Print

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

[UberNube]

I personally prefer ASCII. I know in theory a tileset can convey more information, but personally I find it easier, faster and less ambiguous to interpret symbols than trying to identify small pixelated images of objects. I could probably learn, but that would take time and I'm pretty lazy.

[jaxy15]

I prefer ASCII because it's what most roguelikes use.

[kingubu]

What they need is a pony related tileset.

[zilpin]

The Codepage 437 has served us decently ... but at this point, there are too many animals.

And in the next release, cart tracks on the ground will make maps even more difficult to decipher.

246 glyphs in 16 colors are not enough to display the complexity of DF.

...now, once full tile support is implemented, I'll be the first to scrape together a tileset based on multiple font faces for different types of map features & creature classes.
Never giving up codepage 437 in DF.  Never.

[Taffer]

To be frank, I find the various graphic sets ugly. The game engine isn't designed for them. To my eyes, they never look right, the tiles end up being too large, the text and UI inevitably get screwed up, and graphical glitches abound. I didn't think I'd like the ASCII at all, but after I fiddled with colours and tiles a bit, I think the ASCII tilesets genuinely look a lot nicer, and a lot better, than the various graphic sets that I've seen. Just my two cents.

[Taffer]

The Codepage 437 has served us decently ... but at this point, there are too many animals.

And in the next release, cart tracks on the ground will make maps even more difficult to decipher.
...

Not necessarily much more confusing. Don't forget the tiles used for map rivers between rows 12 and 14. They could be used for cart tracks without much confusion. If you assume that the tiles used will be the wall tiles, then I can see there being confusion, but I doubt that will be the case. I could be wrong, of course.

[NW_Kohaku]

I find it rather interesting, that people preferring graphics regularly accuse player preferring ASCII to be elitist or snobbish in their comments or criticizing newbies for not liking ASCII. I may be wrong, but I don't have the impression that this regularly occurs. However, interestingly enough, people preferring graphics regularly seem to try to claim the superiority of their preference, sometimes thinly veiled, sometimes rather openly. I don't have concrete statistics, but I have the distinct impression, that more hate is expressed from the friends of graphics towards the friends of ASCII than the other way aorund...

Did you consider that you may be a little bit biased based upon the fact that you're actually a part of the ASCII camp?  It's easy to see the attacks upon the group you feel affiliated with, and you can turn a blind eye to the more subtle attacks upon the other groups, especially if you hold similar judgments. 

I would actually say that the only reason it even becomes a big deal is because of this sort of subjective us-versus-them argument - most of the people in the thread and forums are generally uncaring.  I, again, really only see "ASCII" as a specific graphics set used by people who don't want to bother making their own custom set or using a different set.  And that's what the "ASCII" graphics set is - just another graphics set that happens to be "default". 

I sometimes play with graphics packs, when I feel up to actually making my own custom sets (I never really agree with all the choices of any of the major graphics pack makers), and I play with the default "ASCII" grpahics set when I don't feel like it, and can switch back and forth freely.

The only reason there would even be a distinction worth discussing is because there was some reason for people like Leatra to feel like they were being judged negatively for choosing to play their personal, single-player game in the way they personally chose to play it.

I can also say that I see some similar things regarding other "proper" ways to play the game (conflicts between Adventure Mode and Fortress Mode players, conflicts between modders and "vanilla only", conflicts between focusing upon military/playing for challenge versus megaconstruction (especially regarding "cheating" by modding to make it easier), and general conflicts between those who consider themselves "more hardcore" and the rest of the playerbase).  It was deleted by Toady, but I once saw someone attacking LucasUP in the Lazy Newb Pack thread for "letting too many new players into the game, and ruining DF!"

[Taffer]

...
I, again, really only see "ASCII" as a specific graphics set used by people who don't want to bother making their own custom set or using a different set.  And that's what the "ASCII" graphics set is - just another graphics set that happens to be "default". 
...

Seems a little harsh, especially considering that "ASCII" can define any one of a number of tilesets that must be installed yourself. I made my own custom set, and I play with ASCII. Vherid's set seems popular, and not "default". Do you mean to include different ASCII tilesets with your definition of graphic sets?

I don't really see laziness playing much of a role in it, especially when things are as simple as a moment's googling of Phoebus, Mayday, Ironhand and a download of the pre-built.

[Leatra]

that more hate is expressed from the friends of graphics towards the friends of ASCII than the other way aorund...

The only hate from tileset supporters is the hate that breeds from the hate towards them. People tend to get a little annoyed when someone doesn't show respect for players who play it by using tilesets. Default is ASCII. Suggesting that players who use tilesets are thinking they are superior doesn't make any sense.

Also, I'm the gameplay>graphics type. I just like seeing more information without spending a lot of time pausing the game and using the K key. It's about gameplay, not graphics.

Like NW_Kohaku said, ASCII is just another tileset.

[Mike Mayday]

BTW, by default, the ASCII graphics in the current version are square and there seems to be no easy way of getting them stretched except by using a stretched PNG which you have to create yourself - just pointing this out since your information seems to be outdated.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, but just chiming in with this: the default ASCII set is still rectangular for a non-graphics display.
It's square for a graphics display though. (but it's easy to get both square and non-square tilesests, I'm not sure what you meant by the latter part of that sentence).

In addition, the graphics give me all the functionality I desire, so I am very happy with the status quo. On the contrary, having a 3D polygon depiction with animated dwarves and things would be likely to be very confusing for me (I am a slow person).

Yeah, I think for a general display that wouldn't convey much information. Pixelart has the advantage of being designed for viewing at very small sizes, which CAN (but needn't) convey the most information. 3D could work for zooming in.
There is a useful application of 3d- being able to comprehensively and simultaneously view large portions of terrain with large height variations and viewing your constructions.
3d can still be symbolic as much as ASCII (in the spirit of this) so the part of leaving things to the imagination of the player could be there even in 3d.

kingubu: it's not a matter of difficulty but tedium for me. I find the ASCII display more distracting than a semi-graphical solution (and I've played with ASCII for large amounts of time). And when I see some creature I always feel the need to know exactly what it is: and it's impossible to memorialise all the symbols for creatures. (had no problem with it in ADOM, but there's too many in DF (in fact I believe there's too many even regardless of graphics, but whatever). Is that understandable?

And whenver full graphics support comes around, I'll certainly try my hand at making a text/symbol based tileset without the 256 symbols constraint. Like I said, I do appreciate the elegance of ASCII.

To be frank, I find the various graphic sets ugly. The game engine isn't designed for them. To my eyes, they never look right, the tiles end up being too large, the text and UI inevitably get screwed up, and graphical glitches abound. I didn't think I'd like the ASCII at all, but after I fiddled with colours and tiles a bit, I think the ASCII tilesets genuinely look a lot nicer, and a lot better, than the various graphic sets that I've seen. Just my two cents.

I completely agree that the graphics sets look wrong, but I disagree that the engine isn't DESIGNED for them. It just doesn't have the proper functionality YET. Saying it isn't designed for them makes it sound like even adding full graphics support wouldn't allow for a good graphics set (which I disagree with).
Being able to apply proper colours (colorized grayscale is always ugly), no messed up text, no forced re-use of symbols- this is not a matter of engine design, just functions that can be added.
But you'll hopefully be able to see for yourself soon, thanks to the FGS 2d visualiser in the making.

[Leatra]

I think tileset makers are doing a good job without support.

I agree some tilesets look out of place but you get used to them like how you got used to ASCII. The whole concept of ASCII graphics seemed out of place to me when I first played a roguelike.

[Taffer]

I completely agree that the graphics sets look wrong, but I disagree that the engine isn't DESIGNED for them. It just doesn't have the proper functionality YET. Saying it isn't designed for them makes it sound like even adding full graphics support wouldn't allow for a good graphics set (which I disagree with).
Being able to apply proper colours (colorized grayscale is always ugly), no messed up text, no forced re-use of symbols- this is not a matter of engine design, just functions that can be added.
But you'll hopefully be able to see for yourself soon, thanks to the FGS 2d visualiser in the making.

I look forward to it. The shader work looks very interesting, and I'm excited that it's for BSD/Linux.

[NW_Kohaku]

Seems a little harsh, especially considering that "ASCII" can define any one of a number of tilesets that must be installed yourself. I made my own custom set, and I play with ASCII. Vherid's set seems popular, and not "default". Do you mean to include different ASCII tilesets with your definition of graphic sets?

I don't really see laziness playing much of a role in it, especially when things are as simple as a moment's googling of Phoebus, Mayday, Ironhand and a download of the pre-built.

Of course not - any other tileset is a "graphic" tileset, even if it is basically just another form of ASCII.  (And the default is just a default graphic set.)

That's what I'm saying: there's no particular reason to defend the curses set if you can still put in entirely symbolic or even letter-based tilesets that simply are more clean versions of the same characters except for the fact that you either don't feel particularly motivated to change them, or because you have some sort of inherent aversion to modding the game in any way.

[Taffer]

Of course not - any other tileset is a "graphic" tileset, even if it is basically just another form of ASCII.  (And the default is just a default graphic set.)

That's what I'm saying: there's no particular reason to defend the curses set if you can still put in entirely symbolic or even letter-based tilesets that simply are more clean versions of the same characters except for the fact that you either don't feel particularly motivated to change them, or because you have some sort of inherent aversion to modding the game in any way.

Ah, I understand now. I agree with the sentiment. The default colours and tileset are a little lacking.

[RedWick]

I grew up playing rogue-likes.  Sometimes they had tiles, sometimes they had straight ASCII.  I prefer ASCII for DF because it's easier for me to understand.  Basically, the problem people have with reading and understanding ASCII, I have in reverse for understanding tiles.