Print

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

Extended ASCII (Original)

Tilesets (Mayday DFG for instance)

Other (Custom ASCII tiles, etc.)

[Demonic Gophers]

I prefer ASCII, but I use pixel-type creature graphics for anything important.

Goblins -

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Orcs -

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There are similar base graphics for humans, elves and kobolds. I think it's a nice compromise, as it doesn't force you to try to pixel-hunt for information like professions.

Oh, I like that.  Sorta like giving the other races their own happy face/Dwarf head.

Very nice!  This is the first thing I've seen with any chance of luring me away from pure ASCII for DF.

[RedWick]

Well I think the ASCII has a certain charm, and I got used to reading it fairly quickly, but when the same symbol is used for Goats, Groundhogs and Goblins, Hippos and Horses cannot be easily distinguished without tabbing over them, and Minotaurs, Mudmen and Mules are all a brown "M", I daresay there are issues that need to be addressed. 

It's weird.  I've never had any problem identifying the creature I'm looking and knowing what it is based on where it is in the world (goats are white and generally stick to the mountains, groundhogs are brown and live in lower biomes, and goblins never show up unless there's been an announcement).  I try to keep tabs on which creatures belong to the biome I'm playing in by checking the unit list regularly fairly early in the game, so I'm rarely caught off-guard (hoary marmots and macaques screw me up on occasion).

I guess I've got to be in a pretty small minority in not getting tripped up by that, given that I've seen any number of people voice their issues with confusing creatures with one another, so it's clearly something that needs to be addressed at some point.  However, with the introduction of randomized creatures, you're still going to need to tab over creatures to really know what you're looking at, and making unique tiles for everything is going to be difficult.

For the record, I like ascii, but I grew up playing all the old classics (Including the original Rogue) so reading the "Matrix code" hasn't been a problem for me for a very long time.

[KPeriod]

I use a custom tileset based on the CryEngine 2, basically makes the game look like Crysis. 

[ed boy]

I use the original ASCII, but my brother can't live without a tileset.

[Tcei]

Im one of the ones who started out ascii and quit as soon as I got to the embark screen as I didnt understand a single thing I was seeing. Later I came back with maydays graphic pack and the tutorial(s) on the wiki as it made the game easier to understand to start with. At least for me. I eventualy went ascii again as I got tired of not always being able to read the various menues said or understand the diagrams people made on the boards. Now Im not sure if I could comfortably go back to graphics.

Anyways I ramble a bit. IME the graphic packs make it easier to learn at the start, (especialy for folks like me who are-were new to ascii games) as it gives newbies the ability to tell at a glance that that  is a ground hog not a goblin. Allowing more time to learn the menues and other intricacies of the game.

[HatfieldCW]

You get used to it.  I don't even see the code anymore.  All I see is, blonde... brunette... redhead...

I started out with MayDay, courtesy of TinyPirate's tutorial, and when a patch came out I found it easier to learn the ASCII than to learn how to install the graphics myself.  I recently was helping a friend get started, and rediscovered the DFG version, and I use that now because they squares are squares.

It's not that tough to figure out the MayDay set if you've been using ASCII forever.  The dwarf icons are still color-coded, so your knowledge of how professions work is still applicable.

[moki]

I play with the MikeMayday set... I found it easy to start with the prepackaged gam and then got used to it. I never liked the standard non-quadratic curses set, though the 16*16 is pretty ok. It's only a question of being used to it or not.
I'm currently working on my own 16*16 tileset that's kind of similar to the Mayday set in style, but has no real "pictures" for objects. It's not very easy, but I'm trying to have tiles that look like game objects but are still easily recognisable as the letters they are... abstraction without too much abstraction, don't know how to explain it.

[Deon]

I like to play with graphic tile and creature sets, but they are totally made by me. I enjoy the look of the things I see, and if I don't, I just redraw the bugger to fit my style. Thus I don't see it "blocky" or "confusing", because it's made by me. I am still lost in may of others' graphic sets .

[GlyphGryph]

I don't really like the default ascii as is, but I DO like simple implementations of stuff. The "heads" in an earlier post are exactly the sort of upgrades I use - simple, straightforward, but far more content-laden than the defaults.

I use a simple tileset as well - no shading, but far better looking than the default ascii.

I tried using maydays pack and other shaded versions, but it hurt my eyes and I didn't really like how it looked.

[Mandaril]

Since the day I first got my hands on Nethack, I've become quite familiar with the ASCII-graphics. ASCII-graphics are extremely clear to me so I like it.

I don't want to diminish/insult the great work modders do, but I think all graphic pacs I've seen this far are plain ugly. Ugly, and/or very unclear.
http://dwarffortresswiki.net/images/e/ee/DFG13.png
I guess with enough playing I might start getting used to the graphic packs, but from the start I have very hard time recognizing the differences between those dwarves. With ASCII it's all clear to me, even when they are running around the fortress in 100fps speed.

I'm so familiar with ASCII graphics I'd rather keep them.

[Deon]

I think that they are not ugly. It's just a matter of personal ability to interpret graphical figures. This ability varies for people, in the same matter as imagination, ability to remember etc. so it's absolutely personal.

Also there was no need to insult Mike personally. As you told, there's a lot of other graphic packs to show, stop ganging on the MM .

[RantingRodent]

ASCII has the advantage that it's hard to do it "wrong". It's a letter with colour coding, and the letter in some way relates to the name of what you're representing. Graphics packs don't have the same consistency because artistic ability and subjectivity comes into the picture.

Graphics packs have an extra disadvantage with DF in that they are only partly supported. The forced sharing of tiles between objects means that DF graphics packs inherit some of the downsides of ASCII that they don't necessarily need to.

If you play a lot of Roguelikes frequently, ASCII is likely going to be easier for you. Different games are likely to represent similar objects with the same characters. If you use graphics packs, you'll have to adapt to glyphs on a game by game basis.

[LegoLord]

I like the ASCII,  but edited to be a bit smoother, like PTTGV5.  Visualizers like stonesense are nice to look at sometimes, but I don't know if I'd really like to play like that.

[Buddybud]

Though i can deal with ascii i much prefer graphics sets. I presently use a self modified   Lemunde which is based on mayday etc... heres a peak....my statues look like an owl man lol....

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Needless to say i voted tileset, but i said it anyways...! However i see no good reason not to support both as is done presently.

[Vester]

ASCII has its own unique charm, which is why I prefer it to tilesets.

I like starkly contrasting colours.