31 ms·

I completely disagree. The ASCII "graphics" (if you can really call them that) are a huge reason why I've never even considered playing it. I've read all about

by zionic 7y ago

I completely disagree. The ASCII "graphics" (if you can really call them that) are a huge reason why I've never even considered playing it. I've read all about the mechanics, and they're interesting. I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor.

VonGuard 7y ago
Because gameplay matters 10X as much as graphics.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- OscarTheGrinch 7y ago
  Can confirm this assertion. I spent years building pretty games, but often our games are trounced by a rival with by with crappier graphics and better gameplay.
- jers 7y ago
  I would normally agree, But hard to understand visuals (not intuitive) might discourage new players from trying the game. Those that do try the game will have a large cognitive load just to understand what is going on, and therefore will be unable to focus as much on the gameplay (that df is know for). So potential players and new players would be most affected.
- fishmaster 7y ago
  Gameplay only starts to matter once UI and graphics are appropriate.
kibwen 7y ago
I don't fault you, but let's be charitable to Tarn here: the austere style is deliberately because he didn't want to spend any more time than necessary on the graphics, when what interested him most is the systems and the simulations (remember that DF has been a solo passion project for well over a decade now). His experience making the precursor to Dwarf Fortress (which is technically the second game in the series) is what led him to this conclusion, so it is not borne out of ignorance.
- grawprog 7y ago
  As far as I know, the 3d graphics in the first slaves to armok was a big reason why Tarn switched to focussing on dwarf fortress as it was. I vaguely recall reading sometime that it was too much work for just the two of them and they weren't really making great progress and preferred to focus on working on the simulation and game systems without needing to worry about a graphics engine. Even the switch to sdl was done with help from the community if I remember right.
dmos62 7y ago
To me this is like saying you don't like books because they're black and white. With ASCII I've some textual description of what an object looks like (say, dwarf), but most of it is filled in by my imagination, and it does a much better job than any artist, and it's more dynamic, adapting to my mood and what I'm experiecing. Talk about high-tech. A tileset puts a great constraint on that. If there's a choice between ASCII and tiles, I'll always choose ASCII. Dwarf Fortress UI ergonomics is another story.
- csours 7y ago
  In a book, I don't have to make the words do anything. Also, I've spent my whole life learning English vocabulary. I could spend some more time learning the DF glyphs, but a picture is worth a thousand words. I killed the Balrog in uMoria* back in the day, so I'm not a stranger to ASCII graphics. The difference between rogue-likes and DF is the extremely huge variability in the glyphs. Edit: To continue the comparison to books, Dwarf Fortress is like an interactive textbook, Roguelikes compare to genre fiction. *I'm a dirty save-scummer, but I still put in a bunch of time.
Natsu 7y ago
The thing is, it's really not. Granted, I always used the Lazy Newbie Pack which gave you basic tiles, but once you get used to ASCII, things tend to be a lot easier. Also, this is a detailed simulation, so things move a lot faster if you're not spending CPU on graphics. Remember, each creature has a bunch of parts with individual health, each tile can get stained by various materials (that can spread disease) and everything is made of various materials with all sorts of mostly-realistic properties. I mean, DF is the sole reason you can find the solid density of Saguaro rib wood on the internet and the value came from an empirical test of a small cube of Saguaro rib wood. It's in the DF raws. So yeah, you might enjoy DF with a tile set like the LNP if you like the mechanics. But it's a super-complicated game so it takes a while to learn to control things, to learn the requirements to make various items, etc. It's not a game for everyone, you do have to sink quite a lot of time into learning it to enjoy it.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  "so things move a lot faster if you're not spending CPU on graphics." Thats why most have a GPU and that is why there are graphic engines, who do the rendering only of what is needed and produced by the simulation. So no, unless DF uses the gpu for simulating which I doubt, better graphics will not really affect simulation speed, if done right. But yes, that is much harder.
  - bmn__ 7y ago
    DF employs OpenGL for rendering, see file df_linux/g_src/renderer_opengl.hpp, so the GPU will be used if appropriate drivers are installed. "Text" tiles and graphics tiles are equally fast – they are always bitmaps under the hood, see df_linux/data/art/*.png. There is also an ncurses renderer with plain Unicode text output for use in a terminal emulator which may be GPU accelerated, but most term software is not.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > Also, this is a detailed simulation, so things move a lot faster if you're not spending CPU on graphics. Nonsense. Rendering a grid of 2D tiles is exceptionally fast, so much so that converting font data into tiles is how you make text grids go faster! And even if you do have a slow method, you can just run it on a different thread.
Barrin92 7y ago
> I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor. I think this is a general feature of software that is very 'techy' for a lack of a better term. Dwarf Fortress is a pretty niche, hardcore game and people who build this sort of stuff don't always have the best sense of what a UX design ought to look like that appeals to the general user. A lot of Linux desktop software is like that too.
LoSboccacc 7y ago
graphical tileset have been around since way back tho https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Graphics_set_repository#32.C3.9732_square_graphics_sets https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Graphics_set_... and the ux is not going to change radically.
outworlder 7y ago
> I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor. Why do you think they had time to develop those features in the first place? I'm itching to know how they are going to come up with graphical representations for all the randomly generated forgotten beasts. A character is abstract, but when you have a drawing, it conveys more meaning. I wouldn't be happy with a dragon picture or similar, while the forgotten beast was a corrosive gaseous entity. The presentation may be a bit busy at times (if you embark on a forest, for instance), but it is otherwise fine.
II2II 7y ago
I also found the presentation distracting and the mechanics interesting, and I am quite accustomed to games that are text only. Simultaneously decoding glyphs and figuring out mechanics felt like more effort than it was worth. While I cannot speak for the developer, I can understand why they would go that route. Unless you have an interest in computer graphics, implementing them can be dreadfully dull. Unless you have an eye for design, creating the various graphical elements can lead to some interesting results.
Tomis02 7y ago
Some people play games for the gameplay, and the ASCII graphics allow them to project their imagination and obtain any fantasy world they want. The rest of the people play Call of Duty and FIFA, and would be hard-pressed to ever leave their comfort zone.
- vintermann 7y ago
  Yeah, I don't think you'd see series like Kruggsmash's lovingly hand-illustrated series if the graphics were better.
- Narishma 7y ago
  In my experience, it's the people playing ASCII games that are more likely to be stuck in their comfort zone.
im3w1l 7y ago
> I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor. Seems fairly obvious to me. The creator is playing to his strengths.

by zionic 7y ago

VonGuard 7y ago

Because gameplay matters 10X as much as graphics.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
OscarTheGrinch 7y ago
Can confirm this assertion. I spent years building pretty games, but often our games are trounced by a rival with by with crappier graphics and better gameplay.
jers 7y ago
I would normally agree, But hard to understand visuals (not intuitive) might discourage new players from trying the game. Those that do try the game will have a large cognitive load just to understand what is going on, and therefore will be unable to focus as much on the gameplay (that df is know for). So potential players and new players would be most affected.
fishmaster 7y ago
Gameplay only starts to matter once UI and graphics are appropriate.

kibwen 7y ago

I don't fault you, but let's be charitable to Tarn here: the austere style is deliberately because he didn't want to spend any more time than necessary on the graphics, when what interested him most is the systems and the simulations (remember that DF has been a solo passion project for well over a decade now). His experience making the precursor to Dwarf Fortress (which is technically the second game in the series) is what led him to this conclusion, so it is not borne out of ignorance.

grawprog 7y ago
As far as I know, the 3d graphics in the first slaves to armok was a big reason why Tarn switched to focussing on dwarf fortress as it was. I vaguely recall reading sometime that it was too much work for just the two of them and they weren't really making great progress and preferred to focus on working on the simulation and game systems without needing to worry about a graphics engine. Even the switch to sdl was done with help from the community if I remember right.

dmos62 7y ago

To me this is like saying you don't like books because they're black and white. With ASCII I've some textual description of what an object looks like (say, dwarf), but most of it is filled in by my imagination, and it does a much better job than any artist, and it's more dynamic, adapting to my mood and what I'm experiecing. Talk about high-tech. A tileset puts a great constraint on that. If there's a choice between ASCII and tiles, I'll always choose ASCII. Dwarf Fortress UI ergonomics is another story.

csours 7y ago
In a book, I don't have to make the words do anything. Also, I've spent my whole life learning English vocabulary. I could spend some more time learning the DF glyphs, but a picture is worth a thousand words. I killed the Balrog in uMoria* back in the day, so I'm not a stranger to ASCII graphics. The difference between rogue-likes and DF is the extremely huge variability in the glyphs. Edit: To continue the comparison to books, Dwarf Fortress is like an interactive textbook, Roguelikes compare to genre fiction. *I'm a dirty save-scummer, but I still put in a bunch of time.

Natsu 7y ago

The thing is, it's really not. Granted, I always used the Lazy Newbie Pack which gave you basic tiles, but once you get used to ASCII, things tend to be a lot easier. Also, this is a detailed simulation, so things move a lot faster if you're not spending CPU on graphics. Remember, each creature has a bunch of parts with individual health, each tile can get stained by various materials (that can spread disease) and everything is made of various materials with all sorts of mostly-realistic properties. I mean, DF is the sole reason you can find the solid density of Saguaro rib wood on the internet and the value came from an empirical test of a small cube of Saguaro rib wood. It's in the DF raws. So yeah, you might enjoy DF with a tile set like the LNP if you like the mechanics. But it's a super-complicated game so it takes a while to learn to control things, to learn the requirements to make various items, etc. It's not a game for everyone, you do have to sink quite a lot of time into learning it to enjoy it.

hutzlibu 7y ago
"so things move a lot faster if you're not spending CPU on graphics." Thats why most have a GPU and that is why there are graphic engines, who do the rendering only of what is needed and produced by the simulation. So no, unless DF uses the gpu for simulating which I doubt, better graphics will not really affect simulation speed, if done right. But yes, that is much harder.
- bmn__ 7y ago
  DF employs OpenGL for rendering, see file df_linux/g_src/renderer_opengl.hpp, so the GPU will be used if appropriate drivers are installed. "Text" tiles and graphics tiles are equally fast – they are always bitmaps under the hood, see df_linux/data/art/*.png. There is also an ncurses renderer with plain Unicode text output for use in a terminal emulator which may be GPU accelerated, but most term software is not.
Dylan16807 7y ago
> Also, this is a detailed simulation, so things move a lot faster if you're not spending CPU on graphics. Nonsense. Rendering a grid of 2D tiles is exceptionally fast, so much so that converting font data into tiles is how you make text grids go faster! And even if you do have a slow method, you can just run it on a different thread.

Barrin92 7y ago

> I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor. I think this is a general feature of software that is very 'techy' for a lack of a better term. Dwarf Fortress is a pretty niche, hardcore game and people who build this sort of stuff don't always have the best sense of what a UX design ought to look like that appeals to the general user. A lot of Linux desktop software is like that too.

LoSboccacc 7y ago

graphical tileset have been around since way back tho https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Graphics_set_repository#32.C3.9732_square_graphics_sets https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Graphics_set_... and the ux is not going to change radically.

outworlder 7y ago

> I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor. Why do you think they had time to develop those features in the first place? I'm itching to know how they are going to come up with graphical representations for all the randomly generated forgotten beasts. A character is abstract, but when you have a drawing, it conveys more meaning. I wouldn't be happy with a dragon picture or similar, while the forgotten beast was a corrosive gaseous entity. The presentation may be a bit busy at times (if you embark on a forest, for instance), but it is otherwise fine.

II2II 7y ago

I also found the presentation distracting and the mechanics interesting, and I am quite accustomed to games that are text only. Simultaneously decoding glyphs and figuring out mechanics felt like more effort than it was worth. While I cannot speak for the developer, I can understand why they would go that route. Unless you have an interest in computer graphics, implementing them can be dreadfully dull. Unless you have an eye for design, creating the various graphical elements can lead to some interesting results.

Tomis02 7y ago

Some people play games for the gameplay, and the ASCII graphics allow them to project their imagination and obtain any fantasy world they want. The rest of the people play Call of Duty and FIFA, and would be hard-pressed to ever leave their comfort zone.

vintermann 7y ago
Yeah, I don't think you'd see series like Kruggsmash's lovingly hand-illustrated series if the graphics were better.
Narishma 7y ago
In my experience, it's the people playing ASCII games that are more likely to be stuck in their comfort zone.

im3w1l 7y ago

> I just don't understand why anyone would spend so much time developing so many intricate features when the presentation is so poor. Seems fairly obvious to me. The creator is playing to his strengths.