Print

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

[Sallen]

tl;dr: Graphic packs can't help but fall short on this particular graphics engine. I find this annoying, so I prefer a more abstract representation that isn't constantly reminding me how ugly it is.

I'm a bit too young to be an old-time roguelike player and had never played ASCII games before DF. However, once I got used to the ASCII, I find the graphic packs too explicit and downright ugly. I prefer abstract symbols that let my imagination fill in the gaps rather than an attempt at graphics that could never live up to its name (due to the limitations the game imposes on graphics, not a lack of quality of the packs themselves).

That said, I don't use the default graphics. I use some or other square tileset such as Anikki's.

A similar thing happened to me with old 3D games (even when they were not old yet). If you look at an old game like Baldur's Gate, or classic Sierra adventure games, you can still find them aesthetically pleasing, and yet, if you look at more modern 3D games (but still old), such as Stronghold 2, you will find them lacking. That is because those 2D games, albeit older, are much more refined in the technique (or technology) they use, and in that sense are ahead of latter, early 3D games.

[I am Leo]

By the time I was savvy enough to install a graphics pack I already knew my way around the ASCII symbols quite happily. As such, I was a touch underwhelmed, the graphics packs were still ugly, unwieldy things that felt profoundly unnecessary.

Then, suddenly, I noticed that I can tell the value of ores and gems at a glance and they became an indispensable gameplay aid.

I found them aesthetically unnecessary, but they do some things that the ASCII does not, so on balance they're a welcome addition.

[warlordzephyr]

Because graphic packs look gay, no matter how well made they are. ASCII is the way Toady made it, and ASCII is the way it is best played.

The imagination stuff too.

[joeclark77]

Short answer for me: I am a veteran of roguelike games, especiallly Nethack.  I found Dwarf Fortress through a site or wiki about other popular roguelikes.  So I came here expecting an ASCII game and I found it and I like it.  Also, in my experience, after-market mods for any game almost always end in bugs and disaster, so why fix it if it ain't broke?

EDIT:  Although I will say it irritates me that the dwarves are not represented by "@"

[Skyrunner]

I seem to have the opposite ideas to everyone
To me, graphics is the same as ASCII in that I look at it, and I can tell "Oh, this icon means a mug, this  one a plump helmet," and I imagine what they look like. Every prepared meal barrel in a tileset looks the same, but I picture ornate barrels filled to the top with roasts and unidentified foodstuffs. I look at a tree in a bridge and think "this tree here represents a drawn bridge' and roll with it.

Graphics is clearer than ASCII to me. O.o I don't care much about the quality, it just provides me with as much info as a veteran of ASCII gleans from his version of DF.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I just use a tileset that makes everything square, otherwise it's all ascii just as the good toad intended

[Sutremaine]

Then, suddenly, I noticed that I can tell the value of ores and gems at a glance and they became an indispensable gameplay aid.

Those don't run off the graphics, they run off the 256-symbol ASCII grid. You can do the same thing yourself by changing unused symbols into the gem+value symbols, and changing the raws to point each kind of gem point at the appropriate symbol.

[Tevish Szat]

I... actually have trouble reading advanced graphics packs.. the ones that show dwarves as natural colored people with color-coded accessories for their professions.  I glance at ASCII dwarves and go "That guy's red, he must be my mechanic." as they dart across the screen at 100fps, but for some of the graphics packs I need to squint and ask "Is that a red sash, or a yellow one?" and in some cases pause to get my answer, at which point I might as well loo(k). 

ASCII+ packs like Grim Fortress are fine, but I don't often find them to be worth the hassle (I use Grim for atmosphere on a particular embark.). 

I've gotten kind of used to Phoebus from the pony mod (I don't turn it off because the added features are designed to be recognized in the tileset), but the ponies are still colored letters for ease of recognition... and the graphics pack, annoyingly enough, means my DF window is MUCH wider on my screen than I'm used to because of the different aspect ratio of the tiles.  Makes my life just a little more annoying.

I've been putting off playing around with the Legends of Forlorn Realms mod because it's default pre-installed with Ironhand, meaning the common graphics pack I have trouble with is the one that the additional features are expecting.  Might try it without.

[Starver]

Thats what I said ^^

I assume the same is true for the LNP though... it has Phoebus, Ironhand and Ascii as well.

I won't challenge your basic assumption, but do we have figures on how many people go for the LNP over people who just... download the vanilla version?  And what those latter lot (that's me included) do/don't do regarding tilesets?

Although I think (self selective-wise) that it'll have a higher than average proportion who stick with default tiles, it might be interesting to see how many go and get a tileset (or switch to the supplied alternate of the default one).  But higher or lower than the number of people who seek out Dwarf Therapist, do you think?  (So, for the record, vanilla download, here.  DT updated sometime after I've started playing.  No tilesets.  And manually editing things in the Init files (e.g. showing liquids as numbers, changing the screen 'resolution' to twice as high/1.5 times as wide, displaying Firstname 'Nickname' Lastname, etc) as well as scanning for anything new and interesting while I'm there.

[strongrudder]

I don't even like the larger vanilla sets that put beards on the little smiley faces. Just gimme the regular ASCII characters and let my imagination do the rest.

However, I do regularly make two tweaks:
* A square version of the default tileset (12x12) so that a 3x3 room looks like a 3x3 room.
* A custom color scheme to make it a little easier on the eyes.

DF was my first roguelike experience, and I still prefer everything in ASCII because it's so elegant. With graphical sets you end up with too much weirdness whenever (for example) there really *should* be a period and not a ground tile. Uneven suspension of disbelief isn't ideal, for me.

[Coalwalker]

Another one here who just grabs the vanilla pack off the Dwarves page. I switch to the 16x16 set, even though it makes reading a bit harder, and leave it at that. I don't like the way text gets b0rked under graphics sets, and the occasionally confusing out-of-place objects in paragraphs and on the map break them for me. The default ASCII is much clearer to these eyes. A goblin tower just happens to share a character with a cabinet. It doesn't insist that that goblin tower is a giant cabinet looming over the landscape.

[StubbornAlcoholic]

I must admit, first time I played DF I was like "I want to cut down a tree. What the hell does a tree look like?! What a load of turd."

However, a good few fortresses later and now it's kinda like The Matrix Code. Everything seems to make sense visually, to the extent that I find the concept of it looking different alien and even impractical.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I swear smoothed ASCII rock walls actually look kind of sleek and sexy?! Purely due to how ordered they are in contrast with all the surrounding ASCII-ness.

(Note to self: Describing rock walls as sexy is probably a good indicator that I need to get out more...)

There's that imagination element mentioned too of course, in my mind's eye my carvings look incredibly ornate and fortified walls are mighty castle towers.

[Particleman]

The ASCII can be a rocky adjustment to someone not used to playing ASCII graphics games- it was for me. I started with Mayday's tileset and played with that for a couple months before moving on to the ASCII- on hurdle at a time, and figuring out how to do stuff without be baffled about what the hell I was looking at certainly made it easier. Though there were some strange things- I had no idea why a screw pump looked like two barrels, one of which turned into cheese when it was working, or why there were shirts in front of the names of a lot of objects, and a few other examples.

I've tried out a couple other graphics packs, but now that I've learned how to "see" the world through ASCII characters, I'm finding it hard to come up with a reason to go back to graphics. It's more immersive, I find, because my imagination has to get working and I find myself getting drawn into the game more.

[Asra]

I use both dependent on my mood, though with mods I will sometimes use the graphics pack. When playing normal Dwarf Fortress I mostly use ASCII though.

[Genesis92x]

I've used tilesets since I started playing DF.  I don't feel like I'm being robbed of any experience over anyone that uses the default option.  It sounds like it's purely preference/what you started out with.

In reality, I could play with ASCII graphics just fine, but I like the ability to customize my Dwarves.  I feel a bit more attached to my Dwarves when I draw them myself.