[qwertyuiop924]

Dwarf Fortress fills its niche very well, to the point that anything that tries to make the same tradeoffs (extreme depth at the cost of accessability) in the same arena will inevitably be compared to DF unfavorably.

But I will argue that DF has a cousin in a game that is comically far outside of its arena: Quake, and the Quake family tree in general.

Both have a devoted audience that sticks with the games despite their extreme age and poor graphics. But more importantly - by accident more than by design - Quake has a ridiculous depth (both in mechanics and strategy) at the cost of exteme mechanical complexity (Just look at what you have to do to get the RA on Aerowalk).

If you're looking for Dwarf Fortress lite, I'd suggest taking a look at games by Paradox Interactive, which have a similar reputation.

[Impossible]

That comparison is at best a stretch. 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. 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. At release Dwarf Fortress was talked about in the exact same way it is talked about today...

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. 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.

I have a ton of respect for Quake, its movement mechanics and its influence, but I don't really get the comparison.

[qwertyuiop924]

Fair enough...

I would argue that Quake has a lot more emergent complexity in its mechanics than a lot of other FPSes. Deathmatch has elements of territory control - moreso than in the Halo/COD lineage, as I understand it. And because you have to control territory and stay alive, there's an incentive to go fast. Very fast.

As 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.

And 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.

>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.

I was actually talking about Quake's lineage in gameplay: Q3A, UT, and the rest of the arena shooter subgenre.

Given, this is an odd comparison, and I don't blame you for disagreeing. I'm not 100% sure I agree with me, and I am me.

[pavel_lishin]

I think that Kerbal Space Program scratches this particular itch better than a straight FPS.

[qwertyuiop924]

Like I said, I was aiming for a game that had similar depth/complexity tradeoffs to DF, but which wasn't situated in the simulation/sandbox genre, where all comers have to be compared to DF, and most don't measure up.

Given, KSP doesn't strictly compete with DF...

[Unbeliever69]

I kinda disagree with your choice of the phrase "poor graphics". This is kinda like say that Minecraft graphics are poor. The truth is, these games utilize exactly the graphics they use for a reason. DF is a throwback to Roguelike games and Minecraft sorta became the defacto standard for voxel construction. Now maybe we could agree that these visually abstracted styles are no everyone's cup of tea. The beauty of this tradeoff is that it allows a small development team (or developer) to focus on gameplay without sinking significant time into making things look good and perform well.

[qwertyuiop924]

That's true. I actually agree, the wording could have been better.