Print

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

[Shades]

And I do not see improved farming to be really all the different: Crops differentiation based on ph and similar factor, rotation, etc will mean that you will adapt to local features and that will be it: I(stead of interesting choice, you will have yet another insignificant detail (this fortress has best conditions to grow longland grass and fisher berries, guess this means it will be know for two types of alcohol and fisher berry cake.)

I think the point is that any system implemented would only need to factor into your 'strategy' if you wanted it to be involved. The point of complex systems (over 'interesting choices' or 'large diversity' approaches) is that they are generally formed of very simple rules which are both easy to understand but produces a large and complex set of interactions that you can, for the most part, ignore. This means that you don't increase micromanagement, a problem generally associated with interesting choices, and get provide tools for the system to be manipulated if the player chooses.

On top of this you get a lot of insignificant detail. But the point of insignificant detail is that you don't have worry about it and it just adds colour to the game world. A large chunk of the details in DF are insignificant for all intents and purpose.

[NW_Kohaku]

Then, there are no interesting choices: Build barracks or library? Library wins. Choose Republic or Monarchy? You choose whatever increases your output in science.

And I do not see improved farming to be really all the different: Crops differentiation based on ph and similar factor, rotation, etc will mean that you will adapt to local features and that will be it: I(stead of interesting choice, you will have yet another insignificant detail (this fortress has best conditions to grow longland grass and fisher berries, guess this means it will be know for two types of alcohol and fisher berry cake.)

Although Shades said it, I just want to hammer this thing home:

F*** "interesting choices".  The soil system was never supposed to be an interesting choice, it doesn't have to be an interesting choice to be a good system, and it's absurd to even apply this bizzare and arbitrary standard upon the soil system.

[Normandy]

Well then, it appears we are at an impasse.

@zwei:
Quite the contrary. Only a noob builds only libraries, I learned that the hard way . Because of the fact enough spearmen can beat a tank, a mad tech rush works well in theory, but not in practice (although with enough political lithe and trickery, it can; but then again, that's interesting, eh?). You have to make careful considerations about which buildings you build in a city; you only get so many free without upkeep.

[Hammurabi]

Well then, it appears we are at an impasse.

I think there is just a difference in ideology.  Some people want a detailed dwarfish world simulator.  Others want a strategic dwarfish game.  A good design can meet both needs, at least partially.  That's what we should be trying to hash out.

[Makaze2048]

F*** "interesting choices". 

What you basically just said there is "F*** Fun"

The soil system was never supposed to be an interesting choice, it doesn't have to be an interesting choice to be a good system

Quite true if by good system you mean an accurate simulation or even just a complex one. But if by good system you mean enjoyable... well then you need interesting choices. And they don't even need to be individually interesting choices really, a single choice in a complex system may be dull as dishwater but at a meta level the collection of decisions you make may be where the interest lies.

and it's absurd to even apply this bizzare and arbitrary standard upon the soil system.

It's neither bizarre nor arbitrary. It's a required and fundamental basic concept for any enjoyable game system. The disagreement here seems to stem from what each observer considers the definition of interesting to be. Which is largely a silly argument, different people are going to find different choices interesting. Yes, there tends to be a good deal of overlap but each individual tends to judge what choices they find interesting (and by extension what games they find fun even if they are not consciously associating the two).

If your ultimate goal is to have an accurate crop growing and soil simulation only then by all means ignore the concept. But if your primary goal is to have an entertaining game system in the form of crop growing then you do yourself and the system a great disservice by ignoring what is essentially the driving factor of what makes games enjoyable. You just have to keep in mind that interesting is far from a universal constant and thus acknowledge that not everyone is going to find it interesting.

[NW_Kohaku]

F*** "interesting choices". 

What you basically just said there is "F*** Fun"

Absolutely not.

You just don't know what you want.  The three of you have been trying to come up with ways to make "interesting choices", but fail at every turn.  You want some elusive something but reject anything you get, and then, if you try to come up with an example of what you want, will refuse to see it in what is already there.  I have no need to cater to an arbitrarily defined phrase whose meaning seems to shift whenever used, and apparently is just a code word for "turn DF into Civilization".

Furthermore, the description you keep coming up with of "Interesting Choices" are neither interesting nor a real choice.  It's just "pick a path from the beginning, and follow it to the end".  It's never "interesting" to pick one building upgrade in Civilization over another.  Hell, Civilization isn't interesting at all, I've never managed to keep my interest up long enough to finish even one game throughout the entire series.  It's just the micromanagement of ensuring that all your cities are expanding as quickly as possible while they all uniformly take the "best" so-called "choices" of buildings to conform to the strategy.

Why would you want to sully DF by making it more like Civilization?

[Hammurabi]

Hell, Civilization isn't interesting at all, I've never managed to keep my interest up long enough to finish even one game throughout the entire series.

Would you like Civilization better if Sid added pH levels and nutrients to the farms?

You just don't know what you want.  The three of you have been trying to come up with ways to make "interesting choices", but fail at every turn.

I wouldn't expect someone who can't finish a game of Civ to understand Interesting Choices.

[Hammurabi]

Say, my "strategy" is to be #1 in science.

Then, there are no interesting choices: Build barracks or library? Library wins. Choose Republic or Monarchy? You choose whatever increases your output in science.

Then you discover that the Mongols are your neighbor.  Good luck with that.

[NW_Kohaku]

Hell, Civilization isn't interesting at all, I've never managed to keep my interest up long enough to finish even one game throughout the entire series.

Would you like Civilization better if Sid added pH levels and nutrients to the farms?

You just don't know what you want.  The three of you have been trying to come up with ways to make "interesting choices", but fail at every turn.

I wouldn't expect someone who can't finish a game of Civ to understand Interesting Choices.

Riiiiiiight.

Come back and try again when you learn to make an actual argument, and learn to understand what it is you want.  All I ever seem to see out of you is failing to understand that blue double tildes mean water and complaining about how the game should be changed to accomidate that.

[Shades]

Furthermore, the description you keep coming up with of "Interesting Choices" are neither interesting nor a real choice.  It's just "pick a path from the beginning, and follow it to the end".  It's never "interesting" to pick one building upgrade in Civilization over another.  Hell, Civilization isn't interesting at all, I've never managed to keep my interest up long enough to finish even one game throughout the entire series.  It's just the micromanagement of ensuring that all your cities are expanding as quickly as possible while they all uniformly take the "best" so-called "choices" of buildings to conform to the strategy.

Please don't bash a game I love just because you don't. Your point regarding "Interesting Choices" is true regardless of your dislike of this wonderful game.

Civ certainly does not follow the "Interesting Choices" route for it's gameplay, or at least the description so far being using to explain "Interesting Choices". I will say civilisation provides me with a lot of choices and all of them interesting but that has nothing to do with cookie cutter "Interesting Choices" options. In fact it does it the same way NW_Kohaku is talking about with farming, at least imo.

[Normandy]

Sigh. Some people will never understand the sublime beauty that is Civilization, and we will have to accept that. I would like to emphasize the irony in that statement, in case it is not clear.

I take it you don't play many strategy games, NW_Kohaku? "Winning strategies" are rarely so straightforward. Don't bash them before you're actually versed in them. I would watch the ad homiem attacks.

@Shades:
Well said.

[NW_Kohaku]

Sigh. Some people will never understand the sublime beauty that is Civilization, and we will have to accept that. I would like to emphasize the irony in that statement, in case it is not clear.

I take it you don't play many strategy games, NW_Kohaku? "Winning strategies" are rarely so straightforward. Don't bash them before you're actually versed in them. I would watch the ad homiem attacks.

@Shades:
Well said.

Actually, no.  I never finish a Civilization game because the same strategy always works in every X4 game ever.  When you have out-expanded the other sides early, you have won.  No point in even bothering to finish when you have three times the army, twice as much tech, and twice as much land as any other faction.

It's why the "Gas Gods" were such Game Breakers in Master of Orion 3 - there is simply nothing in a game like that which you can't do better by focusing on growth over everything else but getting just enough military to stop the zerg rush.  Want tech?  More population/cities means more tech points.  Want military? More population/cities means more facotries churning them out.  Rate of growth trumps all other issues except immediate survival.  Therefore, there is no point in even considering any other option, the game has already been solved before I even start playing, because I got sick of playing that game 10 years before it even came out.

I am, in fact, quite a fan of Strategy games... I just like strategy games that involve actually having to plan because the same strategy might not necessarily work every single time.

And also, if you want to start policing up ad hominems, you might want to look a few posts above mine, and at your own, as well...  I'm quite capable of understanding Civilization - that's why it's utterly boring and stale.

edit: And this whole argument isn't even about DF anymore, it's about how much people love playing Civilization.

If what you want to play is Civilization, then good news, I hear another one's coming out in a month.  Go squee over it in its own forums.

If you want to talk about DF, start talking about DF.

[Hammurabi]

I am, in fact, quite a fan of Strategy games... I just like strategy games that involve actually having to plan because the same strategy might not necessarily work every single time.

Just curious, what are your favorite strategy games?

[Makaze2048]

I have no need to cater to an arbitrarily defined phrase whose meaning seems to shift whenever used, and apparently is just a code word for "turn DF into Civilization".

Why would you want to sully DF by making it more like Civilization?

The meaning seems to shift because interesting is a partially subjective attribute.

Interesting choices do NOT mean Civilizations. The designer of Civ happened to coin the phrase that describes giving players choices with multiple valid decisions with meaningful outcomes and correctly stated that it is that element that makes any game fun. But that does not mean that Civilizations is the only game with interesting choices or that interesting choices must resemble the choices presented there.

And no, you don't have to cater to it. But doing so is an overwhelming part of what makes games objectively fun (being defined as fun for "the most people")

The three of you...

I don't recall mentioning Civ before this or critiquing your crop system. I will do so now though. The idea of real irrigation (not we watered this spot 8 years ago!), special fertilizer required for high end crops, growing wood, rice paddy style crops, and other such things all sound great. The thought of managing pH levels in soil on the other hand sounds absolutely dreadful. I'm sure it's super realistic and all but considering the UI and the habit of such systems to seesaw if not monitored constantly (and sometimes even the) it just doesn't sound fun to play.

Furthermore, the description you keep coming up with of "Interesting Choices" are neither interesting nor a real choice.  It's just "pick a path from the beginning, and follow it to the end".  It's never "interesting" to pick one building upgrade in Civilization over another.  Hell, Civilization isn't interesting at all, I've never managed to keep my interest up long enough to finish even one game throughout the entire series.  It's just the micromanagement of ensuring that all your cities are expanding as quickly as possible while they all uniformly take the "best" so-called "choices" of buildings to conform to the strategy.

Which would be your opinion... a lot of people disagree with that opinion and that's OK on both accounts. You don't like Civ. Great, don't make Civ style choices. But do strive to make interesting choices.

[Makaze2048]

Master of Orion 3

Wait... what? You're holding up MOO3, a horrible horrible game and an abomination to its vaulted legacy, up as an example? I think anyone here, there, or anywhere who's ever played MOO3 and an actually good 4X game will agree that MOO3 sucked.

You're welcome to your opinion that 4X games suck but please at least attempt to use a good one as opposed to one of the worst ever created as an example.