Print

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

[Miuramir]

My general reaction is to ask some version of the following questions: "OK, so let's say this is my tenth play-through.  Very approximately, what are the odds I will encounter a foe ("monster") that is significantly different in both depiction (how it is drawn, described, etc.) and in function (how it is endured, contained, defeated, etc.) from anything I have encountered on the previous nine playthroughs?"  and "Putting aside explicit foes such as monsters for a moment, what are the odds I will encounter a world situation that pushes a significant shift in priorities or play style from what I have previously encountered?" 

Most games don't manage either of the above.  A few games do one reasonably well, typically the second (world situation); Civilization or classic ASCII Roguelikes such as Angband for instance.  Starting in a mineral-rich desert is quite different from starting in a food-rich floodplain, and either early acquisition of a powerful item (e.g. Thorin's Shield, a powerful artifact granting acid immunity and therefore to approach some situations usually fled from such as jelly pits) or unusually delayed acquisition of a fundamental ability (the dilemma of progressing without free action beyond a certain point) can radically alter not only the tactical decisions, but strategic and even meta-game playstyle. 

However, the foes ("units") in Civ are fairly predictable; almost all players will have encountered the full catalog in a few playthroughs.  Angband has a much larger catalog and a notion of rarity, so it's possible you might see a new monster; but it would be likely to be a straightforward variant of a type you've already seen. 

Central to all of this is the idea that DF is "not just an (adjective) fantasy world game, but an (adjective) fantasy world game *generator*".  For some of us, the fact that you currently largely experience the worlds generated via the lens of a small band of cranky alcoholic dwarves with pick-axes is almost a side-effect; a hypothetical "hypochondriac druggie gnomes with crowbars" game, while seeming to be a similar riff, is missing the point entirely. 

To try and come up with an extensible analogy, most ordinary computer games are like a restaurant that offers spaghetti.  It comes with their house red sauce, you can get it with or without meatballs, and can add cheese and/or pepper flakes.  If you ate there for a week, you'd pretty much cover the options, especially if you have strong positive or negative preferences for some of the choices. 

A good non-DF game is like a restaurant that offers a "choose your own pasta" setup; perhaps a half-dozen sorts of pasta, stock red or white sauces with some simple variants, and a handful of meat options.  You could eat there for perhaps a half-year without an exact repeat, although some variants will end up reasonably similar. 

DF is like a pasta restaurant run by an insane chef who owes you a huge debt; it's got two dozen types of pasta, a dozen stock sauces with a half-dozen variants each, two dozen kinds of meat, and a re-purposed salad bar full of add-ins or toppings.  Even an ordinary person could eat there for 50 years and not repeat even the base meal, not counting the toppings.  But in addition you can just call up the chef and say "You know, I was just thinking I've never had alligator pasta before, why don't you get some in and, hmm, do it up chicken-fried overtop some carbonara for tonight?" and there will be a moment of silence at the other end and the chef will say "For you, anything.  Give me until 8pm, though, I gotta send a guy out and then do some prep myself." 

Most people who say a game is "like DF" mean "We have more than one type of spaghetti!", as if that began to approach the depth and detail of even the current state of DF, let alone the intended 1.0 game. 

[BoredVirulence]

My general reaction is to ask some version of the following questions: "OK, so let's say this is my tenth play-through.  Very approximately, what are the odds I will encounter a foe ("monster") that is significantly different in both depiction (how it is drawn, described, etc.) and in function (how it is endured, contained, defeated, etc.) from anything I have encountered on the previous nine playthroughs?"  and "Putting aside explicit foes such as monsters for a moment, what are the odds I will encounter a world situation that pushes a significant shift in priorities or play style from what I have previously encountered?" 

Most games don't manage either of the above.  A few games do one reasonably well, typically the second (world situation); Civilization or classic ASCII Roguelikes such as Angband for instance.  Starting in a mineral-rich desert is quite different from starting in a food-rich floodplain, and either early acquisition of a powerful item (e.g. Thorin's Shield, a powerful artifact granting acid immunity and therefore to approach some situations usually fled from such as jelly pits) or unusually delayed acquisition of a fundamental ability (the dilemma of progressing without free action beyond a certain point) can radically alter not only the tactical decisions, but strategic and even meta-game playstyle. 

However, the foes ("units") in Civ are fairly predictable; almost all players will have encountered the full catalog in a few playthroughs.  Angband has a much larger catalog and a notion of rarity, so it's possible you might see a new monster; but it would be likely to be a straightforward variant of a type you've already seen. 

Central to all of this is the idea that DF is "not just an (adjective) fantasy world game, but an (adjective) fantasy world game *generator*".  For some of us, the fact that you currently largely experience the worlds generated via the lens of a small band of cranky alcoholic dwarves with pick-axes is almost a side-effect; a hypothetical "hypochondriac druggie gnomes with crowbars" game, while seeming to be a similar riff, is missing the point entirely. 

To try and come up with an extensible analogy, most ordinary computer games are like a restaurant that offers spaghetti.  It comes with their house red sauce, you can get it with or without meatballs, and can add cheese and/or pepper flakes.  If you ate there for a week, you'd pretty much cover the options, especially if you have strong positive or negative preferences for some of the choices. 

A good non-DF game is like a restaurant that offers a "choose your own pasta" setup; perhaps a half-dozen sorts of pasta, stock red or white sauces with some simple variants, and a handful of meat options.  You could eat there for perhaps a half-year without an exact repeat, although some variants will end up reasonably similar. 

DF is like a pasta restaurant run by an insane chef who owes you a huge debt; it's got two dozen types of pasta, a dozen stock sauces with a half-dozen variants each, two dozen kinds of meat, and a re-purposed salad bar full of add-ins or toppings.  Even an ordinary person could eat there for 50 years and not repeat even the base meal, not counting the toppings.  But in addition you can just call up the chef and say "You know, I was just thinking I've never had alligator pasta before, why don't you get some in and, hmm, do it up chicken-fried overtop some carbonara for tonight?" and there will be a moment of silence at the other end and the chef will say "For you, anything.  Give me until 8pm, though, I gotta send a guy out and then do some prep myself." 

Most people who say a game is "like DF" mean "We have more than one type of spaghetti!", as if that began to approach the depth and detail of even the current state of DF, let alone the intended 1.0 game.

While, in many ways you totally hit the mark, all I can think about now is food...

Ignoring my hunger though, thats typically the point of a lot of those games. They take what they like out of DF. Its no secret that, while we do love the randomness, many of us also love the strategy in fortress mode. So it seems logical to try and produce that kind of gameplay, but the way you would like it to happen.

Personally, I'd like to see a RTS that used more features of DF. The realism in the simulation is something that is great, and if other games were to embrace it, from my perspective, it would be great. Of course typically its the otherway around, games try and produce the same gameplay without any of the depth.

And also, I don't mind the existence of cheap rip-offs. I'm going to use a mainstream example here, I've played Halo competitively since the first. The 2nd and 3rd were, for a time, the main competitive FPS. That means a lot of 3rd party hacks, cheap glitches exploited, and an unpleasantness in the community, and at the time that corner of Xbox Live was the best example of the sorrow of the English language. Enter Call of Duty, and 90% of that behavior has been strategically removed. I've seen maybe 2 actually hacked games through the life of Halo Reach and Halo 4, compared to over 100 during Halo 2 and Halo 3. Essentially, mainstream games (hard to say Halo isn't mainstream, but comparatively here) are garbage collection for communities. Bay12 couldn't be as wonderful of a place if DF were mainstream. Of course thats not a problem, with the learning curve and ASCII graphics, but it always helps to have rat traps in place.

[Raetac]

After a long weekend of bashing my head against the wall and learning the controls of Dwarf Fortress and paying trips to the forum I hit this thread and I just had to register to add my two cents.
 
I had a laugh at the remark about CastleStory, how could anyone compare that to this work of art? It's like chalk and cheese. I was done with that game in a couple months and I have zero interest in going back even if they did manage overhaul the whole games so it's remotely playable

Have you heard of Timber and Stone or A Game of Dwarves? I'm surprised they hasn't been mentioned so far, and from what I have seen while they don't come close to the depth (insert pun here) of DF I know A Game of Dwarves does capture the z experience quite well, while the dev of Timber and Stone is working hard to make his game more like Dwarf Fortress (its still a work in progress). It was in fact that comment which gave me the push to take the Leap of Faith to finally know what it was other developers mean when they say their game was inspired by Dwarf Fortress

[Boozebeard]

Maybe, but by that time Dwarf Fortress will be 12 years ahead.

So you mean 2 updates ahead?

[Putnam]

The current update does not make a pattern. It is the longest update cycle by 87 days. The second longest beat the third by 247 days.

[Orange Wizard]

Wait, really? That can't be right.

Hang on, 87 days is close to three months, not three weeks. Ignore me, I can't count.

[zwei]

At this point I honestly don't care.
You just can't make a game JUST like Dwarf Fortress. It's physically impossible to replicate DF's depth and complexity, I feel.

That said, I'm still hoping for the trueform sci-fi Dwarf Fortress...

It actually is possible - if one man can do it, someone else can do it too. And learn from mistakes of that one man as a bonus. Only problem is - is anyone else on whole world motivated to do this and kepp their motivation up for years?

First, for me, It seems that Creator sometimes looses motivation/interest/inspiration/hits stonewalling issue/has other obligations and updates dry up for several weeks and progres is stalled, forcing project to be sort of restarted with something that is fun to code - then it comes back to full speed. It would seem that there are plenty of people capable of writing complex software that could catch up in few years. Only problem is ... those few years would be harsh. Creator has my utmost respect for continuing on. Most other projects that go this far usually had several developers picking them up after their predecessor burned out.

Also, depth and complexity is something that is very arguable:

There is a lot of redundant content (rock types, animal types) that people mistake for depth. It is not - game would loose very little if it got simplified to two dozen types of minerals and animals. And you do not need to be brilliant to add more of them.

Complexity is less evident, but most interactions are very straightfoward. And after few playthroughs, unsurprising and fairly lacking in unforessen events. For example, assimilated foreigner ruling nation is is unforeseen event, but only one of fairly limited library of "possible" stuff. Read up on lives of historical figures to get sense of how there are several types of events that can happen.

Economy of dwarf mode is another example - there is huge production tree, but that is not complex - are interactions are unchanging and everything follows template. MMO developers boasting "complex crafting" have about smae claim on world complex.

Dwarf mode consists of much more, but most of real complexity is in players head. Game creates events, but players put them together to form narative. People imaginative enough to pick up df will come up with great explanations and stories for events they saw, but background is much simpler - there is very big array of simple systems that work off and player surprises are rare.

Current dwarf fortress hints on genius and promisses huge amount of interactivity and worldbuilding depth. Future will bring all kinds of awesomeness.

But right now? It only started to deliver that. It is huge undertaking and it is in very rough state. Most impressive thing for me about DF right now is how world generates its geography and how it does not fall apart and stuff players come up with while playing it. That is very different froom usually touted complexity and depth.

Can someone "clone" it? Sure. But if you have drive to work as had as Creator, why clone someones work instead of making your own game?

What people are currently doing is cloning core idea of citybuilding part of game and throwing away clutter that harms gameplay - which I think does not invalidate claim of "just like dwarf fortress". It is very reassuring that DF basically started genre of its own - if you have people attemting to follow in your steps, I'd take it as a huge compliment.

Ummm ... what was I ranting about?

[Matoro]

At this point I honestly don't care.
You just can't make a game JUST like Dwarf Fortress. It's physically impossible to replicate DF's depth and complexity, I feel.

That said, I'm still hoping for the trueform sci-fi Dwarf Fortress...

Also, depth and complexity is something that is very arguable:

There is a lot of redundant content (rock types, animal types) that people mistake for depth. It is not - game would loose very little if it got simplified to two dozen types of minerals and animals. And you do not need to be brilliant to add more of them.

I disagree. Even though the depth means much more than just hundreds of different stones and trees, they are important elements to make game feel so deep, since other games don't usually do that. All materials without distinct differences add the feeling of the depth, they add more flavor. A bit like dwarven beard shapings or many mental attributes - they aren't really needed for gameplay, but if they weren't there, DF would be much shallower in terms of details. It's one way how DF feels somehow more unique than most other games - there is so much irrelevant details just for sake of details. They add more information to the gaming experience which makes the game feel deeper.

[zwei]

At this point I honestly don't care.
You just can't make a game JUST like Dwarf Fortress. It's physically impossible to replicate DF's depth and complexity, I feel.

That said, I'm still hoping for the trueform sci-fi Dwarf Fortress...

Also, depth and complexity is something that is very arguable:

There is a lot of redundant content (rock types, animal types) that people mistake for depth. It is not - game would loose very little if it got simplified to two dozen types of minerals and animals. And you do not need to be brilliant to add more of them.

I disagree. Even though the depth means much more than just hundreds of different stones and trees, they are important elements to make game feel so deep, since other games don't usually do that. All materials without distinct differences add the feeling of the depth, they add more flavor. A bit like dwarven beard shapings or many mental attributes - they aren't really needed for gameplay, but if they weren't there, DF would be much shallower in terms of details. It's one way how DF feels somehow more unique than most other games - there is so much irrelevant details just for sake of details. They add more information to the gaming experience which makes the game feel deeper.

Problem is that that they are just there, by themselves, not really influencing anything. They also currently do more harm to gameplay than good (mostly by incredibly clutterted item lists)

It also comes to ... what are details?

To me addtional type of tree - which is just name, color and density does not seem much of an detail, but more as a elaboration of existing stuff. Sort of "more content" rather than "deeper content".

[alexandertnt]

From a mechanical POV, that makes sense.

But for me, the extra details add much more to the world from an imaginative POV.

[Mesa]

Lots of shallow things add up to make a single deep thing.
Real world also has a lot of seemingly redundant or otherwise pointless things.
But the world would feel emptier without them, in one way or another.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[JimiD]

3D Monster Maze - released in 1982 for the Sinclair ZX81. It was written in BASIC and appears to use ASCII graphics to simulate a 3D maze with a Tyrannosaurus Rex in it that you have to escape from.

While you could argue that on-screen ASCII graphics aren't 3D so much as it is a 2D picture that makes use of perspective to represent 3D, later "3D" games like Wolfenstein and Doom still used perspective to represent 3D as well (in development, they were called "pseudo-3D"). I don't think it was until we got 64-bit processing like we see in the Nintendo 64 that real 3D graphics with 3D wire frame models and 3D geometry came into common use in games. There might be an exception, though. However I would love to see it.

Elite was 1984, wire line graphics.

The Sentinel was 1986, solid 3d graphics.

Both ran on ZX Spectrums, which were 8-bit.

[exdeathbr]

[...]If the game isn't ASCII then there's no way they will be able to match its detail and complexity anyway.[...]

Even if it has ultra shitty non detailed pixel art graphics with just 8 colours pallete?

[Armok]

Yup. Layer enough puddles on top of one another and you get an ocean.

[itg]

At this point I honestly don't care.
You just can't make a game JUST like Dwarf Fortress. It's physically impossible to replicate DF's depth and complexity, I feel.

That said, I'm still hoping for the trueform sci-fi Dwarf Fortress...

Also, depth and complexity is something that is very arguable:

There is a lot of redundant content (rock types, animal types) that people mistake for depth. It is not - game would loose very little if it got simplified to two dozen types of minerals and animals. And you do not need to be brilliant to add more of them.

I disagree. Even though the depth means much more than just hundreds of different stones and trees, they are important elements to make game feel so deep, since other games don't usually do that. All materials without distinct differences add the feeling of the depth, they add more flavor. A bit like dwarven beard shapings or many mental attributes - they aren't really needed for gameplay, but if they weren't there, DF would be much shallower in terms of details. It's one way how DF feels somehow more unique than most other games - there is so much irrelevant details just for sake of details. They add more information to the gaming experience which makes the game feel deeper.

Problem is that that they are just there, by themselves, not really influencing anything. They also currently do more harm to gameplay than good (mostly by incredibly clutterted item lists)

It also comes to ... what are details?

To me addtional type of tree - which is just name, color and density does not seem much of an detail, but more as a elaboration of existing stuff. Sort of "more content" rather than "deeper content".

The "deep" part of the hundreds of materials actually comes from the game's physics and chemistry. Sure, hundreds of materials seem like nothing but clutter since they appear to behave the same at first glance, but then you realize it matters what stone you use for catapult ammo because the denser rock hits harder, and you realize your haulers will be more efficient if you use featherwood for bins, and you realize you can make nether-cap minecarts for transporting magma, because it's technically flammable but never burns since it radiates "coldness" (the DF multiverse is a strange place sometimes). That's genuine complexity right there.