7 ms·

It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game”, that’s just

It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game”, that’s just shitty game design.

Dylan16807 15d ago
If you have a steady food supply and you can hold off a military attack you're playing "the real game". A handful of hours can get you there, and you'll be learning plenty fast.
Catloafdev 16d ago
You're totally allowed to have that opinion. Time is valuable. It does have a tutorial nowadays, but it's still not easy. Not everyone _wants_ to learn Dwarf Fortress, and that's fine - it's not for everyone. But I'm just providing context that, for those of us that have learned, it is a great game.
all2 16d ago
This depends largely on your expectation for what a 'game' should be. Puzzle boxes, for example, have zero on ramp, and yet many many people enjoy them, enjoy the struggle of discovery. Arguably the edges of mathematics and science are inhabited by similar people, living where the rules are ill defined, where there is much to be discovered rather than pre-digested and spoon fed. I have little patience for games that don't spoon feed, so I get where you're coming from. I watched my brother play DF and decided I didn't want to spend my time like that, trying to parse ascii, trying to figure out how all the things interacted. I also don't like puzzle boxes that much. To each their own.
- VorpalWay 16d ago
  I found exactly the discovery fulfilling in Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld and Minecraft. Once I mastered those (well, maybe it is fairer to say "once I plateaued", there are way more skilled players than me) I found much less interest in them. Sure, I still play occasionally for a bit after a big update drops, but that is pretty much it. Oh and yeah, puzzle focused games (as long as it isn't slide puzzles) are great too. I fondly remember Myst, Monkey Island and other puzzle games like that. Some people like games where you need to grind (idle clicker games seem to be purest/insanest form of that), and that is something I don't get at all. It is just pointless busywork, just like those repetitive achievements ("kill N enemies with X style attacks") or collectables. (Achievements that are on the form "find this hidden thing" or "do this out of the box thing once" I do understand more.) To each their own indeed.
deadbunny 16d ago
Why is it the games job to handhold you?
- Our_Benefactors 16d ago
  Because it’s not a complete or compelling experience if the systems aren’t naturally exposed and taught over time in a progressive manner. This has been a cornerstone of good game design for over 30 years.
  - AnthonBerg 16d ago
    There are notable counterexamples. I find life to be both complete and compelling as experience.
  - Catloafdev 16d ago
    Eh, I definitely can't agree with this one. Some of the most beloved games of all time had effectively no on-ramp of any kind - especially if you're willing to go back 30 years - and none of the fans of those games would say "they are not compelling experiences" because of a learning cliff.
  - StanislavPetrov 16d ago
    >This has been a cornerstone of good game design for over 30 years. First, this is completely wrong. There are many good games that have been designed over the last 30 years that didn't assume you were an invalid and needed your hand hand held every step of the way. Second, many of us (including myself) have been playing computer games for ~50 years! In the 80s and 90s the average game was far more difficult than even the most difficult games put out today. It wasn't assumed that everyone, or even most people, were ever going to beat the game. There were games I played for hundreds of hours back then, and enjoyed greatly, that I never finished or even mastered all the complexities of! That didn't make it any less fun. I want to be challenged by a game. If I load up a game and am spoon-fed everything it isn't a game I play for long.
  - deadbunny 16d ago
    Claiming the game of systems and their interactions is not complete or compelling because it doesn't hold you hand is laughable. Not everything has to be made or everyone, in fact I would argue that is exactly the reason games these days are bland and identical. Press "F" to pay respects.
zdragnar 16d ago
Somebody didn't grow up with early console games.
- RHSeeger 15d ago
  To this day, I never managed to get ET out of that ditch
bee_rider 16d ago
Not every game can be for everyone, and Dwarf Fortress is not a game for people who want onramps. “Shitty game design” is subjective, I guess. Maybe the Steam page is too slick? I can’t imagine somebody going to the old dwarf fortress page and thinking “this is a game I’ll pick up easily!”
AnthonBerg 16d ago
Is it your job to define jobs?
StanislavPetrov 16d ago
>It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. No, it is a games job to be entertaining for those it was designed to entertain. >It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game”, that’s just shitty game design. Certainly there are many people who take a longer time to learn and grasp concepts and find challenging tasks something to be avoided, and this game isn't for you! That doesn't mean that every game should be designed so that the lowest commoner denominator can understand and enjoy the game! Some people not only enjoy being challenged by complex games, but seek those out those challenges and that complexity. The game market is flooded with easy to learn and easy to win games designed and made for simpletons, so there's no reason for you to complain about the rare game (these days) that deviates from that.
protocolture 16d ago
>It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. Its the games job to present their unique style of fun to the market, and let the market sort it out. A game made by 2 blokes has to have a set of priorities, and their priority has always been the simulation. >It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game” I mean, ignore Dwarf Fortress for a minute, this is exactly what Paradox has built its little empire on. I was at 300+ hours of Crusader Kings 2 and had only a sort of intuitive grasp of most of the games systems. And at the time, most of the safer european powers were at risk of just getting rolled off the map by the golden horde mid game, and the work arounds for that were quite insane. I still dont reckon I have the war/conflict systems mastered. Paradox does tutorials, they just suck immensely and you end up on the forums or wikis anyway. Dwarf fortress has managed to create a game with that kind of skill curve with 0.0001% of the resources. >that’s just shitty game design. I feel sorry for you, I get the impression that this hostility is coming from a place where you really wish you could share in these fantastic games but haven't quite got the gumption to stick with them. I get it I really do, I mod Battle Brothers to make it easier, because I love the texture of the game but I haven't been able to master the combat or save scumming required to play at a real difficulty.
intended 16d ago
No. Dwarf fortress challenged what I thought the rules of game design were. It was absurd amounts of fun. I was happy to go through the tutorials or ask questions on bay12. Figuring out how things worked, and then using those skills to explore the world was fun. It was also internally consistent. The game simply isn’t for you.

It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game”, that’s just shitty game design.

Dylan16807 15d ago

If you have a steady food supply and you can hold off a military attack you're playing "the real game". A handful of hours can get you there, and you'll be learning plenty fast.

Catloafdev 16d ago

You're totally allowed to have that opinion. Time is valuable. It does have a tutorial nowadays, but it's still not easy. Not everyone _wants_ to learn Dwarf Fortress, and that's fine - it's not for everyone. But I'm just providing context that, for those of us that have learned, it is a great game.

all2 16d ago

This depends largely on your expectation for what a 'game' should be. Puzzle boxes, for example, have zero on ramp, and yet many many people enjoy them, enjoy the struggle of discovery. Arguably the edges of mathematics and science are inhabited by similar people, living where the rules are ill defined, where there is much to be discovered rather than pre-digested and spoon fed. I have little patience for games that don't spoon feed, so I get where you're coming from. I watched my brother play DF and decided I didn't want to spend my time like that, trying to parse ascii, trying to figure out how all the things interacted. I also don't like puzzle boxes that much. To each their own.

VorpalWay 16d ago
I found exactly the discovery fulfilling in Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld and Minecraft. Once I mastered those (well, maybe it is fairer to say "once I plateaued", there are way more skilled players than me) I found much less interest in them. Sure, I still play occasionally for a bit after a big update drops, but that is pretty much it. Oh and yeah, puzzle focused games (as long as it isn't slide puzzles) are great too. I fondly remember Myst, Monkey Island and other puzzle games like that. Some people like games where you need to grind (idle clicker games seem to be purest/insanest form of that), and that is something I don't get at all. It is just pointless busywork, just like those repetitive achievements ("kill N enemies with X style attacks") or collectables. (Achievements that are on the form "find this hidden thing" or "do this out of the box thing once" I do understand more.) To each their own indeed.

deadbunny 16d ago

Why is it the games job to handhold you?

Our_Benefactors 16d ago
Because it’s not a complete or compelling experience if the systems aren’t naturally exposed and taught over time in a progressive manner. This has been a cornerstone of good game design for over 30 years.
- AnthonBerg 16d ago
  There are notable counterexamples. I find life to be both complete and compelling as experience.
- Catloafdev 16d ago
  Eh, I definitely can't agree with this one. Some of the most beloved games of all time had effectively no on-ramp of any kind - especially if you're willing to go back 30 years - and none of the fans of those games would say "they are not compelling experiences" because of a learning cliff.
- StanislavPetrov 16d ago
  >This has been a cornerstone of good game design for over 30 years. First, this is completely wrong. There are many good games that have been designed over the last 30 years that didn't assume you were an invalid and needed your hand hand held every step of the way. Second, many of us (including myself) have been playing computer games for ~50 years! In the 80s and 90s the average game was far more difficult than even the most difficult games put out today. It wasn't assumed that everyone, or even most people, were ever going to beat the game. There were games I played for hundreds of hours back then, and enjoyed greatly, that I never finished or even mastered all the complexities of! That didn't make it any less fun. I want to be challenged by a game. If I load up a game and am spoon-fed everything it isn't a game I play for long.
- deadbunny 16d ago
  Claiming the game of systems and their interactions is not complete or compelling because it doesn't hold you hand is laughable. Not everything has to be made or everyone, in fact I would argue that is exactly the reason games these days are bland and identical. Press "F" to pay respects.

zdragnar 16d ago

Somebody didn't grow up with early console games.

RHSeeger 15d ago
To this day, I never managed to get ET out of that ditch

bee_rider 16d ago

Not every game can be for everyone, and Dwarf Fortress is not a game for people who want onramps. “Shitty game design” is subjective, I guess. Maybe the Steam page is too slick? I can’t imagine somebody going to the old dwarf fortress page and thinking “this is a game I’ll pick up easily!”

AnthonBerg 16d ago

Is it your job to define jobs?

StanislavPetrov 16d ago

>It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. No, it is a games job to be entertaining for those it was designed to entertain. >It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game”, that’s just shitty game design. Certainly there are many people who take a longer time to learn and grasp concepts and find challenging tasks something to be avoided, and this game isn't for you! That doesn't mean that every game should be designed so that the lowest commoner denominator can understand and enjoy the game! Some people not only enjoy being challenged by complex games, but seek those out those challenges and that complexity. The game market is flooded with easy to learn and easy to win games designed and made for simpletons, so there's no reason for you to complain about the rare game (these days) that deviates from that.

protocolture 16d ago

>It’s the games job to create an on ramp to understanding. Its the games job to present their unique style of fun to the market, and let the market sort it out. A game made by 2 blokes has to have a set of priorities, and their priority has always been the simulation. >It’s not mine to spend 200 hours grasping every concept before I can play “the real game” I mean, ignore Dwarf Fortress for a minute, this is exactly what Paradox has built its little empire on. I was at 300+ hours of Crusader Kings 2 and had only a sort of intuitive grasp of most of the games systems. And at the time, most of the safer european powers were at risk of just getting rolled off the map by the golden horde mid game, and the work arounds for that were quite insane. I still dont reckon I have the war/conflict systems mastered. Paradox does tutorials, they just suck immensely and you end up on the forums or wikis anyway. Dwarf fortress has managed to create a game with that kind of skill curve with 0.0001% of the resources. >that’s just shitty game design. I feel sorry for you, I get the impression that this hostility is coming from a place where you really wish you could share in these fantastic games but haven't quite got the gumption to stick with them. I get it I really do, I mod Battle Brothers to make it easier, because I love the texture of the game but I haven't been able to master the combat or save scumming required to play at a real difficulty.

intended 16d ago

No. Dwarf fortress challenged what I thought the rules of game design were. It was absurd amounts of fun. I was happy to go through the tutorials or ask questions on bay12. Figuring out how things worked, and then using those skills to explore the world was fun. It was also internally consistent. The game simply isn’t for you.