Print

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

[Footkerchief]

^^^ I'm not sure Toady's ever going to include graphics in the vanilla bundle though.  It would probably be better to focus on ways of simplifying installation, like a more flexible GRAPHICS:ON_IF_FOUND setting.  Modifying init.txt is terrifying for some newbies.  For me it was a hassle and an obstacle to the game not looking like crap.  I think I already mentioned this turnoff though.

[Squirrelloid]

What's so hard about an .ini?  Heck, its even well-documented, unlike the game itself!

Is it really so much easier to open an executable that loads a GUI with clickable buttons with the same categories as the .ini has, rather than just opening a text file and typing?  Because the way the game architecture is handled these settings have to be changed before loading the game, so your only options are a secondary program that allows you to change settings, or a text file where you can change settings.  And the text file is the same amount of difficulty for the user and a whole lot simpler for the programmer...

Edit: I suppose the game could go to a pre-loader first, with menu options: start DF and Change Options.  Also a lot more work for the programmer.

Seriously, anyone who can't be bothered to open a txt file isn't going to stick around to figure out how to play the game.

[Footkerchief]

Is it really so much easier to open an executable that loads a GUI with clickable buttons with the same categories as the .ini has, rather than just opening a text file and typing?

It is psychologically easier for many people, yes.  And it's not really a question of ability, it's a question of how many hoops you have to jump through before you can even start trying to have fun.  It is, in the parlance of this thread, a turnoff.

A config GUI is better, but as I said, the emphasis should be on flexible default options that require minimal configuration to add near-ubiquitous extras like graphics packs.  I know DF's init/raws inside out and I still hate having to go into init to activate a new graphics pack, and not being able to change fonts from within the program, and so on.

Seriously, anyone who can't be bothered to open a txt file isn't going to stick around to figure out how to play the game.

You could apply this argument to literally any of the horrible crap that DF forces newbies to adapt to.

[Squirrelloid]

except typing in a txt file that will be read by the program is not awful, unlike say the multiple parallel systems used to designate areas.

Even if you fixed the actually bad UI instances, the game is still complicated.  Anyone willing to put up with the *necessary* complication of the game is trivially capable of opening a txt file.

I mean, is opening the readme for some basic information too complicated as well?

[JohnLukeG]

Those who aren't familiar with editing game files would prefer graphics, and those who prefer ASCII would likely be very familiar with editing game files, so I think including a default graphics set would make sense. 

[Footkerchief]

except typing in a txt file that will be read by the program is not awful, unlike say the multiple parallel systems used to designate areas.

This thread is not about things that are awful per se.  It's about "things that really confused/annoyed you from the start."

The first time I downloaded DF, it was totally on impulse.  I discovered that installing graphics required more than drag-and-drop, and thought "Fuck this" and decided it wasn't worth it.  The second time, I found the Mayday pack and got to world generation, at which point I decided the game was cool enough to warrant editing text files.  (although I gave up AGAIN after that because you can't navigate the embark menu with a laptop keyboard, and there was no way to tell what binds I should change)

You have to understand that many new users of the game have (justifiably) little motivation to push through even the most minor annoyances.

So, what are you arguing exactly?  That I'm not capable of playing DF because I was turned off by the initial configuration process?

[Neruz]

Ok Squirrelloid, i can see how that would work, but again i repeat my question; How does having things that way convey more information than graphics?


Additionally of course there are 'Giant' versions of numerous creatures (Vermin Rats, Large Rats, Giant Rats. Lions and Giant Lions, etc) as well as half a dozen different monkey derivitives and well over a dozen different fish, and we can only expect the number of creatures to grow with each additional release, especially as Toady starts adding randomising systems.I suspect we would very rapidly run out of letters and distinguishable colours (since there aren't that many distinguishable colours.)

Furthermore of course, the concept of Lions being F's is not exactly intuitive; sure it's familiar with Roguelike players, but that's a real good way to decrease the size of your potential fanbase; the more intuitive you make the graphics, the larger your fanbase, and if you use graphics then i don't need to look at a yellow F and go "Wats that?" the first couple of times, because i'll look at it and see a Lion and go "Hey, it's a Lion!" and won't even need to use k.


In fact, with a proper graphics pack, you'd never need to use k at all.

[Squirrelloid]

Ok Squirrelloid, i can see how that would work, but again i repeat my question; How does having things that way convey more information than graphics?


Additionally of course there are 'Giant' versions of numerous creatures (Vermin Rats, Large Rats, Giant Rats. Lions and Giant Lions, etc) as well as half a dozen different monkey derivitives and well over a dozen different fish, and we can only expect the number of creatures to grow with each additional release, especially as Toady starts adding randomising systems.I suspect we would very rapidly run out of letters and distinguishable colours (since there aren't that many distinguishable colours.)

Furthermore of course, the concept of Lions being F's is not exactly intuitive; sure it's familiar with Roguelike players, but that's a real good way to decrease the size of your potential fanbase; the more intuitive you make the graphics, the larger your fanbase, and if you use graphics then i don't need to look at a yellow F and go "Wats that?" the first couple of times, because i'll look at it and see a Lion and go "Hey, it's a Lion!" and won't even need to use k.


In fact, with a proper graphics pack, you'd never need to use k at all.

How big is a given creature image in pixels?  How many creatures are there?  How many creatures might there eventually be?

Basically, colored ascii characters actually gives you more easily discernible characters than graphics ever will.  And those characters are quite easily discernible even at a glance.  The key is to convey as much unique information as possible as quickly as possible.

Expanding the colors recognized by the game is trivial to the point of obvious if the creature set expands that much.  Of course, there are unlikely to be many additional cats, for instance, and the difference between two species of gibbon is trivial to the point of uselessness. (why are there like 15 different gibbon species anyway? Seriously.)

This is the full non-vermin creature map at present (minus a couple of large Fish that were fine with their existing characters), with my initial suggestion on character representation.  If large fish were made (i), the chimera category could be called h(Y)brid, and giant cats could use F, which is something i'm considering.  The color designation follows the creature.  Anyway, the full list:

=Civilizations=
dwarf (default)
human (p)
elf (e)
goblin (o)
kobold (k)

=(c)anine=
Dog [6:0:0] (Domest)
Fox [4:0:0] (Lg Temp)
wolf [7:0:0] (Lg Temp)
ice wolf [7:0:1] (stnd)
beak dog [4:0:0] (stnd)
werewolf [0:0:1] (stnd)
naked mole dog [4:0:1] (Subt)

=(U)rsine=
Grizzly Bear [6:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Black Bear [0:0:1] (Lg Temp)
Polar Bear [7:0:1] (Lg Tundra)

=(f)eliform=
cat [0:0:1] (Domest)
Cougar [6:0:1] (Lg Temp)
Lion [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Leopard [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Jaguar [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Tiger [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Cheetah [6:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Giant Lion [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Leopard [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Jaguar [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Tiger [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Giant Cheetah [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)

=(B)ovine=
Cow [6:0:0] (Domest)
Mountain Goat [7:0:1] (Lg Mtn)
Muskox [7:0:0] (Lg Tundra)

=Ruminants '(D)eer'=
Deer [6:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Gazelle [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Elk [6:0:0] (Lg Tundra)

=(H)orse-like (Perissodactyl)=
Horse [7:0:0] (Domest)
Mule [6:0:0] (Domest)
Donkey [6:0:0] (Domest)
Unicorn [7:0:1] (stnd)

=(r)odent=
Hoary Marmot [7:0:0] (Lg Mtn)
Groundhog [6:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Ratman [0:0:1] (stnd)
Giant Rat [0:0:1] (Subt)
Large Rat [0:0:1] (Subt)
Giant Mole [6:0:0] (Subt)

=Oceanic Mammals=
==(W)hales (cetaceans)==
Whale [7:0:0] (Lg Ocean)

==Pinnipeds: (w)==
Walrus [6:0:0] (Lg Ocean)

=Pig + Hippo (Q)=
Hippo [7:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
Warthog [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)

=(m)onkey=
Rhesus Macaque [7:0:0] (Lg Temp)
Mandrill [1:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Bonobo [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Siamang Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
White Handed Gibbon [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Black-Handed Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Gray Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Silvery Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Pileated Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Bilou [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
White-Browed Gibbon [7:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Black-Crested Gibbon [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)

=(A)pe=
Chimpanzee [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Gorilla [0:0:1] (Lg Trop)
Orangutan [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Sasquatch [7:0:1] (stnd)

=Probiscidia(N)s=
Elephant [7:0:0] (Lg Trop)

=(C)amelid=
One-Humped Camel [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Two-Humped Camel [6:0:0] (Lg Trop)

=Mustellid + Procyonid (q)=
raccoon [7:0:0] (Lg Temp)


=(R)eptile=
Alligator [2:0:0]
Saltwater Crocodile [2:0:0] (Lg Trop)
Dragon [2:0:0] (stnd)
Hydra [2:0:0] (stnd)
Sea Serpent [3:0:1] (stnd)
Sea Monster [2:0:1] (stnd)
Cave Crocodile [7:0:0] (Subt)
Giant Toad [2:0:0] (Subt)

=(b)ird=
Giant Eagle [6:0:0] (Lg Mtn)
Giant Bat [0:0:1] (Subt)
Giant Cave Swallow [0:0:1] (Subt)

=Arachnid (S)=
Giant Desert Scorpion [6:0:0] (Svg Trop)
Giant Cave Spider [7:0:0] (Subt)

=(h)umanoid=
Mountain Gnome [0:0:1] (Lg Mtn)
Dark Gnome [3:0:0] (Lg Mtn)
Leechman [0:0:1] (other)
Slugman [6:0:0] (other)
Snailman [7:0:0] (other)
Tigerman [6:0:1] (Svg Trop)
Gremlin [2:0:1] (stnd)
Frogman [2:0:0] (stnd)
Lizardman [2:0:0] (stnd)
Snakeman [2:0:0] (stnd)
Batman [0:0:1] (stnd)
Antman [0:0:1] (stnd)
Grimeling [2:0:0] (stnd)
Nightwing [0:0:1] (stnd)
Merperson [3:0:1] (stnd)
Troglodyte [6:0:0] (stnd)
Olmman [7:0:1] (Subt)
Cave Swallowman [0:0:1] (Subt)

=Giant (P)=
Troll [0:0:1] (stnd)
Ogre [7:0:0] (stnd)
Titan [3:0:0] (stnd)
Giant [3:0:0] (stnd)
Cyclops [4:0:1] (stnd)
Ettin [6:0:1] (stnd)

=(O)lm=
Giant Olm [7:0:1] (Subt)

=(g)olem=
Bronze Colossus [6:0:1] (stnd)
Iron Man [0:0:1] (Subt)
Mud Man [6:0:0] (Subt)

=Clown (&)= (stnd)
Clown
Spirit of Fun
Bouncy Clown
Naughty Clown

=(E)lemental=
Blizzard Man [3:0:1] (Lg Tundr)
Fire Imp [6:0:1] (Subt)
Fire Man [4:0:1] (Subt)
Magma Man [4:0:1] (Subt)

=ch(i)mera=
satyr [6:0:0] (stnd)
Minotaur [6:0:0] (stnd)
Foul Blendec [0:0:1] (stnd)
Strangler [0:0:1] (stnd) (grouping?)
harpy [6:0:0] (stnd)
Centaur [6:0:0] (fanc)
Griffon [7:0:1] (fanc)
Chimera [2:0:1] (fanc)

=(F)ish=
Coelacanth [1:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Sturgeon [6:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
Giant Grouper [1:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
Swordfish [3:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Marlin [1:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Great Barracuda [2:0:0] (Lg Ocean)
Longnose Gar [6:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
Carp [3:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)
Pike [2:0:0] (Lg Riv/Lk)

=Eel (~)=
Sea Lamprey [0:0:1] (Lg Ocean)
Conger Eel [7:0:0] (Lg Ocean)

=(S)hark= (Lg Ocean)
Great White [7:0:1]
Frill Shark [3:0:0]
Spiny Dogfish [6:0:0]
Spotted Wobbegong [6:0:0]
Whale Shark [6:0:0]
Basking Shark [7:0:0]
Nurse Shark [6:0:0]
Mako Shortfin [3:0:1]
Mako Longfin [3:0:1]
Tiger Shark [7:0:0]
Bull Shark [7:0:1]
Blacktip Reef Shark [0:0:1]
Whitetip Reef Shark [7:0:1]
Blue Shark [1:0:1]
Hammerhead Shark [6:0:0]
Angel Shark [6:0:0]

And there are plenty of letters left.  Further, the full Unicode set could be used (if necessary).  And some of these groups are ridiculously specified.  Gibbons and Sharks being the most ridiculous.  Cat also includes virtually every cat you'd ever want in the game (ie, housecats and the large cats).  The current color designations cause some overlap, and i'd need to play with color output to see what the changing the numbers does, but there's a lot of unused color space for a lot of groups.

It doesn't need to be initially intuitive (although it sort of is.  All fs are more similar to each other morphologically than to any other letter, etc...), it needs to be *learnably* intuitive.  Something the current system lacks.

And it needs to be reasonably implementable.  Toady is never going to designate an official graphics pack because he is not going to make one, and is not going to be held hostage by someone who does whenever he wants to introduce new content.  So there isn't even a real discussion to be had on graphics vs. ascii, the only discussion to be had is 'what version of ASCII'.

[Neonivek]

I thought Gibbons were Apes...

[Squirrelloid]

I thought Gibbons were Apes...

Bats aren't actually birds either =p

More relevantly, i'm using (A)pes for great apes, which means the only thing missing from that list at this point is the Yeti... (Unless you agree with the phylogenetic paper on the matter and think it should be a Bovine because its most closely related to the Yak =p  Great paper. )

[Neruz]

Basically, colored ascii characters actually gives you more easily discernible characters than graphics ever will.

If this is the case, then why are Roguelikes the only game type to use ascii characters?

If coloured ascii characters are so superior, logically all games should be using them.



I'm not saying that you can't have sensible and legible graphics with ascii, i'm contesting your claim that you can convey more information with ascii than you can with image-based graphics; a claim which seems, quite simply, rediculous.

And so far you havn't actually supported your claim; the big list you just gave shows how one can convey a lot of information via coloured ascii, but it also shows how a graphical tileset can convey more.

[Squirrelloid]

Basically, colored ascii characters actually gives you more easily discernible characters than graphics ever will.

If this is the case, then why are Roguelikes the only game type to use ascii characters?

If coloured ascii characters are so superior, logically all games should be using them.



I'm not saying that you can't have sensible and legible graphics with ascii, i'm contesting your claim that you can convey more information with ascii than you can with image-based graphics; a claim which seems, quite simply, rediculous.

And so far you havn't actually supported your claim; the big list you just gave shows how one can convey a lot of information via coloured ascii, but it also shows how a graphical tileset can convey more.

Ok, if we allow totally arbitrary arrangements of colored pixels, there's some minimally differentiable changes needed (ie, differentiability), but otherwise there's a lot of image space.  The more noticeable differences between two most similar arrangements of pixels allowed, the more differentiable it is.

If all we mean by graphics is 'allow any reasonably differentiable combination of colored pixels', sure, there are more possible 'graphics'.  That's not what people mean by 'graphics' however.  They want something to look like the thing being represented.

Issues:
(1) Resolution.  Sprites in the game are small.  They are going to remain small.  This limits the amount of detail on any possible graphics

(2) Differentiability.  Can you tell the difference between a Leopard and a Jaguar at ~10 pixels length?  20 different species of monkey? An elf and a human? 

(3) Comparative differentiability.  An elf and a human swordsman probably look remarkably similar graphically at DF resolutions.  A p and an e are instantly differentiable (as are the current U and E).  Solid colors are easier to see than an image with multiple colors on it, so your axedwarves and macedwarves having different color shields isn't nearly as obviously different as the whole sprite being a different color.  Colored symbols are vastly easier to graphically discriminate between at a glance.

This is aided by letters having been selected to be quickly discriminated between by millenia of reading.  (modern letters have minimized the number of strokes while maximizing the perceivable differences between characters because it maximizes reading comprehension while minimizing writing effort).

(4) Communicability
Colored letters can be uniquely described in text.  "That teal G is a Giant" conveys everything you need to know.  Images require screenshots.  Given any manual ever made for DF is going to probably be pure text, this is a major advantage for people learning the game from a manual.

----------

(5) New Content
Toady One does not make graphics.  He will add new content.  He will want to implement said content immediately.  He should not be held hostage to a graphic designer.

Roguelikes are one of the few games who (1) desire to maximize information content, (2) desire ease of modification of content (most rogue-like developers also do not do graphics), and (3) maximize viewable area and thus minimize tile display size.

Going to a graphics engine cause similar games to reduce the viewable area (eg, Diablo), and often to sacrifice realistic coloring in favor of color-coded monsters (eg, Diablo).  Basically, your symbols are now graphical instead of ASCII, but they're still colored symbols.  And you sacrificed viewable area to achieve that so you had enough resolution to see anything with those graphics.

Viewable area is even more important in DF than it is in a rogue-like.  As such, the need to keep tile size small is very large, and the resolution demands of going to a graphics standard cannot be met.

------
I would dispute rogue-likes are the only game to use symbolic rather than representative 'pieces'.  Many table-top board games use symbolic pieces because they are easier to produce and convey more useful in-game information.  Consider AH's Gettysburg, which has cardboard tiles printed with unit information rather than plastic pieces of army men.

Casual gamers require a high toy value.  They do not buy games like Gettysburg, and they would not buy DF.  DF, like Gettysburg, has a high level of strategic play, and has already closed itself to the market that is sold by toy value.  (Compare to FPS games where the 'toy' value is very high but the strategic depth is very small).  Perfunctory graphics are perfectly acceptable in the specific market DF is targetting by making that choice to be a highly strategic game.

[Footkerchief]

1) They're only going to remain small if players want them to.  "Depending on the stage of the interface overhaul, ultimately I'm going to be support 2D tilesets (probably in dimensions of multiples of 4 because I'm lazy with image file headers).  So if you want to draw up some 32x32s or something, you won't be wasting your time, I think."

2) Leopard and jaguar, or 20 species of monkey, no.  Which is kind of the point -- most people couldn't identify them in real life either.  Elves and humans are easy to tell apart in every current graphics set I've used, though, so the essentials are there.

3) First, comparative differentiability is only helpful if you first memorize several hundred mostly arbitrary symbols.  Secondly, I wouldn't count on everyone's brains working like yours.

4) It would be trivially simple for an integrated manual to pull tiles from the creature graphics.

5) You're probably correct that he won't ever include a real graphics pack in the official download, but there's a lot more graphics support coming, as evidenced by the above quote and the fact that it's a Core item:

# Core50, TILESET SUPPORT, (Future): Allow graphical tiles to be used for all game objects.

Add in the facts that "Full graphics support" is high on Eternal Suggestion Voting and that Toady is going to be working through the top 10 entries after the upcoming release, and it looks like we'll be getting greatly expanded graphics support in the near future, no matter what you consider superior.

Anyway, I have to once again ask you to clarify what you're trying to accomplish here, since posting on topic clearly isn't it.  As far as I can tell, you came in here to complain that people's turnoffs were somehow not legitimate, as if people's turnoffs had to pass your test of rationality before belonging in this thread.  What's the deal?

[Squirrelloid]

There's a difference between making it easier to upload a custom tileset, and making graphics a default standard or prepackaging them with the game.

I fully support anything that makes modding easier.

I would oppose making a graphical tileset the default standard

I could care less about whether they're prepackaged with the game so long as they aren't default, but since Toady is not making such a tileset I doubt it will happen.

Edit:
Posted here because:
(A) I do have a legitimate gripe with the character/color mapping used by the game at present
(B) There should be a counterpoint to the common 'graphics please' post.  Besides, people whining about ASCII is one of my turn-offs about the DF community (that and being totally unable to interpret the screenshots of people who use a tileset).  And despite being a SP game, this is very much a game that depends on the existence of a community.

My first post was fully on topic - it was Zwei's challenge of my point which led to the current discussion, which you may or may not consider on-topic.

[zwei]

What's so hard about an .ini?  Heck, its even well-documented, unlike the game itself!

...

Seriously, anyone who can't be bothered to open a txt file isn't going to stick around to figure out how to play the game.

Seriously, editing text file IS hard. Majority of people who use computer nowadays never had to toy with configuration in text form. It is something new and different and thus scary and hard. Game iteself already looks scary enough, there is no point to make it worse.

Hell, even for techhie, it is not ideal. Plain text file lacks sanity/range checks. Plain text file will not tell you if what you typed in will not work or if it will do what you want.

Not everyone in potential audience is going to be linux geek familiar and comfy with config files or ex-roguelike player. Dismissing players on that grounds as unfit to play df is not heartwinner.

Poor game setup is making sure people will not stick. First impression is IMPORTANT. If players abandons game before he can experience actual gameplay, it is games fault, not his, Poor first impression.

This is whole point of stuff like intro movies and whatnot: to make player stick long enough to get feel of game.

We have no idea how may players stick only because there is nice music in first menu and actual music ingame. And we can have no idea how much more players would stick if there was actual [options] item in main menu, or if default looked better (even small thing like square ascii set ingame would be huge improvement because map would not be dissortred).

That is actually point of this thread: To discover what gives DF poor first impressions and how to fix it.

I fully support anything that makes modding easier.

I would oppose making a graphical tileset the default standard

I could care less about whether they're prepackaged with the game so long as they aren't default, but since Toady is not making such a tileset I doubt it will happen.

Prepackaged tilesets invite one important feature: Choice.

What if game gave you choice on first run: Use default ascii or default graphical set. Condensing all the tileset choosing/downloading/editing config files/whatever to one simple [yes] [no] choice.