Any games like Stonehearth? I've played Rim World, just looking for other games I might of missed.

[Toxicwire†]

x

[borndl]

Dwarf Fortress

[BoogieMan]

Originally posted by borndl:

Dwarf Fortress

Yeah.. Just far more complex.

[YetiChow]

Timber and Stone, Hearthlands, Towns, Gnomoria -- all are city-building games with some level of creative freedom (Towns and Gnomoria let you build block-by-block, Hearthlands has pre-made buildings, not sure how Timber and Stone handles construction) and indirect control.

Unfortunately, another thing all these games share with Stonehearth is that the ambition of their developers sparked a hype-wave which outran the devs' abilities to deliver; so pretty much all of those games are maligned as "bad, broken, unfinished messes" -- it's a fate which sadly happens to most games in this genre.

Having played Gnomoria I can say it's functional, and Towns remains one of my favourite games ever (it's the reason I was so excited about Stonehearth, and it's the closest game to Stonehearth that exists, although there are significant differences in tone and feel between the two games.) If you're looking for a game like Stonehearth but with hints of dark humour and a more "survival against harsh odds" feel, slightly more direct control (or at least more say over priorities and who lives where), and the ability to run populations of 100+ then Towns may well be the game you're looking for -- although if you agree with the growing wave of voices who decry Stonehearth as "broken and unfinished", you'll want to skip over Towns because it clearly isn't as fleshed-out as the devs intended it to be. It works, and my experience has been that it's actually really stable, but a lot of its quirks and intended behaviours are commonly written off as bugs or bad AI. The same happens with Stonehearth though -- until you learn how the workers "think" and how the game makes decisions, a lot of what the workers are doing can seem silly or broken if it doesn't line up with what looks obvious to us; but from the computer's perspective it's taking the logical choice based on the information it has.

[Witch ~]

Originally posted by YetiChow:

Timber and Stone, Hearthlands, Towns, Gnomoria -- all are city-building games with some level of creative freedom (Towns and Gnomoria let you build block-by-block, Hearthlands has pre-made buildings, not sure how Timber and Stone handles construction) and indirect control.

All those games are abandoned, unfinished and buggy as ♥♥♥♥ tho.

[YetiChow]

Originally posted by Witch ~:

Originally posted by YetiChow:

Timber and Stone, Hearthlands, Towns, Gnomoria -- all are city-building games with some level of creative freedom (Towns and Gnomoria let you build block-by-block, Hearthlands has pre-made buildings, not sure how Timber and Stone handles construction) and indirect control.

All those games are abandoned, unfinished and buggy as ♥♥♥♥ tho.

Originally posted by YetiChow:

...if you agree with the growing wave of voices who decry Stonehearth as "broken and unfinished", you'll want to skip over Towns because it clearly isn't as fleshed-out as the devs intended it to be. It works, and my experience has been that it's actually really stable, but a lot of its quirks and intended behaviours are commonly written off as bugs or bad AI. The same happens with Stonehearth though -- until you learn how the workers "think" and how the game makes decisions, a lot of what the workers are doing can seem silly or broken if it doesn't line up with what looks obvious to us; but from the computer's perspective it's taking the logical choice based on the information it has.

The complaints about bugginess in all those games are the same complaints about "bugginess" I keep reading about for Stonehearth. I've gotta say, after a few hundred hours play-time (not all of it recorded on Steam), I'm not seeing anywhere near the kind of bugginess or instability that so many people reckon I should be. I have seen two significant bugs with consistent effects: the one where sound randomly cuts out, and the one where water can get stuck in a "black hole" situation that drains all of the connected water (and can lead to serious performance drops.) But having run up against various other causes of framerate and processor tick lag, I can say that in my experience the vast majority of them aren't "bugs" in the sense of something not working properly, they're instances of the code doing exactly what it should. In those instances, the proper behaviour just doesn't line up with what players might expect -- see my above comment about actions which are perfectly logical from the game's perspective even if human "common sense" would make another choice the obvious one to us.

Now, I'm under no illusions -- most people don't take the time to learn how games in this genre really tick; and if the game isn't immediately fun and rewarding to play then most people won't stick with it long enough to even realise they might try something different, let alone actually experiement and research to figure out any kind of optimal strategy. That's why I put in a warning about how the games in that list all have their quirks. Better to give the OP the information about what's up and let them decide for themselves, than to write off a whole slew of games as "not worth playing" purely because some people can't figure them out.

[Witch ~]

Originally posted by YetiChow:

Originally posted by Witch ~:

All those games are abandoned, unfinished and buggy as ♥♥♥♥ tho.

Originally posted by YetiChow:

...if you agree with the growing wave of voices who decry Stonehearth as "broken and unfinished", you'll want to skip over Towns because it clearly isn't as fleshed-out as the devs intended it to be. It works, and my experience has been that it's actually really stable, but a lot of its quirks and intended behaviours are commonly written off as bugs or bad AI. The same happens with Stonehearth though -- until you learn how the workers "think" and how the game makes decisions, a lot of what the workers are doing can seem silly or broken if it doesn't line up with what looks obvious to us; but from the computer's perspective it's taking the logical choice based on the information it has.

The complaints about bugginess in all those games are the same complaints about "bugginess" I keep reading about for Stonehearth. I've gotta say, after a few hundred hours play-time (not all of it recorded on Steam), I'm not seeing anywhere near the kind of bugginess or instability that so many people reckon I should be. I have seen two significant bugs with consistent effects: the one where sound randomly cuts out, and the one where water can get stuck in a "black hole" situation that drains all of the connected water (and can lead to serious performance drops.) But having run up against various other causes of framerate and processor tick lag, I can say that in my experience the vast majority of them aren't "bugs" in the sense of something not working properly, they're instances of the code doing exactly what it should. In those instances, the proper behaviour just doesn't line up with what players might expect -- see my above comment about actions which are perfectly logical from the game's perspective even if human "common sense" would make another choice the obvious one to us.

Now, I'm under no illusions -- most people don't take the time to learn how games in this genre really tick; and if the game isn't immediately fun and rewarding to play then most people won't stick with it long enough to even realise they might try something different, let alone actually experiement and research to figure out any kind of optimal strategy. That's why I put in a warning about how the games in that list all have their quirks. Better to give the OP the information about what's up and let them decide for themselves, than to write off a whole slew of games as "not worth playing" purely because some people can't figure them out.

Arent you the same guy who defended Towns to death

[Ainz Ooal Gown]

Originally posted by Witch ~:

Originally posted by YetiChow:

The complaints about bugginess in all those games are the same complaints about "bugginess" I keep reading about for Stonehearth. I've gotta say, after a few hundred hours play-time (not all of it recorded on Steam), I'm not seeing anywhere near the kind of bugginess or instability that so many people reckon I should be. I have seen two significant bugs with consistent effects: the one where sound randomly cuts out, and the one where water can get stuck in a "black hole" situation that drains all of the connected water (and can lead to serious performance drops.) But having run up against various other causes of framerate and processor tick lag, I can say that in my experience the vast majority of them aren't "bugs" in the sense of something not working properly, they're instances of the code doing exactly what it should. In those instances, the proper behaviour just doesn't line up with what players might expect -- see my above comment about actions which are perfectly logical from the game's perspective even if human "common sense" would make another choice the obvious one to us.

Now, I'm under no illusions -- most people don't take the time to learn how games in this genre really tick; and if the game isn't immediately fun and rewarding to play then most people won't stick with it long enough to even realise they might try something different, let alone actually experiement and research to figure out any kind of optimal strategy. That's why I put in a warning about how the games in that list all have their quirks. Better to give the OP the information about what's up and let them decide for themselves, than to write off a whole slew of games as "not worth playing" purely because some people can't figure them out.

Arent you the same guy who defended Towns to death

Yes, he is.

[know_thyself]

Got excited when I heard Towns was like StoneHearth. Went and looked. *Eyetwitch* That game looks friggin atrocious. Worse than AOE...

[jaxxia]

my stonheart dont even start now serious
no musiques nothing black screen and auto crash after 2min

[YetiChow]

Originally posted by know_thyself:

Got excited when I heard Towns was like StoneHearth. Went and looked. *Eyetwitch* That game looks friggin atrocious. Worse than AOE...

A lot of people preferred the original pixel-sprite (16-bit styled) graphics to the more modern "3D model baked into 2D" sprites, and honestly I reckon that if they'd kept the retro look they would have recieved more support from retro fans and had one less "tEh NEw UpDatE ChaNGeS BrOkE EvruHthInG!" complaint to deal with.

With that said, Towns is intentionally designed to be easily mod compatible, so "texture packs" are well within the realm of possibility. I'm not sure if any were completed before the modding community effectively gave up wading through the salt-pits (there are still a couple of modders around you could talk to, but I believe Towns++ is the only mod which is publicly announced to be in active development); but it's not hard to change the graphics if you're so inclined and I know a couple of texture packs were at least started. The major work involved is sourcing/creating replacement sprites and then updating any animations to fit them -- if the existing sprite has a longer animation than the new one then frames from that new animation can simply be copied to "fill in the gaps", but if the sprites have more animation frames then the existing animations merely need to be modified to take all of those new frames into account. If you can read this, and have access to NotePad (or a similar editor, Notepad++ is preferred for its extensive features and the fact that it's free), then you can mod Towns. For a graphics mod you'd also want a graphics editing program which can work with .png files and layer transperancies, again there are plenty of free options there.