Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I love Rimworld 2: Mountain Dorf Edition too.
I will play both.
Yeah I like them both, DF might be a bit clunky but I guess with a few good updates the game will have success
That reason alone destroys Rimworld into tiny bits.
Also, the story telling does not feel forced down your throat like in Rimworld, where everything is so chaotic that chaos loses its meaning. Here things can or can not happen, nothing is scripted, everything is simulated.
Well, you say it "looks good" so... that's a reason.
All I can say is that you should watch some Let's Plays to get a good feel for things if you're still undecided.
Rimworld is a great game and so is Dwarf Fortress. DF is a great deal broader than RW as well as much deeper in terms of both it's general mechanics and, by far, in how those mechanics interact. Gameplay isn't difficult, but understanding it and manipulating it appropriately requires quite a bit of learning and practice.
Rimworld only compared to DF in terms of it's inspiration, since it was partially inspired by DF, and that it is a colony-builder, survival, management, production game. BUT, DF is... much more biggerer where ALL of those genres are concerned. Not only is it much bigger in scale, nearly becoming a 4x Conquer the World game in scope, but... it's "more of everything."
RW play is great at its scale and design. It's a good game. DF is also a good game, but there are all sorts of little bits in it that may be a bit counterintuitive. Again, watching some Let's Plays would help as well as maybe reading a few things about how complex the game's interactions can be or how unexpected some things can evolve into something... "new."
A popular case-study in this interview: :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAhHkJQ3KgY
Then install a tileset so it gets graphics.
Like let's look at work orders:
RimWorld is easy - you just set up a repeating work order to do it whenever it's possible to do it. The game takes care of the logic for you.
Dwarf Fortress ... you set up a job queue on the crafting station to do something, then it disappears after a few iterations. Why? Game doesn't say. Ok, so maybe you need to set up a work order. Work order means you need need a manager. Manager means you need an office. Does the office need something? Game doesn't say. Whatever, I put a table in there with a chair, maybe it helps(?) So now you can make a work order to do something. But you can't just say "do this thing as many times as you have materials to do it" with 1 button like RimWorld, you have to fiddle around with a bunch of settings to run the work order, then it has to get verified by the manager (no idea how this mechanic works)
Now, as you can see, what took about 1 sentence for RimWorld took a whole paragraph for DF. That's the difference.
Rimworld is a survival game that does a tiny amount of world-simulation in the name of making the game fun and compelling. Most of what seems like world simulation is done ad hoc via a random events generator. If you weren't playing Rimworld, the world you're playing in wouldn't exist. In fact: it really doesn't. Everything that happens during your game is the result of the "storyteller" essentially rolling on a random event table, not the result of things that happen in the very-detailed world simulation.
Dwarf Fortress is a robust, intricate world simulator that happens to have a game slapped on top of it. If you weren't playing Dwarf Fortress, the rest of the game world would still be there and would still be doing everything it's doing, with the exception of interacting with your Dwarves. Because of this, Dwarf Fortress has an "Adventure Mode," which has you playing a single character adventuring through the simulated world. While Rimworld could conceivably have such a thing later on, it would likewise be based on the idea of generating random events to make the game fun, rather than being based on the idea of simulating a believable world.
Dwarf Fortress has you playing on the surface of the world, as well as digging below. Rimworld really just has one Z-level, with some kluged-together height mechanics so things like "rain" and "floors" work properly.
Rimworld is (imo) a survival game. Dwarf Fortress is a colony simulator.
To me, Rimworld was the best way to scratch the Dwarf Fortress itch while waiting for Dwarf Fortress to come to Steam. Now that Dwarf Fortress is here, I don't see myself spending much more time with Rimworld.
There are a few things I think Rimworld does better. Hunting/taming/training animals is (to me) much more intuitive in Rimworld than in Dwarf Fortress. In Rimworld: select an animal, and check/uncheck the boxes for "hunt this critter," "tame this critter," or "train this critter to help with certain tasks." In Dwarf Fortress... I don't think there's a way to specifically allow/disallow hunting of a specific animal or type of animal.
To my way of thinking, Rimworld does a better job of allowing the player to take more-direct control over individual people without ever truly requiring it, while Dwarf Fortress seems to go out of the way to make it difficult to do so.
Bottom line: they're not really comparable. They have a similar (but not very) look to them, there are a few things you can do in both games (taming animals, building walls, etc), and that's about it. In my opinion, comparing Dwarf Fortress to Rimworld is like comparing Assassin's Creed to Super Mario Odyssey.
Dwarf Fortress will have you managing a colony of hundreds of Dwarves, engaging in politics with other civilizations, and building colossal fortresses.
Rimworld doesn't push you far beyond a couple dozen survivors, any "political" content is based on a random event generator, not any systemic world simulation, and you're pretty much going to build a somewhat-large house and a barn.
Dwarf Fortress is a world simulator that isn't interested in making the story of your fortress compelling, interesting or entertaining. Rimworld is a fiction generator, with the explicit goal of leading you through a "good" story.
To sum-up, that's really the difference between Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress. Dwarf Fortress asks "how well can we simulate a high-fantasy world without restricting the player to a Lord-of-the-Rings-style lore structure?" So we get an incredibly-deep, very-intricate simulator with a game on top that could almost be considered an afterthought. Rimworld asks "how close can we get to Dwarf Fortress while doing as little world-sim as possible, and without being "Dwarfy?" So we get a really fun sci-fi survival game with a random event generator.
Tangent point: I keep hoping Tarn will do something more with his simulator than using it as the backdrop for a computer game. I have no idea what that may be, but the simulator is so impressive and cool that it almost seems wasteful to do nothing else with it.
Some of the reasons I can think of is:
1. It's 4 games in 1 (Fortress Mode, Adventure Mode, Legends Mode, and Arena)
2. Is a 3D game shown in 2D layers, with physics involved
3. A very large amount of types of economic and non-economic stones, and many gems.
4. Persistent world where each intelligent creature can learn from past events.
5. Fortress Mode influences Adventure Mode and vice versa, in terms of how the world evolves.
6. There may be 1000+ types of creatures, not just Dwarves, Humans and elves.
7. Generated worlds are classified based on what populates it (i.e: Age of Fairytales is a situation where Humans are the most dominant race and mythical creatures are mostly extinct), meaning not all generated worlds have similar settings. Some can be more chaotic.
I'm sure there are many reasons that can make you want to experience DF more than Rimworld and other games. But in the end, DF is unique enough that is its own thing, which makes Rimworld different enough to be worth owning as well. You can't really own one or the other and think it's a good replacement from how both games play different.
There's something I personally really love about this game though: There are events that the player is notified about ("An animal has fully grown"), and then there are some that are purposedly vague for the player, to have them figure out for themselves. That is what I consider the gaming aspect of DF--the investigation of the lore that happened in the past and that is currently generating. There are also a lot of times where Dwarves are not mentioned by names in notifications, but rather by their professions, to add to the intrigue.
The free version got the UI update, so it can be a good way to try the game, if they enjoy with the new UI they will love it with the graphical update and musical
You don't have to buy DF. It is perfectly playable in it's entire glory, all content including some content that isn't in the Premium version. For as long as you want. All you have to do is spend a few minutes downloading it and installing it, and then a few lifetimes figuring it out.
The Premium version is more accessible. For sure. But if the asking price is important to your wallet and you don't want to deal with a refund, I recommend you take a look at the free version. It won't be a waste of your time, even if you don't like it. Lazy Newb Pack is what you want.