Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 22

Author Topic: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress  (Read 51186 times)

Abalieno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #90 on: July 09, 2014, 12:57:52 am »

Two comments from the DF Therapist thread and that belong here:

I wonder if toady will ever get to the point of working with DT and DFHack to make updating easier (like a giving you guys a head start with releasing the code to you so you can update alongside him instead of scrambling just after launch)

Until today I had never had to deal with the DF interface for labor and lets just say I've had more fun smashing my fingers in a car door. I don't think I know of anyone who plays Fortress Mode without DT
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 12:59:34 am by Abalieno »
Logged
 HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #91 on: July 09, 2014, 01:00:44 am »

You're giving more anecdotes. Two anecdotes are no more acceptable in a discussion than one; they will always and forever be useless unless you make a concerted effort to have an effective statistical trial about this thing, you won't have grounding. Even then, if even a single person in a trial of 100-300 or so says that they don't play with Therapist, your claim is wrong.

Eagleon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Soundcloud
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #92 on: July 09, 2014, 01:14:15 am »

I also play as smileyman describes, if I don't just turn on all labors and let them do what they want. I have had tangible enjoyment of fortress mode playing this way. I have no problems navigating the labor menu, because I have a reasonably good memory and a depth of patience for long menus with lots of cool words. So there. Counter! Ripost! Anecdontfight!
Logged
Agora: open-source, next-gen online discussions with formal outcomes!
Music, Ballpoint
Support 100% Emigration, Everyone Walking Around Confused Forever 2044

sal880612m

  • Bay Watcher
  • [SANITY:OPTIONAL]
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #93 on: July 09, 2014, 01:39:04 am »

There's absolutely no reason, for example, why you need to wait two years for the "new trees". Imho, this choice of keep development "secret" without releasing it to the public only slow things down immensely, and doesn't ultimately lead to a better game.

I feel like this is partly directed at me, so ... I agree that the trees on their own do not require a two year period but I have already stated that I think longer development cycles are better. Partly to stop the community from totally fracturing, partly because adding the trees on their own is an almost trivial update. I just think there are plenty of reasons to use longer development cycles with larger version differences.
Someone has already pointed out that you come across as not valuing the idea of a living world and I don't think I have really seen you acknowledge or respond to it. From a fortress mode player and in this update in particular it doesn't seem like a big deal but it does seem like it is something that would a) require a lot of work and b) have far less visible effect on the game. I think it is better to wait the 2 years and get what we got then it is to potentially wait the length of time it took to make the world progress post-gen and not really see much change.

AND that he develops the game the way he wants, but without delaying features for years, and more like in 2006 when you saw features go in as they were coded (and they actually worked far more reliably than they do now, believe me).

This seems like incredibly limited thinking. In my experience fixing a bug or making sure something works is much easier when the code interacts with less and is smaller. So seeing the progress DF has made since 2006 it is kind of remarkable that it is as bug-free and playable as it is.
The UI could use some tweaks, and yes it would be nice if the game were bug free but if Toady spends the next three to six months trying to bugfix and gets nowhere with some of them exactly how long should he spend trying to find it before moving on. I can imagine it now:
"JULY 2014:In a surprise move Toady has decide to fix all the current bugs in DF and will not progress until they are all    gone."
"20xx: Today Indy develop Tarn Adams passed away without completing his life's work DF, It has been stuck on v0.40.xx since mid 2014 when he decided to try and fix all the bugs."
Sometimes moving on will shake something loose or provide new information that helps pinpoint the problem. Fresher eyes and whatnot. Toady knows about some bugs and I don't see much reason not to implement fixes for the ones that have them but he does have a right to decide when to move on. More importantly only he really knows whether he figures he is going to have any luck finding the cause or not.

Final note: if you respond with but he could make it open source, etc... I feel compelled to tell you it's his work and he is under no obligation to even give us bug fixes let alone a new release and you really are acting like he owes you something.
Logged
"I was chopping off little bits of 'im till he talked, startin' at the toes."
"You probably should have stopped sometime before his eyes."

Zanzetkuken The Great

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Wizard Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #94 on: July 09, 2014, 02:06:26 am »

Even then, if even a single person in a trial of 100-300 or so says that they don't play with Therapist, your claim is wrong.

Don't even have to search.  Toady uses the regular UI whenever he is trying to test the game.
Logged
Quote from: Eric Blank
It's Zanzetkuken The Great. He's a goddamn wizard-dragon. He will make it so, and it will forever be.
Quote from: 2016 Election IRC
<DozebomLolumzalis> you filthy god-damn ninja wizard dragon

Aquillion

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #95 on: July 09, 2014, 02:16:55 am »

Since you used your user ID number to show your Dwarf Fortress cred, I will start by pointing to mine as a reply.  Hey, go easy on me, it's not like I get to invoke it every day!  But yes, I was actually the 30th person to register, back when Slaves to Armok was mostly a long list of features and a strange 3D thing with no connection to dwarves.  And I do think that that is probably part of why I disagree with most of what you're saying -- ultimately I was attracted to the site by that gloriously insane-looking list of features for a Fantasy World Simulator; I loved the idea of Dwarf mode allowing me to play Dungeon Keeper in that world, but ultimately what I love most about it is the idea that it will one day have deep connections with that constantly-evolving fantasy universe, generated uniquely for my game.

But I'll grant you one thing -- you're correct, the 2D version was in many ways smoother, a bit easier to get into, and more balanced (it was actually more difficult of a game overall -- food was harder to get, the river was more dangerous, monsters could pour out of the chasm or the river or your well, etc.)  The thing is that all of that came at a cost.  The 2D version gave a more consistent, balanced experience because it always placed you (more or less) in the same situation, with very little variation.  The additional challenges came from relying on game logic (limitless enemies pouring out of wells, the river, or the chasm) without regard for trying to simulate a world in-depth.  In other words -- 2D DF was a game that you might enjoy a lot when you play it, but I don't think it's a game that had the depth (so to speak) that it has now.  Every fortress was ultimately the same; every story was ultimately similar.

Going to 3D was always necessary in order to represent the kind of deep, complicated connection with the larger world that DF was intended for.  3D mode allowed me to build a volcano fortress, spiraling around the column of magma at its center to open up into a deep sunlit sea far below; it's what let me build a fortress hanging from the ceiling of a vast underground cavern, with major dining-halls and living areas inside of giant stalagmites, connected by a spiderweb of retractable bridges I'd pull in when the cave-sparrow men flew up to attack.  It let me build fortresses deep under the arctic ice, fortresses concealed beneath human villages, fortresses spread across either side of a mighty river I'd dammed, and so on.  It lets me send out an adventurer to scout the area where I want my fortress to start, then later build on the land they explored.  All of this requires not just 3D construction, but complicated connections to the larger world that DF generated at the start.  And (inevitably) it requires some trade-offs between making DF a good simulator and making it a good game -- it needs to succeed at both (that's why many of the changes to the way caverns and demons work were added, for instance, restoring parts of the guaranteed 2D progression for the 3D setting).  If you just give up on the simulation aspect and say "well, a tightly-scripted 2D setting that is always the same makes for a more balanced game", you're missing part of what makes DF so unique.

As far as the interface and display goes...  I'm gonna lean on my user number of 30 again, because I remember what happened when display was prioritized.  I mean, Armok 1 didn't have the greatest interface, either, definitely; but a huge amount of work was put into making it look good.  The result of all that work?  Toady burned out on it, found it no longer interested him (because his time was spent on graphical issues that weren't really what had attracted him to the project), and eventually it stopped.  DF was envisioned, right from the start, as a reaction against that -- as a game that would put that giant insane list of features first and foremost, and everything else secondary.  As someone who has seen the results of both approaches first-hand, I think I can safely say that the game is better off when Toady focuses on what he finds most interesting about the project.

You might feel that the game is feature-complete enough for you and that Toady should stop and focus on polishing the stuff you like.  (Going by what you're saying, I assume you felt that way all the way back in the 2D version.)  But, well, he disagrees, and I think that it's clear that there's plenty of people who like the current direction that Dwarf Fortress -- at least, while it's not the only consideration, there are clearly lots of them willing to generously support it financially.

Obviously different people are going to want the game to go in different directions.  But realistically, you're treating it as though there's a choice between "continue chasing the impossible dream of Dwarf Fortresses' list of feature-goals" vs. "sit down, be rational, and focus on polishing the game that we have right now like a sane person."  The thing is, you are already eight years too late for that choice -- Toady already made it, much more starkly, back in 2006 when he decided to drop out of a PHD program to work on his dream game.  Who are you to start demanding sanity now?  He's already faced much bigger and more important choices than this, and (like the dwarves in his own game, when struck by a Strange Mood) has decided to work on what he wants to create rather than what people expect of him.  He's fortunate enough that there's people willing to support him in that goal, but even if there weren't, I suspect he'd just find a way to dig a barrow in the ground and live on mushrooms while coding the game he wants to code.

Don't get me wrong, there's going to be polishing, and if the forum produces small and reasonable suggestions to improve the UI I'm sure he'll listen; I do think that, at some point, there will probably be a UI overhaul.  But "put an extended freeze on features to focus on polish" is not happening; this here mine cart only goes in one direction.  And ultimately?  There's thousands of polished games out there.  There's only one Dwarf Fortress.

(Also I am greedy and want the game to reach Wizard Tower mode in my lifetime!)

Finally, for what it's worth -- as far as I can recall I have never touched Dwarf Therapist in my life.  I like the interface, warts and all; I find it strangely calming.
Logged
We don't want another cheap fantasy universe, we want a cheap fantasy universe generator. --Toady One

dennislp3

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #96 on: July 09, 2014, 02:40:55 am »

This whole thread sounds like an ungrateful e-peen face off...

Toady will make the game how he likes...with considerations for the community where he sees fit.

This whole thread (to be fair I only read about half of the whole thing...perhaps I missed the unicorns and rainbows) seems like a rather ungrateful whiny nitpicking thread...for gods sake the post starts out with a pretentious "just look how long I have been here"

We just got a release after 2 years and we are already throwing up threads about how he should do it different -_-
Logged

Abalieno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #97 on: July 09, 2014, 02:41:34 am »

In other words -- 2D DF was a game that you might enjoy a lot when you play it, but I don't think it's a game that had the depth (so to speak) that it has now.  Every fortress was ultimately the same; every story was ultimately similar.

I don't disagree and I haven't said that DF 2014 is inferior to DF 2006. I only said that aspects of it were better because sandbox conflicts with simulation/realism, hence deeper design considerations to make, that ultimately also hampered the game through a feature creep.

It's not that everything done recently is crap, it's instead that I'm calling now Toady's attention on all the things that he neglected in the meantime. It's time to look back before moving forward again. And not just for a month of bugfixing.

Quote
Obviously different people are going to want the game to go in different directions.  But realistically, you're treating it as though there's a choice between "continue chasing the impossible dream of Dwarf Fortresses' list of feature-goals" vs. "sit down, be rational, and focus on polishing the game that we have right now like a sane person."  The thing is, you are already eight years too late for that choice --

Nope, the thing is that it's because 8 years passed that now this stuff can really use some attention. I'm reminded of Malazan "push and pull". Every big, epic project needs the good balance of pushing forward as well the pull to keep stuff organized and under control.

We got a whole lot of push in recent years, and I'm calling for some pull *now*. Not forever.
Logged
 HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net

Willfor

  • Bay Watcher
  • The great magmaman adventurer. I do it for hugs.
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #98 on: July 09, 2014, 02:58:23 am »

And I just would like to point out the slight mental disconnect in calling for a pull when that's literally exactly what Toady has been saying he's about to address greatly once the release is out. Which it is. So.

I'm not entirely sure what to tell you when you're asking the truck how long it's going to take to reach you when it just drove past you in the lot.
Logged
In the wells of livestock vans with shells and garden sands /
Iron mixed with oxygen as per the laws of chemistry and chance /
A shape was roughly human, it was only roughly human /
Apparition eyes / Apparition eyes / Knock, apparition, knock / Eyes, apparition eyes /

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #99 on: July 09, 2014, 03:03:57 am »

1. Are hacks mandatory to enjoy the game?
2. At least one person enjoys the game without them.
3. They are not mandatory to enjoy the game.

I wouldn't understand how someone could enjoy the game MORE by playing without Dwarf Therapist.
I do. I used Therapist for one fortress, but I eventually realized that I preferred not to. I choose to use the game's interface over Therapist's, because I like it better.

I find DF very much playable without using any of the community tools.
That being said, I have used DFHack on odd occasions, mostly to workaround petty bugs, and I have also abused the Rapist on some forts, more as a reference screen than as an input device though.
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

mnjiman

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #100 on: July 09, 2014, 03:15:30 am »

Aquillion is running in circles atm and contradicting his own statements. Besides that, many people already destroyed this thread topic multiple times and the only reason its continuing is because Aquillion is continuing to post and deflect everything people are posting here. If there was ever a point to this post, it was long lost on about page 5.
Logged
I was thinking more along the lines of this legendary champion, all clad in dented and dinged up steel plate, his blood-drenched axe slung over his back, a notch in the handle for every enemy that saw the swing of that blade as the last sight they ever saw, a battered shield strapped over his arm... and a fluffy, pink stuffed hippo hidden discretely in his breastplate.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #101 on: July 09, 2014, 03:17:03 am »

Aquillion is running in circles atm and contradicting his own statements. Besides that, many people already destroyed this thread topic multiple times and the only reason its continuing is because Aquillion is continuing to post and deflect everything people are posting here. If there was ever a point to this post, it was long lost on about page 5.

*Abalieno

Flarp

  • Bay Watcher
  • and tearing apart the self-esteem!
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #102 on: July 09, 2014, 03:24:02 am »

In general, accusing the sole developer of the freeware game you enjoy of "horrible mistakes" on what is essentially his own personal project seems, if nothing else, quite presumptuous.

In addition, your arguments against the recent progress of DF are kind of hard to understand. You claim the "sandbox-with-challenges" gameplay model is inconsistent, but that's been DF's formula since the 2D days, and it's the foundation of an entire genre of video games these days. You decry "noise" and "incoherence" in DF's development without really explaining (I didn't read pages 2-4, so maybe I'm wrong) what you're actually referring to. You claim the game's more buggy now, but 0.34.11 was quite stable, and you shouidn't expect playability from any x.01 release. You claim to love "absurd depth", but in the same sentence disparage DF's "feature sprawl" without differentiating between the two. You don't really explain why you liked the 2D environment aside from your own personal aversion to change vis-a-vis fortress design.

DF2014's primary goal is and always was to activate the world, which considering the varying abstraction layers DF juggles between was probably a pretty herculean task. The various other features we got alongside it - big trees, climbing, dwarf+elf+goblin+clown sites, etc., are just gravy to that major change, which will enable loads of other planned features to be added down the line. That being said, DF2012's latest release was stable, added loads of features (interactions got hugely expanded, among other things, I forget how present they were in DF2010), and best of all, empowered modders to create more content through the raws than Toady ever could.

And finally, you don't really specify what you would like development to look like, practically, other than punctuated by regular releases - and who doesn't want that? But especially when the changes are more structural, that would just mean a year of completely unplayabie versions and a delayed development cycle as Toady is forced to make builds at regular intervals somewhat stable, even if it makes no sense to do so. Otherwise, the only changes he would be able to make would likely be tiny and insignificant.

TL;DR, while you have every right to make this argument, you've made it poorly and caustically.

Aquillion is running in circles atm and contradicting his own statements. Besides that, many people already destroyed this thread topic multiple times and the only reason its continuing is because Aquillion is continuing to post and deflect everything people are posting here. If there was ever a point to this post, it was long lost on about page 5.

Dogpiling on the crazy guy is fun, though, especially when you've got insomnia.
Logged
He views any show of emotion as offensive, sees introspection as important, values self-control, and strongly believes that a peaceful and ordered society without dissent would be best. He believes that mastery of a skill is one of the highest pursuits, values nature, and finds romance distasteful. He holds well-laid plans and shrewd deceptions in the highest regard.

thvaz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #103 on: July 09, 2014, 03:24:49 am »

I didn't read every post in this thread.

About the OP, well, I'm almost as old as you are here, and I'm perfectly happy with the new version. I agree that Toady should avoid long release cycles like this one (one year is enough in my opinion) and disagree with everything else you said. I hope Toady disagrees too.

Back in the day there were three types of DF players. I would call them the Architects, the Organizer and the Roleplayer/Simulationist.

The Architects had joy in painting beautiful fortresses in the 2d "canvas" and sharing them in the Map Archive with the community.
The Organizer had joy in controling and optimizing the flow of the fortresses.
And the Roleplayer/Simulationist had joy in the stories generated by the game and in the emergent behavior.

I think you are an Architect. You could say the game lied to you promising to be a canvas for you to paint your beautiful fortresses but in fact you believed in your own lies. If you read the development plans at the time it was clear to where the game was going, and it was going to cater mainly to the Roleplayer/Simulationist crowd.

Nowadays there are many games going for this "old" Dwarf fortress that got the attention of the Architects. The Dwarf Fortress of today is the only one of its kind.
Logged

Lightman

  • Bay Watcher
  • The groboclones are looking for you.
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #104 on: July 09, 2014, 03:32:54 am »

Abalieno

I've been playing DF since the '2D' days, too.  Your main gripe seems to be that you want more / more frequent updates.  That is understandable but your rant runs off in different directions.

I disagree with most of your post:

What you call "the essential part of the game" (fortress style) is not why I enjoyed the game then and not why I enjoy it, now.
What you describe about screenshots and building is basically Minecraft (and clearly what they capitalized on).
The "HUGE fortresses" and "style" you describe is all aesthetics and not mechanics, which is contrary to your argument.
I don't want DF to be a sandbox and it's great that DF continues to add depth.
I'd prefer if DF stayed closed source, for various reasons.
I like the progression of the game and it's fun to read the dev logs.
I do not want to see DF 2006 again.
I do not believe your opinion reflects that of the majority of the DF community.

We'd all like to see more frequent updates.  That is the one thing I think people can agree on.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 22