Page 1 of 1
Discussion on the handling of mods
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:23 pm
by PeterJ
Can I just clarify that I was in no way understating the work done by the creators of mods. I appreciate there is a community behind these and that many enjoy them. Apologies if my comments came across otherwise.
I'm actually of the belief that having mods listed under the main original game would actually make them more prominent, and open them up to a wider audience and people new to the retro scene who would have no idea what a mod was would see them when looking at the main game.
As previously mentioned, I'm very happy to go with the majority opinion here. It's good that we are having these discussions.
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:42 pm
by hikoki
I'm actually of the belief that having mods listed under the main original game would actually make them more prominent, and open them up to a wider audience and people new to the retro scene who would have no idea what a mod was would see them when looking at the main game.
Interesting point. What do you mean by "having mods under the main original game"? On the MM card I can read "Mods: 36 title(s)" which is a link to the existing mods. Perhaps this should be more on the top after "Contributions"
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:28 am
by Rorthron
R-Tape wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:59 pmCan you give some examples of the worst of current inconsistencies?
There are a few I've noticed in the past which will take some time for me to dig out, but here is one I can think of right now. You suggest that "graphics cracks" do not warrant IDs, yet The Hobbit 128K, which pretty much only changes the graphics, does receive an ID.
R-Tape wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:59 pm
These are the rules I've been trying working to for cracks:
-Graphics + gameplay changes + 'a work of note' (including infamy) = should have an ID (e.g. Ralf's MODs, and Harry S)
-Graphics only + a work of note = should have an ID (e.g. Bruce Lee RX)
-Graphics only, a very throwaway effort = should not have an ID.
-Did it somehow bypass these rules? Leave it alone and move on
These rules heavily rely on what you mean by "a work of note", which, as you say, is subjective. I've said all along it is inevitable that some judgement is required, but I think it would be better to minimise it. The problem with "work of note" is not so much its subjectivity as its vagueness. I have no idea what "work of note" really means or how you decide what would meet the criteria. It might be obvious to you, but I am not sure it would be to an outside observer. More specific criteria might make the process more consistent or at least transparent.
Ralf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:43 am
We also have the issue of what counts as a mod with significant effort.
Okay, I'll try:
- new levels: yes
- new graphics: yes
- AY music added: hhmm, borderline case
- cracktro (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro ) added: no
- new loader: no
- new loading screen: no
- translated to another language: no
These seem like a good stab at the sort of thing I was thinking of.
But it's not such a big deal. I don't want to cause any consternation!
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:53 am
by PeterJ
OK, how about.
A new Accordion style section (closed by default) for mods on the game card. I think the mods link is excellent, and a newer addition I had forgotten about.
In the quick search, add two tick boxes unticked by default. Include mods and include crap games (like in advanced search)
We agree a three question model to decide if future mods are included. Leave the past ones as they are.
Example of questions...
Does the mod add new gameplay
Does the mod fix a bug
Does the mod make significant sound or graphics improvements
If any of those are true it gets an ID.
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:59 am
by pavero
I agree with Rafal ...
- new levels: yes
- new graphics: yes
- AY music added: probably not
- cracktro (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro ) added: no
- new loader: no
- new loading screen: no
Translated to another language: NO! It would mean to split all Spanish/English releases then!
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:04 am
by R-Tape
PeterJ wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:53 am
A new Accordion style section (closed by default) for mods on the game card. I think the mods link is excellent, and a newer addition I had forgotten about.
Do you mean in the search? So if you search Manic Miner, we see 4 or so entries, then a closed accordion window for the MODs? I'd vote no to that.
I think we're fixing things that aren't broken.
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:06 am
by R-Tape
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:19 am
by 8BitAG
I can't believe that I had to argue for enhanced/radically changed versions of text adventures (often in different engines) getting a new ID when MODs get their own!
But on a more serious note, would it be worth splitting off this conversation into a separate thread?
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:01 am
by PeterJ
8BitAG wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:19 am
I can't believe that I had to argue for enhanced/radically changed versions of text adventures (often in different engines) getting a new ID when MODs get their own!
But on a more serious note, would it be worth splitting off this conversation into a separate thread?
Agreed. If people could avoid adding any extra posts here for the next few hours I will attempt to split the thread when I'm back home from Christmas shopping.
Edit. The split has now taken place. Post away!
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:46 am
by moroz1999
pavero wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:59 am
I agree with Rafal ...
- new levels: yes
- new graphics: yes
- AY music added: probably not
- cracktro (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_intro ) added: no
- new loader: no
- new loading screen: no
Translated to another language: NO! It would mean to split all Spanish/English releases then!
Exactly the same logic applies to mods on ZX-Art. Cracks, new hardware supported, adaptation to beta-disk, localization, bugfixes, repacks - they are all counted as unofficial re-releases. Significantly new ingame graphics or plot or level design usually goes into new entry.
Re: Discussion on the handling of mods
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:43 pm
by PeterJ
Thread now split as suggested.
Re: Site Updates
Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:45 pm
by PeterJ
R-Tape wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:04 am
PeterJ wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:53 am
A new Accordion style section (closed by default) for mods on the game card. I think the mods link is excellent, and a newer addition I had forgotten about.
Do you mean in the search? So if you search Manic Miner, we see 4 or so entries, then a closed accordion window for the MODs? I'd vote no to that.
I think we're fixing things that aren't broken.
Hi Dave,
No. If you go to the Manic Miner Game page, in the top section you will see 'Mods'. Click on that and you see a list of mods of that game. What I'm suggesting is you have a new section in the individual game page (rather like magazine reviews) which is closed by default, but you expand it and you see the same list of Mods that you see by clicking on the mods on the top section.