Print

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

[Earthquake Damage]

What do you mean DF's a bad example?  It's the perfect example!  Toady has been working on it for 7 years, and the result is much better than the "state-of-the-art" games that are produced by professional studios with better tech but in only a matter of months.

Those "state-of-the-art" games typically build on a much larger technology base than DF, shaving off much development time that might be spent reinventing the wheel.  Toady began with much simpler tools.  To say, for example, that Toady has spent at least 7 times as long on DF as EA spent on the latest Madden title is an invalid comparison.  EA doesn't exactly write each title from scratch.  Such a claim fails to count the time spent developing and revising the game engine over the years.

Anyway, I said it's a poor example because you were talking about differences in quality despite vastly differing technologies (e.g. medieval craftsmanship versus modern manufacturing).  DF's tech isn't all that old.  I don't think it's a valid comparison.  Moreover, I think the key difference between DF and its mainstream contemporaries is not technique so much as a focus on function over form.

Now that I think about it, the DF-<insert stereotypical game here> comparison is probably more complex than you realize.  It suffers from such basic problems as how to define quality (highly subjective).  It's much easier to measure, say, edge sharpness (or other physical properties).  There's also a difference in purpose.  One is the product of a hobbyist/artist with no commercial intentions whereas the other is meant to generate revenue (profit, ideally).  And don't forget that those "state-of-the-art" mainstream games are meant for a wide audience whereas DF appeals to a niche with very different expectations.

BLARGH!  I have confused myself.  Since I no longer know where exactly I was going with that, I'll leave it at "the DF-whatever comparison doesn't apply here because quality is too subjective."

[Solarn]

Something that's worked on for years will always be better than something put together in a short amount of time, no matter what the tech level:  just take Dwarf Fortress as an example!

I call bullshit.  I assume, of course, that "better" is not defined as "took longer to produce".

In essence, what I'm saying is that you can't just take modern technology and slap something together in a few months and have it turn out better than what was the culmination of a life's work from any age.

Clarification:  I'm taking this to mean "no matter the difference in technology, the slower process always yields a better result" (i.e. a stone hand axe built with care over a great many years will always outperform and outlast a rapidly manufactured product, no matter what technology goes into that product).

Also, DF is a poor example.

Mind you, there are precious few materials sharper (and easier to make sharp) than obsidian, especially those that are as durable as well. So... hand-crafted chipped obsidian axe? Outperforms most mass-produced metal ones.

Well, at least for cutting people. Metal axes might be better for cutting trees because a chipped obsidian edge is basically broken glass in that it cuts very cleanly without causing much tissue damage, and that doesn't work out so well when you need the hole made by the first cut to cut deeper into a tree trunk.

[chaoticag]

Not for long though. It isn't much of a weapon if it only manages to survive a few uses. One of the reasons that bronze isn't used over iron isn't about iron being stronger (it isn't) but iron being easier to reforge (and cheaper to be produced).

Bear in mind, I have no idea whether or not obsidian breaks easily, but I suspect it does less well than metal. And when it does, you'll need to mine the obsidian again, versus simply melting the weapon down.

[Solarn]

Not for long though. It isn't much of a weapon if it only manages to survive a few uses. One of the reasons that bronze isn't used over iron isn't about iron being stronger (it isn't) but iron being easier to reforge (and cheaper to be produced).

Bear in mind, I have no idea whether or not obsidian breaks easily, but I suspect it does less well than metal. And when it does, you'll need to mine the obsidian again, versus simply melting the weapon down.

Nah, you just need to re-knap it. Sure, it'll be a bit shorter, but you've got that nice near-molecular edge again. And it actually doesn't break that easily.

[CognitiveDissonance]

Lemme throw a wrench into your argument cogs.
We may have what, 5-10 great techniques that are still "great" from the "middle ages". How many do you think didn't make the cut? And I mean for everything - metal smelting, metal smithing, agriculture, and everything else, really.

This also applies to Toady's Dwarf Fortress. I love the game like we all do (or should. Otherwise, let me introduce to my Hammerer for crimes against dwarfhood) but his game represents an extreme exception. There have been many, many roguelike games. There have been many games which have been developed for many years. There have been fewer, but still many, roguelike games developed for years. How many of them have a growing following, and a dedicated donating community? Toady's work is not a result of "Longer Work Creates Superior Product" - it is a result of Toady's work.

I call statistics. 6 standard deviations out is still a number (   0.00034%) I'd say that's a reasonable estimate for how many "Great Things" make the cut from the rest.

Meaning, that those just happen to be good techniques. 5-10 great techniques do not make all older techniques better. You would want at least 50% rate before we argue.

To exacerbate your point, we have been doing slavery for 11,000 years and it does, in fact, result in very productive societies. Therefore, slavery is superior to universal suffrage/emancipation practices, isn't it? As a matter of fact, slavery today is still very productive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma#Sigma_levels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Furthermore, the argument presumes that if I start today working on a steel sword, if I spend my entire life doing it, it will match of surpass Damascas steel - simply because I put more time into it.

[Solarn]

That's a stupid argument, but I guess that's our fault, not yours. You are of course correct. Just because a technology or idea is old, that doesn't mean it's better. What I was talking about (while failing to mention it) were old techniques of high skill and craftsmanship. Saying that just because a technique is older and done by hand it must be better is stupid.

Also, slavery is very efficient, but morally wrong, so there.

[CognitiveDissonance]

Back on topic

I have a new lead on "armor is overpowered" - it would appear that armor skill raises very quickly, and is incredibly efficient. I had a Master swordsdwarf, using a |||Steel Spear||| against a goblin. It took him about 5 real-life minutes to kill that goblin. At the same time, the same goblin was able to habitually block/dodge 10-weapon traps - he would casually stroll over them, ignoring it. I also had 6 other dwarves on him, with everything from wooden crossbows (did you know? dwarves forgot how to shoot) to |||Steel Battle Axe||| and nothing could touch him. In combat report, he would block everything and parry the rest, with an occassional dodge.
The same traps have been able to eviscerate about ~25 goblins, and their mounts (New sieges are FUN!)

As such, actual armor is not too badly to blame - it would appear that armor/shield/dodger skill has an "exponentially" greater effect than weapon skill can create.

ie. armor synergy is awesome. Weapons cry in shame.

Also, what's up with insane healing? I watched a goblin heal red/yellow limbs/organs in a matter of seconds.

[Zeff]

What do you mean DF's a bad example?  It's the perfect example!  Toady has been working on it for 7 years, and the result is much better than the "state-of-the-art" games that are produced by professional studios with better tech but in only a matter of months.

And besides, if someone puts that much effort into something, they end up inventing anything they need but don't have, anyways.

DF still isn't a great example here...  though Toady has been working on it 7 years he's only one man and hasn't always worked on it fulltime.  A lot of the blockbuster games have teams of up to like 30 people working on a game for a year fulltime.  Many more man hours are put in, though some of these people will be working on marketing, some on story line, others on art, more on sound, music etc...  development team may only be 1-5 people but still, possibly more man hours involved...

Toady is crafting out a masterwork here of course, but it's not necessarily taking more time than has gone into other recent topshelf games.

[Arkenstone]

*REDACTED*

[CognitiveDissonance]

That is a decent argument.

Craftsmanship is, by definition, never outdated - something superior is never bad. A fine example would be a Russian truck I saw a video on - it's a truck built by the USSR in the advent of WWII. It still runs. They dropped a car, smashed with a wrecking ball, set it on fire with a flamethrower, and then drove it into a pond.

And after all this, within a few minutes of mechanic's work - with nothing but simple tools - it was running!

As such, good quality is important.

The machinery approach is to produce similar work at lower costs per production, and at higher rates. I would argue that machinery can easily reproduce craftsmanship quality items, but the cost and speed are inferior to mediocre quality.

I sell electronics in retail, and let me tell you - people will almost invariably buy the $39.99 piece of junk to replace it in 13 months, as opposed to buying a $119.99 one that will last them forever. This is partially cultural, and partially a result of increased rate of obsolescency. Why become a crafts-mashine in something if by the time you perfect it, it'll be outdated?

At the same time, look at websites like Etsy http://www.etsy.com  (Shameless plug - my dear friend has an awesome shop there at colorbazaar.etsy.com !). Etsy is a website with handmade, very often high quality products. Some things there sell for $10, some things sell for $1,000, and are often worth it for the material and quality. And they sell well. People want craftsmanship. But more often than not, they want a good price. As mainstream economy has removed historical craftsmanship, Internet is a new ground for it.

To sum it up, would YOU pay $4,000 for your computer, if it never crashed?

[Proteus]

Your example of the truck might however have more to do with complexity than with craftsmanship.

The  same (being able to repair your car to with just simple tools) could already said about the Ford T, the first example of a car produced at an assembly line).
Nowadays however you need at least a mechanic and several chip programmers , as  well as a computer workstation 
to get a car to run again,
not because they are of worse quality, but because their risen efficiency and added features where bought with an extreme rise in complexity.

[Arkenstone]

*REDACTED*

[Solarn]

That is a decent argument.

Craftsmanship is, by definition, never outdated - something superior is never bad. A fine example would be a Russian truck I saw a video on - it's a truck built by the USSR in the advent of WWII. It still runs. They dropped a car, smashed with a wrecking ball, set it on fire with a flamethrower, and then drove it into a pond.

And after all this, within a few minutes of mechanic's work - with nothing but simple tools - it was running!

As such, good quality is important.

The machinery approach is to produce similar work at lower costs per production, and at higher rates. I would argue that machinery can easily reproduce craftsmanship quality items, but the cost and speed are inferior to mediocre quality.

I sell electronics in retail, and let me tell you - people will almost invariably buy the $39.99 piece of junk to replace it in 13 months, as opposed to buying a $119.99 one that will last them forever. This is partially cultural, and partially a result of increased rate of obsolescency. Why become a crafts-mashine in something if by the time you perfect it, it'll be outdated?

At the same time, look at websites like Etsy http://www.etsy.com  (Shameless plug - my dear friend has an awesome shop there at colorbazaar.etsy.com !). Etsy is a website with handmade, very often high quality products. Some things there sell for $10, some things sell for $1,000, and are often worth it for the material and quality. And they sell well. People want craftsmanship. But more often than not, they want a good price. As mainstream economy has removed historical craftsmanship, Internet is a new ground for it.

To sum it up, would YOU pay $4,000 for your computer, if it never crashed?

You have to say one thing about Soviet products: they might guzzle fuel, they might be slow and unwieldy, they might be uncomfortable, they might be comically large, they might rust and break down, but they will keep going. The Soviet Union knew how to build things durable.

[Earthquake Damage]

That's an entirely different question when one is purchasing body armor.  (Would you rather have something cheaper or better when your life is on the line?)

Cue cost-benefit analysis.

[Arkenstone]

Cost: several years' tithes.  Benefit: being alive to collect the next several years' tithes.