Print

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

[Spreggo]

The idea that every game needs to have intuitive interactions and a ridable learning curve is a fad. It's what is in, which is why every single major game has a idiot proof interface and a 45 minute unskipable tutorial.

The problem is that making a simple interface for a complex game actually requires an understanding of design, which ironically, most designers don't have. So instead of that, they opt to make simple interfaces for simple games, and games like DF take a back seat.

Plus, sometimes you have to make the call that your target audience wants a complex interface.

(That being said, of course DF needs work)

[Nameless Archon]

I started with a tileset, and I'm happy with a tileset. I use a tileset to play Angband, for the same reason: With a tileset the game is immediately inutitive.

No, you don't have to make games easy for players to pick up. You can require them to slam their dangling bits in a drawer two or three times just to get into the game. It's not, however, good design to do so. There's a compromise between 'learning curve like a football field' and 'learning curve as steep as Everest' and the ideal compromise is a lot closer to the former than the latter. Having high end complexity is good - players struggling just to figure out basic function is not.

[Spreggo]

You can require them to slam their dangling bits in a drawer two or three times just to get into the game. It's not, however, good design to do so.

DF wasn't THAT difficult to pick up. I figured out food production and crafting in a game or two, then weapon production and military in a couple more. My fortress tantrum spiraling because I didn't understand how to collect berries was hilarious and a big part of the DF experience, I think.

I guess I prefer everest - there are plenty of easier games with refined gui's if I want them.

[absynthe7]

The problem is that making a simple interface for a complex game actually requires an understanding of design, which ironically, most designers don't have.

That said, that's definitely not what's happening in DF. We've got a complex game with an interface that's genuinely terrible in every imaginable way, but we tolerate it because the game itself is awesome.

Look at how reliant on Dwarf Therapist many players are, myself included. If your game requires a third-party app for people to utilize basic, necessary functions, your game is terribly designed. End of story.

Of course, we shouldn't confuse "bad game design" with "bad game". But DF shines in spite of its flaws, not because those flaws don't exist.

---

Back on topic: Tileset for me 

[Spreggo]

(That being said, of course DF needs work)

I need to remember to make my posts an inverse pyramid.

Also I don't mean to nitpick, but isn't that exactly what is happening then? Toady made a complex game but doesn't understand interaction design well enough to make the interface simple.

EDIT edit: I wasn't really defending DF's awful interface so much as pointing out that the idea that every game MUST be intuitive is only a fad. (As was insinuated by the criteria of project done by the poster a page back)

[darkflagrance]

ASCII all the way. Tilesets hurt my eyes by making me squint. ASCII feels like pure information transmitted to my brain, whereas I can't begin to decode the various sprits associated with different animals or dwarf professions. As a modder, ASCII also allows you to create all-new races or creatures with 0 overhead.

I did play Rogue before DF though. I'll admit that tiles are often a necessary evil.

[Ephemeriis]

I play with a tileset.

I can manage the ASCII stuff...  But it's much slower for me.  Easier for me to recognize stuff if it's vaguely iconic.  I suppose if I really put the time into it I could learn to recognize the ASCII stuff just as easily, but it isn't really important to me.

Regarding the quality (or lack there-of) of the UI...  I really don't think it is that horrible.

You're basically looking at nested menus/screens.  Play any 4X title and you'll see the same thing.  Maybe it's a little prettier to look at...  But you've still got nested menus/screens.  When you've got that much complexity you really don't have much choice.  You break things down into categories, and expand the amount of information available depending on what category you select.

It looks rough in DF just because the thing is built around an ASCII rogue-like framework...  But it really isn't that much more complicated or difficult than MoO or GalCiv or Civilization or anything else.

[gtmattz]

Now, I am not trying to offend anyone here, but I really cannot understand the arguments that tilesets are unreadable.  Maybe it is just me, but when a dog looks like a little dog, and when a tree looks like a tree, and when a barrel looks like a barrel, I really have absolutely no trouble at all figuring out what I am looking at 

I do use ascii at times, but I do have to have a square tileset at least, the rectangular tiles of the default offend my sense of proportion.  For the most part, however, I use Ironhands tileset.  I like it because it is nice and dark, and, to me anyway, dwarves are dark, so it all fits well with my image of the game.

[Argembarger]

Tileset = meh.

I play in ASCII because I'm used to it, like it better, and I also hate having to update the graphics every time the game gets updated.

[mgrinshpon]

I used to use ASCII, but I was noticing my eyes became very strained very quickly. Gave Phoebius a try in the LNP/Ironhand for Genesis mod, and haven't looked back. It's just a lot less stressful to look at. Otherwise, there's not a huge difference between the two in terms of usability.

[Ephemeriis]

Now, I am not trying to offend anyone here, but I really cannot understand the arguments that tilesets are unreadable.  Maybe it is just me, but when a dog looks like a little dog, and when a tree looks like a tree, and when a barrel looks like a barrel, I really have absolutely no trouble at all figuring out what I am looking at 

My thought process when playing ASCII:
A "d"...  What's that again?  It's not a dwarf, they're the face-looking things.  Unless it's a dead dwarf...  Do they look like D's?  No...  Is it a dog?  A donkey?  No...  Donkeys are big D's...  It's a dog.

My thought process when playing with a tileset:
How'd that dog get outside?  I thought I locked all the doors...

Yes, obviously, if I played with ASCII enough I'd learn what the symbols mean and it'd become like second-nature.  But it isn't at this point.  And when I set down to a relaxing evening of DF after a frustrating day at work I don't really want it to feel like more work.  I don't want to struggle to figure out what I'm looking at.

[Rowanas]

You're right, it does become second nature. The matrix reference has been used many times to explain how it ends up.

You get used to it. I don't even see the ASCII. All I see is stonecrafter, bowyer, fisherdwarf.

[Komus]

Phoebus here - I like Ironhand's aesthetic but I've been spoiled with the fe icons. I'd love to combine these but I'm a spoiled LazyNoob.

How can symbols be easier to read than icons? Do ASCII chars display more information? Quality for example? I can see that some may prefer them for familiarity or even tto let their imaginations run wild..?

Having hotkeys scattered all over the keyboard may be effective for those who can touch type (though not for me...) but I can't really see anyone honestly defending this method over grouped keys and a mouse. Drop down menus, contextual menus... But we can all dream!

[Rowanas]

If dwarf fortress ever went primarily mouse controlled, I would stop playing it. I know where things are, I don't want them changed.

[nenjin]

I use Mayday's, Phoebus, and Ironhand's, depending on which one was first out of the gate on a new release.

For me, my imagination has its limits. I'm a visual person, and I grew up playing ASCII games. I remember playing CASTLE on an IBM at age 7 going "Man I wish there were actual walls and snakes and swords instead of ASCII."

I don't have any undying love for ASCII, it was a technical limitation that has long since been bypassed, and DF is developed in ASCII because it's easy for Toady to do and not get bogged down in asset creation.

Since there are so many wonderful fans on the forums with the time and the interest to do that, why NOT use a graphics pack? If it's not your preferred art style, that's cool. But I've never gotten the elitism that comes with only using ASCII. That's like saying "Yes, my pictographs scratched into rock are inherently superior to your complete written language scribbled on paper." I suppose if your goal is to play a game that looks like gibberish to the uninitiated so you can chortle at their ignorance, then yes, ASCII is superior.

In the end though, I use tile packs for immersion reasons, not playability ones. The only downside is waiting for the artists to update their packs....but that usually gives me some time to do non-DF related stuff.

If dwarf fortress ever went primarily mouse controlled, I would stop playing it. I know where things are, I don't want them changed.

I find this coming from a DF player to be ironic. Toady makes seismic changes to game play every few versions. I figured you' be used to "stuff changing." And I doubt DF will ever go to a primary mouse format. At worst it will probably be a fully hybridized version.