A very interesting analysis of patterns here, Captain!
Opinion: Capntastic gives the somewhat
unscrupulous definition of "gamist". It is not entirely with the art.
1: Gamist: Gamist players are the people who see DF as a 'game'. They want Adventure mode to have more straightforward Roguelike mechanics (Nethack, ADOM), and Fort mode to have more straightforward challenges and goals (Real time strategy games) They want to win, they want a challenge, they want the high score and the points. They want the slick loot and the coherent gameplay mechanics they can manipulate to allow them to crush their enemies. They want a steadily rising challenge curve.
And people, DF
is a game in the sense that we play it for entertainment, just like every other game.
Whereas I agree in part with Capntastic's definition of "Gamist", here is my take on the term:
Gamist: Someone who enjoys taking up and conquering the (sometimes insurmountable and often unpredictable) challenges that the game provides, ie. enjoys solving the problems that the game poses them, and solving them in different (sometimes magma very creative) ways.The statements of wanting a non-frustrating interface and rising challenge curve are still hold, of course.
To that end, you may as well mention the roguelike Stone Soup as an example. That thing's refined user interface is such a joy.This definition overlaps more with the other two "classes of DF user". For example, !!SCIENCE!! is a part simulation-based thing, and part gamist thing (it provides unique challenges and game mechanics to
abuse, but is also a complex, simulated matter).
I do think that the other two categories are quite valid, and that together the three provide a pretty good picture of DF's user base.
If the fellow forumers would bear with me for a True Story I think relevant to the discussion:
One thing that I'm thinking of just now: even though I'm already quite a bit older than the average sand-castle builder (what's with peoples' ageism?), whenever I go on holiday to a beach, I love building a sand castle right in front of the rising tide's incoming waves (I understand some ocean shores don't actually have waves or sand. Here we have both). It's an uphill battle, and ultimately impossible. But it's fun. And not just because of the losing in the end. It's also physically exhausting if you keep at it and eventually displace many litres of sand with your bare hands.
It has elements of a game: the problem, and solving it in a partially-creative, partially-predictable way (that ratio I think largely determines the type of game). Shaped sand barriers, draining trenches, mud pits, wall planning etc. It has elements of constructionism, for obvious reasons. Rising my little castle walls above the menacing waves is fun in its own right. And lastly, I take a strange joy in analysing and just admiring little wonders of physics that are a part of the whole process. The mud flows, the patterns in the sand, the ways that different walls erode, the way waves ride eachother etc. That's the simulationist part of it.
Anyhow, I think we can rather summarize play styles in ratio format: Gamist:Constructionist/'Creationist':Simulationist.
I'd say that, for DF, my G:C:S ratio* is around 7:5:8. I'm thoroughly enjoying the challenge of keeping alive a tiny fort in a glacier while constructing a magma pumpstack over 100 z-levels deep. However, one of the biggest appeals of DF to me, and also the area the game still needs to grow in most IMHO, is the way stories and complex, (dys)functional things are randomly generated and can be interacted with in each world.
*[BRAND NEW TERM! YAY!]
Author
Topic: DF Talk: Playstyles and You (Read 75168 times)