Print

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

[Salmeuk]

Bay12? Free of flamewars? I'll give the gay dwarves thread as a recent-ish example.

Also Deon dorsi specifically mentioned "without external utilities", which seems fair. There is no way to get to know more about dwarves' previous groups without legends viewer or opening a copy of the save in legends mode. Same goes for figures on engravings and many other things.

There was a flamewar about that? I vaguely remember people disagreeing, but nothing serious.

Practically requiring people to use external utilities and/or mods to understand, and quite often to play, the game is a shoddy, amateur mistake that other game studios get crucified for.  I will never understand why people give Toady a pass for it.

As it stands DF absolutely does not require external utilities to play. I'm not sure how people manage to get stuck on the idea that the obtuse interface is literally impossible to wrangle. Utilities have their function, and one can hope to see them incorporated into the base game one day, but everything great about vanilla DF can be enjoyed without DFhack or therapist or stonesense. Yes, even 3-d visualizers can be substituted by imagination.

And if you can't see why DF has as much respect as it does, consider how independent projects are judged not only for their production of content but also for the motivation behind that production. DF has both worthy motivations and intriguingly unique content. People flock to this game and stomach the interface, the bugs, and the interface bugs for a reason!

[Blucher]

I do think there is too much detail at times: animal/body parts, wood, lots of other things.  I give stone, metal, and gems a pass because this is a game about dwarves after all.  And of course much of it is presented poorly.  But this is Toady's game, and it is a great game (arguably the best game I've ever played), warts and all.  I deal with it by just ignoring the stuff that I don't care about.

The only time I get a bit annoyed at the extreme level of detail is when my fort begins to die from FPS, which inevitably happens. I can't help but think all those (useless to me) details swirling around are grinding the game down to a halt.

[Iamblichus]

Bay12? Free of flamewars? I'll give the gay dwarves thread as a recent-ish example.

Also Deon dorsi specifically mentioned "without external utilities", which seems fair. There is no way to get to know more about dwarves' previous groups without legends viewer or opening a copy of the save in legends mode. Same goes for figures on engravings and many other things.

There was a flamewar about that? I vaguely remember people disagreeing, but nothing serious.

Practically requiring people to use external utilities and/or mods to understand, and quite often to play, the game is a shoddy, amateur mistake that other game studios get crucified for.  I will never understand why people give Toady a pass for it.

As it stands DF absolutely does not require external utilities to play. I'm not sure how people manage to get stuck on the idea that the obtuse interface is literally impossible to wrangle. Utilities have their function, and one can hope to see them incorporated into the base game one day, but everything great about vanilla DF can be enjoyed without DFhack or therapist or stonesense. Yes, even 3-d visualizers can be substituted by imagination.

And if you can't see why DF has as much respect as it does, consider how independent projects are judged not only for their production of content but also for the motivation behind that production. DF has both worthy motivations and intriguingly unique content. People flock to this game and stomach the interface, the bugs, and the interface bugs for a reason!

Well personally I waited for DFHack and Dwarf Therapist before I started playing the newest version but I don't think that detracts from Toady's accomplishment in any way.  On the contrary, as strong, active modding community is a hallmark of a great game.  I wouldn't want to play SimCity 4 without NAM and a bunch of other mods but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the greatest games ever made.

[pikachu17]

stop complaining you don't need to know any of this stuff, but IF you want to you can. you can just look at the parts of the wall of text that are important to you, and ignore the rest.

[Lightfoot]

You can never have too much detail. I'm pretty new to the game and it's the detail that has sucked me in. Even to the level of ensuring that I make beds out of the appropriate variety of wood and decorating items with specific varieties of gizzard stones, cut stones and green glass.

[pikachu17]

actually I think legends mode needs more detail

[pikachu17]

Maybe toady could add a key in view-unit mode to toggle what information is seen.
after pressing the button you get to a small toggling information screen
and for legends mode won't legend-viewer or some other utility work to untangle all the information? I don't know because I don't have it.

[Ghills]

Bay12? Free of flamewars? I'll give the gay dwarves thread as a recent-ish example.

Also Deon dorsi specifically mentioned "without external utilities", which seems fair. There is no way to get to know more about dwarves' previous groups without legends viewer or opening a copy of the save in legends mode. Same goes for figures on engravings and many other things.

There was a flamewar about that? I vaguely remember people disagreeing, but nothing serious.

Practically requiring people to use external utilities and/or mods to understand, and quite often to play, the game is a shoddy, amateur mistake that other game studios get crucified for.  I will never understand why people give Toady a pass for it.

As it stands DF absolutely does not require external utilities to play. I'm not sure how people manage to get stuck on the idea that the obtuse interface is literally impossible to wrangle. Utilities have their function, and one can hope to see them incorporated into the base game one day, but everything great about vanilla DF can be enjoyed without DFhack or therapist or stonesense. Yes, even 3-d visualizers can be substituted by imagination.

And if you can't see why DF has as much respect as it does, consider how independent projects are judged not only for their production of content but also for the motivation behind that production. DF has both worthy motivations and intriguingly unique content. People flock to this game and stomach the interface, the bugs, and the interface bugs for a reason!

Dude, I think you need to take a chill pill.  You are way, way too upset about this.

Toady's amazing accomplishment is not invalidated by, and does not invalidate the fact that DF's interface is horrifying and obtuse, or the fact that for many players external utilities are indeed required.  That people go to the effort of creating things like DwarfTherapist and DFHack means that a significant part of the userbase, perhaps the majority, feel they are required for good / fun gameplay.

Acknowledging that Toady's chosen methods have immense flaws is not being 'disrespectful', and I'm not at all sure how you got that idea.  It's acknowledging the current realities of playing Dwarf Fortress. 

There are many players who do not play without DwarfTherapist, a tileset, DFHack, or all 3.  There's nothing wrong with this. Equally, there's nothing wrong with playing without those tools - but there's nothing right about that either. That so many players use external tools clearly shows that the current state of DF lacks good ways to handle vital tasks.

[pikachu17]

Dude, I think you need to take a chill pill.  You are way, way too upset about this.

Toady's amazing accomplishment is not invalidated by, and does not invalidate the fact that DF's interface is horrifying and obtuse, or the fact that for many players external utilities are indeed required.  That people go to the effort of creating things like DwarfTherapist and DFHack means that a significant part of the userbase, perhaps the majority, feel they are required for good / fun gameplay.

Acknowledging that Toady's chosen methods have immense flaws is not being 'disrespectful', and I'm not at all sure how you got that idea.  It's acknowledging the current realities of playing Dwarf Fortress. 

There are many players who do not play without DwarfTherapist, a tileset, DFHack, or all 3.  There's nothing wrong with this. Equally, there's nothing wrong with playing without those tools - but there's nothing right about that either. That so many players use external tools clearly shows that the current state of DF lacks good ways to handle vital tasks.

I hate tilesets. when people use them on youtube I can not tell what is happening. I do not have big forts. maybe when I have a big fort i'll use dwarf therapist but I do not now. I use dfhack, but mostly because I like gui/advfort and gui/create-item

[Salmeuk]

Dude, I think you need to take a chill pill.  You are way, way too upset about this.

I'm hardly worked up about this, and I can't see why arguing about the finer details of a topic I care about should be interpreted as "getting upset."

"I'm not sure how people manage to get stuck on the idea that the obtuse interface is literally impossible to wrangle."

This was probably the most hostile part of my post, and I stand behind it. It doesn't suggest addons are morally wrong, nor does it preclude their use, nor do I insult those who use addons (this would be especially odd because I use DFhack myself). It's just my experiences with posters demanding interface improvements and criticizing the devs for failing to provide have made me want to speak against that notion that the interface is impossible. It just isn't, proof being me and a gazijillion other players who download and play the newest updates as soon as they show up.

Acknowledging that Toady's chosen methods have immense flaws is not being 'disrespectful', and I'm not at all sure how you got that idea.  It's acknowledging the current realities of playing Dwarf Fortress. 

I don't think I ever said it was disrespectful (and I'm not at all sure how you got that idea) to state criticisms of the current state of the game, so thanks for reminding me - I'll just say it now.

. . .

Just kidding! There is a certain lack of respect towards the devs when a person waltzs up with a list of "Undoubtedly Necessary Improvements I Thought of Last Night" and expects hasty implementation, but just criticizing the game or the dev process? That's awesome.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Perhaps I'm more concerned with the lack of respect towards the search function, considering these sorts of posts are fairly regular around here and many echo the same, tired points. Most fail to acknowledge that the need for interface improvements has already been, well, acknowledged.

However, if you think your criticisms of the development process ("Toady's chosen methods have immense flaws") are objective statements and not just opinions, then you might have trouble understanding my viewpoint.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sort of unrelated, but I once attended a games journalism meetup at my college, where everyone was asked to name themselves and their favorite game. I remember stating "Dwarf Fortress, the only true game. . . " in a sort of sardonic fashion (hey I was younger then) and one woman from the front immediately spouted, "Dwarf fortress isn't a game!" I was so shocked at her opinion-shared-as-fact I couldn't think to say anything back. I did my best to understand her perspective (well, as best as I could guess what that perspective was because she later refused to talk to me) and concluded that some people really, really can't stand the "presentation" of DF. This experience informed me on the normal reaction to DF, and I now realize that anyone who attempts to come up with even a smidgen of real criticism is worthy of respect and an open ear.

[Grimlocke]

Dude, I think you need to take a chill pill.  You are way, way too upset about this.

This is pretty annoying and it would be nice if people didn't do this.

Anyhow, more on subject: The game can be played just fine without any external utilities, graphics or mods. It's not 'impossible'. That said it can't be denied that the learning curve without these things is simply too much for the vast majority of potential players, and the utilities can be pretty helpful for larger scale forts.

ASCII graphics all the way though!

[Untrustedlife]

You have encountered "Gray Goo", a common problem in Dwarf Fortress.  "Gray Goo" occurs when procedural generation outstrips interest. There so much to care about that you stop caring.

Dwarf Fortress has deep gameplay, and it will keep getting deeper. This should not be resisted; in fact, it is why many people play the game. Instead, attack the other front. Interest cannot be meaningfully increased, but it can be used more effectively.

• Don't display too much information at any one time. Keep the player focused on only a few things, and only when specifically asked for. The new (l)ocations screen is a good example. It is sparse and provides good information with little fluff.
• Provide relevant information in an easily accessible, but non-intrusive place. The player should not feel obligated to remember more than he or she needs to. This is where (l)ocations fails. When assigning occupations, skills and preferences should be available for each of the citizens when specifically requested.
• Context is key! Whenever you provide information, say why the player should care. Don't just say "X killed Y", say "X, a scoundrel from Komutesdor killed his king, Y!" By reusing the player's interest, you can stretch the interest far further.
• Make sure the player actually remembers what he or she has learned. Which is easier to remember: Komutesdor or PoemSells? Sounds are harder to remember than words. If there is no easy translation, use a description, but make sure the player remembers it.

Detail is not the problem. Lack of interest is. The real world is far deeper than any videogame, but humans still function. There is enough interest available, it just has to be used right.

Very, very good post. Procedural generation is fantastic at making big, detailed, unique worlds on the fly. Unfortunately, it's incredibly bad at sorting out relevant and interesting stuff from the chaff, or highlighting things that are meaningful. It's not just an issue with Dwarf Fortress, you can see this phenomena in Elite: Dangerous, Cataclysm: DDA, and many roguelikes.

Frankly, DF's UI really does not help the situation. When you're already fighting procedural generation's tendency to drown interesting stuff in minutiae, choosing to display things like Dwarf personalities and feelings as giant single paragraphs does not do any favors.

My honest advice to OP is to not get invested in your world. DF's procedural generation is a tool to give you a fleshed out, new canvas every time you start a new world; not to give you a coherent world that you can get invested in. It makes for fun new challenges and extends the novelty of the game, but any attachment to the world is going to be through your own story that you're telling at your fort or with your adventurer.

The thing about df is that the world is thoroughly and internally consistent, which means it makes sense, yes you can get invested and (this is my opinion btw)  you benefit from getting invested, just make sure to spread your gameplay equally through fort and adventure mode. Then review the world  (and look for interesting things) with legends, this is more important now that "world activation" is a thing . Since the world and the people in it and what they do are now simulated as you play, not just during world gen.

Sorry for ressing an old post, I just wanted to say my opinion. hehe

[Untrustedlife]

actually I think legends mode needs more detail

I agree, the more detailed the better and most df players want more complexities, but it does make it harder for newbies to grasp.

[Dirst]

actually I think legends mode needs more detail

I agree, and most df players want more complexities, but it does make it harder for newbies to grasp.
So he has a sort of point.

This could be fixed with assigning detail levels to each event, and just showing things at or coarser than the selected level.  Coarsest level for a particular figure would be birth and death, set equal to the coarsest level of any event in the figure's life.  Then you can filter figures and events by the coarsest level they have.

The problem is that it will be difficult or impossible for the system to avoid massive clumping at certain levels.  The vast majority of creatures will have no assigned DIFFICULTY, so the only differentiations will be "in a named battle" and "focal figure sustained an injury".

[Putnam]

Legends mode's event listing for particular ages already has a certain significance level assignment similar to the detail levels you're talking about, though it's binary at this point. I could see that being generalized...

In fact, I think that may be the solution to a lot of the game's problems?? Just a sort of general significance system, such as for creature descriptions or engravings (though, really, all you need to know about engravings is in the K menu, which provides quality and material which is quite enough)