should be plainly obvious.  I'm not a slave.  Of course I do some things I don't like working on, with the interface and more.  I fulfill requests for features I'm not going to use myself.  However, again, the current proposal is of a different order of magnitude, with the potential of ruining it for me, and the end result is completely uncertain.

Given what I've seen here and there, it seems like a full third party interface might develop even without my involvement (rather than the various utilities we have now), but in that case, despite the same issues that might come up, at least it won't be a situation of my own creation that I feel a strong obligation to deal with, although the pressure would still be there.

Incidentally, in the proposed model, I still don't think I'd be able to bring code back in to the core project -- the first Kobold Quest port attempt showed that people bringing in code don't necessarily check or care about the licenses of the code they are swiping, and I can't assume that responsibility for them (it has stuff from Wine which shouldn't have been there).  Problems come up here with tilesets and so on too -- I know there've been a few cases where a contributor used somebody else's art and then it was put in a game, causing some legal trouble, though I don't have them at my immediate disposal.

I may have missed a lot, both problems I'm not thinking of and ways to handle them, since this gets complicated and is, due to lack of information, somewhat unspecified, but that's what I've got right now.