Print

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

[Gatallorsith]

I am curious as to what people want DF to be, when its done. I doubt DF will ever actually be finished. I think it will be a continual work in progress forever, but what the game may look like years down the road is something that very much interests me.

Design is always an interesting topic, including the future of the fortress.

Yeah, that's also one of the reasons I started the thread: the hope to see an optimized and (possibly) fancier version of the game before I grew (really) old.

Of course this thread is entirely irrelevant to what Toady actually does. Toady can do anything he wants, but the peanut gallery is fun sometimes.

Maybe he'll read the thread, maybe he'll not give a damn. I thought It was worth trying anyway

[sandwiches]

As has been evident in the past, posting threads like these is completely useless. 99.999% of the people posting on these forums do not wish the game to change more than whatever Toady does and most of those who wanted the game to change have already moved on. Sadly, myself included.

As much as I love DF, it simply does not want to be loved. With a developer who openly and without reservations does not care about the community or audience, I simply moved on to games where the developers are trying to be more attentive to the desires of the audience. Obviously this game is very popular among a niche community and it seems Toady and said community are completely happy with their insular nature. While I wouldn't wish DF to turn into a Facebook game that appeals to the lowest common player, I wish it were a game I could enjoy more and I felt as though I had some influence and ownership in it. It's more than a bit discouraging as a fan to be told repeatedly and in many different ways by the community and the developer himself that I have no say, no influence, and I am basically insignificant. So, from games like Gnomoria and Towns, I get games that are much more accesible, graphics that appeal to me more, and developers who genuinely seem to care about their audience.

Just my two pence.

[GoombaGeek]

Actually, Dwarf Fortress is unique in that the developer is tons closer to the community than normal.

No, no, really. The small community size enables that.

He answers all or at least most questions posed in a certain thread, but I think the issue is that your ideas won't be included wholesale. Which is normal in any community. If you mail a super awesome letter to Mojang about guns they aren't going to put your exact guns in Minecraft (if they ever include them in the first place). And Toady wants to finish the game. It's continually updated and has no deadlines, so hypothetically he'll end up adding every desirable feature. But adding laser fruit or dynamite or lye burns or whatever exactly as you describe them? Make your own game if you'd like to have that degree of control, because exact ideas will only be added in that form if Toady agrees with them to the last decimal place. It's a normal part of games, really: Suggestions have the right to be ignored and modified, and I don't understand why you'd want "influence or ownership". It's a free game and it's got a very decent fanbase, who cares about not being able to phone the dev-team and tell them exactly what you want? I mean, those other games probably have less caring developers than Toady, and they're trying to edge into a niche that's already filled.

Sure, they have graphics and accessibility, but do they have charm? I'd say no, because Dwarf Fortress is like a little trip back to the 80's in a safely contained modern vehicle. It gets to combine the depth and calculations of modern computing with the wacky ASCII charm and imagination of those old roguelikes and MUDs. Gnomoria and many more have tried and failed and all they got was a $5 price tag in some forgotten Steam page. Don't bother.

[sandwiches]

Actually, Dwarf Fortress is unique in that the developer is tons closer to the community than normal.

No, no, really. The small community size enables that.

He answers all or at least most questions posed in a certain thread, but I think the issue is that your ideas won't be included wholesale. Which is normal in any community. If you mail a super awesome letter to Mojang about guns they aren't going to put your exact guns in Minecraft (if they ever include them in the first place). And Toady wants to finish the game. It's continually updated and has no deadlines, so hypothetically he'll end up adding every desirable feature. But adding laser fruit or dynamite or lye burns or whatever exactly as you describe them? Make your own game if you'd like to have that degree of control, because exact ideas will only be added in that form if Toady agrees with them to the last decimal place. It's a normal part of games, really: Suggestions have the right to be ignored and modified, and I don't understand why you'd want "influence or ownership". It's a free game and it's got a very decent fanbase, who cares about not being able to phone the dev-team and tell them exactly what you want? I mean, those other games probably have less caring developers than Toady, and they're trying to edge into a niche that's already filled.

Sure, they have graphics and accessibility, but do they have charm? I'd say no, because Dwarf Fortress is like a little trip back to the 80's in a safely contained modern vehicle. It gets to combine the depth and calculations of modern computing with the wacky ASCII charm and imagination of those old roguelikes and MUDs. Gnomoria and many more have tried and failed and all they got was a $5 price tag in some forgotten Steam page. Don't bother.

I agree that no developer will ever implement every suggestion whole-sale. However, rarely do developers tell you that they'll make a game THEY want to play and if you don't like it tough luck. I don't care if it's free or not. If the excuse for not being open to suggestions such as a better UI or graphics is that the game is free, then I'd be willing to pay for these changes. If the developer doesn't wish to take money so that he's not "a slave," then I'll simply go to another game. Which is what I and many other people have done. And no, this niche is not filled as is evidenced by the many fans of Gnomoria and Towns. People want to play DFlikes but they don't want to play DF in its current state. So, whether you or anyone else in this community find DF to be richer, have more charm, more fun, or more complex is irrelevant. Some people, myself included again, have bothered with those others games since we cannot appreciate the depth, complexity, and fun with the current UI and graphics of DF and have found Gnomoria and Towns to be much more satisfying in that regard.

[GoombaGeek]

I guess developers aren't usually that honest. (But did he ever PM you personally and tell you to bugger off if you hated it?) I think there's zero point in programming a game that you don't enjoy playing, because testing will be a chore and there's no reward for programming if the result isn't fun. It really is a free game, so there's zero incentive to keep players around to make a sale. Only the people who were satisfied from the beginning will really care enough to donate.

Hear that? Zero incentive. Basically, your time is worthless and if you go play Gnomoria and Towns (and Dwarfs!? and numerous other forgotten clones) then clearly they've found the ultimate secret to making money and Toady will starve in his elitist basement. That hasn't happened yet for some reason. You sound like you're entitled to your game exactly as you want it and you playing a clone is a sign of open revolt - like Toady should suddenly swoop out, add all the features you want and scream "NO! DON'T QUIT MY GAME! HOW ELSE WILL I AFFORD MY DAILY RAMEN BREAKFAST?!" or else you will quit for good. Well, you haven't paid for anything, and you changing has no impact on the developers either. It's like sending an angry letter to Coca-Cola that you prefer Pepsi and they should change their secret recipe or they'll lose your business for good. Is it honestly worth it? You've already quit and yet you have this account to debate about Gnomoria's merits. This smacks of bitterness or a sponsorship (probably the former).

[sandwiches]

I guess developers aren't usually that honest. (But did he ever PM you personally and tell you to bugger off if you hated it?) I think there's zero point in programming a game that you don't enjoy playing, because testing will be a chore and there's no reward for programming if the result isn't fun. It really is a free game, so there's zero incentive to keep players around to make a sale. Only the people who were satisfied from the beginning will really care enough to donate.

Hear that? Zero incentive. Basically, your time is worthless and if you go play Gnomoria and Towns (and Dwarfs!? and numerous other forgotten clones) then clearly they've found the ultimate secret to making money and Toady will starve in his elitist basement. That hasn't happened yet for some reason. You sound like you're entitled to your game exactly as you want it and you playing a clone is a sign of open revolt - like Toady should suddenly swoop out, add all the features you want and scream "NO! DON'T QUIT MY GAME! HOW ELSE WILL I AFFORD MY DAILY RAMEN BREAKFAST?!" or else you will quit for good. Well, you haven't paid for anything, and you changing has no impact on the developers either. It's like sending an angry letter to Coca-Cola that you prefer Pepsi and they should change their secret recipe or they'll lose your business for good. Is it honestly worth it? You've already quit and yet you have this account to debate about Gnomoria's merits. This smacks of bitterness or a sponsorship (probably the former).

Amen, brother!

You've paid for your game and you're getting what you wanted. And I paid for my games and I'm getting what I want. Simple. Others have and will too.

The reason I'm even posting here is because I would've have preferred to stick with DF but as I said before, I couldn't stomach the UI or graphics for long. So, I am in fact campaigning to change DF to be a game that I can enjoy. I don't know even why you'd be so angry about this. And at over $100,000 a year from donations, I doubt Toady is eating ramen from breakfast. So, don't try to make him sound like a starving artistic genius.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Amen, brother!

You've paid for your game and you're getting what you wanted. And I paid for my games and I'm getting what I want. Simple. Others have and will too.

The reason I'm even posting here is because I would've have preferred to stick with DF but as I said before, I couldn't stomach the UI or graphics for long. So, I am in fact campaigning to change DF to be a game that I can enjoy. I don't know even why you'd be so angry about this. And at over $100,000 a year from donations, I doubt Toady is eating ramen from breakfast. So, don't try to make him sound like a starving artistic genius.

Why would you be campaigning to try and convince someone to give up their lifes work and great vision just to satisfy your (and many others) entitlement issues? I and many others do in fact prefer Toady to be allowed to do things his way and love the vision he has for this game. Also, I don't see why you'd even need to complain about this, as what you want as well as 95% of all the other suggestions/demands on these forums are in fact planned. Sure, Toady might not get to those parts for a few years or more, but it's still gonna get worked on at some point. It's not like Toady wants this game to have a crappy UI and no graphics support, it's just not a huge prio atm (and he still throws in updates to the ui and graphics every now and then when he can and feels like it). Get some patience and wait for your turn ^^

[krenshala]

The statements that the UI is horrible or broken always confuse me.  Based on numbering, he's got about 34% of the game into code, most of which is functional (some more so than others), yet numerous people seem to think that "fixing" the UI should be more important that getting the game working.  You can't have a functional UI if the game it controls isn't there.  You can play the game with a non-optimized UI, and work out game-breaking bugs, however.

I've read a number of posts from Toady basically stating that he agrees with us that the current UI has issues, but he also thinks that "fixing" it now is mostly putting the cart before the horse.  UI changes are made when warranted, such as the military screen after he basically gutted that portion of the code.  How many of you that "hate" the UI know the mouse works on the military screens?  With the exception of the map itself, he's probably put more work into that portion of the UI than any other from what I can tell.

As he gets closer to version 1.0 (most of the list of planned features included) then I'm sure work on optimizing the UI will get a higher priority.

I wonder if this is yet another aspect of the fact that most folks don't really understand that a simple, effective UI is far more complex to create than a complicated hack that lets the user access all the features?  To my eye, Toady is managing to walk the middle road so far.  Reminds me of the old engineering line: Good, Fast, Cheap ... pick two.

[cvar]

How many of you that "hate" the UI know the mouse works on the military screens?  With the exception of the map itself, he's probably put more work into that portion of the UI than any other from what I can tell.

IT DOES?!  I NEVER EVEN TRIED BRB CLICKING EVERYTHING


On topic, I'll admit I don't like the ASCII tileset, it's rectangular and I didn't find out about the square version until I'd been using mayday's for a while, but that's about as much of a "graphics engine" that I feel DF needs.  I'd rather Toady keep adding new things to ruin my forts (NECROMANCERS ARGH) and patch up bugs (Refuse stockpile is jumongous and won't empty D:) than spend time making the game prettier or trying to change the functionality on stuff he's going to rip apart later.

[GoombaGeek]

How many of you that "hate" the UI know the mouse works on the military screens?  With the exception of the map itself, he's probably put more work into that portion of the UI than any other from what I can tell.

IT DOES?!  I NEVER EVEN TRIED BRB CLICKING EVERYTHING


On topic, I'll admit I don't like the ASCII tileset, it's rectangular and I didn't find out about the square version until I'd been using mayday's for a while, but that's about as much of a "graphics engine" that I feel DF needs.  I'd rather Toady keep adding new things to ruin my forts (NECROMANCERS ARGH) and patch up bugs (Refuse stockpile is jumongous and won't empty D:) than spend time making the game prettier or trying to change the functionality on stuff he's going to rip apart later.

I post this in every thread where someone says they dislike the rectangular aspect ratio, because I'm the same way. That's why I made this astonishingly handy 8x8 tileset.

Seriously just look at it

[Scruffy]

Am I one of the few ones who actually like the UI? Everything is just a few key presses away and easy to access once you get used to the shortcuts. The fact that you don't need a mouse makes everything even smoother since you can have both hands on the keyboard.

As for Gnomoria:
I have played it and it seems to be a somewhat promising "simplified dwarf fortress" kind of game. Even though people claim that the UI is better I still find it much slower to use since you have to use a mouse and designating stuff takes a bit longer. The graphics are ok but personally I find that being isometric also makes some stuff behind walls a bit harder to see and it is a bit harder to perceive multiple levels in the same time. Perhaps it is just my personal preference, but I like top down view for these kinds of games.

[Damiac]

What I love about this is that making Dwarf Fortress is the game, for Toady.  That makes us characters in his game.

I cannot ask someone who has found such a perfect position for themselves to change anything.  I can only hope to find(or make) such a niche for myself someday in the future.

Toady, you are truly an inspiration.

[UberNube]

I'm not sure if this point has already been made - I'm not going to read through 6 pages of arguments - so sorry if I'm repeating what others have said:

Developing a complex and fully-featured UI at the moment wouldn't be a good idea because the game is in a constant state of flux. Major parts are being added and removed with every release, and spending weeks or months implementing a polished and newbie-friedly UI would be a complete waste of time if the underlying mechanics which it controlled were going to be heavily modified or replaced completely in the next release.

Not to mention the problems with actually displaying all of the data to the user. I can't honestly think of a more usable interface design for most of the menus - the current system just requires a bit of patience and practice. With the current design almost all information is, at most, about 5 key presses away. That's a lot better than most UI designs manage. The one thing the interface does lack is polish, but one glance at the bug tracker and the dev log will show that the rest of the game suffers from that problem as well - mainly because it's still under active development.

The one big addition I would like to see would be a menu giving the same information and control as the main Dwarf Therapist interface, because currently it's far to difficult to search through dwarves for one with specific military skills.

[Phibes]

I actually like the keyboard-driven nature of the ui, but I also think it's dreadful from a design and usability perspective in its current state. I can't quite agree with the idea of putting usability on the back burner since the game shows no signs of settling down in regards to features. It's like a sports car with broken door handles and no power steering.

[MadocComadrin]

That exactly the reason TO put it on the back burner: it's much easier to create a well organized, intuitive and aesthetically pleasing UI when you're not throwing in a new feature every five second.