It's more "rogue-like" in the sense that it's inspired by Dwarf Fortress - amongst other games - wherein these games employ no sort of hand-holding and where anything can go wrong, I suppose.

I know this has nothing to do with the article, but not often do people discuss Dwarf Fortress. A game that is highly overrated, and could use a significant overhaul to be a much better game.

By "no hand-holding" does that include the idiotic lack of tutorial in allowing players to understand how to play the game?

No offense intended, but a lot of these "roguelike" developers fail to realize that there is nothing "hardcore" about making your game come without a manual or tutorial to explain how to play.

It is quite silly that one has to dive into community wiki's or google search "What button performs an action?" or "How do I sneak?"

Poor user interface, god-awful controls, and a complete and utter lack of tutorial plague games where there is "no sort of hand-holding".
So much so, it makes me ponder why people even like these games. I guess they're good enough to struggle to learn how to play, before actually being able to play.

To all those cult-like followers of "hardcore" difficulty, I am not saying that developers need to include a strategy guide showing how to win the game in the easiest way or cheat the system. I'm just saying that players shouldn't have to struggle to figure out what button on their keyboard does what command, or for 20 hours into the game they discover that they can not only pick up flowers- but plant them too! "Oh, I didn't know I could do that!" is common in indie games.

I just realized, my complaint on how Dwarf Fortress is so overrated and needs a significant overhaul, is met by Double Fine's intelligence.

I read in an article, "Think Dwarf Fortress, but (for now) a bit simpler, far easier to parse, and in space."

So basically, a Dwarf Fortress game that isn't pure and utter crap.
Double Fine probably saw that people liked Dwarf Fortress, but then played it and realized how stupid the game is. Taking all the good, and throwing out the bad, they'll probably release a huge success which could have been the creator of Dwarf Fortress's success, had he not made the game so horrifically.

One of the most important aspects of game design, is making your game with a good user interface and tutorial. Allow players to understand how to play, so they can play it. You know... because if players can't play the game...they won't...play...the game....

Such a simple concept, but one in which the creator of DF failed to grasp.

I played Rogue recently. It wasn't very roguelike to be honest.

One of the more annoying traits in game marketing lately is anything with a smidgen of procedural generation is instantly marketed as a roguelike.
If only more people would refer to the Berlin Interpretation
http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Berlin
_Interpretation

Maybe I'm myopic and it's just the parts of the community that I've interacted with, but most people I speak with agree with you. The interface and usability is terrible. I'd be extremely happy with even an interface akin to Gnomoria, which I don't consider to be a super interface either.

That being said, I've yet to find anything else on the market that competes with it in terms of simulation depth, so I'm willing to struggle through it because I have no other options to scratch this itch. Gnomoria feels very shallow by comparison and most of the others I've tried are at the "That's neat." stage but will require quite a bit more effort before they catch my eye.

I'm hoping this succeeds, because I would love to have other options in this ...genre, I suppose?

No offence, but I honestly don't think you have much of a clue about Dwarf Fortress.

Dwarf Fortress is an early *alpha*. Version 1.0 is years away (the creator has said it is 20 years away). To complain about the UI or the difficulty at this early stage is just silly. The focus up to this point has been entirely on getting the game's underlying systems to work, and very little effort has been put into the UI or usability because the game is years and years from being feature complete.

To reiterate: what would be the point in creating a nice UI or tutorials for a game where vast amounts of the game are currently missing or are going to completely change before it is released?

I first played it in 2007. My math says that was 6 years ago. You need to accept that this is a game that will never get the UI overhaul that it deserves.

It certainly doesn't deserve a UI overhaul. It had its chance. Passing that chance for 10 years, runs over any chance it had to deserve such a good thing.

I imagine that the creator doesn't actually care about his game being played by other people.

For someone who has an attitude of "I made it for me, so I could play." It is perfectly rational, even perfect to never make the game "better" because that would be a waste of time for someone who understands it fully inside and out. I would demand he never change the interface, and not waste the time. He's the developer, and he determines if he is making it for himself or for others.

However, if he cares at all about other people playing his game, he would make the game better. Because it truly is crap for anyone but those who are extremely, extremely desperate for depth. I myself am that desperate, as are other gamers who crave more depth in a field of entertainment which seems to be going the opposite direction, towards shallow gameplay and themepark rails.

If any of you fans of DF reading this thinks I may be wrong or my opinion "weird"- why don't you do a research as to how many people actually play Dwarf Fortress? How big is that following? Sure, there is an enormous amount of people who praise its depth...but how many have actually experienced it? Very, very few. Not only are the download numbers very low compared to its immense popularity, but the number of players who didn't quite after 20 minutes is MUCH, much lower.

The game overall is overrated. The depth is absolutely not. Praise the depth, but be honest and tell people the game is pure shit. This way, developers like Double Fine create the same game, but fixed! :)

@Matt Rix

"No offence, but I honestly don't think you have much of a clue about Dwarf Fortress.

Dwarf Fortress is an early *alpha*. Version 1.0 is years away (the creator has said it is 20 years away). To complain about the UI or the difficulty at this early stage is just silly. "

No offense taken. In fact, I found this to be one of the most hilarious pieces of sarcasm around here, lol. Thanks for the joke :)

At first I actually thought you were serious, until I realized the sarcasm was incredibly heavy to the point of being so obvious...I feel dumb I even missed it the first time around, lol.

"Dwarf Fortress is an early *alpha*. Version 1.0 is... 20 years away). To complain about the UI or the difficulty at this early stage is just silly. "

LOL :)

You almost make it sound like we should be wary of Double Fine because they're competent at marketing. The marketing competence is just a very nice (and deliberate) side-effect of the way Double Fine is including players early on in a game's development. More so than before, the process of creation is driving the marketing, not the other way around. When a developer does it this way, it holds itself accountable to its fans in a very public forum...anyhow, they've found a clear voice for speaking to their fans, and that's a good thing. I think they can pull it off!

I just learned about Space Station 13 last week then promptly forgot about it -- thanks for reminding me!

I guess from what I see of Double Fine's speedy 7 month alpha of "Spacebase DF-9" it looks much less like a game built inside of a simulated ecosystem which is what we sometimes think of when we hear the term "roguelike" or titles such as Dwarf Fortress or Space Station 13 and looks more like a management game.

In a proper roguelike, the player exists in an ecosystem that they can learn about, perhaps master certain domains of it, but never entirely dominate. In "4D Management" games the player must Discover\Decipher the depth of the rules in order to uncover optimal strategies, Develop new units and or functionality, and then Direct those units towards the goal of Dominating the entire system. (I just made up these 4D terms and am not entirely happy with them.)

So it seems to to be the difference between a systems management simulation like Dungeon Keeper and Prison Architect versus an exploration and adventure game built inside of a simulated ecosystem like Dwarf Fortress and Space Station 13.

And typically the 4D Manager is a much simpler, more traditional (i.e. is a "true game") narrowly defined type of game compared to the Roguelike.

So what am I trying to say wrt being wary of Double Fine? Well.. this game it seems to me is not nearly as ambitious as we're being lead to believe. And if that's true, it would raise some red flags in my mind. For example, I might question if perhaps they are a bit more market driven than they are driven by a passion to see certain ambitious 2D games they love as gamers being remade in glorious 3D.

And I don't think that's an unfair thing to question if they are marketing themselves as being something they are not.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/BorutPfeifer/20130813/198190/Building_
Simulations_Part_1.php

"The player exists in an ecosystem that they can learn about, perhaps master certain domains of it, but never entirely dominate."

That's probably one of the most elegant descriptions of a roguelike and related genres, I've ever read.

I don't think you understand the scope of Dwarf Fortress nor what makes it such a running success.

@Mike Higbee

Ah yes, if someone is honest about an overrated video game, they MUST be ignorant of its depth and complexity. It couldn't be that the game truly is overrated.

You will have to excuse me if I am disappointed that a developer could have inspired an entire genre of future games, and decided to make the game a massive failure. Imagine if Minecraft was considered a success because of its idea, gaining equal press to what it has received but only bringing in 10,000 total sales. Press because of the idea, not because of how good of a game it is or how much fun people have when playing. How many minecraft clones would follow? Probably one, when Double Fine realized it was solid gold in the shape of crap, and it knew how to turn that solid gold turd into a solid gold crown by brushing off the feces.

The depth in DF is not overrated. The game overall...definitely is. I mean, have you PLAYED it? Most people have never even downloaded it. Those who downloaded it, uninstalled it after failing to understand how to have fun. Not because they are incapable of fun. No, because the interface sucks and there is no tutorial.

I also must have forgotten what success means. After all, Dwarf Fortress = Minecraft, before there was Minecraft. Dwarf Fortress has so much success, it has a record number of downloads, concurrent players, and googled player achievements.

I think you might be confusing the design and idea of the game and its depth (what it does well) and the amount of press it has gotten, with the game's actual quality.

To those who praise the game as a great video game, I can only wonder if they have ever tried to play it.

This game is inspired by, but not comparable to, Dwarf Fortress. It lacks several significant systems that result in the popularity of Dwarf Fortress.

I have no doubt that it will be more "fun", whatever that means, to the majority of gamers than Dwarf Fortress. Even Dwarf Fortress inspired games that have minimal polish and broken gameplay are often more popular and considered more "fun" due to their simplicity, and here I explicitly mean to refer to simplicity and not accessibility.

Dwarf Fortress is modeled more on toys than on games, although its still a game. The purpose of Dwarf Fortress is not the purpose of Spacebase DF-9.

Toady doesn't give a shit about success or popularity. He has stated numerous times that he is achieving his goals with DF. Sorry that not everyone cares about what you care about. Get over it.

I replied with same response above but I might as well reply down here as well because you basically wrote the same thing a bunch of times too ;)

____

No offence, but I honestly don't think you have much of a clue about Dwarf Fortress.

Dwarf Fortress is an early *alpha*. Version 1.0 is years away (the creator has said it is 20 years away). To complain about the UI or the difficulty at this early stage is just silly. The focus up to this point has been entirely on getting the game's underlying systems to work, and very little effort has been put into the UI or usability because the game is years and years from being feature complete.

To reiterate: what would be the point in creating a nice UI or tutorials for a game where vast amounts of the game are currently missing or are going to completely change before it is released?

@Ronny Germany
I play it plenty have for a good solid 5 years or so since I first came across it, have you ever touched it? Hell I'm even a fan of Toady's earlier efforts like Liberal Crime Squad.

"You will have to excuse me if I am disappointed that a developer could have inspired an entire genre of future games, and decided to make the game a massive failure."

What? For starters it's still an alpha, completely free and the creator eats and lives off donations and his occupation is purely working on his dream project and has a plan for it for the next couple decades. If you consider that a failure, then what are you doing on a site aimed for game developers?

The UI doesn't need to be touched simply because features are still being added, and it's functional for the stage the game is in.
Is there a bit of a learning curve? Sure, and beyond that curve is why you have people who praise and continue to play it, they can look past programmer assets and menus while a project is in development.

Funny you should mention Minecraft since Minecraft originally wanted to be a 3d Dwarf Fortress, yet ended up far from the mark.
Also your press analogy is exactly how the hype about Minecraft started, it snowballed from there or weren't you around during the indev and early alpha days of that?

No tutorial? There is an entire wiki and tons of tutorial videos out there with a simple google of "Dwarf Fortress tutorial".

What sense does it make to polish UI and add in a tutorial that would have to be changed with all the changes planned in the dev cycle so early on?
It would be an utter headache and waste of time with the various revisions Toady has planned and tweaks he may not.
You seem to be looking at it from a game in its final stages of developments and focusing on late stage elements.
Your picturing polishing the statue when there is a very rudimentary chiseled hunk of stone at this stage.

You seem to be very confused as to what an alpha is and the state of the game and it's goals, which makes me wonder, are you involved in development at all, or once again have you actually sat down and played it yourself?

The games actual quality can't be matched even in the state the alpha is simply because the clones and inspired games have barely scratched the surface of the depth and complexity of it, let alone the lore and history generation of the world.

Just taking a look at the Bay 12 Games Forum as far as players, close to 50,000 users and 300+ on at 4:30 am EST for me. I'd call that a pretty large base of people who have played it and just registered to the forums.

I don't understand why you're about half of the comments on this article, all of them discussing Dwarf Fortress. This article isn't about Dwarf Fortress. Write a blog.

But guys he said it's a fact! so it must be true... I mean, yeah, he has no idea what he's talking about and has derailed the entire discussion about Double Fine's game into his own distaste for Dwarf Fortress (Mr. Germany, maybe you want to show us on this teddy bear where the bad game touched you? obviously wasn't your heart). But IT'S A FACT, on the Internet, a FACT! that's just like, one letter away from FAT so clearly NTFS is superior to Dwarf Fortress as well.

With every comment you post, your profile picture seems more and more appropriate. You tell someone to calm down when responding to your off-topic criticisms of a game that you assert as fact rather than opinion. How much more absurd can you get?

Hell, I even agree that Dwarf Fortress is a much, much better idea than it is a game and don't particularly enjoy playing it myself, but I can't relate to hating it so much that you feel the need to post seven comments about how terrible Dwarf Fortress is in an article not about Dwarf Fortress. Even if you're being genuine and not trying to instigate blind argument, you're preaching in the wrong place.

Well, you outed yourself pretty quickly as a really bad troll. Nice try.

What on earth is wrong with you? So you don't like Dwarf Fortress and think it's overrated. Fine. Don't outright insult the developer and the game's fans because you think your ideas could make Dwarf Fortress better.

And don't try to take the high road and tell other people to "calm down" when your vitriolic posts incited the argument in the first place.