[Flamebait] Sad to see PA, RW, and DF reinventing the wheel

[sparr]

I am a fan of Dwarf Fortress, Prison Architect, and Rimworld. I love all three games, and don't want anyone to read this post in a way that implies otherwise.

I am also a fan of open source software, as a concept.

I am sad to see all three games going through varying degrees of long term parallel development. When I see Prison Architect devote most of an alpha release cycle to adding projectile weapons, all I can think is how much time they must have spent writing a whole lot of code (equipping, aiming, projectiles, impact, damage) that probably looks virtually identical (framework and language notwithstanding) to the same code in Rimworld. When I see Rimworld implementing items in stacks on the ground, instead of in a nebulous global item counter, my thought process is "didn't Dwarf Fortress already do all of the work to make that happen?".

This topic has come up on the Dwarf Fortress forums occasionally, specifically in the context of DF's interface being horrible and PA's interface being quite suitable to replace it, if only both sets of developers didn't have whatever motives they do.

In my fantasyland, Dwarf Fortress was released at some point in the past under a license similar to Quake 3 or Sauerbraten, with an open source engine and non-Free content (game rules, maps, graphics, audio, etc). A few years ago, some intrepid contributor forked it and implemented a GUI on top of it similar to what Prison Architect has (I am absolutely confident this would have long since happened, given how much time people have put into tools like stonesense and dwarf therapist). And 1-2 years ago, the people with the ideas for Rimworld and Prison Architect forked THAT, and got a 2-3 year head start on developing their games. Neither team would have had to implement from scratch any of the following ideas:

grid based map system, with optionally-overlapping static sized NxM tiles for objects, buildings, furniture
independent unit actions controlled by priorities, planned tasks, access to parts of the map, threat levels
multi-layer map management, including passable and impassable objects, water/energy/etc distribution network, and objects requiring connection to the same
unit-on-unit and unit-on-building melee and ranged combat, including equippable weapons with distinct stats
item storage in stockpiles and at job sites
zones indicating specific uses for specific areas of the map

Thanks to Jattenalle on IRC for provoking me into making this list, by claiming "PA and RW have nothing in common"

PS: this is a cross post from the rimworld forums

[export]

sorry I am missing the point of your post do you really think that valve could have programmed half life by copy pasting the bullet code from doom 2 or quake 2 if it only would have been open source?

[goodvibesman]

Flamebait indeed. Dwarf Fortress' interface is terrible? Yes, for those who use less than half a brain cell. I laugh when people say they want a GUI for Dwarf Fortress. It's just going to slow you down. Just learn the hotkeys already, all video games have hotkeys. Also if you really think that Dwarf Fortress should be in anyone's hands other than Toady, you're crazy.

Second of all, PA and RW are nothing alike. They only share graphics.

[sparr]

Second of all, PA and RW are nothing alike. They only share graphics.

only graphics... and everything I listed in my post, and more.

[UberFuber]

Regarding the reinventing the wheel...

I see that more as each game has their own unique requirements that's more difficult for another game to replicate, both in feature, performance, and other underlying engine they're built on.
Take, for example, the grid base map. The three games all use grid-based map, but they could have vastly different underlying architecture/data-structure that's needed to support the features of each game. To further elaborate:
Dwarf Fortress is, in actually, a 3D game in that instead of a simple 2D grid, they also have floors and the ability for entity to move between them. In my knowledge, each "grid" has 32-bit (I think) information regarding the tile's material type, light level, water level, magma level, etc (most of which PA and RW do not have). They're encoded in such a way to facilitate various simulation, most notably a very realistic fluid simulation. For PA and RW, said system could either be too cumbersome (trying to do a 2D grid game in 3D grid system would generally mean that unless the 3D grid system of optimized, the 2D game would have to drag around various overhead meant for the 3D grid) and/or insufficient (Dwarf Fortress, as far as I know, do not have a "facing" per say for objects and said objects are all MxM squares, which means PA and RW cannot implement rectangular object without tweaking the engine a lot). In short, Dwarf Fortress' engine will likely not be usable by PA or RW in any way, shape, or form.
Furthermore, damage handling between Dwarf Fortress and PA/RW is vastly difference. Dwarf Fortress has a very detailed simulation of various interaction between physics properties to define the outcome to various body parts (with granularity down to an eye-lid of a dwarf). PA and RW uses a simple to understand HP system (weapons deals X, if hit, substract X from HP).

Regarding Dwarf Fortress with UI, you do know that Dwarf Fortress has evolved a LOT over the years. First it has 2D map, than Toady added the 3rd dimension with full fluid simulation. In the beginning, there's only the surface world with possibility of infinitely deep chasm, then came multiple cavern layer + magma sea with the aformention infinitely deep chasm/hole gone. Then came the new military system, healthcare system, syndromes, randomly generated forgotten beast, vampires, necromancers, and on top of that, the whole thing is almost 100% moddable. You're talking about designing a UI that need to evolve along with all those major changes, something that's probably too much work for just Toady.

Now, onto PA and RW, both are very similar. But then again, you have no idea what their underlying needs are (and therefore the underlying architecture). For one, RW is focused more on individual entities than PA.

TL;DR; Two games might look and play very similar, but their underlying architecture needed to support various details may be very different.

[henke37]

sorry I am missing the point of your post do you really think that valve could have programmed half life by copy pasting the bullet code from doom 2 or quake 2 if it only would have been open source?

But the source engine is based on the Quake engine...

[sparr]

that's probably too much work for just Toady.

And that is precisely my point.

[UberFuber]

that's probably too much work for just Toady.

And that is precisely my point.

And my point is that there's no easy solution (if there is one).
Going back to your post.

In my fantasyland, Dwarf Fortress was released at some point in the past under a license similar to Quake 3 or Sauerbraten, with an open source engine and non-Free content (game rules, maps, graphics, audio, etc).

Dwarf Fortress's engine IS the game. There're no game rules (the game rule is the engine itself, plus easily modifiable raw files that're infinitely easy to replicate), there's no map (its procedural generated by engine), no graphics, no audio. The engine IS the game. Open Sourcing the engine means open sourcing almost the entire game.

And 1-2 years ago, the people with the ideas for Rimworld and Prison Architect forked THAT, and got a 2-3 year head start on developing their games.

And the point I was trying to make is that the Dwarf Fortress engine may not have enough flexibility to allow Rimworld and Prison Architect to reuse it.