Print

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

[Montague]

I almost agree. I think a minimalist tileset is best.

At the very least, replacing the plus-sign + with a floortile graphic is a necessity. +++++++, . , ' . . , looks terrible.

But replacing symbols used for multiple things, with a sprite depicting one thing, looks like crap as well.

[inEQUALITY]

My only contribution is that I got used to the ASCII graphics, and now they make visualizations in my head. I tried using graphics packs. They look absolutely terrible compared to ASCII, in my opinion. It's all symbolic vs exact representation. When I see something that looks like a Dwarf, I feel almost forced to picture it that way. It makes it almost impossible to picture movement and combat. But with symbols, my mind fills in the blanks. Much more expressive and functional for me. I don't use the symbol to show me EXACTLY what's there, but rather to say "Okay, brain, this is what this represents, picture it." It's like words in a book. You read a sentence, and picture it well. But do the words actually show what's going on? For me ASCII vs Graphics Packs is like Novel vs Picture Book.

I understand others reasons for either side, but these are mine.

[Glowcat]

Bohandas isn't suggesting that we lop parts of the Asci of to represent lost limbs, thats a total strawman arguement.

And he wasn't suggesting that was the argument... which is coincidentally the real strawman here. Instead aepurniet seems to have been going for satire since apparently, by Bohandas's argument, the human imagination stops at the letter 'U'. Sprite abstractions work like letter abstractions in cases of dismemberment, obviously. His entire appeal is selectively applied to create a false dilemma between ASCII graphics (Imagination!) and Sprite Graphics (Imagination Killers! Nobody could possibly look at these in an abstract manner!). It might be easier to use imagination when there's absolutely nothing to go off of, but let's not overblow the effect in such an intellectually offensive way.

[Neonivek]

Actually the thing is... Bohandas wasn't suggesting ANYTHING.

[Glowcat]

Actually the thing is... Bohandas wasn't suggesting ANYTHING.

That's true. Why is this in DF Suggestions when it's more a General forum argument?

[Bdthemag]

You kids and your newfangled sprite graphics, back in my day we used a strange thing called imagination!

[Lightman]

Another flawed argument against better graphics.
First, DF is not ASCII. It is already using sprites. But the sprites are all tiles and look like characters in the default tileset.

This seems to be a common misconception. Dwarf Fortress is designed for CP437 (code page 437), not ASCII and it does support text-mode rendering.

The Windows version only supports a bitmap mode to render CP437 but Linux and OS X still have the PRINT_MODE:TEXT option. This uses a text mode to display the game (and seems to offer a noticeable speed increase when compared with the SDL version).

So, the game is still designed for a text-based user interface (using ncurses control). And while there is the extended 'Graphics' support for creatures, I'd guess that we won't see a switch in the graphics design unless ncurses output is removed from the game.

[GreatWyrmGold]

And then let me check your argument. So you say that the current "ASCII" is better than any other graphics technology because sprites or 3D are limited to what they depict. Yet you forget that the current mode is far more limited than the other methods. This makes no sense.
It's like a game developer in the 90s who would say "Oh, we can't make a tennis game that has photorealistic graphics... so let's just do another Pong game."

And i don't know where or when someone suggested to use separate sprite graphics to depict every kind of damage or detail. Of course this makes no sense for DF considering the amount of detail in the game. The detail overload in the game would transfer to a information overload in the graphics and this is surely not desirable.
But improving the graphics beyond simple tiles would be beneficial. e.g. there could be indicators on the dwarf sprite to show the current state, like thirsty, hungry, bad mood etc. This would be better than the alternating tiles right now.

*headdesk headdesk headdesk*
You answered the first part with the second. Of course we wouldn't have different sprites for different injuries--that's why you wouldn't have the sprites in the first place, by his argument! Anyways, sprites are as much a part of DF as rainbows and lollipops; you can mod them in, but vanilla is not like that.
Anyways, I like ASCII. I actually discovered that the hardest part of Kobold Camp, aside from the lack of stone, was the graphics! "Is this guy a woodworker or a farmer...oh, he's my miner." Also, [/serious]it keeps the rabble out. Do you want to see trolls around here?

[Davichococat]

This is dwarf fortress. What makes it special is the 'ASCII Graphics'. 3D Graphics? Sorry, you are on the wrong game. That is the main reason which I don't use tilesets(also they slow down my game, but that's offtopic).
A good part of the fun of this game is: We use the imagination to figure out things.

An ☺ right next to ≈ ? That's nothing, but my mind sees it as an fisherdwarf right next to water, and I assume he's fishing. You can assume hes drinking,throwing stones at water, idling right next at water, whatever your imagination thinks it is. If I'm unsure on whats him doing, I press v and look.

TL;DR: 3D Graphics? No,wrong game.
 

[TmanEd]

I like tilesets. I'm capable of playing the game without them, but they save time since you don't have to 'k' to have anything more than a vague idea of what you're looking at, and it's a little less hard on the eyes (by that I mean the high-contrast of the ASCII literally strains my eyes, if in a dark enough environment) I look at the screen and see a little dwarf holding a saw, and I know he's a carpenter, or that a dwarf with a pickaxe is a miner (also useful to know which enemy has what weapon in adventure mode). Without that I'd have to loo'k' at the smiley face to see what it was. I don't really think it hampers imagination, since they're only detailed enough to let you know generally what you're looking at at a glance, and the rest is still up for imagination. They don't have to be standard, but they're not bad in any way.

[Mugros]

*headdesk headdesk headdesk*
You answered the first part with the second. Of course we wouldn't have different sprites for different injuries--that's why you wouldn't have the sprites in the first place, by his argument! Anyways, sprites are as much a part of DF as rainbows and lollipops; you can mod them in, but vanilla is not like that.
Anyways, I like ASCII. I actually discovered that the hardest part of Kobold Camp, aside from the lack of stone, was the graphics! "Is this guy a woodworker or a farmer...oh, he's my miner." Also, [/serious]it keeps the rabble out. Do you want to see trolls around here?

What did i answer? I didn't even ask a question.
And, yes his argument is flawed. Sure, it is not a good idea to have a sprite for every detail. Why does this mean that there shouldn't be any sprite graphics at all?

And i really like the latest "i want to use my imagination" posts.
a) since DF simulates every little detail, e.g. in fights, there is not a lot to imagine.
And tileset graphics would be with maybe 16x16 pixel tiles. There is not a lot of detail in them, but just enough to be iconic representations of the game content. There is still lots to imagine.
b) why do people that don't like graphical representations block any development or ideas towards nicer graphics? If everything is supported by tilesets they are still free to use abstract character sets.
The amount of elitism in the community really annoys me. And at the same time there is a tremendous fear that "something" is taken away from DF when the graphics are improved. It sounds like DF will go completely downhill if it would use detailed 2D graphics, like there is no benefit in it at all. It's ridiculous.

PS: Please stop hitting the desk with your head. It's bad for the brain and the desk.

[jockmo42]

First of all, calling some graphics "nicer" is a very subjective thing, especially in a rogue-like community.

Second, when you're calling out a few people out of several, try not to make it sound like every single person who uses the default tiles is vehemently against sprites or any vanilla implementation of them. I might not want sprites replacing the default, but I'd welcome an easy way to hit a button in the options menu and switch to a nice tileset.

Third, any tileset DF uses in favor of the ASCII-styled set should be community maintained, or else it will take away from development. I don't want Toady having to slow a release just to add new art for a feature that would have previously taken him much less time.

The option here that gives both parties the least grief is better tileset support in general. Have a folder you can throw tilesets in, and have an option menu in the game that looks into the folder, listing the names of each set for easy selection and on-the-fly swapping at any time. Add a nice tileset in here by default and you've got your vanilla tile support. Anyone who's new to the game, or plays in the dark (Why would you do this? It's horrible for your eyes no matter what game you're playing.), or doesn't like the ASCII-style can use the tiles with a few easy steps.

[Neonivek]

Second, when you're calling out a few people out of several, try not to make it sound like every single person who uses the default tiles is vehemently against sprites or any vanilla implementation of them.

I don't know, it does help the arguement to do so in the sense that "Sure you may be wrong, but the audiance will be convinced" sort of way.

[nitus]

There is no functional difference between the default ascii-style setup and a good graphical tileset. They look different, but they display the same things.
 
Personally I find the ascii set to be visually incomprehensible and headache-inducing -- so I don't use it. I use a graphical tileset and graphics sets instead. To each their own.
 
I don't seem to have any particular difficulty doing this, so I guess I don't understand the thrust of the pro-graphics posters here. Sure there are always the odd sprite that still has a default appearance, but in terms of graphics sets I think that's more a case of the set being incomplete than any major limitation of DF. Yes there are a few sprites that can't be changed, but I expect that's more of just a low priority than a desire on Toady's part to prevent customization.

[G-Flex]

Graphical tilesets and text graphics tend to follow completely different design philosophies.

Text graphics are representative. They represent concepts the same way the written word does. Just as we see the word "chair" and think of a chair, the same applies when seeing the glyph for a chair in DF. They represent the object in a completely abstract manner (often they sort of represent what it looks like, but only in a very abstract manner that makes it easier to remember, sort of like certain kanji characters in Japanese). No particular style is imposed, for the most part, and what the thing really looks like is up to the imagination of the player and other in-game (or out-of-game) textual descriptions and so forth.
Sprite graphics are descriptive. A sprite (or any sufficiently detailed tile) not only represents an object, but also has a particular aesthetic style to it, and tells you what it looks like. A tile for a dwarf has to decide what a dwarf (roughly) looks like, and what sort of style to depict him in. Are walls solid or do they look like brick-and-mortar? Do plump helmets have that sort of cartoony Zelda look to them, or do they just look like simplistic fungus? Are things in general cartoonish looking or ~GRIMDARK~ or quasi-realistic or what? There's an artistic style imposed on it that affects the atmosphere one way or another, and decisions are made for you what certain things look like.

So really, the two have to be judged in terms of not only their relative merits, but their relative purpose. Obviously, these aren't completely solid rules, as you can have simplistic graphical tiles that are still mostly for the purpose of only representing things rather than describing them, but text is obviously still more purely representative (as defined by me above). There's room for both, because they don't even work for the same reasons. To me, using a text tileset is more like reading a book or looking at something similarly abstract; I'm told what's there, and it's up to my mind to decide what it all looks like. Personally, I like that. I guess some might not.