Should mods be taken into account for reviews?

[Aerozord]

So I was thinking about minecraft, all the raving and high review scores, but then wondering how much of that is because of modding community more than vanilla.

Alot of the large builds rely on editors, or texture packs to look right. Most of what people do on multiplayers makes use of things like bukkit. There is alot of talk about the various mods you can use (though argument can be made thats only because vanilla is already known).

Now I am not saying vanilla is bad, or that taking a vibrant modding community into account is bad either. Heck a good modding community is why I got New Vegas on PC.

What I am saying is I doubt games like minecraft would receive the same scores if judge purely as a stand alone product. But how should one review it then? Should judgements for a game be based purely on it "out of the box" or to also consider all the alterations one can make of it.

This also isn't limited to mods either, but anything outside the direct control of the developers. Like should a MMO take player community into account.

[Ramary]

Mod Support, yes, be a plus in the review.
Mods themselves, no.

[TDK]

"This game is shit."

"Yeah, but if you make it different, its really good! So that makes it a good game."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Do you play games in a perfect vacuum without engaging the community/mods? If yes then they shouldn't. If no then they should.
Like people will be like "Oh that's unfair, the company is getting credit for something they didn't do". Who gives a shit. The point of a review is what is fun to play and the wider community/mods is/are part of that. It would be pretty negligent to ignore them.

[Fifthfiend]

Reviewing minecraft in the traditional game-review format is kind of a ridiculous exercise for a lot of reasons.

Of course a lot of those reasons are reasons why the traditional game-review format itself is kind of a ridiculous exercise.

I would say it's totally reasonable to review a given game on the strength of mods. You can review a game on the strength of any aspect that affects whether the player enjoys the game. You just have to straightforwardly say "yo this game owns cause of all the shit you can do with mods, even though the baseline game is kinda bullshit." The point of reviewing is ultimately to tell something of use to the reader about the thing you're reviewing, not adhere to some platonic ideal form of What a Review Is.

That said, from the bit of reviews/gaming press I've read in relation to Minecraft, I gather that what Zord is talking about is more the sort of review that goes "yo minecraft owns, you can build Minas Tirith! And the Starship Enterprise!" Which is, well, no, nobody built that shit in Minecraft. Minecraft with multiple bolt-ons, yes. Minecraft? No. Reviewing in a way that conflates the strengths of modded versions of the game with the actual for-real game is indeed quite dumb.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think we can assume that the reviewer is obviously going to mention that he is talking about the mods and such when it comes up and is not just going to be like "this game is rad" talking about the modded version.
Though videogame "reviewers" are laughably bad so I suppose that is not a given.

[Fifthfiend]

I think we can assume that the reviewer is obviously going to mention that he is talking about the mods and such when it comes up and is not just going to be like "this game is rad" talking about the modded version.

Though videogame "reviewers" are laughably bad so I suppose that is not a given.

I was going to answer to this post and then I found my answer to this post there at the bottom of this post.

[Azisien]

Yes. Easy thread.

[Aerozord]

Do you play games in a perfect vacuum without engaging the community/mods? If yes then they shouldn't. If no then they should.
Like people will be like "Oh that's unfair, the company is getting credit for something they didn't do". Who gives a shit. The point of a review is what is fun to play and the wider community/mods is/are part of that. It would be pretty negligent to ignore them.

but a game can exist in a vacuum and out (such as having ports) or player can choose to play it as such.

I actually dont care if the company is given credit for it. Especially developers that release tools to make modding easier to actively encourage it.

But alot of people do care alot about what numerical value people give a game, so what is its "true" score. What gives consumers the most honest assessment of the game, it if it existed in a vacuum or with stuff consumer has access to but might not care to touch.

[Marc v4.0]

TES games thrive on modding, and no one has ever pretended that Mods don't or won't contribute to the long-run existance the games.

In fact Bethesda banks on it, using the extended sales life that Modding gives to their games in order to spend more time developing the next release.

[Fifthfiend]

But alot of people do care alot about what numerical value people give a game

Lots of people care about lots of stupid shit that doesn't make the stupid shit any less intrinsically stupid.

so what is its "true" score

Purple.

[Locke cole]

Purple.
Ah, highest energy in the visible spectrum.

So it's a good game.

Not the best, but I don't trust reviews with a score of Ultraviolet or Cosmic Ray. They just seem biased towards whatever is the most hyped game this month.

[Azisien]

A good game review in my opinion broadcasts the features of the game to paint a picture of whether or not it will speak to certain demographics. Anybody that's read a review has seen the dance, usually focused on gameplay but always touching on accessibility, graphics, sound, style, etc etc etc. The good reviewer can describe what mixture of components makes the game good, and in a way that the reader can walk away with an idea of whether that game is "for them."

It is undeniable fact that modding can add a lot to games. They can add so much that mods sometimes become their own games. They can push the games industry in new directions. Just as much as a breath-taking art style, scintillating OST, or brilliant new game feature can add to the positivity of a game review (and thus, its numerical value, which IS useful), so then should the ability for communities to contribute to the game. Mods do have few drawbacks, because they are optional. However, I suppose you could have a negative effect if the modding implementation is just awful.

[BitVyper]

Liking a game for its community support is fine, but it kind of makes your review worthless to two thirds of the community if the game has been released on consoles. I mean if you don't care, or mean your review to only apply to one version of the game, then sure fine. Still though, I'd really rather call out companies on making shitty games that are only good after the community fixes them. For one thing, it only really works if the game is already hugely hyped and popular, and if you're gonna have some hugely hyped, anticipated game that will make squidillions of dollars, it's pretty bullshit to get lazy about it (*cough*Bethesda*cough*). At that point no, you don't deserve a good review. That's just enabling you.

[Fifthfiend]

Ah, highest energy in the visible spectrum.

So it's a good game.

Not the best, but I don't trust reviews with a score of Ultraviolet or Cosmic Ray. They just seem biased towards whatever is the most hyped game this month.

I review this post to be binderclip.

[Locke cole]

I review this post to be binderclip.

Hey, there's no need to be rude. I mean, they can't all be Rivet, but I think my post was at least Staple.

[Flarecobra]

Mod Support, yes, be a plus in the review.
Mods themselves, no.

This.

[Krylo]

I would say it's totally reasonable to review a given game on the strength of mods. You can review a game on the strength of any aspect that affects whether the player enjoys the game. You just have to straightforwardly say "yo this game owns cause of all the shit you can do with mods, even though the baseline game is kinda bullshit." The point of reviewing is ultimately to tell something of use to the reader about the thing you're reviewing, not adhere to some platonic ideal form of What a Review Is.

Best answer.

If you rate it on mods point out that you're scoring it favorably mostly because of the mods, and then anyone who bothers to read it will know that if they won't/can't mod the shit out of it it's not actually worth the score it got. People who can/will mod the shit out of it understand that the community is a big part of why the game is good and won't be disappointed if vanilla is kinda meh, and will know how to tune it to their style.

[Doc ock rokc]

I find that In most cases a game is reviewed before the mod community has a chance to sink it's teeth in. So it's reasonable to assume that some game do stand on it's own. On minecraft I will say this. While the modding community is rather nice doing some nice fancy things here and there. I Still think the vanilla minecraft isn't that bad. I Still think it can stand on its own.

[Kim]

Best answer.

If you rate it on mods point out that you're scoring it favorably mostly because of the mods, and then anyone who bothers to read it will know that if they won't/can't mod the shit out of it it's not actually worth the score it got. People who can/will mod the shit out of it understand that the community is a big part of why the game is good and won't be disappointed if vanilla is kinda meh, and will know how to tune it to their style.

Yeah, I agree with this. The only issue I foresee is people who don't actually read the reviews or people who like to tell people What A Review Should Be, and fuck those people.

[Azisien]

I am of the opinion that reviews shouldn't be written for people who don't read reviews, anyways, so not too much to worry about.

[Aerozord]

I am of the opinion that reviews shouldn't be written for people who don't read reviews, anyways, so not too much to worry about.

isn't that like the entire premise of metacritic?

[Kim]

Metacritic is kind of fundamentally broken anyway, so I make a habit of pretending it doesn't exist.

[Amake]

I'm not sure what would be the advantage of judging a game solely on the basis of what its designers intended if it has more to offer than that, and if you're writing to tell people what you think of what the game can offer. Which I imagine is the purpose of a review. Would you review Halo excluding any mention of warthog jousting because it's a game mode invented by the community? Who benefits from that?

[Marc v4.0]

I'm not sure what would be the advantage of judging a game solely on the basis of what its designers intended if it has more to offer than that, and if you're writing to tell people what you think of what the game can offer. Which I imagine is the purpose of a review. Would you review Halo excluding any mention of warthog jousting because it's a game mode invented by the community? Who benefits from that?

or Grifball!

They actually made that an official game type on the servers after it got popular

[synkr0nized]

Yes

POS and myself, especially, should always be taken into account.