You redo critical areas of your train network. Wait, no, now you have a lot of trains in the system and not enough stops for them to drop stuff off without causing jams. You go to connect more resources to your network maybe by finding an ore deposit and running a train to it. So you'll go figure out why that line isn't efficient - sometimes it's just due to how you've structured it, but other times it's due to lack of resources. Partway through you'll realize you need to up production of some material it depends on. You'll start building the section of the factory. Say, getting production of something like modules set up. I think the best part of Factorio is that usually you'll set yourself a goal. In factorio my goal is to make the mostest efficientest factory. In minecraft my goal is to explore or make things that look cool. It's more about building factories, and optimizing them to maximize throughput. I'm not 100% sure I agree with me, and I am me. Given, this is an odd comparison, and I don't blame you for disagreeing. I was actually talking about Quake's lineage in gameplay: Q3A, UT, and the rest of the arena shooter subgenre. >If you're talking about the Quake family tree, some of the most played current day first person shooters (CS:GO, COD, TF2) are direct ancestors of Quake, sharing some of Quake's source code. Very fast.Īs a result, the more advanced mechanics of Quake (once bugs, now hallmarks of the series) have a very steep learning curve that hides an ocean of depth.Īnd yes, it is closer to the emergent complexity of an online shooter than the simulation complexity of DF, but the theme of depth hidden behind extreme complexity is the same. And because you have to control territory and stay alive, there's an incentive to go fast. Deathmatch has elements of territory control - moreso than in the Halo/COD lineage, as I understand it. I would argue that Quake has a lot more emergent complexity in its mechanics than a lot of other FPSes. I have a ton of respect for Quake, its movement mechanics and its influence, but I don't really get the comparison. If you're talking about the Quake family tree, some of the most played current day first person shooters (CS:GO, COD, TF2) are direct ancestors of Quake, sharing some of Quake's source code. The mechanical depth you're talking about is a lot less like the depth people talk about when talking about Dwarf Fortress simulation complexity, and closer to emergent complexity of found in any good multiplayer video game. At release Dwarf Fortress was talked about in the exact same way it is talked about today. One of the first truly modern FPS games, one of the first fully 3D texture mapped games, one of the first real-time action games to be widely played on the internet, one of the first to take advantage of 3D acceleration, etc. It makes sense if you're young, but at the time of release Quake was the one of the most graphically and technologically advanced games available. Tarn and Zack are incredible people, and if you send them a donation, they will mail you a hand-drawn image of a dwarf doing whatever you ask. But there will be a lot of games that learn from it and expand on its ideals. There will never be another game quite like Dwarf Fortress. Other than that, there are plenty of how-to videos and wikis out there. I'd recommend turning off invasions and aquifers in the opening menu. And if you really want to learn to play Dwarf Fortress, the Lazy Newbs pack linked to below is a great way to start. If you're too intimidated by Dwarf Fortress, try RimWorld. Like anything worth doing, it takes practice. It's certainly an extremely daunting game, and the interface is ridiculous and makes no sense. The barrier to new players is steep, but there are lots of easy-to-use third party tools to make the game more friendly. I would not quite call it a developer game, just more like a very involved and deep simulation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |