Is it fair to compare a mod against the game it was built on?

There are more than enough talented people out there, some of which who are almost as good as the pros, who will work on mods.

You seem to be an HL/HL2 modder though, and so it's no wonder you think that there is no one available to work on mods. Considering the absolutely rediculous amount of mods already in progress for it, I'd be amazed if there were enough modders left that one could scrape together for even one more mod.

No! Why would you compare a game which has a major budget and dozens of people working full time to complete it to a mod, which is done by hobbyists in their spare time? It's always good to see mods that are better than the original title (that is if the original game was actually pretty good to begin with) but I wouldn't go out of my way to compare them.

A mods quality will always overweigh the game it was built on, because the ammount of effort and time the mod team members put into the development process ( absolutely for free) is immesurable to any big budjet game dev team.

So NO they should not be compared!!

Sure they should. Mods already have the hard work done, as far as coding goes. Graphics shouldn't come into the matter though. All comparisons should be based around design. A mod team has just as good a chance of kicking arse in the design department as a big game, as they have community, resources and interest, as they shouldn't be modding if they don't.

I would love to see more comparisons.

Some mods are more fun than the original games and have longer lasting appeal.

It really depends on what you are saying, 99.9% of mods are not as good as the original game, so there is no real point, any mod that is better than the original game at any real degree is snapped up and made retail before you can say..." hey this mod is really great"

Yes mods don't have the money and the large teams, but we have the ability to make stuff that is better then corporation stuff. we don't expect gamespot or any other reviewers to compare comercial product basied on how much money the company had to work with, we expect it to be on how it stacks up to everything else and how good it is. mods shouldn't get the easy treatment by not being compared to the industry.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I think that mods ought to be compared to the original games. After all, what matters is the experience for the player, not the budget invested or the time. Of course, one must always consider that modders have limited time and budgets, but if the content is inferior to the original game, then we should say it is inferior. There's no shame in saying that you can't match the efforts of dozens of industry professionals.

If we haven't provided a superior experience to the player in at least one area compared to the original game, I think we've failed at our task as modders.

Why shouldn't they be? The same process goes into it, and the fact that games have the money and big budgets doesn't hold water - the big budget is used to make and market the game, modders just change the gaming experience.

Besides, comparing to mods to games only makes the mod community more competative and scrutising of its own work.

it can be good to compare modds to the games the are on some people like to know how they did what if you did better then the big budget teams then that says something about the talent and devotion of the teams that do these modds but then again the big budget teams have a lot more to work with but still if you compare well to the game you mod then you chould know about it

IF THE HL2 MODZ DUNT HAVE WUT IT TAEKS TO OUTDEW AYCHE-ELL-TOOO!!1 DEN JSUT GIEV UP NOW ITS LIKE WUTS THE PO1NT IN MODDING IF UR JUST GONNA MAEK LIKE A CRAP ONE !!!1

Any examination that does not in any way, shape or form compare a modification to the original game it was spawned from is incomplete.

Why shouldn't the comparison be made? People want to know what is different, what is new, and what has been reused. You do this by comparing it to the original game. Now, it is not fair to judge certain aspects of quality, as an amatuer game will rarely surpass a retail game with a full team of developers, but a contrast of some kind is inevitable. The key is balance.

And even if you don't agree it is appropriate to do so, it doesn't change the fact that you will do it anyway. You may not voice those opinions, but I highly doubt there is anyone on the planet that plays a mod without thinking about how it is different from its progenitor.

Some mods rely on being better and improving what the original game didn 't have.

NO.

Though few mods actually improve a game (for most it's simply an illusion as generally they simply offer something different, and if you've been playing the game for six months or something, playing something that changes the game a bit can sometimes make it appear to be better or improved; however, this is not to say that mods are never better than the original game), many offer something different, and can make an old game fresh again. That is the only intent of many mods, and so when you're judging a mod, you really have to look at what it was trying to do. Was it trying to be better than the original? Or just offer something different?

If it's just trying to offer something different, it probably shouldn't be compared to the original game, but if it's trying to improve or replace the original game, it should obviously be compared to it. Mods generally have the potential to be as good or better than the original game (or, much worse). The better modelers and skinners aren't much worse than professionals, so it more or less depends on the team there, but a mod shouldn't be judged entirely by graphics. It should a little bit, as if the models and skins are really bad, they do tend to detract from the game, though technically you could make a game out of boxes and circles (and, it might even be a really good game, lol). Rather though, a mod should be judged by its gameplay. If you haven't guessed already, I am a designer, so I admit my views are a little tainted in this area, but for the most part it is true. Anyways, I've always really only viewed graphics as a way to draw people into your game or mod. They keep coming back for the gameplay though, and if the gameplay isn't there, then people won't come back.

Mod design is generally a little restricted, as you're confined to an engine and generally don't have too much ability to change it, but within that confined area, there is still a lot of room to maneuver. For instance, in my current mod, The Great Troll War for WC3 (we're going to get a website up soon so we can post the mod here and let you guys see that WC3's not dead yet), we're actually adding advanced combat systems such as physics, accuracy, crawling, backstab, etc... The intent is not to shock and awe people with tons of cool, realistic systems (though, it definitely helps in that map makers, who are a large part of the WC3 community, will have access to these systems to make 10x better maps for GTW than they ever could for WC3), but rather to incorporate the systems into a much larger, and deeper picture. They all serve a purpose, and they serve it well. The design is rather intricate, but I'll not fill-up this entire post about my mod, as this isn't about my mod, though if you guys want I can start a post in the forums about the mod and talk more about it there.

Anyways, balance is key, but depth is every bit as key as well. I could go the WarCraft 1 route of balancing and have perfect balance, or I could go the StarCraft way of balance, and still have perfect (or at the very least near-perfect balance, as it is impossible to truely have 100% perfect balance when there's any variance between factions unless you use some sort of formula for everything, and if one tried that, one would see why it's not done; but, a mod/game still needs to be balanced to the point where one player winning over another, even when they are extremely close in skill, is determined ultimately by the actions and skill of the player and not the balance of their faction) enough balance, but also a great deal more of depth.

From a design perspective, mods definitely have the potential to eclipse the original game. This is partly b/c mod designers are more willing to go out on a limb and take risks that development companies are not. My personal opinion is that a majority of companies have fallen into a rut, and are searching for a way out. Games like Company of Heroes and Surpeme Commander look like they will be a good start for getting out of that rut, but only a start. Mods rarely ever beat the original game at its own game, but mods that completely restructure the game, sometimes without even really restructuring it, tend to be better than the original game, when done well. Basically, just changing the units around isn't enough. Innovation is required.

After working on many mods for the Halflife 1 & 2 engines I can say this. Not even the biggest mod team can match the sheer resources a big budget team can muster.

For example, in BG2 we are using really old voice commands done buy some british guy who used to play 3 years ago. Now we want new voices we can't find anyone as good. If we had a publisher behind us we would have about 6 voice actors working on creating a large collection of lines for us to use. Unfortunately, our core team consists of 3 university students(all living in completely seperate countries). We only have web hosting because the founder still pays for it(Thanks Ben! <3).

A mod team simply doesn't have the numbers, the sheer ******* numbers of a real team. Have you ever watched a big budget game's credits? It's not just the programmers and artists, there is A LOT of people behind the scenes, testers being the biggest one. Combine the team of talented, fully qualified people working with a vast sum of cash provided by either their previous successes or a large publisher and you will see mod teams simply can't compete.

No matter how big the changes, we just can't polish a game enough before it becomes too old. Hell, we can barely learn to use the engine fully before the next big one comes out!

Not only will it be compared to HL2, it'll be compared to HL.

The thing is, when you mod a game, you already have the foundations of it laid out by the people who originally made the game you are modifying. You don't have to work on merchanics, and if you are designing it to be based oin the same universe, you don't even have to make any new skins or models.
Also, you don't have to have a huge team to make something effective. Half-Life was made by a small group of people, as were games like Quake and Doom. Have you seen the people from Double Fine? They are a small group of people, and their game, Psychonauts, is as gripping and excellent as any game with a mammoth sized team you care to mention.
Yes, the modders tend to have less experience (albeit with more creativity), and yes, they're not getting paid for it, but look at Minerva. It's a quality game, and while it has hardly any new content, it builds on a great game, making it, in my humble opinion, even better. And only ONE person makes that. Imagine what ten (which I believe is the average size of a modding team nowadays), could do, even if they are creating new content.
As far as the budgets go; if you are making a mod you don't need to shell out on a graphics engine, it's already supplied for you. No-one seriously expects you to get voice actors, and in any case, it can be just as effective if you do it yourself (the voices in HL2CTF are all custom made, using one of the team). You can actually make money from the project, by letting advertisers on your website (I know that it costs money to fund a website, but you get my point).
So, yes, I think they should be compared, because they are all games, and you have the most important parts set out for you when you begin to make your mod. That's the thing with mods, it all comes down to the quality and consistancy of the finished product, not some marketing mumbo jumbo.

No, it wouldn't be fair to the big games that free mods done by volunteers are beating them:D

It shouldn't be a clear-cut case of comparing the games, but there are three important factors that come into play when comparing the games:

Firstly the mod was made for the same engine as the game, so it should be looking to utilise the same engine capabilities as its progenitor (thanks to Joe for the thesaurus service ;)).

Secondly the mod will be drawing upon the same sort of gamer that bought the original game. If it's a Source mod, we're talking about -mainly- FPS fans. Mods for Source are more likely to be a variation on the FPS format (although this is not always the case, take , for example ), take Dystopia, MINERVA, Eclipse, Empires and other up-and-coming mods like Hull-Breach, Nuclear Dawn and Iron Grip. They all feature varying degrees of gameplay that appeals to the FPS gamer.

Thirdly, and considering the point just mentioned, this audience have all played the original game so it marks a common point of reference. If you tell somebody that the maps for MINERVA are as good as some of the bits in Half-Life, they might admit to never having played HL. But you can be assured they will have played through its bigger brother (or should that be little brother, since it was 'born' later?), so when you say: "The mapping in MINERVA is HL2-standard" you know they'll get the picture.

Like Joe said, any review that doesn't compare the games in some way doesn't really do itself justice.

i think its a great thing to compare what a couple of "amateurs" can do with no budget against a bunch of pro programmers and stuff with a million dollar budget there are for example mods that are lots better than their big budget game counterpart. but mods've also got an advantage coz you dont need to buy an engine you dont need to pay the hours of work spend on developing it but you still get the same amount of fame ( or money --> red orchestra ut 2004 ) so you can put allot of creative concepts in a game wich might fail so when a large company spends lot of money on a controversial concept and it fails they loose their money.

I think it's definitely fair to compare mods to the games they were built on as long as the aspects being compared were actually central to the mod.

What I'm trying to get across here is that a mod built on, for example, the quality of its gameplay, should definitely be compared to the original game in terms of that gameplay. If the graphics for that mod are not so good, that can be put down to the limited resources of a mod team and the fact that the central focus was on their gameplay.

As an alternative example, look at mods that were built well after a game was released. There have certainly been mods that have exceeded the original game in terms of graphics, and it's perfectly fair to draw comparisons there. An example that springs to mind is Nightwatch for Half-Life 1. Not sure whether this mod was ever actually released - I know I've never played it - but the maps in NW were far superior to those in the original HL. Not surprising, given that the mod had a talented team and was essentially a mapping project (as I remember it). A comparison of NW maps to HL maps is central to the point behind NW as a mod.

To restate, by all means compare mods to their parent games as long as the comparisons concern the strengths of the mod, and are prepared to overlook the shortcomings of modding.

On a related note, I think it's a good target for modders to aim to improve on an original game in at least one key aspect, be that graphics, gameplay, concept, humour value, storyline, etc. Whilst less ambitious than trying to create 'the ultimate mod', it pushes a mod team to play to their strengths and be clear on exactly what they want to achieve.

Remember though that mods created 2-3 years after the release of a game are also working with (perhaps) better tools and (certainly) have a target aim of an audience with superior computers (generally) to those available 2-3 years before. Thus, a mod might have better graphics or larger levels merely b/c their target audience's computers can take more (higher polygon models, larger skins, etc...)

That is a sexy mod on Half-Life. Dang moving to Source, it looked as good as Half-Life 2 anyway and probably ate up less than ten percent of the system resources! XD

Yeah, has moved to Source, which I find disappointing. Check out their site for more info.