L4D

[JointStrikeFighter]

Same Engine, Same Resources, Same Gameplay. Pick any 2. If your game meets these conditions then its a mod.

So all shooters using the Unreal engine are just mods.

Fuck that's retarded.

Clearly not as retarded as you.

Gameplay MAY be different, Resources MAY be different.

PICK 2

Case in point, SWAT4, UT2K4 engine, SAME ENGINE, DIFFERENT resources, DIFFERENT gameplay, ergo NOT a mod.

Team Fortress 2, SAME ENGINE, SAME RESOURCES, DIFFERENT GAMEPLAY --> A mod.

[Ford Prefect]

L4D's engine -> hl2 being compared to gears -> ut3 is totally unfair

seriously guys i was just having a bit of a laugh with that

[Stark]

OMG YOU MEENIES

[Acidburns]

you can't be serious; UI and 'film grain' makes it a different game, despite being trivial, totally superficial changes that (for instance) you can apply to UE3.0 with four lines of code?

No, I don't think it would be fair to determine if a game is a mod solely based on it's changes to the game engine. It's the combination of new art, gameplay type, AI, story, netcode, UI and importantly doesn't need the original to run. It's not a very rigid definition however, there is probably a better one.

L4D's engine -> hl2 being compared to gears -> ut3 is totally unfair, since valve has spent the time since hl2 came out hacking in new capabilities. l4d didn't add those capabilities; valve already had hacked most of them in for the 'episodic' hl2 releases. conversely, between ut3 and gears2 there were such fundamental changes it's considered a new version of the engine and ut3 was recently upgraded to the same standard because they're developed in parallel. thus, l3d takes advantage of improvements in the interim not developed by the l4d mod team, whereas the gears team actually worked on and improved the ue engine itself.

I wasn't aware there were extensive changes in the production of Gears 2.

Okay, Left 4 Dead takes advantages of engine changes that were produced by a different team within Valve. What about if it was the Left 4 Dead team who made those changes, would that make a difference in your opinion? Epic Games could have had a separate team make the changes to the UT engine, then started Gears 2, I don't think this would make Gears 2 any less a game in it's own right.

There's a huge list of games that use the Unreal Tournament engine. Many developers are going this route because it allows them more time to focus on producing a game. I can't imagine all the games that use the UT engine make changes to it.

i think u235s set-based idea that, say, all mods are games but not all games are mods probably makes the most sense on a case-by-case basis

to be honest it really looks like everyone was fine calling fan-made manipulations of a game 'mods' for more than a decade, even if they were sold full-price like CS, but now that valve has released nothing but uplifted mods for years people consider it's time to change this without explaining how it makes sense beyond 'omg people licence'

It's only recently we've had the availability of development tools and support that are needed to produce such extensive overhauls such as Red Orchestra and Age of Chivalry. Now we're seeing many developers purchase 3rd party engines such as the UT and Source engines. Maybe someone addressed this and missed I it but what happens when Valve, ID and Epic Games stop producing games and just market the engine? If Red Orchestra (as a standalone from steam, using only the UT engine and no content) is a mod what are these future games going to be mods of?

Surely an important part in identifying something as a mod would be that mods are a package of files that an end-user applies to (modifies!) an existing game. Red Orchestra as a mod is something you apply to your copy of UT. Red Orchestra as a game is something you can play without UT. It might have started as a mod, you might say it's nothing more than a glorified mod, but the steam version isn't dependent on the original Unreal Tournament game, it uses the Unreal Tournament engine.

Perhaps a mod is no longer a mod if it contains enough content to release it as a stand-alone product without any of the original content besides the engine. Red Orchestra, Left 4 Dead can, and have been. Age of Chivarly is currently a mod, but is about at the same stage. Things like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul can't exist independant of Oblivion.

Stark, how about saying any "game" that could feasibly exist in a previous games engine without extensive modification to the game engine a mod? Thus Left 4 Dead could run as a Half Life 2 mod (I don't know how much effort it would take to create the AI director, but I'm sure it could) and is thus a mod. Let's say Dawn of War 2, which couldn't run on Company of Heroes as it is using an upgraded engine, or Black Shark and LOMAC are not. Also this would mean that Gears of War 2 isn't a Gears of War 1 mod. This would provide a fairly rigid definition, but wouldn't this make any of these games that didn't make enough engine changes to be considered a new engine mods?

Is it the case that Left 4 Dead started as a Half Life 2 mod, and not something built on the Source Engine? In fact, Team Fortress 2 was in development years before Source and Half Life 2 were in development. What makes Team Fortress 2 a Half Life 2 mod, and not a game built on the source engine?

[General Zod]

So you think coming up with a solid definition of a mod involves nitpicking minutiae and trying to find examples where it doesn't necessarily apply? That's pretty hilarious.

[Ghost Rider]

LOL, saving this particular gem.

Off you go little thread.

[Stark]

Perhaps a mod is no longer a mod if it contains enough content to release it as a stand-alone product without any of the original content besides the engine. Red Orchestra, Left 4 Dead can, and have been. Age of Chivarly is currently a mod, but is about at the same stage. Things like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul can't exist independant of Oblivion.

But RO only has this because they won a competition to free use of the licence, and L4D only has it because Valve completed it in-house. You could do the same thing to that HL2 space fighter mod or UnWheel.

Stark, how about saying any "game" that could feasibly exist in a previous games engine without extensive modification to the game engine a mod? Thus Left 4 Dead could run as a Half Life 2 mod (I don't know how much effort it would take to create the AI director, but I'm sure it could) and is thus a mod. Let's say Dawn of War 2, which couldn't run on Company of Heroes as it is using an upgraded engine, or Black Shark and LOMAC are not. Also this would mean that Gears of War 2 isn't a Gears of War 1 mod. This would provide a fairly rigid definition, but wouldn't this make any of these games that didn't make enough engine changes to be considered a new engine mods?

This is really expressing 'game' as engine development, which I guess makes sense - but look at the example of Witcher. It's pretty much a very advanced NWN2 mod, to my understanding, but nobody would even think of calling it a mod due to the sheer amount of content/work/etc put into it, whereas glorified deathmatch simply doesn't need that much in the way of assets (rather AI and balancing).

Examples like Gears1 -> Gears2 are interesting because Gears2 is really Gears1.5 + UE3.5. It really ISN'T that much different; it's incremental, much closer to Gears1 than L4D is to HL2 outside the engine work.

Is it the case that Left 4 Dead started as a Half Life 2 mod, and not something built on the Source Engine? In fact, Team Fortress 2 was in development years before Source and Half Life 2 were in development. What makes Team Fortress 2 a Half Life 2 mod, and not a game built on the source engine?

Depends what you mean by 'in development'. TF2 was announced when I was a teenager (as a sequel to the not-very-sophisticated Team Fortress) and what was eventually released as TF2 bears almost no relation to that 'development'. L4D and Portal are similar in that they were at once mods Valve snapped up (in Portal's case I believe they made another similar game, and not Portal). This is arguably similar in the way that Witcher is similar to all the NWN2 mods.

I'm about to leave for work so I haven't been able to post more. :S

[DPDarkPrimus]

Same Engine, Same Resources, Same Gameplay. Pick any 2. If your game meets these conditions then its a mod.

So all shooters using the Unreal engine are just mods.

Fuck that's retarded.

Clearly not as retarded as you.

Gameplay MAY be different, Resources MAY be different.

PICK 2

Case in point, SWAT4, UT2K4 engine, SAME ENGINE, DIFFERENT resources, DIFFERENT gameplay, ergo NOT a mod.

Team Fortress 2, SAME ENGINE, SAME RESOURCES, DIFFERENT GAMEPLAY --> A mod.

And just what resources does TF2 share with HL2?

[JointStrikeFighter]

Sounds, some textures, some effects.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Sounds, some textures, some effects.

A few sounds, perhaps. How many games use the same stock sound effects for certain things, or the same company uses the same samples in their games.

Textures? What kind of textures, exactly? A wall? A floor? Again, considering shared resources in games in general, laughable.

As for visual effects, it is literally a non-issue - if you viewed the commentary for TF2 you'd know that they've programmed many effects into the Source engine for easy use by anyone.

[Pulp Hero]

[Ford Prefect]

I don't think JSF's blanket solution works. Resident Evil 5 has identical game play and more than a handful of shared resources with RE4, so it fits the 'pick any two' requirement, but I don't think I would call it a mod on any day of the week.

[General Zod]

I don't think JSF's blanket solution works. Resident Evil 5 has identical game play and more than a handful of shared resources with RE4, so it fits the 'pick any two' requirement, but I don't think I would call it a mod on any day of the week.

It's not as if Capcom's actually changed anything about the RE series but the graphics since the first one was released.

[Losonti Tokash]

I don't think JSF's blanket solution works. Resident Evil 5 has identical game play and more than a handful of shared resources with RE4, so it fits the 'pick any two' requirement, but I don't think I would call it a mod on any day of the week.

It's not as if Capcom's actually changed anything about the RE series but the graphics since the first one was released.

Have you played any of them? Cause if you have, it boggles the mind how you could go from RE1 to RE5 and say they're identical in every way except for improved graphics.

[General Zod]

So why is it no matter which version of RE I play I get the same infuriating control system that won't let me do something as basic as moving while I aim?

[Losonti Tokash]

Cause the control scheme is the entire game, right?

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Cause the control scheme is the entire game, right?

Maybe about 75% of it. If a game's unplayable, it could cure cancer and still be shit. (I can tolerate the RE control scheme, but you do have to fight it and make deliberate choices you wouldn't with a slightly different set up. Because somehow, it's scary if you can't move and shoot...)

As far as my point on this goes:

Mod = Game. It is a purely licenserial line. A free mod can be better than several similar pay products, but for every good mod out there, there're twenty like stark mentioned early on, BARELY a gameplay modification and most likely a bad one.

Total conversions tend to be a higher quality, as if they're changing that much, they usually have a few good ideas that they want to implement too. (See: Dystopia, Natural Selection, Empires, and Eternal Silence) They also tend to fail and DIE a lot too... (RIP Hull Breech...)

The only issue I have, which is probably one of Stark's chief ones too, (Outside his mostly successful troll.) is when a free mod gets snapped up, published for full price, and the free edition gets canned. (I sure as hell wouldn't pay for DoD or Counter Strike...)

[Losonti Tokash]

Cause the control scheme is the entire game, right?

Maybe about 75% of it. If a game's unplayable, it could cure cancer and still be shit. (I can tolerate the RE control scheme, but you do have to fight it and make deliberate choices you wouldn't with a slightly different set up. Because somehow, it's scary if you can't move and shoot...)

That wasn't the point. I was disputing the idea that if the control scheme has remained largely unchanged throughout the series, then clearly the only thing that has changed are the graphics. The fact is that while the characters still drive like tanks, RE1 and RE5 play very differently.

[General Zod]

Cause the control scheme is the entire game, right?

See. Most games base their development around the engine. But in RE's case their development has been based around the backassward control-scheme that Capcom absolutely refuses to change ever. How else could they get a shiny new graphics engine but still have the game play like it's from 1997?

[Losonti Tokash]

So, again, you think that RE5 is identical to the original other than the graphics? That there's been no major change in gameplay this entire time?

[General Zod]

So, again, you think that RE5 is identical to the original other than the graphics? That there's been no major change in gameplay this entire time?

Changes such as. . . . ?

[Uraniun235]

As for visual effects, it is literally a non-issue - if you viewed the commentary for TF2 you'd know that they've programmed many effects into the Source engine for easy use by anyone.

but lol that's just shovelware lol am i right lol

[Losonti Tokash]

So, again, you think that RE5 is identical to the original other than the graphics? That there's been no major change in gameplay this entire time?

Changes such as. . . . ?

The camera is now an over-the-shoulder deal instead of an isometric shot of a prerendered background.
Saving is now automatic and unlimited, as opposed to only being possible with ink ribbons and typewriters.
It is far more action oriented than the games before RE4.
5 actually was actually planned as a coop game, and is one of the best coop games I've played so far.
Then there's upgrading guns, puzzles that aren't mind numbingly retarded (it's now get the pass card from the dead captain instead of find the gems of power to stick in the statue's asshole), location based damage and effects, etc.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to go from 1 to 5 and say the only major difference is better graphics.

Oh yeah, there's no more zombies either.

[General Zod]

The camera is now an over-the-shoulder deal instead of an isometric shot of a prerendered background.
Saving is now automatic and unlimited, as opposed to only being possible with ink ribbons and typewriters.
It is far more action oriented than the games before RE4.

All of these are either minor changes or changes made possible with a new graphics system.

5 actually was actually planned as a coop game, and is one of the best coop games I've played so far.
Then there's upgrading guns, puzzles that aren't mind numbingly retarded (it's now get the pass card from the dead captain instead of find the gems of power to stick in the statue's asshole), location based damage and effects, etc.

With the exception of the coop, I'm still not seeing any significant changes here.

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to go from 1 to 5 and say the only major difference is better graphics.

Perhaps I should have said significant changes. But then I forget that fanboys are easily riled up?

Oh yeah, there's no more zombies either.

Zombies by any other name etc. etc.

[Losonti Tokash]

The camera is now an over-the-shoulder deal instead of an isometric shot of a prerendered background.
Saving is now automatic and unlimited, as opposed to only being possible with ink ribbons and typewriters.
It is far more action oriented than the games before RE4.

All of these are either minor changes or changes made possible with a new graphics system.

Except they completely change the way the game is played, but whatever. Clearly damn near moving the game into a different genre entirely is a "minor change."

5 actually was actually planned as a coop game, and is one of the best coop games I've played so far.
Then there's upgrading guns, puzzles that aren't mind numbingly retarded (it's now get the pass card from the dead captain instead of find the gems of power to stick in the statue's asshole), location based damage and effects, etc.

With the exception of the coop, I'm still not seeing any significant changes here.

Again, they make the game play significantly differently. The option of shooting out an enemy's legs alone is a huge difference, especially combined with the quick knife and hand to hand combat, compared to the older games' routine of "hope you have the pixels aligned perfectly and then shoot 12 bullets into the zombie hoping it stays dead."

You'd have to be a complete fucking retard to go from 1 to 5 and say the only major difference is better graphics.

Perhaps I should have said significant changes. But then I forget that fanboys are easily riled up?

Yeah, I'm a fanboy, even though I hated the older games. Awesome.

Oh yeah, there's no more zombies either.

Zombies by any other name etc. etc.

Except that they aren't reanimated corpses, they don't eat people, they are vulnerable to all the same things that a regular person is, and they use weapons, tools, teamwork, and communication.