Mac Gaming Mods

I tend to talk a lot about modding standards; what I expect in a mod, what I look for, what makes a work good and what makes it bad. Everyone has these expectations when a new mod pops up on the Forum, and bases their reactions and criticisms on these views. But, naturally, the standards which I hold will be different from the standards, say, Amy holds, which are different from those Kayar holds, which are different from the standards of every other community member; every member has a different benchmark for mods, and a different perception of what advocates merit and distain. And these differences, at least for me, commonly lead to arguments between members. With that in mind, it seems that a universal set of standards for judging Halo Demo maps and mods could help provide a stable benchmark for published works and reduce conflicts which occur due to differing views.

Thoughts?

-=Moxus=-

I think that you are correct, each of us has a different standard for which we judge people by. However, while having a standard "standard" way of judging someone and his mods, it might possibly restrict more views on the matter. For example, if we all judge a person's mod by one universal standard, then we cannot express our views as easily unless we follow our "own" standard. I think we should judge people by these matters, the "universal standards", and also "personal feedback".

Oh certainly; there'd be more than enough room for individuals to express their views on a work. The universal standard would just be used to give the map a general grade. We can debate the finer points all we like.

-=Moxus=-

In my opinion, what makes a good mod, is unsurprisingly if it is fun to play. This is why I think mods can only be judged if you actually spend your time downloading them first of all (not everyone does based off of screenshots or no screenshots), then play them with other people who also have the mod (or don't if it's CSS, or not playing with a bunch of people if it is a campaign sort of mod).

This is why I don't care if a mod is a basic swapping everything around, or if it just one small modification, or if it takes content from Full/CE -- as for the legality, I could care less, modifying Halo Demo content *and* giving it to others is probably not legal either violating something in the license agreement.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's original, fun to play, and has little or absolutely no CE in it, then it passes by my standards.

I don't think its very easy to create a "modding standard" as it might seem. But, as Nil and Loki pointed out, fun and originality have a large impact on whether or not I download a mod. On another note, I'm glad that the whole explosion of CE mods have finally subsided, so we can resort back to classic modding.

Fun defines a good mod. What do you need to have something be fun? You might say it needs to be original and good to play with other people (Unless it's a SP map). You might also say to be original requires little or no CE in it. You might even say to be fun with other people you need it to be balanced. Some definitions of balance include no banshees or no heavy weapons.

All standards branch out from one standard: fun.

Query: How do we want to measure fun?

-=Moxus=-

Fun is when I can call my cousin up and say "Homeslice, redownload Halo Demo and play this."
That's what made Kayar's Sacred Grove so fun, because I was able to play it with him for HOURS.
Him and I have a couple of inside jokes from those hours of playtime on that map...

Moxus wrote:Query: How do we want to measure fun?

-=Moxus=-

We measure it from 1 to 10. 1 being the mod sucked. 10 being the mod was amazing. 5 being it was OK.

Maybe just a set of guidelines that aren't very specific, and are very flexible. Not so it doesn't narrow down so much the mods we get, nor discourage new modders from releasing mods, but add a nice overview on what mods are worth posting


Also, i feel awesome for being the first member-name mentioned. : p

Probably because you are the most annoying to give criticism to.

Standards would probably raise the quality of mods. Perhaps what we should do is not to consider what we want in a map, but what we do not want in a map, which we may have more in common than what we want.
In stock trading, a common rule of experienced traders is ensure that there are no big losses, and to let the profits run.
Perhaps this could be applied to modding in that we agree on what is bad, and thus allow people to make mods as fun as they want while being standards-compliant?

Also, we can vote one or two teams of the best Halo players who will consider maps and give them awards. Like all those stuff sometimes seen on software or camera brochures. Bad maps get no awards.

Løki wrote:As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's original, fun to play, and has little or absolutely no CE in it, then it passes by my standards.

Ditto