Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
Just yet another element that would contribute a lot to the overall experience of the game. I'm not "demanding" it be added or anything like that, and it's probably even somewhere on some roadmap. It just goes into the overall evaluation comparing the two games.
Conversely, if we're really doing this and comparing both storytelling and mechanical depth of these specific elements, hook hands have a much more dramatic, practical effect in every way.
With that system, the number of mechanically meaningful possibilities is essentially limitless, since you could basically create nearly anything.
From what I understand, Rimworld was made to support this via mods. The Rimworld mod library is an extensive and hugely useful library. Since DF will be entering the steam ecosystem, I'm really curious what kinds of mods people will be able to add. If you want hook hands for your dwarves, maybe you could add it yourself with the steam release (?).
The mechanics present in DF are more complex than the mechanics present in RW and the systems in DF can interact with each other in more, and more meaningful, ways than the systems in RW can. There may be some specific places where RW has a mechanic that DF doesn't, but even these are not as deeply integrated with the wider game than mechanics in DF generally are and those mechanics are usually fairly surface-level.
As an example - drunk cats. For those unaware, after a DF update people suddenly found that cats in their forts were vomiting, staggering around and even dying. After some investigation, it was found that:
Dwarves were spilling alcohol in taverns -> Cats were walking through the spilt drinks -> Anything walking through a contaminant gets that on their bare feet, or the outermost layer like a shoe if present -> Cats clean contaminants off themselves by licking, which ingests the contaminant -> (THE BUG) When a cat licked alcohol off its paws, it was ingesting one whole unit of that rather than a reduced amount (equivalent to a whole mug of beer!) -> The cat was ingesting a ridiculous amount of alcohol, leading to drunk behaviour and death in extreme cases.
This was patched so that the cats now clean off a reduced amount of the contaminant, rather than the equivalent of half their bodyweight in booze. This is an example of how many different systems react together in emergent ways. Does this happen in RW? I can't think of any examples offhand.
I'd argue that by all of these metrics, DF is deeper than RW. If you want to argue that people can derive 'deeper experiences' from RW on a person-by-person basis, then sure. But you could make the same argument about chess vs monopoly. Mechanically, DF is a game that emphasis realistic, accurate simulations of events. RW isn't.
At least some of these points aren't valid (I'll quote below), but even if they all were, it's irrelevant. RW having those things doesn't make it deeper. RW is designed to be a game, first and foremost. The 'simulation' aspects of it are all there to support the game, and there are plenty of things that don't make sense in the context of the world that are there simply for balance. Why is a flat penalty applied to the value of guns you sell, but not that you buy? To keep the game balanced.
Can do these in DF in adventure mode. You can walk anywhere in the entire map, visit any town or settlement, or track monsters to their lairs. Ruins exist and can be explored in the same way, with unique elements. Even outside of adventure mode, DF simulates other parts of the world in a much more meaningful way. Drowned the elven trade caravan? Now your parent civ is at war with the elven civ and has to fight a two-front war against them and the goblins.
Additionally, you can put a fort on top of a creature's lair, a ruin, a catacomb/tomb. All of these places have actual history, people who built and used them. These things are rarer, and I find that makes them more meaningful than the ruins and ancient evil that spawn on every single tile on a RW planet.
Begging for asylum etc. addressed further down, but in DF you can have visitors come to your fort to research in your library and debate topics with your scholars, performers can visit your tavern, adventurers can arrive to explore the caverns. Some of these visitors can represent a threat, either through a dangerous curse they carry or an evil motive that's their true purpose for visiting.
Surgery is in DF, even if prostheses aren't. Food preservation beyond managing temperature exists - food out of stockpiles still rots and even food in stockpiles is at risk from vermin. Whether you store your dog-ass biscuits in a stone pot or a wooden barrel matters.
Has RW updated the disease mechanic? From memory, there is nothing at all realistic about how the diseases 'spread' in the game. RNJesus casts 'give flu' on x% of your colony and they get it, regardless of whether there's an actual route for infection. They don't spread the disease between each other. Additionally, what it does it mean to have 77% flu? This is a heavily 'gamified' feature, not an example of a deep or realistic simulation. The lack of depth in this implementation would feel out of place in DF, imo
Silver is the generally the best mat for blunt weapons, but even then axes, spears, swords and blunt weapons all have different strengths and weaknesses. Spears work better against bigger enemies, they can pierce deep to hit vitals for example. This is something that's present in both games.
Those events are chosen based on your colony, not emergent from a wider world. When a person seeks refuge, it's because your colony is smaller than the target pop the AI is aiming for you to have. Those things stop happening in the late game. Similarly, raids will just create new pawns to throw at your killbox, randomly choosing some to be cousins or relatives of colonists. Play long enough, and every colonists will eventually have a short essay of dozens of cousins and relatives that've been murdered. In DF, if you keep killing attackers, the civ sending them will run out of soldiers. If RW, you can kill 10 times the pop of the entire planet and still have 100's of people show up, in DF you can kill every sentient being and the game has a specific era the world will enter. Simply having more events doesn't make the game deeper, especially when many of those events are unavoidable and seemingly exist only to force a challenge.
There are things RW has that DF doesn't, sure, but the list of things in DF that are more developed/not in RW at all is much longer. This list is not a compelling argument that RW is close to being as deep as DF.
Objectively, I think DF is a deeper simulation that RW. I don't judge people who disagree, or think less of people who prefer RW. Personally, I've played ~300 hours in RW, 90% of those with mods. Despite that, I can't think of any actual stories from the game. No moments of real excitement, or connection with a character. The few moments I do remember are ones of frustration at nonsensical mechanics. It's always felt like a game to me, something to be beaten. And I found it fairly easy to beat (again - personally, no judgement to other people). The colony at which I decided to stop playing was an ironman, losing is fun, naked and alone start in the tundra. After a few years of losing no pawns and everything being stable, I lost interest. I felt I'd beaten the game, and outside of the challenge as a game, it didn't feel like there was anything deeper to explore. DF, to this day, gives me memorable stories and interesting moments because it provides a much broader set of goals than 'survive arbitrary events'.
You're being a clown and everyone is providing their own amazing arguments against you.
How is a hook hand or peg leg mechanically different to your one-legged dwarf walking with a crutch? Like, explain it to me.
Also in your many paragraphs there are lots of things you've just gotten flat-out wrong. Like not being able to send out Dwarf parties into the world, that ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ pull about steel hammers, and a bunch of things that "aren't in the game" that are well-documented future features. Light mechanics, temperature mechanics, siege mechanics, magic, etc etc etc list goes on.
Future features that are going to be added in the future, and not sold as a DLC pack where you get babies and robots lol. Basegame Rimworld is feature complete, Dwarf Fortress is not.
From the bay12 roadmap[www.bay12games.com], here are some highlights of planned additions soon (by DF dev standards) after the steam release:
Also lol at ...snip... - that one got away from me a bit
In comparison, Rimworld has 5 types of rock, one is durable and good for defensive structures but is ugly, another is beautiful and can make art but is fragile, another somewhere in between these two, but takes less time to work with. The other two are admittedly inferior choices.
This is one of the major problems I have with Dwarf Fortress. It has a lot of stuff that is very poorly (if at all) utilised. It doesn't matter if I mine and use Stibnite or shale or marcasite or gneiss or andesite in Dwarf Fortress. There is functionally no difference between all these types of rock. (In reality, all of those rocks have different uses, Stibnite can make pyrotechnics, marcasite has minor amounts of sulphur in it, andesite is used to make non-slip tiles and gneiss is very durable and used in construction).
Dwarf Fortress does have some parts that are deep, but the vast majority of it is just wide with very little depth and as you play you will quickly learn this. Which is kind of strange, because the developers took all the time to perfectly simulate the individual strands of hair in a dwarves beard, but then never gave it any use much like most of the content in the game.
Hopefully with workshop support mods will fix this and actually find uses for all the pointless variety the game has.
I've been talking about depth of gameplay experiences, more ways to interact with a world realistically. Colloquially, it's common for people to say of video games, "oh cool, this new patch added a lot more weapons to choose from in different situations, this is going to make the combat so much deeper." You could argue they'd be wrong, but that's a general understanding of depth that's been around for ages. When Dwarf Fortress adds some of these Rimworld features, people will rightfully say it makes the game deeper, which implies it had less depth before then, and that games already featuring these things do have that depth.
Procedural generation is fun, but in some cases it's a smokescreen, making people feel like they're getting more out of something than really exists. This is what I meant by my No Man's Sky example -- whether they made a whole new periodic table for their game or not, would it have mattered when the resulting experience is the same either way? What you actually experience is what makes a game deep. And having more types of experiences possible is a net benefit to a game's depth. I believe you did agree that a diceroll result is better than no result.
But this goes back to what I said about a tree-growing simulation that is the most detailed simulation ever created, involving nutrients and light direction etc. A simulation just sitting there being unengaging is not depth. What you get to experience provides the depth.
Also, Tarn absolutely is concerned with game balance as well, whether it has anything to do with the simulation or not. Specifically speaking of buying and selling, in a recent stream he stated that in the new release, junk items have been de-valued significantly at the trader in order to more realistically make the player trade more valuable items like gems. Why is a flat penalty applied to the value of these items? To keep the game balanced.
He also changed the mechanics so that large caravans don't come immediately, the traders will begin with pack animals and gradually step up their game as your fortress becomes larger and gains more nobles.
Doesn't that sound pretty gamey? A sense of enforced progression, so you start out meager and grow? It makes some logical sense, but why isn't it just as realistic that a random rich trader might be passing by and stop at your fortress in this fully simulated world?
This isn't a criticism of balance. It makes sense because Dwarf Fortress is a game and needs concessions along those lines.
I'm mostly talking about fort mode, but I do miss when we were allowed to embark on actual towns and the citizens had absolutely no idea how to deal with these dwarves running around laying claim to everything they owned. :)
Right, and this would be a point in Dwarf Fortress's favor. Dwarf Fortress has a variety of visitors, and Rimworld has quests, asylum-seekers, jettisoned pods etc. Each game has things the other doesn't.
When I said "surgery and limb replacement" I meant the way medical attention works in general, issuing specific commands for your doctor to interact with all parts of the body.
Incidentally, miasma is a gamey, less simulationey element in order to broadly abstract the bad feelings and diseases that come from leaving rotting stuff lying around. You could argue that it's simply a part of this fantasy world, but the intent is clear: to provide players with another complication to manage. Having to take trash outdoors exposes you to invaders. Originally, dumping it in the pit would aggravate the beasts below. It was one of several mechanics to stop you from "turtling" and not having to worry about monsters.
Rimworld's implementation is honestly more true to life. It even has food poisoning, which DF does not.
Again: a diceroll mechanic that causes something interesting, believable and challenging is better than not having the mechanic at all. Dwarf Fortress could implement migrants arriving with the flu, but it hasn't. It doesn't actually have the flu.
I figured this would come up...I said steel because it tends to be easier to get your hands on and from what I remember is broadly more useful across weapon types.
In any case though, I doubt most DF players make a conscious decision of what weapons to take to any given fight, whereas in Rimworld you are constantly making this choice and setting up a squad to deal with a threat with a variety of weapons. Weapon choice in DF tends to be seen as cosmetic, or else you'll settle on optimal strategy and only make the weapon you're convinced is best.
Don't you agree that a form of molotov or alchemist's fire would add some depth to Dwarf Fortress's combat?
I don't feel like this matters, because a die roll that contributes to a better experience or a cooler story to tell is better than never rolling that die at all.
Dwarf Fortress does this too. Did you know every dwarf can only have a strange mood once in its life, and it artificially starts happening once you have a population of at least 20 dwarves? And as far as I'm aware, you'll only get one at a time until it's been dealt with, and eventually when each dwarf has had its mood they will stop happening.
An AI is saying "it's time for you to have to deal with something interesting," and you do it, and it's fun! But it's also arbitrary. Nothing wrong with that.
The question is regarding both games as they currently exist. I could release a game tomorrow about moving a dot around on a screen, alongside a roadmap that will eventually make it deeper than Dwarf Fortress (it will simulate individual eyelashes), and that wouldn't suddenly make it currently deeper than Dwarf Fortress.
I find it ironic that you complain about properties of andesite being not utilized but totally fine with "sci-fi-sh" stuff that makes sense only by being part of game mechanics.
I'm going to need proof that stuff on a character's eyeball actually prevents vision in Dwarf Fortress, because I'm pretty sure my adventurer has been submerged in water with "water covering" every part of the body and still been able to see. But I could be wrong.
Blindness happens when eyes are damaged, not when gunk gets on them, and gunk doesn't damage them.
You haven't been reading what I've been saying. It's not possible to send a group of dwarves out to an arbitrary location, choose to stop there, and simulate the world in that zone like you can in Rimworld. You can't run two fortresses at once like you can in Rimworld. You can literally issue mining commands, go to the world map, click on another hex where your party is camped, and then issue mining commands there. It will all happen simultaneously. This is one of the features that is a great boon when it comes to Rimworld multiplayer mods, it's possible to let each player operate their own settlement next to each other and that's all supported by the base game.
And again...the question is regarding both games as they currently exist. I could release a game tomorrow about moving a dot around on a screen, alongside a roadmap that will eventually make it deeper than Dwarf Fortress (it will simulate individual eyelashes), and that wouldn't suddenly make it currently deeper than Dwarf Fortress.
None of this actually changes the fact that the actual block of stone I end up with after cutting a boulder is any different from any other block made from a different type of stone. There is functionally do difference in how I use gneiss or andesite.
Rim World has a similar problem with many of it's items too though. Meat is a good example. I don't know how many types of meat it has, a lot, but meat is just meat. It has different names and doesn't stack, but outside of this meat from one animal is no different from any other type of meat (I guess you can count human and insect meat, which usually are just a type of meat your people don't like to eat).
Rimworld also has a ton of mods that are also guilty of adding pointless variety. One farming mod adds like 50 crops to grow, some grow a bit faster, some have slightly different yields, but once harvested they're all the same item, raw plant food.
Again, very wide. But very shallow.