Should mods be taken into account for reviews?

Aerozord · 01-24-2012, 05:10 PM

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 · 01-24-2012, 05:53 PM

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

TDK · 01-24-2012, 06:06 PM

"This game is shit."

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

Professor Smarmiarty · 01-24-2012, 06:08 PM

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 · 01-24-2012, 06:10 PM

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 · 01-24-2012, 06:20 PM

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 · 01-24-2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

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 · 01-24-2012, 06:25 PM

Yes. Easy thread.

Aerozord · 01-24-2012, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

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 · 01-24-2012, 07:15 PM

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.

01-24-2012, 05:10 PM	#1
Aerozord So we are clear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Former murder capital of the world Posts: 13,824	Should mods be taken into account for reviews? 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. __________________ "don't hate me for being a heterosexual white guy disparaging slacktivism, hate me for all those murders I've done."

01-24-2012, 06:10 PM	#5
Fifthfiend for all seasons Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 19,409	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. __________________ check out my buttspresso Last edited by Fifthfiend; 01-24-2012 at 06:18 PM.

01-24-2012, 07:15 PM	#10
Marc v4.0 Fight Me, Nerds Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 3,470	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. __________________

01-24-2012, 05:53 PM	#2
Ramary HE OPENS THE DOOR TO HIS DARK PAST Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Some craphole Posts: 770	Mod Support, yes, be a plus in the review. Mods themselves, no.

01-24-2012, 06:06 PM	#3
TDK Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Reality Posts: 2,914	"This game is shit." "Yeah, but if you make it different, its really good! So that makes it a good game."

01-24-2012, 06:08 PM	#4
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	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.

01-24-2012, 06:20 PM	#6
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	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.

01-24-2012, 06:25 PM	#8
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Yes. Easy thread.