Dwarf Fortress video tutorials

[Vetarnias]

If I may chime in:

Understanding the mechanics of the game is one thing; wanting to bother with its interface is another.

To tell you the truth, I can't do either of those.  And as much as I'd just shrug DF off, there's an arrogance to this game that really, really irks me. 

First, there is Toady's apparent insistence to brush off the last 15 to 20 years of developments in gaming technology, not just graphically (I'd be content with 8-bit-quality graphics, so I'm not demanding) but also in terms of interface design.  I was surprised to read in an interview that he was born sometime in the late seventies, so he would be about my age whereas I imagined him somewhat older.  But here's the difference -- I didn't have a computer lying around the house when I was six years old. The first computer I remember using was in the early nineties, at school, and they were probably outdated for the time (I just remember the orange-and-black screens and the five-inch floppies) -- and I certainly didn't play games with them, so I don't share this nostalgia for roguelikes he might have, because I never played any.  If anything, I find his approach rather elitist because of that -- if there's a modern game that is more unnecessarily nerdy than this one, I don't know about it.

Second, the awful interface has been noted several times, but he won't be bothered with improving it.  A quote of his on the wiki goes: "The interface is coming - it's not coming in your lifetime but it's coming."  In the meantime, as this thread noted, he's getting bogged down in small details I'm pretty sure nobody but himself cares about -- especially since that interface is just awful to manage it all.  If you exclude his brother, he's a one-man development team, which means he can do what he pleases with his game.  The problem with that, is that it's so easy to go overboard, to brush off criticism as so many attempts to taint your vision.  Sure, you might ignore all the points people are raising, but you risk alienating all but your most hardcore followers.

Third, there seems to be some underlying sadistic pleasure in making the game far tougher than it needs to be, beginning with that motto, "Losing is fun".  No.  It's not necessarily fun -- it depends on circumstances.  When it's my fault, I can slap my forehead and laugh at myself, then start over.  But here, it's far worse. Losing isn't fun when you're never given the slightest clue as to what made you lose, why it sealed your fate, and how to avoid it -- and here, it's precisely the problem.  I would lose and learn absolutely nothing that would make me avoid the same conclusion a second time.  And here it's reached the point where I don't know WHAT to do, but I wouldn't know HOW to do it even if I knew what to do.

Until those videos came around -- and I can't say I understand the beginning of the game any more after watching the first three or four of those -- the Wiki was pretty much a prerequisite, but much of it is just as arcane as the game itself.  I can take a challenging game, but don't make it far more complicated/sadistic than it needs to be.  It's like in those military comedies where the recruit is ordered to scrub toilets with a toothbrush -- scrubbing toilets is the game, the toothbrush is the interface.  It's beyond challenging -- it's demeaning.

I for one can't make sense of DF -- I can't even make my dwarves dig, for heaven's sake -- and I don't think it's my fault.  A complicated game is one thing; bad design is another.  But since it's a game that would sooner lump the problem at my feet ("losing is fun!"), I think I'll pass until Toady addresses the main priority of his game -- the interface.  I simply can't picture playing this game, let alone losing at it, as being fun.

[bhodi]

That's a lot of words to say "This game's not for me."

[WindupAtheist]

Yeah, but it needed to be said at length at least once around here. DF never seems to get anything but love anywhere.

[Ironwood]

Not really.  It's a freeware game that's someone elses hobby.

If you don't like it, fuck off and design your own.

The arrogance is in assuming the author has to listen to a single fucking word you say.

I think we'd ALL like to see a nice UI (Hell, the Dwarf Manager is a good start, totally removing the 'dwarf' bit of the UI), and we'd ALL like to see graphics and tilesets that are nice (which is why that's pretty much the first thing you do on installing; find a tileset you like) but, honestly, beyond that, it's NOT UP TO YOU.

Honestly, you're entire screed was weighted with 'Toady is a bad man' rather than a critique of the game itself. When I'm slapping down my Fifty quid or, hell, even my 50 pence, then I'll be the first to start spouting off about 'What The Designer Owes Me.'

Until then, shut the fuck up.


PS :  'I for one can't make sense of DF -- I can't even make my dwarves dig, for heaven's sake -- and I don't think it's my fault. '  :  It is.  It totally is.

[WindupAtheist]

Blow it out your ass, Ironwood. There is no possible way for a game to have come into existence in the 21st century with the miserable interface and presentation of DF unless the developer has some weird retro fetish for incomprehensibility. I don't care if the majority opinion is that it's a great game, but I'm tired of seeing nothing but 100% glowing fellatio for a game with an interface that seems like it was made for Martians and a display that requires Matrix-vision to decipher. Being freeware doesn't magically void it from criticism when it's being discussed.

[schild]

It's true. Everything should TRY to have a passable GUI. The interface is the only reason I haven't gotten into DF.

[Ironwood]

Blow it out your ass, Ironwood. There is no possible way for a game to have come into existence in the 21st century with the miserable interface and presentation of DF unless the developer has some weird retro fetish for incomprehensibility. I don't care if the majority opinion is that it's a great game, but I'm tired of seeing nothing but 100% glowing fellatio for a game with an interface that seems like it was made for Martians and a display that requires Matrix-vision to decipher. Being freeware doesn't magically void it from criticism when it's being discussed.

As I said, Criticism is fine.  But the assumption that the dumbass of a poster made :  "Toady Can Do This, He's Just NOT TO SPITE ME, Wah, wah, waaaaa...." is fucking moronic.

Sure, the UI is a valid criticism if He'd merely tried for something and failed, but criticising it for what it isn't is really kind of silly.  Especially given the fact that you are seeing 'nothing but 100% glowing fellatio ";  I mean, doesn't that fucking tell you something ?  That maybe people can handle the UI that YOU HATE because it gives them something else that you can't grasp ?

Again, the point :  Criticise it all you want, that's fair enough, but don't act as if your opinion matters in the fucking least to a fucking freeware game the man is clearly designing FOR HIS OWN DAMN FUN.

Shite, it's like you came into my living room, hated the curtains, and comented that Strips are better than Rings, you fucking Hack, how dare you.  And what's with the fucking Tie-Backs ?  Fuck sake, they don't even match the Cushions !!!

Silly man.
 

[Ironwood]

Wait a minute, reality check;  Why am I arguing with the UO chap ?

 

[schild]

Wait a minute, reality check;  Why am I arguing with the UO chap ?

 

I don't think I know why you're arguing at all. Not only is the entire way the player interacts with the game cryptic, it's also obtuse and completely non-visual - in ways games haven't been for a long, long time. In fact, it's arguably one of the most complex weird life simulations ever released on any sort of market. And while I'd agree with many that his feats are impressive, I'm personally of the opinion that you shouldn't show something to the world unless you want the world to judge it. Sure, people are more tolerable of it because it's so damn niche, but that doesn't put it above criticism.

Look, it's one thing to be niche. That's cool. I play niche games all the time. Hell, I'm *making* a niche game. But presentation still matters. It's just part of making a piece of entertainment. And as a game, it's one of the more important parts.

Back to what Bhodi said:

That's a lot of words to say "This game's not for me."

But it could be for many more with a mediocre attempt at fitting a GUI on the vanilla distribution.

[Ironwood]

Not saying at all that it's above criticism.  I'd like a nice graphics overhaul with an added UI.  I'd like him to concentrate on other stuff before Dwarf Shaving (which is apparently the big push just now  )

However, My point about WUA was not merely  a cheap shot - He argued back and forth that UO was a WoW beater because it had style and substance over graphic appeal.  He's made all my arguments for me already and I find him coming down on this side slightly bizarre.


"But presentation still matters. It's just part of making a piece of entertainment. And as a game, it's one of the more important parts"  I'd agree with that if he was marketing it.  Honestly, I think the very fact that it's a freeware hobby makes an criticism you could level utterly pointless.

What niche game are you making? 

[schild]

"But presentation still matters. It's just part of making a piece of entertainment. And as a game, it's one of the more important parts"  I'd agree with that if he was marketing it.  Honestly, I think the very fact that it's a freeware hobby makes an criticism you could level utterly pointless.

That's very nice that you're willing to be so kind to people that do something for free. Now you've basically dug yourself into a position of not being able to criticize whatever comes out of the work Sauced and I are doing.

Seriously though, and I would never put anything I do "above criticism." The DF guy knows how many people follow his game, and he probably knows how many more people would be playing it if he implemented nearly any sort of GUI. Even just a series of drop down menus with the word "go" next to it would suffice.

What niche game are you making?

All in due time. I'm not trying to hype it up, I'm just saying that just because something is niche doesn't make it "better" than anything else. In all actuality, we're probably not hard enough on niche games - even the free ones - and we go to easy on the AAA stuff.

Tomb Raider Underworld for example. It's AAA. And it's not called a giant piece of dung because the previous Tomb Raiders were so, so godawful. But after Uncharted, they never should've even shipped it. It is basically worthless.

* schild throws a stone at a flash site.

* schild hits random crappy game for 20 damage.

Edit: Seriously though, there are good games, there are bad games. There are some REALLY GREAT freeware games see Kenta Cho and Deesgeega or Nifflas or Studio Pixel for some great examples. There are a ton of freeware titles that could really use a overhaul in one or more areas - see Tigsource 6 out of 7 days for great examples of this, or, if you choose - Dwarf Fortress. There are a ton of bad freeware games that no one will ever talk about. The fact that the DF guy got out of the worst category already makes him better than about 50% of the title out there. No reason he shouldn't take it further.

But Dwarf Shaving? What? Dwarves don't shave. It's just assumed they have beards. Hell, look at the goddamn tilesets. A dwarf without a beard is a scary halfing with giant hands and feet that eats too much and talks with a stupid gruff voice.

Anyway, the point stands. Just because you think he's untouchable doesn't mean he isn't. Just because you think it doesn't matter if he listens to criticism doesn't mean he shouldn't.  /shrug.

[WindupAtheist]

He's made all my arguments for me already and I find him coming down on this side slightly bizarre.

We're talking about functionality, not aesthetics. Quit being a dumbass. I can show someone screenshots of my UO characters (or hell, screenshots of my party members from Ultima on NES) and even if they've never seen the game before, they'll know that they're looking at little figures of guys in armor with swords and stuff. Meanwhile I can show someone screenshots of Dwarf Fortress and tell them it's Space Fortress, or a game about cowboys, or a catastrophic display failure, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless they were motherfucking Neo.

Seriously, the damned game came out in 2002, not 1982. Overlooking basic things like sprites and some form of GUI are either examples of technical incompetence (unlikely) or a deliberate retro affectation.

[Vetarnias]

For the record, I tried the game using the Mike Mayday tileset.  As far as graphics go, this could be very satisfactory -- if it weren't for the interface which changes absolutely nothing.

I can accept that the game is this guy's personal project, and that he can do what he pleases with it.  However, he has put it out there for people to play it, even though it's theoretically still in alpha, and now he's living off donations.  In other words, he has chosen to make his game accessible to the public so that he could raise money through it to continue working on it.  He is deliberately placing himself in a position where his work begs to be criticized -- especially since he's relying on the charity of his supporters to keep going.  He even maintains forums so he can get player feedback (regardless of whether he pays any attention to it).  All of this -- the fact the game is accessible to the public, his relying on donations, his maintaining his own forums so the community can comment, makes his game open to criticism.

Anyway, it would seem Toady is more concerned with what pleases him than what would improve his game but bore him as a programmer, as with the interface.  My point is, he knows that the interface is a major barrier to entry, and yet he lets it stand and even turns this into a joke (wouldn't he be making a lot more in donations if his game were more accessible?).  I don't mean dumbing down the gameplay, just make it a little easier to navigate.  And it's not just that he doesn't seem to care, it's that he seems to be protective of his code (perhaps for intellectual property reasons, but maybe just because the Vision might get tainted).  And there's a point where "making a game for your own damn fun" veers right into being self-indulgent, and I think it's getting pretty close to this point with DF.

I remember reading a blog entry on DF, where it's described this way: "The interface is so incomprehensible that reading the online wiki is an absolute necessity. I’ve read the Adams brothers’ changelog and as far as I can tell, there’s almost no design thought process at all. And the final product is impenetrable, totally unbalanced, downright mean."  And well, that's the problem.  He keeps on adding stuff way past almost everyone's caring point (Dwarves shaving indeed), apparently making it up as he goes along.

I was trying to find something to compare this game to, until I learned of the Winchester Mansion.  Long story short: Heiress to the Winchester firearms fortune believes herself cursed, and a medium tells her she must keep on building a house for the rest of her life to host the restless spirits.  So she moves to California and keeps on building her mansion for nearly 40 years, all without a master plan because the key is not how she builds it (which would mean it would be finished at one point), but rather that she must keep on building. So the word was improvisation -- stairs that lead nowhere and so on.  Today it's a landmark, but it is because it is a curiosity, and because of the circumstances that led to it, not because it is a triumph of architecture or planning.  At one point, I'm afraid that DF, with all its shaving Dwarves, will end up being like that -- an unplayable curiosity.

At one point Toady will have to be told to stop before he starts considering making briefs or boxers a life-and-death game decision -- especially if you have to hit 10 keys in succession to achieve it.  Frankly, the last thing I want is a Sims-type game where your characters have to be told to use the bathroom -- if you're forcing me to micromanage my way to hell, can you at least give me some toilet-trained characters? And it's already pretty obvious that he won't give a damn about what you think once he has decided otherwise.

If you could use your mouse, it would already be a major step; but ironically, the mouse only works in oh-so-important matters such as choosing a fortress name. That leads me to think he could enable the use of the mouse for the rest of the game -- he just doesn't want to.  Hence the impression I'm being considered a guinea pig destined to some sadistic end every time I launch this game.

[Merusk]

It's a game for people who bitch about how "easy" games are these days and "back in the day we couldn't save anywhere and you had to start all over when you died!"

Write it off as retro and play or don't based on that.

[bhodi]

At one point Toady will have to be told to stop before he starts considering making briefs or boxers a life-and-death game decision -- especially if you have to hit 10 keys in succession to achieve it.  Frankly, the last thing I want is a Sims-type game where your characters have to be told to use the bathroom -- if you're forcing me to micromanage my way to hell, can you at least give me some toilet-trained characters?

You keep missing a critical point.

This game is not for you. He is not selling it. It is not a retail product. It is not shareware. He is not packaging it up and trying to get your money for it. You are not his market. Therefore, as ironwood said, he can do pretty much whatever he wants, especially as his market is pretty much himself and those who can learn the quirky UI.

He doesn't seem all that interested in expanding the market right now, but I am personally hoping that he caves to pressure and finally decides to focus on presentation, since adding the 'grid' option to expand the viewing area added a whole lot more 'fun' factor for me. But like anything else it's a take it or leave it, as is.

It's also an alpha build, as it states clearly all over the place.

[grebo]

The game, it's much less a game than a fantasy simulator.  That's what he's shooting for you know, a living breathing world that would run fine whether or not there were folks playing.  That's a noble goal IMO, if perhaps a bit different than what we're used to.

The interface, it's not that bad, seriously, it isn't.  It's all listed on the screen for chrissakes, just read it.  The (d)esignate menu, the (b)uild menu and (v)iew to view your dwarves/set labor.  You can easily get started with that.  The hard part actually comes later, when you're trying to figure out the most efficient way to set stockpiles and workshops so your dwarves aren't wandering everywhere unnecessarily, and trying to set labor so what you need done gets done, and all the hauling doesn't pile up. 

It's kind of like quitting smoking, you have to want it for it to work.  If you don't want to learn how to play, you won't learn.

[Merusk]

No, the interface is seriously bad,  almost to the point of being done just to drive people off.  I d/l'd it yesterday and hopped in again to see what it's like now.  The only way I could find out how to move up and down between levels was to search the keybinds.  When you have to do that, your interface fails or is purposefully obscure.

It's cool that you're fans, and the game's got an insane level of detail to micromanage if you're into that.  However, I can't deny some shits done just to be annoying or because the man's too lazy to document well.

[Vetarnias]

Well, I tried to understand its basics. I spent 10 hours over the past 3 days doing that, and since I wasn't going anywhere, I stopped.  Besides, I knew that even by getting the basics right, I'd just run into situations later on where I wouldn't know what to do, with little to no outside documentation available.  I can't even make out what is on the screen anyway, despite a tileset that is regarded as the most graphical out there.

And there is not a single documentation out there that answers the three important questions:

WHAT do I need to do?
WHY do I need to do it?
HOW do I do it?

Not that wiki, not even those videos answer these questions satisfactorily -- they might answer one or the other in part, but never all three and never completely.  It's as though they were made for people who already understood the game, or have a solid background in 1980's roguelikes, and, well, that's not my case.

That's why this game annoys me.  Toady knows about the interface, but he doesn't care.  At the same time, I had never yet seen a game that seemed to consider you an idiot for failing to understand it, or that you prefer games that hold your hand because you dare to say that the interface is awful.  DF and its fans -- perhaps even its maker -- appear to think all of this.

Just consider the reactions to this post which argued that people donated money based on what the game promised to be instead of what it was.

[sidereal]

there's an arrogance to this game that really, really irks me. 

Dude, games don't have 'arrogance'.  You just couldn't figure it out and now you're taking it personally and blaming Toady for making you feel like an idiot.  Get over it and go play a game you like to play.  I fucking hate RTSs because I like to be deliberate in resource management games and I always dick up RTS play becomes I'm too slow trying to set up my base and explore the area while the other guy or CPU is zerging the fuck out of me.  So I don't play them.  But I don't write screeds about how RTS developers are big assholes for making a game I don't like to play.

I don't share this nostalgia for roguelikes he might have, because I never played any.

What a fascinating insight.  So maybe you and Toady have different taste in games.  Obviously, that makes him an elitist asshole. 

Well, I tried to understand its basics. I spent 10 hours over the past 3 days doing that

I can't even make my dwarves dig, for heaven's sake -- and I don't think it's my fault.

You're fucking kidding me.  You spent 10 hours playing the game, never got your dwarves to even dig?  That 10 hours must have been boring as fuck.  And now you're qualified to not only review the game but psychoanalyze the developer?

I think you're just ashamed you couldn't figure out something that numerous people are obviously enjoying and you're trying to blame someone for it.  Get over it.  You're welcome to criticize anything you want, as has been pointed out, so feel free to stuff your 'BUT MY 1ST AMENDMENT' arguments.  But asserting that the developer is an asshole for making a game you don't like is just stupid.

[grebo]

WHAT do I need to do?
WHY do I need to do it?
HOW do I do it?

Sandbox, my friend.  Didn't you ever play D&D?  Do what you want to do.  Make a megaproject involving lavafalls and waterfalls.  Make a Colosseum for goblin vs. dragon fights.  Make crazily over engineered traps that drown or crush whole sieges of gobbos, or elf merchants.  Make a giant tower, toss some kittens off and watch them splatter, then cook the chunks into kitten roasts.  It's all possible in this game, and who knows what will be possible in the future.  There is no "end goal", you can't really win, eventually your fort will dissolve into a fiery gibbering apocolypse of angry doom... which is kinda fun.

Or do you mean, how do you do the essentials?  Like food and clothes and bedrooms?  Because I'm pretty sure the wiki does cover that stuff...

No, the interface is seriously bad,  almost to the point of being done just to drive people off.  I d/l'd it yesterday and hopped in again to see what it's like now.  The only way I could find out how to move up and down between levels was to search the keybinds.  When you have to do that, your interface fails or is purposefully obscure.

Sure there's a learning curve, but once you start to get a handle on the interface it's not hard to find the things you need, and it all starts to make sense.  It does, I swear!

[Merusk]

Yes, but it's hard and convoluted purely for sake of being so.

Every software I've worked in since 1989 has used "escape" to back out. This one? Space.
Page Up/ Down would be natural for moving between either levels or menu pages, instead it's ctrl 5, alt 5 and +, - *

Silly shit like that

[Slyfeind]

Yes, but it's hard and convoluted purely for sake of being so.

Every software I've worked in since 1989 has used "escape" to back out. This one? Space.
Page Up/ Down would be natural for moving between either levels or menu pages, instead it's ctrl 5, alt 5 and +, - *

Silly shit like that

Yeah, I think that's the "arrogance" he's talking about. Why would someone use Space for backing out of a menu...except for like 10% of the menus which suddenly use F9? Why not use Esc? It can be so damn frustrating to know there's this really kick-ass game out there that you can't play because the interface is trying to reinvent the way people use computers, for no apparent reason.

Some in-game tutorials and missions would go a long way towards letting players learn the system. But barring that, he could just use standards we've all grown up with instead of doing his own thing....

[schild]

Yes, but it's hard and convoluted purely for sake of being so.

Every software I've worked in since 1989 has used "escape" to back out. This one? Space.
Page Up/ Down would be natural for moving between either levels or menu pages, instead it's ctrl 5, alt 5 and +, - *

Silly shit like that

This was enough to make me delete the zips off my desktop.

It's like, he found a neck and just had to put a beard on it.

Beyond nerdy and niche to change shit like that. In fact, it transcends to something entirely different.

[Yegolev]

I would also like to chime in and say that when you design an interface that is internally inconsistent to the degree that the DF one is, it must be due to a purposeful design or ... what?  I was going to say maybe neglect but there are a limited number of ways to back out of a menu (since that was mentioned).  Neglect would probably have us using ESC at some point, as well as F9 and SPACE.  I'd also be curious to understand the point behind varying the keys for scrolling lists.  I'm using - and + because, I assume, DF requires a numpad, but sometimes I use the arrow keys.  Why is this?

I would argue that the notion of the interface making sense after a while is more that you just learn where shit is, rather than suddenly waking up one day with sunbeams on your face and understanding The Vision.  Assigning jobs is a great example of something very important that is completely hidden away.  If there is some master plan to the interface, I'd love to read it.  Just tell me why I don't use SPACE to back out of every menu. I dare you.

Edit for clarity.

[Ironwood]

Hey, you could drop him an E-mail !

[Yegolev]

Indeed I could.



Smartass.

[grebo]

I would also like to chime in and say that when you design an interface that is internally inconsistent to the degree that the DF one is, it must be due to a purposeful design or ... what?  I was going to say maybe neglect but there are a limited number of ways to back out of a menu (since that was mentioned).  Neglect would probably have us using ESC at some point, as well as F9 and SPACE.  I'd also be curious to understand the point behind varying the keys for scrolling lists.  I'm using - and + because, I assume, DF requires a numpad, but sometimes I use the arrow keys.  Why is this?

I would argue that the notion of the interface making sense after a while is more that you just learn where shit is, rather than suddenly waking up one day with sunbeams on your face and understanding The Vision.  Assigning jobs is a great example of something very important that is completely hidden away.  If there is some master plan to the interface, I'd love to read it.  Just tell me why I don't use SPACE to back out of every menu. I dare you.

Edit for clarity.

On the "send stuff to Depot screen", yeah, I agree.  F9 makes no sense there, it's not like hitting space by accident would lose you anything because the stuff is set when you select it, you don't have to confirm it when you exit the screen... having F9 exit from the trade screen would make more sense...

But on the other points, space to back out of menus I personally like, because space is always there under your thumb, you have to go and reach for esc, and you push it a lot....  +-/* thing almost certainly grew from having to scroll multiple lists at the same time, one set of scroll buttons for one side, and another for the other side...but all this stuff is pretty minor...

I don't think Mr. Adams was trying to create barriers to entry, just setting things up however he thought was easiest at the time.  I didn't think it was that hard to learn, and for me it was worth it.