Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22

Author Topic: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress  (Read 51332 times)

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure theirs!
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #255 on: July 09, 2014, 03:56:54 pm »

You can tell when a thread is starting to break down when people are arguing over the semantics that they said ten posts ago.

I brought up the "learning curves" thread, but no one listened.

I remember that post both of them. I heard and understand and chose to ignore. The way I see it people are trying to pressure Toady into doing what they want and while there are things brought up that we all agree with I think it probably helps ease the sense of pressure he gets if people of the viewpoint that it is his game and he should develop it as he sees fit speak up.
Some of us do speak up.  I made a comment like that in my previous post.  But the OP ignores the people who say that and keeps on arguing.

sal880612m

  • Bay Watcher
  • [SANITY:OPTIONAL]
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #256 on: July 09, 2014, 04:10:33 pm »

Never meant to imply it didn't happen or that people didn't just why I did and why I am glad so many others did. Any attempts to derail where just because "this thread is about Spider-man" type stuff.
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."

palu

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #257 on: July 09, 2014, 04:33:16 pm »

Tolkien [...] The Silmarillion.
Wait, are you saying Toady is going to die, and DF will be finished and published by his son?

Simile - sometimes they take us to unexpected places  ;)
Haven't you heard about the community project to clone him?
Logged
Hmph, palu showing off that reading-the-instructions superpower.
The internet encourages thoughtful, intelligent discussion and if you disagree I hate you.

Lightman

  • Bay Watcher
  • The groboclones are looking for you.
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #258 on: July 09, 2014, 05:33:24 pm »

With a decoupled gui and vastly better raws, everyone pretty much would be using mods, because mods would be 10x more epic. That's the point. This is kind of like saying "I don't think we need internal combustion engines, because I use a horse."

Although effort always may or may not be worth it in a person's opinion.

Also, many of the "features" like specific trees being researched and data-entered, are things that Toady doesn't really need to do. As an example of why raws help everyone. He could have spent twenty minutes explaining the tags and had us make all of them. Dunno how long he spends on that stuff, but some features you say you'd rather have would still be implemented in this way. More quickly even.

Maybe Toady likes researching trees and putting in the data.  He should do that if he wants.  If he wants help, he knows he can get it.

No, it's nothing like your engine analogy.  For players like me, it might make the experience better and it might not; the impact is debatable.  Even though I don't use mods / tools (currently), the community is doing a great job.  I'm sure that will continue.

I don't doubt there are benefits to what you're saying.  Please understand, though, that there are other opinions and they deserve as much consideration and respect as your own.
Logged

Misterstone

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #259 on: July 09, 2014, 07:50:03 pm »

Sorry I didnt read the whole thread, But I did read the first post.  Two things in particular bother me...

1)  Who says that the "sandbox" style of gameplay is crucial to DF?  This is a sim game not a god game or digital legos.  The point is not to give you everything you want and let you make exactly what you wanted to make before you even began the game.  In know this because everything about the game is designed to make every experience with it different from all others.  The game world is produced procedurally based on simulation of history, geology etc.  It was always like this even during 2D DF days.  You have a bazillion kinds of rocks because the world is created based on rules that mimic real life.  Not because these rocks have a purpose or attributes that are significant to game play.  A world is created for you to abide in, and you job is to do this in a fun way.

2) Perhaps the greatest thing about the game is that it produces unique experiences, which people often turn into stories or shared fortresses etc.  The difference between orthoclase and gneiss is not mechanically significant, (or is it? Haven't played in a while) but it can add narrative details.  Also, some dwarves really really like orthoclase.  It wouldn't be fun if they liked "generic igneous rock" would they?  Even if you gave it a specific name, if there's only a dozen kinds of rocks it's less rich in terms of narrative possibilities, in terms of differentiation of people and things.  I like it better this way.  I think the inclusion of stuff that is incidental to mechanics but makes the game more fun to talk about is why people like to speak in whispers about this being actual art.  And the complex simulations make unexpected things happen, which likewise contribute to this. 

The motto "losing is fun" basically says it all... you are not supposed to be in control.  Expect the unexpected, and don't think of the game as your sandbox.  Enjoy the details even as tshtf.

Logged

Abalieno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #260 on: July 09, 2014, 08:19:04 pm »

You have a bazillion kinds of rocks because the world is created based on rules that mimic real life.  Not because these rocks have a purpose or attributes that are significant to game play.

Let's be clear, I'm not criticizing the presence of all those rock types. I'm criticizing that the UI differentiates them visually as if that difference is crucial to the game. Whereas it's irrelevant.

The UI prioritizes to show detail of stuff whose detail makes no difference.
Logged
 HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net

Evaris

  • Bay Watcher
  • Random Bored Kitsune
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #261 on: July 09, 2014, 08:24:05 pm »


Let's be clear, I'm not criticizing the presence of all those rock types. I'm criticizing that the UI differentiates them visually as if that difference is crucial to the game. Whereas it's irrelevant.

The UI prioritizes to show detail of stuff whose detail makes no difference.

What about color-coding your fortress / levers / traps / etc?
Logged
Orichalcum Dwarf Fortress: An expansion mod giving extra realistic options to many un-and-underused materials in game.  [currently out of date, may be revived in the future]

hermes

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #262 on: July 09, 2014, 08:28:31 pm »

Let's be clear, I'm not criticizing the presence of all those rock types. I'm criticizing that the UI differentiates them visually as if that difference is crucial to the game. Whereas it's irrelevant.

The UI prioritizes to show detail of stuff whose detail makes no difference.

Dude!  Seriously, if you're gonna continue this, have the courtesy to read and respond to people instead of selectively quoting and continuously strawman-arguing...  Misterstone said the rocks do make a difference and they are relevant because they add narrative depth to the gameplay...

Perhaps the greatest thing about the game is that it produces unique experiences, which people often turn into stories or shared fortresses etc.  The difference between orthoclase and gneiss is not mechanically significant, (or is it? Haven't played in a while) but it can add narrative details.  Also, some dwarves really really like orthoclase.  It wouldn't be fun if they liked "generic igneous rock" would they?  Even if you gave it a specific name, if there's only a dozen kinds of rocks it's less rich in terms of narrative possibilities, in terms of differentiation of people and things.
Logged
We can only guess at the longing of the creator. Someone who would need to create one such as you. - A Computer
I've been working on this type of thing...

mnjiman

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #263 on: July 09, 2014, 08:49:04 pm »

Dude!  Seriously, if you're gonna continue this, have the courtesy to read and respond to people instead of selectively quoting and continuously strawman-arguing...  Misterstone said the rocks do make a difference and they are relevant because they add narrative depth to the gameplay...

This.

Abalieno seems to be arguing with himself as others seem to feel more conclusion from this topic vs himself. Saying that however, if Abalieno does wish to continue this topic further, he will need to reply to more variety posts instead of "strawman-arguing" as you put it, otherwise my respect for his personal position will deteriorate into nothingness.
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.

cephalo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #264 on: July 09, 2014, 08:51:58 pm »


Let's be clear, I'm not criticizing the presence of all those rock types. I'm criticizing that the UI differentiates them visually as if that difference is crucial to the game. Whereas it's irrelevant.

The UI prioritizes to show detail of stuff whose detail makes no difference.

I have to disagree on this observation in regards to stone, while I might agree in the case of edible plants like potatoes and chickpeas. Very important materials are hidden in certain kinds of stone, for example, kimberlite is where you find diamonds. Flux materials tend to be white. The appearances of these stones are major clues to what lies out of view.

Also, stone is a very common building/decoration material, and what things are made of tie in to the place where they were made. I actually think that this part of the game is very well done. When you see a microcline throne with hanging rings of malachite and jet, you can almost look it up to see what that might look like. My main goal in my forts is to set up access to mats that I think would go great together in an artifact. In my last big fort I purposely put petrified wood and precious gems near the mason shops, and I got an awesome artifact throne for my queen!
Logged
PerfectWorldDF World creator utility for Dwarf Fortress.

My latest forts:
Praisegems - Snarlingtool - Walledwar

Abalieno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #265 on: July 09, 2014, 09:12:52 pm »

What about color-coding your fortress / levers / traps / etc?

Deliberate use of dye/paint would achieve that far more elegantly without the noise.
Logged
 HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net

DG

  • Bay Watcher
  • Pull the Lever
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #266 on: July 09, 2014, 09:23:09 pm »

The stone colours match their colours in real life. That's why most of them in the game are grey. One of the times I donated to Toady he sent me a piece of microline with a note saying (paraphrasing now) "It really is that colour!"
Logged

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure theirs!
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #267 on: July 09, 2014, 09:28:55 pm »

[edited out by poster]
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 09:37:01 pm by 4maskwolf »
Logged

Abalieno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #268 on: July 09, 2014, 09:37:24 pm »

I have to disagree on this observation in regards to stone, while I might agree in the case of edible plants like potatoes and chickpeas. Very important materials are hidden in certain kinds of stone, for example, kimberlite is where you find diamonds. Flux materials tend to be white. The appearances of these stones are major clues to what lies out of view.

Good. There are still ways to retain these types of functions without the fort itself getting color-coded.

Quote
Also, stone is a very common building/decoration material, and what things are made of tie in to the place where they were made. I actually think that this part of the game is very well done. When you see a microcline throne with hanging rings of malachite and jet, you can almost look it up to see what that might look like. My main goal in my forts is to set up access to mats that I think would go great together in an artifact. In my last big fort I purposely put petrified wood and precious gems near the mason shops, and I got an awesome artifact throne for my queen!

And this is another example of functionality that is not locked to the UI display.

So, let's put all this in reverse:
what if instead of removing stone types, or removing the display of stone types, you get instead functions/tasks that make the dwarfs recolor things?

This means that when you dig you recognize all the different types, but when you actually build colors on screen depend either on choice, or actual functionality.

In any case, I brought this up more as a case of "if the variety exists, then make it relevant", rather than, "remove all these useless types".

That's why the example of cave-ins. If Toady gave these stone types stats like "density", then why it doesn't play a role in the mechanics like cave-ins, resistance to attack and whatnot?

I'll make another example on this general game design philosophy, but please not nitpick on the fact I could be imprecise with the description. It's just an example intended as a general case.

Here:
So we have big trees now. The first thing I noticed when starting a game was that in the time it previously took to fall one tree and obtain one log, now you fall this big tree and produce like 20 logs.

This alters the game. Same as when hauling rocks depending on weight became a factor and slowed everything down.

Two aspects I was considering:
1- Are the dwarfs able to avoid the tree falls reliably? Do they develop such skill or it's down to randomness?
2- Was it considered the possibility to increase the number of logs needed to produce the various objects, now that one tree produces many more?

It's an example showing that if features aren't planned along their full implications, then they slowly produce a game that just cannot be controlled anymore. Because you constantly get bugs, side-effects and all sort of randomness that isn't consistent with the actual rules.

So, when you plan to add a feature you also need to know the implications it has, and be ready to work it out before it is included. Otherwise you produce a mess of incomplete features that only get worse. And this is the aspect of Dwarf Fortress feature creep, that seemed to be more concerned of just adding things, more than adding things elegantly, or consistently, or so that all implications are covered.
Logged
 HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net

Mictlantecuhtli

  • Bay Watcher
  • Grinning God of Death
    • View Profile
Re: Toady, a little rant on modern Dwarf Fortress
« Reply #269 on: July 09, 2014, 09:47:16 pm »

... Yeah, this topic really doesn't serve much purpose, in my opinion.
Logged
I am surrounded by flesh and bone, I am a temple of living. Maybe I'll maybe my life away.

Santorum leaves a bad taste in my mouth,
Card-carrying Liberaltarian
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 22