Well, if you're supposed to read through 100+ page manuals to "get it", then it's not wrong; it's a design feature :p (and still, people play it! fascinating)Taehl wrote: - If the only way to learn how to play your game is by forcing players to read /third-party/, 100+ page manuals, IT IS VERY WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED IMMEDIATELY.
I've tried DF, couldn't get into it. Watching too many cat videos destroyed my attention span and stamina. But DF is a huge inspiration because:
1. The maps are massive and try to recreate an earth like environment, even though maybe 10% of it has any direct impact on gameplay.
2. It gave me hope that games with a minimum of GFX and a maximum of tediousness (wacky key combo's, micromanagement) can still be enjoyable to some, enough to sustain development financially.
3. The huge procedural backstory that is generated during playing gives an immersion that can't be matched by sensory experience.
It's not for me because:
1. I'm not that into fantasy or RPGs
2. graphics are too minimal, tediousness too much, see my cat video remark. I want to make a game that loads of people want to play.
So, I set out to make something more civ like. My main objections (this refers mostly to Civ I through IV, haven't played V):
1. It's too global: I want to see actual cities and mess around with their layout
2. The city mechanics aren't always as realistic as they should be. With the same base material, I can make both a jet fighter and a palace. I want to differentiate.
3. I can spend centuries moving the same military units around the map, completely independent, without them dying of old age, or without a supply chain wearing them down.
Of course, usually realism != (fun OR playability) so there's a tradeoff. To cut a long story short, DF (and perhaps Minecraft) gave me hope that there's a middle ground.