Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pharaun]

I've been working on this every once in a while. I'm feeling a bit uninspired so if you want to suggest some stuff to slap on the page, be my guest. (This thread felt like the right place to post it.)

Gentlemen, behold:
Dwarf Fortress as a d20 roleplaying game.
http://tinyurl.com/bqpvapm

(Nowhere near finished.)

Edit: Comments are enabled. Simply highlight the text on which you would like to comment, right click, and choose the "comment" option.

[CodexDraco]

things in the past are better!


literally the oldest argument on the internet.

*yawn*

Not really. The newest DF is newer than the newest CoD.
Guess which is better.

Citation needed.

FIFA

You know you are talking about a game that simulates an sport that hasn't changed in decades right? Saying that FIFA gameplay has stagnated is unfair. EA releases a new FIFA every year, so what? If they do it is because there are people buying it and if there are people buying is because they find value in yearly releases it's a win win scenario.

Either way I don't see how is relevant. It is not like Dwarf Fortress would be better or worse if they stop doing yearly releases, they won't start magically making innovative games just like that simply because they are not in the business of innovating, they are in the business of entertaining people.

[Graknorke]

The point is, we're not saying old things are better. We're saying that new things need to step up their game somewhat. If not by improving quality, at least by stopping pushing the (frankly not too bright) consumers into buying stuff thy didn't want.

As to the yearly releases thing, it's because the more they release the same thing over and over as a new game, the more flimsy their business plan looks. It's like if I had a company that sold watches. If I sold one line of watches, that'd be fair enough. As long as they sold enough that's fine. Then if I released ANOTHER watch and was talking about how great it was and so was everyone else and you bought it; you'd probably have doubts when it was the same watch but with a second hand that glowed in the dark. If I did this with clockwork regularity, you'd expect people to stop buying it because they're pretty obviously paying for something they already had. With FIFA though everyone gets the new one because other people get hyped about it and do so as well. Of course, people that fall prey to that sort of thing probably don't deserve to keep the money anyway; but that's not the point either.

Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you  luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.
Also that MW3 said it was the most anticipated game of all time. Yeah. No. There's not much anticipation can build up in 2 years. Especially when you KNOW what it will be like, pretty much. But insulting CoD isn't really of much use, seeing as how easy it is. I'll stop that too.


Also as to the DF as a RPG, I looked through, but why was iron better than bronze at piercing and slashing? Iron is slightly denser (I think) but it's nowhere near as good at holding an edge.

[Pharaun]

Also as to the DF as a RPG, I looked through, but why was iron better than bronze at piercing and slashing? Iron is slightly denser (I think) but it's nowhere near as good at holding an edge.

More for balancing reasons. Bronze is pretty common, so I had to cut a few corners.

[CodexDraco]

The point is, we're not saying old things are better. We're saying that new things need to step up their game somewhat.

Why? Seriously, this not cancer research, this is entertainment software we are talking about, nobody "need" to do anything. Really your arguments sound a lot like my grandparents used to use against TV so long ago.

If not by improving quality, at least by stopping pushing the (frankly not too bright) consumers into buying stuff thy didn't want.

And this is what I'm arguing about, this elitism that isn't helping your argument. Who are you to decide what they want? If they want to spend their money on junk the best. People spending money is good for economy actually.

As to the yearly releases thing, it's because the more they release the same thing over and over as a new game, the more flimsy their business plan looks. It's like if I had a company that sold watches. If I sold one line of watches, that'd be fair enough. As long as they sold enough that's fine. Then if I released ANOTHER watch and was talking about how great it was and so was everyone else and you bought it; you'd probably have doubts when it was the same watch but with a second hand that glowed in the dark.

This is like saying vehicle manufacturers should stop making new car models every year because it's a bad business practice that will render them bankrupt, yet they have been doing fine all these years. Reality disproves your argument.

Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it.

If you leave hype guide your purchasing decisions then you have none to blame but yourself. Personally if I think a game description is too good to be true then I wait until I read a few reviews before buying. Usually games don't turn out too well but sometimes there are good surprises.

Anyway I'm stopping now because it's almost time to go home.

[Graknorke]

I'm arguing a baseless argument because I'm bad at admitting I'm wrong. And no that wasn't an admission D:<
Also elitism is also my thing. I also don't hold myself (wholly) responsible, it's largely the fault of how I was brought up, in an area where I'm pretty sure I brought the local school's results up to almost average, so being anything but superior or smug isn't a thing I can really genuinely do unless it's me putting myself down. And I don't really like to lie about how I feel on the internet; it's not really a thing that ever works out well.

Also I'd rather people spend money on things I like because then they're more likely to produce more or better versions of that thing and I can then enjoy it more. Cars are okay, because the good ones are either immensely sexy or somewhat practical. Older cars are going to have higher road tax and be less fuel efficient too. Re-releases of the same game on the same platform though? I don't particularly want to see more of those, so I don't want people to buy those. I'd rather people bought things like Valve games (on PC of course) and various good indie titles. Because I DO want to see more of those. Assuming they still have overall good quality. And it is a well established fact that you generally get more of something the more money you throw at it.

Also I doubt that anyone would say that TV needed to be a radical new innovation, seeing as it was a way of transmitting video to mass amounts of people wirelessly.
Also this argument isn't getting anywhere and we should probably stop.

[weenog]

The point is, we're not saying old things are better. We're saying that new things need to step up their game somewhat.

Why? Seriously, this not cancer research, this is entertainment software we are talking about, nobody "need" to do anything.

To be fair, nobody needs to do cancer research either.  People die, and typically suffer beforehand, all the medical miracles in the world aren't going to change that.  Entropy always wins.

[Mrhappyface]

I actually like Call of Duty and Halo. The only singleplayer game I play right now is Prototype 2 and Dark Souls.

[Graknorke]

I actually like Call of Duty and Halo. The only singleplayer game I play right now is Prototype 2 and Dark Souls.

What about Dwarf Fortress?

[Finn]

things in the past are better!


literally the oldest argument on the internet.

*yawn*

You are right, it is the oldest argument on the internet.  That's why it's better!

[IT 000]

One thing that scares me is if we are the 'normal' DF players, what would the 'hardcore' DF players act like?

[Jeoshua]

Oh IT... you're harder core than most.

You're here on the forums.  "Normal" DF players just download it and freak out for a while, play a bit, get frustrated and leave.

Basically, anyone who actually stays around IS the Hardcore DF player.  Has to be to put up with this game.

[Tehsapper]

And the plot is written by Hamburger Helper, so you can have gay romance.

[Pyro627]

Already talked about, more or less. Good points there though.

EA's newest hit Dwarf Fortress: Retribution takes the popular franchise into a bold new direction. Abandoning the ASCII in favor of state-of-the-art graphics, this immersive game presents Dwarf Fortress as it was always meant to be played.

"I have always been an avid fan of Dwarf Fortress, and I'm proud to finally make it into a game that is as accessible to new players as it is for the veterans." says John Thompson from the EA marketing division. "From the first person perspective you get a perfect view to the dark, claustrophobic mines where the goblins and demons are waiting for you behind each corner."

The damage system is more streamlined, while keeping the classic splints and crutches as health pickups. The accurate bodypart-centric damage is also there, and in boss fights like the dragon you must first destroy its claws before getting a chance to strike its heart. Dwarf Fortress boasts over a dozen different weapons and an unique crafting system for upgrading them for either speed, damage or accuracy. "I always loved the detailed geology in the original game. That is why each gem has an element associated with it for a temporary stat boost."

While the plot of Dwarf Fotress: Retribution is still a secret, the pre-release cutscenes have given some insights into the new world EA has created. You take on the role of Ulrich the dwarf, and with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame you are sent down to the deepest mines to assault the gobling fortress. Ulrich is betrayed by his commander and he discovers a great secret threatening the fate of the world itself.

The Dwarf Fortress has indeed come a long way from its humble origins and matured into a full-fledged fantasy shooter. Fast-paced combat and the dark setting are sure to make this a must-have for fantasy gamers and hardcore online gamers alike.

Details:
-Three levels raging from mines and underground caverns to the massive dark fortress
-Collect the mysterious adamantium to increase your stats and gain new abilities
-Buy new armors, ranging from rope reed clothes to golden plate mail
-5 boss fights against the most imaginative monsters ever created
-Five different weapons with three upgrades each
-Helpful support characters with healing spells and offensive magic
-12 player multiplayer with modes like deathmatch arena and mine flags

with the aid of the beautiful elven sorceress Cacame

Wait, is he implying that you eat elves, or get happiness boosts from killing them, or what?

[dizzyelk]

Also I'm generally dissapointed in games that are gyped up because of, most recently, Spore. That was kind of sad to play when I got it. It's like someone offered you  luxury sports car but then stripped out all of the luxury because they thought it might confuse learner drivers. And yes that was their justification for at least only having one kind of sight mode (as opposed to heat-vision, echolocation etc), because people might "think their graphics card was damaged". Seriously.

As much as I agree with what you said here, my biggest problem is that Spore also failed to deliver on its most basic promise. I didn't really feel like I had shaped anything about my species beyond its appearance. Sure, I got to make it a meat eater, I got to make it aggressive, but these are the thinnest shell of what I had created. I gave my species wings it didn't use, I gave it poison spitters it didn't use. Why didn't I have the tribe of ultra-violent flying poison spitting bad-asses I had imagined?

Its not that the older games were better, its just that they didn't have all the glitz that you can have with the modern systems, so they had to be more creative. There are some exceptions, for example, I fully think that Civ 4 is far superior to Civ 2. Civ 3 was crap, but that was mainly growing pains as they introduced resources and territory. Plus the golden ages in 3 weren't very good. I think 4 is better than 5, but that's just because of all the stuff in the expansion packs. I like the changes they introduced in 5, and feel that it will be better than 4 when it gets all its expansion packs. Its a game that's evolving and figuring out what are the best parts to add, and what needs to be changed.

Then you have stuff like Fallout 3. They took the most superficial parts of Fallout, the visual aspects of it, and shoved it into the same engine that Oblivion ran on. Oblivion felt like nothing more than a prettier version of Morrowind to me. Sure, there were some small changes, but overall, it felt like Morrowind. Skyrim has the same feel, like a prettier Oblivion. Sure, they've fixed some parts, but it feels really minor. Well, the loss of attributes and move to nothing but skills is a big change, but I feel its a step backwards. One of the core parts of RPGs, IMO, is the separation of character and player. Not only are there things the character can do that the player can't, the character might be smarter or dumber, the character might be stronger or weaker. However, back to Fallout, that respect of the character's attributes is lost. One of the things that annoyed me was having to squint to see tripwires when my character has a high perception, and therefore should be able to see them, and I, as the player, should have them highlighted for me. And on the subject of intelligence, well, compare these videos.
Stupid in Fallout 1
Stupid in New Vegas

Once again, its the most superficial overlay. In Fallout 1, all you could do is grunt, and the Overseer is speaking slowly and getting frustrated when you don't understand. In New Vegas, you can respond with speech that makes you look stupid, yes, but the scientist doesn't react like he's talking to a moron. He reacts like he's talking to a person of normal intelligence. To me, that's the problem with modern games. They don't put the attention to detail. And its the many small things that will eventually chip away at your suspension of disbelief until you lose it. Or at least its that way for me.