I saw an interesting bit of discussion over on Bluesky earlier, and thought it might make for a blog post worth pondering, so here we are. The subject is video game modding, a matter for which I have feelings that are probably best described as "complicated" and "somewhat nuanced". I appreciate that these descriptors are generally best avoided on the Internet at large, but this is my blog, so I do what I want with it.
Anyway, the discussion stemmed from this post by John Linneman of Digital Foundry, quoting another user with whom he had been having a discussion about the raytraced modified version of Half-Life 2 which has been doing the rounds recently.
"Fumseck"'s argument was that RTX-ifying Half-Life 2 was compromising the creators' original artistic vision for the game by adding technology to it that wasn't possible on its original release, and adding in things like lighting effects that weren't present in the game's original incarnation.
Half-Life 2 is actually a rather complicated situation to ponder with regard to mods, because the game (or at least the Source engine) was built very much with modding in mind, and Half-Life 2 developer Valve have themselves gone back multiple times over the years to completely rebuild Half-Life 2 with more up-to-date features and tech. So surely RTX-ifying it is just a natural progression from this?
Thing is, I see Fumseck's argument. Not necessarily for Half-Life 2, which was already a game whose visuals were taking aim for something approaching "realism", and thus raytracing is a natural inclusion. But definitely for other games.
For example, a little while back, this video did the rounds:
It's about a modified version of Doom II which has raytracing. Now this, I'd argue, is a step too far for my personal tastes, because while the raytraced version of Doom II does indeed look very lovely and atmospheric and all that… it doesn't look like Doom II any more. It looks like a modern game that is inspired by Doom II and deliberately using features such as sprite-based enemies and items as a means of paying homage to Doom II. But it doesn't look or feel like Doom II.
In adding the raytracing, the modders have made it look nicer, but I feel they've compromised the distinctive look and feel of Doom II. Doom II was built with the technological limitations of the era in mind, and as such, everything it does, it does for a valid artistic reason. If you eliminate some of those limitations, you fundamentally change the way the game's aesthetic is designed, and that's when you're stepping into "compromising the artistic vision" territory, so far as I'm concerned. Half-Life 2, meanwhile, already had dynamic lighting and HDR; adding raytracing atop that is a natural fit because it doesn't fundamentally change the way Half-Life 2 looks.
Same with Minecraft. I actually rather like the way raytraced Minecraft looks, but I also feel playing it like that is compromising the artistic style of the game. Minecraft was very deliberately designed to look like an old game, but combine those aged aesthetics with things that wouldn't have been possible on older tech, such as its vast world, its completely destructible landscape and the player's ability to build anything, anywhere.
So I think when it comes to visual mods, my attitude is "if visual mods are enhancing what the game is already clearly trying to do, they're maybe fine, so long as they don't overdo it; if visual mods are fundamentally altering the core aesthetic and stylistic choices of the game, I don't like them."
So that's one aspect of modding covered. But modding is much more complicated than that. And, as a result, so are my feelings towards it.
As I've already noted, I'm fine with games that are built with modding in mind from the outset. My earliest contact with these was way back in the Atari 8-bit era, when numerous games shipped with a "Construction Set" or similar on disk, or sometimes available as a separate purchase. Mr Robot and His Robot Factory. Dandy. Boulder Dash. All these games, and numerous others, were designed in a way that they could be modular: the artistry was mostly in the combination of the game's aesthetics and the way its mechanics worked — though of course, some praise should be given to the built-in level designs, too. Just because you have access to the Boulder Dash Construction Set doesn't mean you can immediately make a good Boulder Dash level, after all.
A game that is built in this way can, in theory, be enjoyed indefinitely, because once you've mastered the built-in levels, you can make some new ones, or you can swap your creations with friends. With games like this, I do find myself thinking "well, I don't really want to be playing this game forever", but that's entirely a "me" problem; the way I play games is that I like to focus on one "big project" at a time, and if that "big project" turns out to be something that just has no end, I often end up not even starting it in the first place.
Looking further forward, games with modding support have always been a thing. It was easy to replace the map and graphics files in Wolfenstein 3-D, for example, though I don't think id Software themselves necessarily expected the modding scene to take off for that as much as they did. Hell, even I made two hundred dollars by making Wolfenstein levels!
They paid attention, though, and both Doom and Quake (and their numerous spinoffs and sequels) were very much built with modding in mind. Quake even gave direct access to the game's core mechanics and logic through its "Quake C" programming language, allowing you to completely change the fundamental way the game worked — see mods like Quake Rally, Quess and AirQuake.
The explicit, developer-approved "Construction Set" being a thing is somewhat rarer these days, but it still exists. Bethesda games often ship with creator tools of some description, for example, and the Neverwinter Nights series set the benchmark for role-playing games with user-generated material, so far as I'm concerned. Then of course there's games where "creation" is a core part of the overall package right from the outset, like the TrackMania series.
Of course, all these things are very much a PC thing for the most part; while I'm not sure I'd go as far as Linneman's point that they are a foundational aspect of gaming on PC, it's rare to see console players have the opportunity to tinker with their favourite games. Modding does happen, of course, but it's a much more niche interest thing when it comes to console games. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Because here's what I think my fundamental feelings about modding are: Not every game needs to have mod support. Not every game needs to be modded. And if a game "needs" mods to be worth playing, it probably wasn't very good in the first place.
I'm fine with folks making new levels for Doom, Quake and their successors (and rereleases!). I'm fine with folks making new quests, characters, monsters, dungeons and whatnot for Bethesda games. I'm definitely fine with people making TrackMania tracks, Neverwinter Nights campaigns and Mr. Robot and His Robot Factory levels. (Although my digital Atari 8-bit library wishes some groups would maybe cool it a bit on the Boulder Dash levels.)
What I'm not fine with is people booting up something like UFO 50 and immediately thinking "wow, this needs mods", which I saw in the discussion pages around its launch. No. Absolutely not. That is an example of a game that has a very specific reason for existence, and that is as an interactive, creative work of art. Not only does modding it show the height of ungrateful entitlement — it implies it "doesn't have enough content", when it has 50 full games in it — it also completely compromises the whole reason for its existence. Modding something like UFO 50 is defacing it, vandalising it, so far as I'm concerned, and not something I'm okay with, regardless of what platform it's on.
Likewise, I'm not really OK with things like character mods for games. Sure, it can sometimes be funny to see a different character running around in a game they're not supposed to be in, or see a character running around with no clothes on or whatever, but for me, again, that's compromising the artistic vision of the work, defacing and vandalising it, for no real good reason other than "because I can" and "this is mine now, I can do what I want with it".
And sure, you can do whatever you want with the games you have. There are bajillions of excellent custom levels for Doom and Quake out there, amazing new cars and circuits for BeamNG.drive, wonderful new aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator, lots of amazing things. And if you want to make all the characters in a game you like naked, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
There's plenty of really interesting things being done in the fan translation and ROM hacking communities, too. But those are a bit different, I think. Fan translation in particular isn't about defacing someone else's work; it's about making it more accessible. ROM hacking is not an area I'm particularly interested in, but in most cases those projects are presented as their own self-contained things — whole new games built on the core of something that exists, rather than "hehe, I modded Super Mario World so his willy is out all the time". They're creative projects perhaps best looked on as something akin to using an off-the-shelf engine to build your game.
But I'm pretty steadfast in the beliefs I outlined above: not every game needs to have mod support, not every game needs to be modded, and if you recommend I install 300 mods before even starting to play a certain game, I'm probably… not going to play that game.
While PC is the platform on which modding is easiest and most widespread, I don't think modding is (or should be) a fundamental aspect of PC gaming for everyone.
For some, it is, and that's great; for many, a passion for modding has led to a career in game design and development.
But there are plenty of us with bulging Steam libraries that we have no intention of fucking with the contents of, and I think that's also a perfectly valid, acceptable viewpoint to have. I also think that certain games are sacrosanct, for which modding is simply defacement and vandalism; that's the part I suspect to get the most pushback on, but it's the core of my beliefs on this subject.
It's a topic for which you have to take things on a case-by-case basis, and for which I suspect most people will have their own nuanced viewpoints. To be clear, if you're someone who enjoys nude mods and breaking things like UFO 50, I'm not saying you shouldn't do that; I'm simply saying I don't like it personally, and I won't get involved with it. Ultimately I don't give a shit what you are doing with the games you've purchased, so long as you're not fucking with the games I've purchased, or telling me that I'm "wrong" or "missing out" for enjoying them as the creators originally designed them.
Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.
If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.
Discover more from I'm Not Doctor Who
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
