Would you say a game is objectively bad if you have to Mod it to enjoy it?
>>683819910No, would pizza be bad if it was just plain cheese?>Food analogyYeah bitch?
No, it means devs are smart enough to support mods. Most devs won't even move a finger to help modders.
>>683820109Or will actively hinder it to stop cheating. In a single-player game. One they conveniently sell not-cheats for.
>if you have to Mod it to enjoy it?You can't fix shit with spices.
I'll say that its impossible to go back to the vanilla game after playing some mods, examples are grand strategy or Doom/Stalker games
>>683819910Not always but Shithesda is the exception.
I would say its bad, yes. If they are going to charge 60 or 70 dollars for a game, it should be good out of the box.Anybody who has an opinion different is a cuck, or they bought the game years later for 5 dollars with the intent of modding it.
>>683820758but at least it looks pretty
>>683819910Why did you feel the need to include a screenshot of a youtube video, zoomer?
>>683819910A game can be shit but have great mods. But that doesn't stop the game from being shit. It just means the mods are great. The two should not be conflated.
>>683819910Mods can help revamp some enjoyment out of a game you played to death. I enjoyed the Bethesda titles all on console first vanilla then was introduced to a whole new world by modding once I got a good PC. I think if a game is not fun vanilla first go around there may be something fundamentally wrong with it. General fan patches don’t count as mods in my opinion
>>683819910That you dont enjoy a game doesnt make it's bad.
Most of the best mods are for really tiny things like UI adjustments or altering certain sounds, rather than overhauls.It's impossible to satisfy the specific needs of every player so a game is best if it's just easily moddable. When games are needlessly complicated so that even the tiniest of changes becames a struggle to implement, then it's arguably a much worse product.
