So I've been thinking a bit recently about Dwarf Fortress,
and one unique quality (of many) of the game is that it is a lifelong endeavor
for the Adams brothers, and therefore a
lifelong endeavor for the fans.
Tarn Adams has stated that it'll be at least twenty years
before it's finished, and it's already been released for six years--and was
being worked on for four years before its first release, making it a thirty
year run before it's even considered complete.
I don't think there is any videogame that has that kind of
staying power. Sure, we recognize the
classics for their historical value, and maybe we still get a little fun out of
them, but really, how often are you going to play Galaga, when you could play
any number of modern shmups?
Yet Dwarf Fortress isn't intended to be overshadowed by
newer, more evolved games in its genre, partly because it's in a genre of its
own, and partly because it's a never ending game.
Even twenty years from now, assuming that there is still
technology to play it, the popularity of Dwarf Fortress will reach its apex at
its final release (and perhaps even then Tarn would technically call it the 1.0
release, and might continue working on it), and it's legacy will be more than a
historical curiosity. People won't play
Dwarf Fortress for a quick thrill like you might dust off the old Pac-Man
machine; I expect they'll be playing it as fervently as ever, spending months
perfecting their fortress, only to have it destroyed by some night creature
invasion they weren't prepared for.
Then they'll start again, since Losing Is Fun!(TM) |
And even though other games (Minecraft, for instance) claim
Dwarf Fortress as a major inspiration, they won't achieve the longevity. Console games die when a new console comes
out, and usually far before that. PC
games die more slowly, since tools like DOSBOX and resources like GOG.com
exist, but they, too, peaked in popularity when they came out, not fifteen
years later. Any resurgence in old games
comes mostly from older players who want to relive the memories of their
youth. Today's twelve-year-olds aren't
likely to pick up Zork.
And though Dwarf Fortress isn't going to sway any non-gamers
to join the ranks, it will continue to gain popularity with the hardest of the
hardcore Sim, RTS, RPG, and Adventure gamers--partly by design.
Part of the reason Dwarf Fortress will last is simply
because Tarn won't stop coding anytime
soon. This is the first time (or one of
the first times) that a developer lets us take the development journey with
them. Dwarf Fortress is not a complete
game, and won't be for twenty years. At
least, that's what Tarn tells us. People play it now and love it, and don't see
anything missing, until the next release, when they jump right into the game to
discover the latest improvements and additions.
With other games, when the game comes out, that's the end of
the line. At least, in the old days that
was the idea. Now we've got DLC and
always-on MMOs, stretching the lifespan of games into years, rather than simply
days, weeks, or (if they're lucky) months.
Yet at some point a newer, flashier game comes out that is
similar to the old one, and starts stealing players. MMOs are still evolving, so when a new one
comes out, players migrate, especially if they don't have the cash for monthly
subscriptions to multiple games.
Dwarf Fortress doesn't have this problem for two
reasons. First, of course, is that it's
free; there's a donation button on their website (bay12games.com), but the game
itself has no charge. Secondly, it's in
a class of its own, and there has been nothing that has even attempted to outdo
what Dwarf Fortress has done. There is
simply no such thing as a flashier Dwarf Fortress, and their can't be, by
definition.
Graphics? We don't need no stinkin' graphics! |
Tarn Adams threw out every principle of modern games when he
started making Dwarf Fortress: he made the graphics nothing but ASCII art, and
yet the programming behind the gameplay can actually slow down modern
computers. This is the sort of game that
looks like it should have been made
in the seventies, but couldn't have been.
In that way, it's actually kind of timeless.
Although I think the Adams
brothers are geniuses, I am surprised there haven't been any clones. Of course they would be inferior, but that's
never stopped the game industry in the past.
While I think the particular gameplay of Dwarf Fortress
won't be matched for some time, I wonder how viable the business end of it
is. Tarn
makes a variable and modest living off donations, so it makes me wonder if
others could do it too, or if Dwarf Fortress is a fluke.
What I mean is that I wonder if others might make a
lifetime-long game, always releasing content, and see how far that gets
them. Even the longest running MMOs
dwindle after a time, shut their doors, and lock up, especially when a
challenger comes. But since Dwarf
Fortress has no challenger, it lives until Tarn Adams decides to kill it. Could another game developer do that, and
make a living off it?
I guess my main question in all this is: do videogames have to die?
There are analog games that have had lives much, much longer
than the longest running videogame, and I will even excuse outliers like Chess. But who doesn't have a copy of Monopoly
lying around? It's issued to you when
you're born. Parker Brothers hasn't
touched it pretty much since it came out (and I don't count various themed
versions as really being any different).
It has no DLC, so to speak, yet even if you hate Monopoly, everyone's
got a story about it.
On the other end, Magic: The Gathering is a game with
content that comes out practically every day, and it's still a staple of geek
culture.
Yet I suspect that Monopoly, Magic, and Dwarf Fortress will
still be around twenty years from now, but World of Warcraft won't. Even though WoW is still going strong, and
content is still being released, at some point the payments will dry up, or at
least enough to not be able to support the product anymore, and WoW will shut
down. Blizzard, in the meantime, may
move on to other products, or even make WoW 2, which will bring WoW a swifter
death.
But in any case, the corporate structure of big games seems
to suggest that they can't follow the lifelong model of Bay 12 Games. Despite Dwarf Fortress' small popularity, it
is enough for the developer to live off.
A bigger developer wouldn't be able to consider that a success, but a
two-man team can.
I wonder if the likes of Dwarf Fortress will bring a rise of
ultra-small indies, and connected to it, the rise of lifelong games.
Might more developers take players on the development
journey with them?
Is this a natural extension of how games are evolving, or is
Dwarf Fortress a one-time fluke?
Looks like there actually is a clone / "flashier version". I came across Gnomoria very recently and it looks very much like a Dwarf Fortress clone except with a graphical UI. They state on their website that the game is influenced by DF. It probably is like you say inferior to DF since DF has been in development for so long and they don't waste their time with fancy graphics and menues. But for those who can't get used to the keyboard and ASCII graphics it might be a good alternative. And maybe the game draws some attention to DF. They have a demo at gnomoria.com
ReplyDeleteThere are actually quite a few indie and small studio clones, like Gnomoria and Towns. I was more making a reference to big name, big budget studios not making any clones.
Delete