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.)

[Gazz]

While I would like some graphics, they are not possible with the current code base so any poll can easily prove that "graphics are bad".

As long as an "e" is used for more than one distinct creature, trying to create an icon that represents this multitude of creatures is a pointless exercise.

So the first order of business would be to

• Use a dedicated tileset for numbers and letters for the sole purpose of displaying text.
  That solves the eternal aspect ratio issue between squares and rectangles.
  Square text will always look poopy. No amount of argueing is going to fix that. =)
  

.

• Use a tileset of far more than 16x16 icons for... graphics.
  
  Even better: assign a "graphics" key to the creature list so every creature would load the unique file defined there.
  So what if there's a lot of 16x16 pixel bitmap files? What's the harm?
  It's a lot easier to mod and can be expanded infinitely.
  
  Want different resolutions? No sweat. Start with 32x32 pixels and run a batch conversion to crunch the whole lot to 16x16.
  Takes 10 seconds. Having everything in one file is no advantage unless you use something like Windows Paint.

With as much free creative potential as the sheer number of available tilesets show, the dev himself wouldn't even have to create any graphics at all.

Without such a change, ASCII is the least terrible alternative because it does not show a likeness of a creature that has to be wrong half the time because one graphic/letter is used to represent too many creatures.

Any poll about whether graphics or ASCII are "better" would have to assume that graphics can be used in a meaningful way...

[Levi]

I love maydays tile set.  I'll be honest and say I probably wouldn't play dwarf fortress (and wouldn't have started) if it didn't exist.  I love low graphics and 2d art, but ASCII is just to ugly for the most part.  I'm not sure why people subject themselves to running DF in ascii mode when there are perfectly good tile sets out there that won't make you bleed from the eyes. 

I mean really, I grew up playing games in the 80s, and even the old commodore 64 had games with graphics better than letters and numbers and symbols.  

[Gazz]

"Full graphics support" (whatever that ends up meaning =) is already #6 on the eternal suggestions voting so I don't doubt that some sort of (modable =) graphics support will see the light of day... eventually.

Just wanted to say that an argument over graphics vs. ASCII is inherently flawed while the only way that works is the ASCII principle where a finite number of tile graphics is used to represent an infinite number of game objects.

[Zalminen]

I've played quite a bit of Nethack in my days and I always preferred the original ASCII in that game.

However when playing DF (fortress mode) I immediately switched to using tilesets.

Tilesets allow me to mentally evaluate the whole situation much faster than with ASCII. In Nethack it didn't matter that much since there was usually much less new stuff on the screen at once and it wasn't realtime in the first place.

[RAM]

Compression loses detail, if you want 8x8 tiles then 8x8 tiles are better than 32x32 / 4.

Making a graphic for every single entity rapidly reduces the extent to which each one is unique. You could have any number of small brown logs ranging from groundhogs to wooden floors to small brown logs. If I see the relevant ascii tile for a goblin, then I can immediately know to check the list of creatures, assuming that I haven't been informed of their presence. Graphics just end up being too similar to each other...

[Solarn]

ASCII all the way for me. It's clean, very visible and allows me to parse everything much faster than any tileset would. I understand that it's the opposite for some people, but I think anyone who whines about how the game is unplayable without tilesets seriously needs to learn how to play games.

Besides, fancy graphics would distract me from the gameplay, which in DF is a very bad thing indeed.

[riznar]

Graphics just end up being too similar to each other...

This is a strange statement to make when the same ascii tiles are used for multiple objects.

Fixing the menu inconsistencies would go further than graphics updates I feel. People on laptops have to use the Fn key to scroll in some menus.

[Charmander]

Graphics sets are easier on the eyes and I can tell at-a-glance what something is.

For that, I'll gladly wait an extra month for someone to port graphics over to the new version.

[Pita]

I use a custom ascii tileset that is square and a little cleaner. It's nice. Having non-square tiles makes reading distances unnecessarily confusing. I'm actually a very visually orientated person, so making dwarf fortress pretty is important to me. I'd play with a full-graphics tileset if they were possible, but since they're not, having only a certain percentage of tiles graphics makes it look pretty ugly if they contrast with the existing ascii tiles (and most do). Exceptions would be what Warlord255 showed earlier in the thread (that looks good! I think I'm going to do the same). I guess consistency is quite important to me.

I'm definitely going to make my own graphics once it's possible to replace everything, though! So I'm looking forward to full graphics support. When I say 'full graphics support' though, I mean only that, not all the other features requested that fall under the umbrella of full graphics support.

[Kaelem Gaen]

I changed it up to Tilesets of which I use Haowan's 1440x450 I've tried the "graphic" sets (I assume that meant like the ones that added little pictures in the Ascii box) but when letters turned into symbols it got weird to read names. I've used graphic sets but since I play with bigger fonts the graphics don't fit well for my computer and even with the D# releases the Graphics don't scale appearently (at least not on Kobold Camp 40d16)

[Wits]

Default ASCII for me. I have tried a few graphic sets for their spiffy looks, but I found it difficult to read them. It has nothing to do with nostalgia, either, although I am something of a roguelike vet. I just find plain forms easier to tell apart. Never tried one of them fancy square ASCII thingamajabs, guess I could potentially be into something of that sort.

For all I care, DF won't ever need graphics other that what it has (with the possible exception of more symbols). I'm even quite happy with the menus; there are a few issues here and there, but generally speaking I find them pretty powerful.

Donation- and other outreach-related strategies are another matter, obviously.

[Levi]

ASCII all the way for me. It's clean, very visible and allows me to parse everything much faster than any tileset would. I understand that it's the opposite for some people, but I think anyone who whines about how the game is unplayable without tilesets seriously needs to learn how to play games.

Besides, fancy graphics would distract me from the gameplay, which in DF is a very bad thing indeed.

Really?  How would nicer graphics distract you from the gameplay?  If anything I would think it would do the opposite.  And I don't think that people who don't want to play in ASCII need to learn to play games.   Wanting something a bit more immersive than some random symbols and letters doesn't make you bad at playing games, it makes you bad at memorizing arbitrary meanings of random symbols and letters. 



I actually think the ASCII people should give the tilesets a chance, nothing wrong with making things look a little nicer.

[andrea]

I gave tilesets a chance once, during a succession fort. Looked ugly, couldn't understand anything.
Maybe some other tilesets are better, but while you think that graphic sets make things look a bit nicer, that is highly subjective.

In my opinion, for example, ASCII is much easier on eyes, because it is much cleaner and less cluttered. And due to the same reasons, and the fact that there aren't enough pixels to make good (subjective) pictures for everything, ASCII looks better too.
And I'll even tell you something quite strange: while being only symbols, I find it immersive enough. For me, at least, it is much easier to understand and recreate in my mind the situation, when all my brain has to take as input is a letter or some straight lines, compared to having to understand things far more complex as graphic sets, which aren't symbols anymore but aren't good enough to be immediately recognized as what they are.

Depends a lot on the brain and the eyes. Highly subjective.

[riznar]

I'm seeing a lot of "Graphic tilesets are better than the bad ascii" and "Ascii is better than the bad graphic tilesets"

[andrea]

as I said, subjective.

to some, graphics are better and ASCII ugly. to other, ASCII is better and graphics ( the ones in DF) are ugly.

a matter of opinion, not facts.