From years of getting shit on forums for not installing them and letting devs like Trokia slide after releasing unplayable games like Temple of Elemental Evil, by fixing it themselves when they should have demanded proper patches.

Edit: As for "improve", that's a very strong and subjective thing to say.

I agree with you there. And yes, I agree having a rabid fan base willing to fix a game for free _is_ too tempting for game companies (keyword COMPANY, there to make a profit) to ignore. Why spend precious dollars tracking down every last bug when you know your fan base will fix them for free??

Wholeheartedly agree. Because it's a fact.

my point exactly. But every time I've mentioned it, I've been boarder line interrogated by "PC Gamers".

Although I wouldn't say I hate modding, I do prefer to play vanilla most of the time.

This is because I want to experience the game how it was meant to be, or how it was originally. Only after that might I consider trying out mods.

Also, I 'm not a fan of fan-fiction all that much because it's usually bad and it's non-canon anyways. So I don't often play mods that tell a different story.

It's good to see I'm not alone

We never are, friend.

I can understand wanting a finished game. Developers should not always rely on the community to fix their problems, but blanket hatred for all modders is a bit extreme. I very much doubt everyone who mods goes around criticizing those who don't. I for one enjoy modding certain games, and I'm not at all bothered if someone doesn't want to do so.

Don't be melodramatic. I've seen all sorts of opinions about this too I'm not blind, but not all modders act like you say we all act. I and many other people would agree that developers should be finishing their games. So what...do we just not count? People can't occasionally choose to mod, but still want a finished product? Ignore the haters and focus on the people trying to fix the problem.

This idea you have is incorrect.

No devs, none at all, leave undone work for modders to do. Bethesda, lauded for making their games so darn modable and notorious for releasing with tons of bugs, in fact have released patch after patch of their own for Skyrim, perhaps the most modded game on the planet. Their official patches at times have broken all the fan-made mods. Bethesda enjoys the fact that modding drives business their way and creates long ongoing buzz about their games. But they certainly do not count on modders to finish their work.

Neither did Troika. Troika was founded by three geniuses, but their company failed, and it had squat to do with modders.

Dark Souls was not ported to PC with any sort of understanding that modders would fix the bad port. They just made a bad port. So did Resident Evil 5. Difference between the two games? Dark Souls attracted some talented modders who have created some hacky ways to play the bad port anyway. To my knowledge, it never happened with RE5.

Cheers.

"It takes away what little artistic merit games have, it ruins the immersion of a game"

You must lack the skill to choose the right mods which may not be strange at all in case you usually ignore them. When was the last time you tried one?

Would you mind posting the us the thread, or at least advice the fora in question?

Verily, I would think - or at least rather hope - that even modding die hard fans would for most defend a fellow gamer, should one be so abused for a matter of preference!

I can for one say I have only once downloaded "cats and rats" for Oblivion - but I did not end up liking it any better. And I do think this is an ok thing to state. But I will check my rep tomorrow though. :-p

The above said, allowing modding is a fan friendly gesture, for sure, as it can only add for those who like it. I would personally love to see good mods more tightly integrated into the OCs, allowing for example voice acting to be added - I doubt there can ever be too many good ideas or too much good writing for any given game.

Edit: simplification.

The lack of immersion part comes from the fact you realize that part of the experience is not as intended as their a fan has tampered with it. As for the artistic merit part, image if the mona liza was panted over, the painted over part would be the mod. The fact that someone else can come by and paint over it and call that "the definitive version" or "it's incomplete with out it" fucks with any kind of claim to art. (compatibility mods and emulators excluded).

I agree and disagree with what you have said, it is pretty annoying to see someone suggest that a certain game needs to be modded to the infinite degree to be enjoyable. If the original game was not enjoyable as it is to them without mods, then that game is not for them. I mean it bugs me to see people say the best way to play a game is to have extreme graphic mods to make it look better (or worse in some cases, the Duke Nukem 3D High Resolution pack looks much worse than the original sprites in my opinion). However, mods can be good in some cases to extend the life span of a game without the intent of making the original game obsolete. If anything, mods that just add more to the original game to make it different for a number in the high digits playthrough or give you something completely different that requires the original game are some of the best. Are they needed? No, but they are there for guys like me that have exhausted the original game so many times that they do not mind something different. For example, I have been going bananas over the Brutal Doom mod for Doom, it changes every single thing about the original's gameplay but still retains the original's spirit, it is not necessary and I would not recommend it over the original game's experience, but I suggest it for those who played Doom so many times that they can predict how they will take down a Cyberdemon or two with ease.

On the subject of fan fixes... that I can agree with, it is great to see games like Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. have fixes that make the game much more playable than the latest patched versions, but it is a shame that it has lead to the mentality for developers to not work hard to make a PC game that actually works with very little oversights that require the fans to come in and fix it. The PC version of Dark Souls as you mentioned, could have actually been a great port if the effort was taken to make it exceptional. I understand it was a PC port from a Japanese game company, and from what I understand, Japan is not very PC friendly for games, but there have been previous ports of Japanese games that work fine. Silent Hill 2 and 3 are pretty good ports with very little issues that needed fixing in their time (Most of the fixes out there are just things to make them work on modern systems, and do not alter the original experience).

That painting analogy isn't valid. First of all is video games are different than paintings and secondly video games is an interactive medium, you play for the experience.

What you are talking about seems to be the basis of authority and that is just bullcrap. Would it bother if you someone painted over an already good painting (like Mona Lisa) and you liked it better and the new painter didn't take credit of it being "the better version"?