Mods from the perspective of people who never use mods

[IncendiaryDevice]

Am I the only person on the planet who's never used one single mod ever on any game ever?

Not one.

No tweak packs, no graphics enhancements, no balancing, no bug fixers, no sprite replacers, no hair detailer, no nude mods.

Nothing.

Ever.

It seems like every game forum on the entire net will have someone making their first post about a game be "I'm thinking of playing XYZ game, what mods do you recommend?"

And on every fucking one I just wanna type "just play the fucking game you idiot and if its crap play something else, stop using your life to dig crappy developers out of a hole all the time."

But what's the point? It's probably me that's the weird one. I'm probably the only one left who thinks that modding in XYZ 'fix' is more akin to typing in a cheat code than 'making the game better'. I bet it's all the same people who type in cheat codes automatically without even thinking about it.

Oh wow, you've converted all the sprites into naked muppets, that's, like, really cool man. What's next? You're going to convert Master of Orion into a zombie romance simulator... because you can.

I mean, if you wanted to play a different game... play a different game!

Anyway. Is it just me?

[not posted in the Workshop because... duh... everyone there will likely be a mod-nut... duh.

 

[Ezekiel]

I almost never use them. But they can be a lot of fun. Some of the custom campaigns in L4D2 are pretty good.

 

[Icewater]

OP is a faggot

 

[Turjan]

I try every game without mods first. In RPGs, I've only used them sparingly, except in Arcanum or Morrowind.

In simulators, mods are basically one of the things that give them longevity and make them shine. There's one game where I use about 100 mods that change the game behavior and roughly 2500 modded assets.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I almost never use them. But they can be a lot of fun. Some of the custom campaigns in L4D2 are pretty good.

I wouldn't class a new campaign as a mod, more of a regular expansion, just not an official expansion. Like if someone made a new scenario for HoMM where its the same game just on an new map then that's different IMO, that the same game, just more of it.

I try every game without mods first. In RPGs, I've only used them sparingly.

In simulators, mods are basically one of the things that give them longevity and make them shine. There's one game where I use about 100 mods that change the game behavior and roughly 2500 modded assets.

Since simulators are barely games but instead pre-VR attempts at VR then I guess they're not really what I would count as pointless modding. A bit like minecraft, there's no real game there anyway, it's like playing lego rather than chess so modding there kinda is the game. [hence why I tend to avoid simulators like the plague]

 

[A horse of course]

I always play open-world RPGs or strategy games without mods, but then tweak them myself or download mini-mods for replays. However, if it's an old game from GoG or w/e I'll always check to see what's out there as many "must-have" mods often double as bugfixes or the most reliable way to get a game working on modern systems.

If you've never played a Bethesda game without sex mods I truly pity you

 

[BR4ZIL]

Well, i used mods on many games.

My reason is that sometimes mods either:

1) Make the game run technically better or graphically better (mostly true for older games).

2) Remove shitty mechanics or stuff like Fallout 3's piss yellow filter

3)Add more story/content/quests/whatever. Which can be better than official content.

Baldur's Gate comes to mind, where you even had professional writers doing mods for it. Ultimate Apocalipse for DoW1, Fallout 2 Restoration Project, etc.

And really... who here plays any of the TeS games without mods, i honestly only bought Skyrim because it is a platform for modders, the base game is generic and boring, you need mods to make it interesting.

The " then play another game" option doesnt always exist too.

 

[Ash]

Am I the only person on the planet who's never used one single mod ever on any game ever?

Not one.

No tweak packs, no graphics enhancements, no balancing, no bug fixers, no sprite replacers, no hair detailer, no nude mods.

Nothing.

Ever.

So you've never played a single mod. Ever. Therefore your opinion on the value of mods lacks weight...and is borderline retarded anyway. Mods are one of the best advantages of PC gaming, are fucking FREE, and are one of few ways to get good new old school-principled game content these days. So you're probably a decline-enabler; if you're not involved in a good avenue of content creation by playing mods, what ARE you doing? Contributing to the AAA casual tard-fest that is Steam's top 10 most played games?

Some mods make a game look better, others make a game playable on modern hardware and/or fix some game breaking bugs. Others provide new campaigns in a game series you like, or others raise it to new heights of excellence. Of course there's shit mods too, but this is true of any kind of creative endeavour. Being a modder myself there's perhaps some bias, but I was a mod player before that and still am, and OP's garbage above is some of the dumbest shit I've ever read. I play mods because I like a game and want it to be better or want more from it in the form of new missions, not because I think it's shit and need mods to fix it. I've never played a mod for a game I dislike.

 

[Ezekiel]

I almost never use them. But they can be a lot of fun. Some of the custom campaigns in L4D2 are pretty good.

I wouldn't class a new campaign as a mod, more of a regular expansion, just not an official expansion. Like if someone made a new scenario for HoMM where its the same game just on an new map then that's different IMO, that the same game, just more of it.

Okay, then the "clean screen" and "no mud/blood splatter" mods. Because throwing dirt on an artificial lens is fucking stupid.

I also mod out any other lens effects if I can. Because this looks terrible:

Spoiler

Chromatic abberation, lens flares, lens moisture, motion blur, grain... I don't get why every developer now wants the picture to look as filthy as possible.

I also remove opening splash screens (company logos) when I can, by deleting the videos. But with some of the newer games, it's impossible. They used to be skippable in most PC games, without having to delete the files. Self-important assholes.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I play mods because I like a game and want it to be better, not because I think it's shit and need mods to fix it. I've never played a mod for a game I dislike.

If you like the game without mods, why do you need mods?

[As I stated above, I wouldn't count new content as a mod, that's more of an unofficial expansion. If it's a mod that doesn't nothing more than make a game playable on modern hardware then that's not a mod, that's simply making the game playable, as in, its intention is not to change the game but to make it playable. Bug-fixing mods, however, you start to get into a greyer area, if its to mend a crash to desktop then that's one thing, but if its to nerf an unintentionally OP weapon then that's fuckery.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I almost never use them. But they can be a lot of fun. Some of the custom campaigns in L4D2 are pretty good.

I wouldn't class a new campaign as a mod, more of a regular expansion, just not an official expansion. Like if someone made a new scenario for HoMM where its the same game just on an new map then that's different IMO, that the same game, just more of it.

Okay, then the "clean screen" and "no mud/blood splatter" mods. Because throwing dirt on an artificial lens is fucking stupid.

I also mod out any other lens effects if I can. Because this looks terrible:

Spoiler

Chromatic abberation, lens flares, lens moisture, motion blur, grain... I don't get why every developer now wants the picture to look as filthy as possible.

I also remove opening splash screens (company logos) when I can, by deleting the videos. But with some of the newer games, it's impossible. They used to be skippable in most PC games, without having to delete the files. Self-important assholes.

My response would be to stop encouraging devs to do that shit in the first place by bitching about it and refusing to buy their stupid shitty game in the first place...

 

[Ash]

If you like the game without mods, why do you need mods?

I literally just said why. I want it to be better and/or want more content related to the game.

Do you not buy official expansion packs and sequels, or download patches either? Your opinion is incredibly dumb.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

If you like the game without mods, why do you need mods?

I literally just said why. I want it to be better.

Do you not buy official expansion packs or download patches either? Your opinion is incredibly dumb.

Better? How utterly bland of a descriptor that is. Games don't get 'better' the more you play them, they get more predictable and boring. If you've reached the stage where mods are the only thing holding your interest then, hey, maybe its time to play a different game.

As I said before [this will be the third time now] if it's an expansion, as in someone's just created a new scenario, same game, new scenario, then that's just an unofficial expansion, I wouldn't call that a mod, because it hasn't changed the game, it's just increased the amount of content the game has.

I loathe expansions that alter the original game. I have no idea why devs insist on bringing out expansion which, once installed, bugger up the vanilla game.

No, I never download patches. I play whichever version comes with the version I acquire.

 

[Ezekiel]

I almost never use them. But they can be a lot of fun. Some of the custom campaigns in L4D2 are pretty good.

I wouldn't class a new campaign as a mod, more of a regular expansion, just not an official expansion. Like if someone made a new scenario for HoMM where its the same game just on an new map then that's different IMO, that the same game, just more of it.

Okay, then the "clean screen" and "no mud/blood splatter" mods. Because throwing dirt on an artificial lens is fucking stupid.

I also mod out any other lens effects if I can. Because this looks terrible:

Spoiler

Chromatic abberation, lens flares, lens moisture, motion blur, grain... I don't get why every developer now wants the picture to look as filthy as possible.

I also remove opening splash screens (company logos) when I can, by deleting the videos. But with some of the newer games, it's impossible. They used to be skippable in most PC games, without having to delete the files. Self-important assholes.

My response would be to stop encouraging devs to do that shit in the first place by bitching about it and refusing to buy their stupid shitty game in the first place...

Lol, you're telling me to skip a game simply because of a few cosmetic reasons? I'd have to skip almost every new game then. That's not making a stand, that's just being obsessive.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I almost never use them. But they can be a lot of fun. Some of the custom campaigns in L4D2 are pretty good.

I wouldn't class a new campaign as a mod, more of a regular expansion, just not an official expansion. Like if someone made a new scenario for HoMM where its the same game just on an new map then that's different IMO, that the same game, just more of it.

Okay, then the "clean screen" and "no mud/blood splatter" mods. Because throwing dirt on an artificial lens is fucking stupid.

I also mod out any other lens effects if I can. Because this looks terrible:

Spoiler

Chromatic abberation, lens flares, lens moisture, motion blur, grain... I don't get why every developer now wants the picture to look as filthy as possible.

I also remove opening splash screens (company logos) when I can, by deleting the videos. But with some of the newer games, it's impossible. They used to be skippable in most PC games, without having to delete the files. Self-important assholes.

My response would be to stop encouraging devs to do that shit in the first place by bitching about it and refusing to buy their stupid shitty game in the first place...

Lol, you're telling me to skip a game simply because of a few cosmetic reasons? I'd have to skip almost every new game then. That's not making a stand, that's just being obsessive.

Funny that, because I've never played a game where I've had any desire to change "a few cosmetic" things...

 

[Outlander]

There are mods and mods.

Good luck playing Fallout 1 without the high resolution mod. I mean, you can, but why the fuck would you want to do that?

 

[Ash]

So basically, you think the original version of software is always the best with no exception, and you're an idiot that doesn't even download patches that fix technical issues. You're doing PC gaming wrong. Get the fuck out of here.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

There are mods and mods.

Good luck playing Fallout 1 without the high resolution mod. I mean, you can, but why the fuck would you want to do that?

Because playing the game in its original state adds to the atmosphere of a 20 year old game and reminds you that you're playing a 20 year old game, because that's part of the atmosphere.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

So basically, you think the original version of software is always the best with no exception, and you're an idiot and doesn't even download patches that fix technical issues. You're doing PC gaming wrong. Get the fuck out of here.

No. There's no 'best' about it. It's a case of "did the developer provide a good game" yes/no?

You can patch a game forever sweety, no game will ever be 'fully patched'. At some point you will be playing the version you're playing, if you don't 'get' that then you're, obviously, the idiot. PC gaming means playing games that are designed to challenge the mind rather than the reflexes, as such, no, how big someone's tits are is of fuck all interest...

 

[Icewater]

If you like the game without mods, why do you need mods?

If you like one game, why do you ever need any other game?

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

If you like the game without mods, why do you need mods?

If you like one game, why do you ever need any other game?

Because it's boring playing the same game over and over and when you play a new game you're usually playing a new game, not the same game with a few minor details tweaked.

 

[Ash]

Next he's gonna argue games shouldn't be designed for replayabliity because there's other games. Dialogue options are pointless. Alternate paths and missions. Classic RPG progression design, new game modes that add game rules etc...

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Next he's gonna argue games shouldn't be designed for replayabliity because there's other games. Dialogue options are pointless. Alternate paths and missions. Classic RPG progression design, new game modes that add game rules etc...

Next you're going to argue that replaying chess is the same as replaying Space Invaders...

 

[Falksi]

The only games I've ever used mods with significantly are Morrowind & Oblivion. Morrowind just a few tweaks which made a great game better (mods such as the deeper dialogue one), Oblivion in an attempt to salvage some form of decent game out if the trash it was.
Most of the time I think they're too much faffing about. Also, along with patches, they're way too convenient a fall back for devs to be lazy and leave sorting stuff to gamers.
They definitely add replayability though.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Playing a game through once unmodded is pretty much standard fare. It's the best way to realize what mods you'd want, if any.

But sometimes it's just better to start looking for UI mods before even installing the game.

Fun fact: One of the first games I ever played had an in-built sprite editor, allowing me to alter and change the appearance of every item in-game. The game's lifespan at least doubled because of that, even though I couldn't save my work.