I'm trying to be less negative, so I'm not going to harp on the subject, but I thought I'd post this to demonstrate how much the game has changed since 2007.
MOTY 2008
10. Licensing rip-off*
9. Licensing rip-off*
8. Age of Chivalry
7. Eternal Silence
6. Pirates, Vikings, & Knights 2
5. Zombie mod
4. Licensing rip-off*
3. Licensing rip-off*
2. Zombie mod
1. Guns and planes and tanks (and potential Licensing rip-off* )
Compare with my MOTY 2007 blog;
MOTY 2007, the abridged version Top 5 unreleased;
5. Licensing rip-off*
4. Licensing rip-off*
3. Licensing rip-off*
2. Licensing rip-off*
1. Zombie mod
Top 5 released;
5. Licensing rip-off*
4. Guns and planes and tanks
3. Guns and planes and tanks with a twist
2. Guns and planes and tanks
1. Guns and planes and tanks
Seriously, add an originality category.
(*violate copyright law and moddb.com's TOS)
As you can see, not much has changed, but this year we get to see a repeat Zombie mod and a repeat Guns and planes and tanks mod make the top ten. At least PVK2 made it!
I would be happier with these awards if this site didn't turn into a source bias trolltopia.
Seriously, they are good mods, but do these people get out enough to actually see what else is on the net in the world of modding?
Also I haven't seen almost ANY license rip offs for UT3 :D.
So far all the serious mod groups have been really goddamned original in all aspects. Taking ideas and putting them where noone thought possible.
Too bad I didn't read your blog back then :D
re: rip-offs for UT3, I think the biggest factor is the MSU2 contest, you can't win w/ a rip-off there like you can here.
reading the blog back then, well, as you can see, you haven't missed much, not a whole lot has changed... :(
I'll try to update the blog more often now that I have a massive audience! :D
AHAHAHA
Just goes to show you that the only popular mods that win are the generic ones that appeal to the largest common denominator.
It really sucks for those who actually have unique idears.
yeah, there def needs to be a rules rewrite, or an adherence to the already on the books moddb.com TOS, which is more nod and wink than anything.
Just a question...Have you ever played any of these mods? Maybe if you provided some constructive critisism instead of pasting on first impressions to every mod on that list, people might understand a bit better where your coming from. Of course you'll take this wrong but at the moment you just come off as a very, very angry individual that hates everything on the earth that doesn't adhere to your mindset.
I plus oned you for your fairly accurate description of me as an angry, angry individual. But I don't hate everything on earth. I just "have what the doctors are calling 'a low frustration tolerance.'"
My constructive criticism to the vast majority of MOTY winners would be; Make something original. Stop hijacking the intellectual property of others and using it for your own personal gain. Stop capitalizing on the work of countless professional designers, writers, marketers, and pre-existing-world-wide-generation-spanning fan base and do your own work.
Stop stealing so that the ppl playing by the rules, i.e. honoring international copyright law, can compete.
Is that not constructive?
Originality doesn't always work. Such a huge risk is involved in creating a mod purely out of creativity and not basing it on anything but your own imagination. It doesn't always pay off either which is unfortunate, and no mod developer wants to be un-appreciated.
Editors Choice this year really showcased some fantastic and original mods that really deserved it. Maybe in future MOTY's there will be more category's for originality and other creative areas. On the other hand, as a diehard PR fan I am very offended at being called 'childish' and a 'soldier wannabee'. The mod really doesn't deserve being called non-artistic and non-intuitive. Thats a horrible decription for a mod that fills a huge niche in the gaming community and does it for nothing more than giving people enjoyment.
I totally understand that when you first look at Project Reality all you see is "Guns, Tanks and Jets". Sure, PR features these assets but its certainly not what defines it. As I said in a comment as a reply to someone in the Mod of the Year page, it shines not because of its realistic gameplay (this can only take it so far) but because of its framework of gameplay that was built from scratch to get players working together. I know this is such a simple and old saying but, you really are judging a book by it's cover here.
I would also have to disagree with your view on lack of artistic quality in PR, as when you are basing something off real life, people tend to be incredibly critical on even the smallest mistake. A single vehicle or weapon might take many, many months and at times years of fine tuning and creation to make it believable. Same goes for any mod based off another idea or situation. People wanted to make a realistic experience for an ultra-arcade style shooter. It's a little difficult to make "reality" on an idea that doesn't exist...
"Originality doesn't always work. Such a huge risk is involved in creating a mod purely out of creativity and not basing it on anything but your own imagination."
No kidding. That's my point entirely. Those not violating copyright law are at a huge disadvantage. Why should ppl putting that much more hard work in and risking so much more be asked to compete with George Lucas, or even Smith & Wesson? Anyways, thnx for reinforcing my point.
"It doesn't always pay off either which is unfortunate, and no mod developer wants to be un-appreciated."
Thems the breaks in a meritocracy. Which MOTY is not, of course. Nor is moddb.com, for that matter. But they should at least honor copyright law. Which they don't, of course. Bcs of ad revenue, for that matter.
"I would also have to disagree with your view on lack of artistic quality in PR"
I never said anything of the sort.
My comments were mostly directed at the team, but if you want me to comment on the mod, here it is...
Imagine if "Project Reality" had to play by the rules. Imagine if, like Goldeneye for the N64, they had to rename the guns with implicit names and represent them with implicit models in order to avoid legal issues. The Czech Vz. 61 Skorpion becomes the Klobb, and likewise PR's weapons all have to have silly made-up names and models that don't resemble their real-life counter-parts. Suddenly it's not so "realistic". How many "gun-enthusiasts" would want to play a game called "Project Reality" whose guns weren't believable (keep in mind these are the same ppl that "when you base something off real life... tend to be incredibly critical on (sic) even the smallest mistake")!? How many modelers do you think they could recruit for a game whose aim was reality, but in reality, had to invent implicit models that couldn't be mistaken for their real-life counter-parts? How many coders could they recruit? Animators?
Once the whole thing starts to unravel, how many votes do you think they could get?
You might want to think about how immersiveness comes into play. Many of the DEV's are current serving British Armed forces or in the Marines or the Army. Thus, the maps they make take on a very personal meaning and they try to represent them as best they can. When you create something crazy, people find it hard to attach themselves to it and as I said before people want an experience that isn't just pretty flashing lights and effects.
I strongly suggest you find a copy of BF2 (note I said 'find' - don't support EA FOR THE LOVE OF GOD) and come have a look. You will probably find it rather refreshing if you have ever played a shooter game in the last few years.
People didn't vote for PR because it looks fancy (it's really hard to differentiate between it and Vanilla BF2 from screenshots) but they vote for it because of its gameplay. Saying that it is probably one of the most social oriented games to date and it's playerbase isn't a bunch of little kids that love playing soldier. In itself it also probably has one of the most mature playerbases out of any game to date. Anyway.....just don't right it off because of silly first impressions. You'll see the real creativity and intuition when you actually play it and see the shear amount of coding creativity the DEV's use to make things work.
Have you even read my comments? None of what you've said is relevant in the context of this blog's discussion.
PR's gameplay could be fantabulous. It's player base could be exclusively Supreme Court Justices for all I care. It could rival virtual reality machines in terms of immersion. All of that is irrelevant.
Isnt it awesome when people come into peoples serious blogs to rant about a totally different topic without reading the blog itself...
Well then, Age of Chivalry shouldn't be up there, because thats BASED off something - medieval combat? WOOOOOH thats a new one. Eternal Silence is too close to Star Wars Battlefront for comfort. Pirates, Knights and Vikings...well thats just throwing three different player models with different weapons together in a deathmatch.
If someone made something about ninjas, is that original? Or are you just basing your decisions on the popularity of different contexts. Zombies and modern warfare are popular, maybe more so than Medieval ones, but does that instantly make them original masterpieces?
OK, I'm not going to waste too much more time on this, maybe a few more replies and a summation. It's obvious now that you're either not reading or not understanding. Either you get necessity of copyright, or you don't.
"Well then, Age of Chivalry... because thats BASED off something - medieval combat? WOOOOOH thats a new one."
I don't think medieval combat has been copyrighted.
"Eternal Silence is too close to Star Wars Battlefront for comfort."
I was going to say it is too close to Battletech for comfort. While I didn't label it an LRO, I imagine they'd run into legal trouble if they tried to go commercial with it.
"Pirates, Knights and Vikings..."
...is part of OGC, so obviously I think it's great. In fact, I think I invited them to join.
"Or are you just basing your decisions on the popularity of different contexts."
I'm basing my comments on COPYRIGHT LAW (he said, hoping the Chief would at least read anything in all caps). At the risk of repeating myself, "I've recently researched and written an article regarding copyright infringement as it applies to modding... I completed it with the input of several lawyers and a professional game designer."
Mikejkelley.com
...So here's the summation;
Project Reality's selling point is Realism. See? It's right there in the title. You've even said it yourself; "People wanted to make a realistic experience for an ultra-arcade style shooter. It's a little difficult to make "reality" on an idea that doesn't exist..." Exactly, which is why in order to be realistic, they have to use real names and realistic models, and that's where copyright infringement comes into play. Here's a flow chart...
Project Reality -> depends upon realism -> must use real names and realistic models -> infringes upon copyright law, breaks the law
and the converse
doesn't infringe upon copyright -> cannot use real names and realistic models -> cannot deliver realism -> unable to attract fans or modders, the mod would die.
So you see, not only does PR owe it's popularity and MOTY win to the fact that, unlike some of us, it broke the law, it owes it's very existence to that same fact. No one in their right mind would argue that a shooter named "Project Reality" would be ANYWHERE NEAR as successful if they just made **** up.