Print

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

[Mfbrew]

Is dwarf fortress a game?

What I mean is:  is it right for us to conceive of DF as a game, with rules and objectives and win/loss conditions?  Or is DF ultimately a fantasy world simulator, and fortress mode and adventure mode are just ways for us to sandbox with the simulation?

Occasionally you hear people complaining that a new feature "makes DF less fun of a game" or that DF needs more polish / better dev process / etc to become a better game.  But are they comparing apples to oranges here?  Those arguments only apply if DF is to be evaluated as a game.

If the goal is simulation, then additional complexity (material layers, less direct control over combat, etc) are actually improvements regardless of their effect on gameplay / fun factor.

Moving in the simulation direction, though, you risk ending up like MOO 3.  I'd posit that MOO3 was a failure not for it's gameplay but for betraying the series' spirit and beloved races/mechanics.... And for making all the races retarded.

I'm in the camp that admires the increasing sophistication of the simulation.  I'll gladly give up control and ease if it means bustling cities and dynamic world gen and all the cool stuff Toady has planned. 

Am I alone or justified here?

[Ultimuh]

I don't belive you are alone on this.
I too oike simulations such as you describe, but I am also abit of a control freak.
I don't like it when things automatically decends into chaos.

[Andeerz]

Oh, MOO3 is a painful memory... it hurts!  The betrayal... THE BETRAYAL!!!

But srsly...

I don't think we will EVER have to worry about DF becoming like MOO3, because MOO3 came out half-finished (or less than half), which is, I believe, the reason that game was a failure.  CURSE YOU QUICKSILVER!!!  Half the features did not work and some had a UI associated with them but the coding for the game mechanic was for the most part absent (i.e. espionage).

However, I think of DF as a game AND a simulation.  I think such terms are not mutually exclusive.   

And I am in your camp, Mfbrew!!!    I think you're justified and not alone!!! 

[sweitx]

DF can be considered both a game and a simulation (simulation games).
Put it simply, take MS Flight Simulator (or many serious flight simulators).  Arguable for lay people, those are not... fun (control engine power, control fuel distribution, flaps, aileron, elevator, etc), yet some still consider it a game.  Now, look at Silent Hunter series (particularly the latest one), where with maximum realism, you're in command of a sub, which require you to plan attack using complex geometry, where most of the time in game is either spent sailing to your designated patrol area or on paper figuring out when, where, and in what direction to launch your torpedos (effectively a game where the main skill to play it is math).

So, is DF a simulation or a game?  Arguable DF is about simulation, but at the same time it's as much of a game as the above 2 series.  It's a game because it has rules and objective (in most cases, self-defined objective).

[Jay]

win/loss conditions

Yeah, umm...
Many games do not have win/loss conditions per se, but we still call them games.
Garry's Mod is my main example here.
Sure, it IS a physics simulation, but everybody calls it a game regardless.

[The Grim Sleeper]

I think it might help if we define a game as 'an interactive and entertaining experience', in which case it is a game, as opposed to a fantasy world simulation, 'a non-interactive and possibly entertaining experience', which would be used to create stories for us to read. Not that it doesn't provide plenty of fun reading, just browse the forum for a while.
But the thing about making a good game is that it can be very complex, so long as it stays fun. Not just FUN^tm, but fun as in, 'I want to do that again sometime'-fun. Confusingly DF's FUN^tm moto is what makes playing it fun, regardless of the fact that you technically screwed up. Like the makers of that other fortress game (Team Fortress 2 fyi) espouse in their game-commentary, FUN^tm is fun, when it makes sense to the player that something they did was wrong or bad, instead of just bad being luck. Example: It's fun when your 10-year 100-dwarf fort is overrun by goblins, because it's clear you really didn't bother with proper defences in the time you had. But it's frustrating if that happens in year 1 to your 7 starting dwarfs who stand no chance against a large attack.
The trick to complexity is to make it clear what a player did wrong, in spite of the complex mechanics at work. The Wiki helps with this, and the fact that the most players hear about this game via the disastrous tales of warning of other players. But there is a risk that a new feature is to complex to comprehend and that takes the fun out of it. The new combat-system seems to have this but mostly because it is brand new and needs polishing. But yeah, that's coming soon, and will let you have lots of fun and a bit of FUN along the way.

I've played to much DF cause when typing 'the disastrous tales of warning' the first thing that went through my head was: good fort name.

[Corona688]

If Sim City counts as a game in the mainstream sense, so does DF.

[Hyperturtle]

Dwarf Fortress is The Matrix for Dwarfs.  Every time you abandon a fortress, an entire world and its civilizations are destroyed.  But, another is ripe for harvesting!

  And now and again a Dwarf takes the Purple Pill and ends up in Adventurer mode, able to explore the fortress on his own terms!

[RandomNumberGenerator]

win/loss conditions

Yeah, umm...
Many games do not have win/loss conditions per se, but we still call them games.
Garry's Mod is my main example here.
Sure, it IS a physics simulation, but everybody calls it a game regardless.

As far as game theory is concerned(at least the way I learned it), win/loss conditions does NOT mean whether you win or lose the game. A win condition is whenever the player accomplishes something, and is rewarded for it, and a loss condition is the opposite. In Dwarf Fortress, a win condition could be flooding a room to create a farm, or using your military to secure a section of the caverns you can harvest raw resources from. A loss condition would be not adequately protection yourself from sieges or ambushes, and losing important dwarves because of it.

So yes, Dwarf Fortress can be considered a game. It's not as if games and simulations are mutually exclusive, though not all games are simulations and not all simulations are games. A simulation that is not a game would be one that doesn't have win/loss conditions, like a flight simulator where you take off and land but don't ever really accomplish anything. Add in campaign missions or something like that, and it becomes a game.

[Jay]

As far as game theory is concerned(at least the way I learned it), win/loss conditions does NOT mean whether you win or lose the game. A win condition is whenever the player accomplishes something, and is rewarded for it, and a loss condition is the opposite.

Huh.
As far as game theory is concerned, I have no idea, but that sounds like oversimplification to me -
The term win itself refers to succeeding, which implies end-of-whatever-you-succeeded-at, while to lose is the opposite...
Sounds to me like what you cited there would be perhaps a progress (positive winning of/negative loss of) condition, not necessarily win/lose.  Whoever coined the win/loss condition as what you said was perhaps trying to simplify, but ended up obfuscating.  It happens.

[Sowelu]

If Sim City counts as a game in the mainstream sense, so does DF.

Will Wright was very vocal about considering the 1990s-era Sim series to be "toys" and not "games".

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I was just going to mention his calling those "software toys". It's a pretty good distinction to make, and the reason he coined the term is because there wasn't an equivalent one. Neither "simulation" nor "game" gets the point across. "Simulation game" sort of does, but not entirely.

[Marconius]

Well, we'd need a precise definition of "game" to be able to answer.

If a "game" is something you play to have fun... then DF is definitely a game.

But one might argue that's a very loose definition. Certainly DF has no actual "win" conditions... you can succeed in your own self-created quests, but there are not built-in conditions to completely for a "Congratulations, you have won!" screen.

I guess it could be argued that for something to be a game, it needs to be finite... there needs to be a beginning and a reachable end, win and lose.

Since DF has no win conditions, it's really more like a sandbox. You're not working on goals set by the program, but rather goals you set for yourself. This provides a lot more freedom, but it could be argued that games need to have some limitations as to what you're supposed to aim for.

In conclusion: it depends on your definition of "game". Personally I consider DF a game, because it's something I spend time with for fun and entertainment, plus it's interactive (unlike a movie, for example). That's enough to make it a game for me, I guess.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I don't think I want to get into the game definition debate. The original "games" of Higurashi no naku koro ni are also not really games as they lack inherent interactivity (although they were originally part of a community/online game, it seems, making things even more complicated).

However, I want to voice my support for the simulation camp, as I come from the SimCity series as well (and would have mentioned the toy thing had not others done so already (T_T) ).

Personally, I enjoy the SimCity series (except for SimCity Societies which I consider a betrayal/deception/abomination) because of your limit of control. Sure, you lay the infrastructure and allow them to build things at certain places, but what exactly they will build, you have no control over.

That is the aspect I enjoy about DF as well: your dwarves are highly individualized with you having no control over that aspect. They choose what work to do first, they decide to marry and to breed, to love and to hate. And if you tell them to make a creative venture like engraving or decorating, it is them who decide what will be glorified and warned about in the images.

Playing DF is always new and exciting because there are always new surprises, even if you seemingly do everything as you did last time.

Deathworks

[Dabi]

I like simulation and and I treat DF like a simulation. It simulates for me dwarfs. Adventure mode I would consider a game though.

I'm in love with physics games that are mostly simulation(Dan-ball anyone?) and Dwarf Fortress comes off as a simulation but diffrent style. I have fun doing it but I don't treat it like a game...or it could be both.