Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If games are interactive simulations by nature, why is DF so unusual?

It’s an honest attempt at making a thorough simulation. Most games attempt only shallow rules and simulations — nearly everything that happens in Witcher 3 is encoded precisely, with few knock-on effects (because there’s nothing underneath the immediate effect + visualization — what’s modeled is precisely what you see); leading to the lack of emergent behavior. You’re dealing with a fairly rudimentary and static system. GTA is more flexible, but ultimately nothing follows any particular logic that doesn’t revolve around the player. More notably, in both games, if the player doesn’t exist, the world can no longer reasonably operate.

Simulation is inherent to game design, but very few games actively work towards it, as you’ve seen.

The simulation games of the 90’s were in the right vein — they faltered for practical reasons. As a result, they often make for thorough simulations that are dishonest — the internal logic of the simulation is violated for reasons of hardware limitations, UX simplicity, fun, etc. Tornados happen because it’s fun. DF is honest in the sense that it is only compromised by Tarn’s inability to implement something (and practical impact — it’s not worth trying to model atoms when fluid dynamics will suffice).

I don’t mean that DF produces a “realistic” simulation (as a climate scientist might) but that he produces a uncompromisingly logically consistent one (as a fiction author might)




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: